- COMPLIANCE WITH ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) STANDARDS

[Senate Hearing 109-1151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 109-1151

COMPLIANCE WITH
ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) STANDARDS

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JUNE 6, 2006

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-178 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Ranking
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on June 6, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 3

Witnesses

Aitken, Mary, Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics,
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Buche, Tim, President, Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
(SVIA)......................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Halbert, Susan W., Senior Vice President, National 4-H Council... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Leland, Elizabeth W., Project Manager, ATV Safety Review Team,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission........................ 4
Briefing Package--ATV Safety Review (May 2006)............... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Weintraub, Rachel, Director of Product Safety/Senior Counsel,
Consumer Federation of America (CFA)........................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Williams, Brett, General Manager, Coleman PowerSports............ 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42

Appendix

Heiden, Ph.D., Edward J., President, Heiden Associates, prepared
statement...................................................... 73

COMPLIANCE WITH
ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE (ATV) STANDARDS

----------

TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2006

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety,
and Insurance,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA

Senator Allen. Good morning. I call to order this hearing
of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety,
and Insurance.
Today, we're going to examine the issue of compliance with
all-terrain vehicle standards, evaluating current ATV
standards, safety practices, and the historical development of
initiatives meant to improve the safety for all of those
enjoying and utilizing these types of vehicles, which are
increasingly popular for adults, as well as for kids.
I want to thank you, our Ranking Member of this Committee,
Senator Pryor, for helping promote greater awareness of the
pertinent issues relating to this area of product safety. I
also thank our Chairman, Senator Stevens, who has an interest
in this matter and may also be attending this hearing.
For our witnesses and those viewing as spectators, so to
speak, we're likely to have a vote around 10:20 in the morning.
Senator Pryor and I usually try to work a tag-team approach,
that one goes and votes while the other chairs the hearing, so
that'll make it easier for the witnesses to continue and not
have it interrupted with 15 minutes of recess, so to speak.
I thank all the witnesses who are here, for your assistance
to the staff on this subcommittee.
The witnesses are going to have a diversity of views. And
that's typical of when you have a hearing and an issue that
deals with public safety. The topic, though, is one that we
care about, because many children are riding these vehicles.
Everyone wants to be responsible, and that's going to be the
key watchword for me, is individual or personal responsibility,
as well as parental responsibility. We want to make sure that
people have responsible, knowledgeable riding habits and
prevent some of these products, especially those that are
potentially unsafe products, from entering the stream of
commerce in the first place. The participation of the witnesses
here today will help shed some light on the ATV safety issue,
in general, as well as assisting us and your government
generally in the review of market compliance with certain
safety obligations. And I appreciate all the witnesses for your
time in preparing for this hearing.
As Virginia and Arkansas and other states all have
constituents that use ATVs for enjoyment, some use it for work
and their jobs, some use it for some general transportation,
even some use it for competitive racing. Anything with a motor
on it can be raced. We understand that, don't we? We understand
that. That's just part of human nature, particularly in
Virginia and Arkansas.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. However, we're also interested in promoting
awareness of the most prudent practices for safety and
responsibly distributing and using these vehicles.
We also hope to examine industry compliance with consensus
standards that have been developed over the years, actions
plans--we want to look at action plans for implementing these
standards by the industry and whether all companies
distributing ATVs in this country are complying with the
relevant safety limitations on business activity.
We will also observe whether any one area of compliance may
be falling short in ensuring the safety of these vehicles. In
particular, there are new entrant vehicles being imported into
the United States which are not bound by the legacy agreements
followed by North American distributors. While it's important
to allow the free market to operate, consumers should be aware
of any companies whose products, wherever they're produced,
fail to conform to minimum consensus standards followed by the
industry. History shows that every year, in addition to the
hours of operation without incident, which are most of the time
that somebody's on an ATV--they're enjoying it, they're having
the exhilarating experience, they're having fun, they may be
working, they may be hunting, they may be racing--however,
there are injuries, there are tragedies--many tragedies
involving ATVs. Now, whether these accidents stem from misuse,
lack of supervision, or mechanical defects, it's important for
us to examine if Federal involvement could assist in preventing
such accidents. The speed of the vehicle, as we'll hear from
our witnesses from CPSC today, can also play a significant
factor in deaths and injuries suffered by children as--the
faster the vehicle may move, the greater the opportunity to
lose control, especially if you're on uneven terrain, you're
out in the woods or out in the country somewhere. And it's
especially so if a child is either inexperienced--especially
inexperienced operating an ATV. This is just simply the law of
physics at stake here. The faster you're going on uneven
terrain, the more likely you're going to lose control.
Now, much of the industry has attempted to educate
potential riders of the safety risks associated with ATVs.
While riding an ATV may be a lot of fun, at a certain level,
risk is inherent in any product that runs by a motor and has
the ability to travel over rough and bumpy terrain. That's just
common sense. Now, we--as parents and as adults, we need to be
responsible and attentive in ensuring that our children have
adequate knowledge, training, protective gear, and are properly
fitted to an appropriate youth-sized vehicle. That means
sometimes saying, ``No, you can't drive this. You're too small.
You're not going to be able to control this particular motor
vehicle that goes too fast and is too big for you to handle.''
Instead, we need to make sure that if our kids are on one of
these ATVs, they can safely control it, and also that the ATV
is in compliance with applicable standards.
We should follow our own example, as well. Misuse is not
just by kids and children. Everyone should understand and
assume the potential risk involved with any activity, and plan
accordingly, so as to avoid any unintended injury.
Now, on this point, we hope to gain knowledge of the proper
balance between enjoyment, utility, and safety when it comes to
the use, design, and construction and maintenance--in fact,
even the distribution--of ATVs here in the United States. For
this reason, the review of ATV safety is timely and will
hopefully lead to a reduction of injuries and deaths simply by
promoting greater awareness of responsible and safe riding
habits. We hope that our witnesses will offer reasonable
suggestions and possible solutions toward improving ATV safety.
I'm not going to be one who, though, wants to outlaw fun.
People ought to be able to have fun in their life, and some
things are more risky, but they ought to be aware and
responsible.
And we look forward to hearing from each of our witnesses
on the prudence of Federal involvement in addressing ATV
safety, as well as ways, beyond this hearing, for improving
consumer awareness of ATV safety measures. All of you are to be
commended for your participation and consideration of all
suggestions on how to make operating ATVs a safer activity.
With that, Senator Pryor, would you like to make any
comments before I introduce our witness?

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

Senator Pryor. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I
want to thank you for holding this hearing. It's obviously a
very important issue. It touches on safety and touches on
safety for our children.
And I want to thank the panelists, like the Chairman just
did, for being here and rearranging your schedules. You have a
lot of expertise and a lot of things that you can offer, so I
want to thank you all for being here. Like in Virginia, in
Arkansas we have a lot of people around our state that use
ATVs, some use them for recreation, some use them for work,
some use them for farming, et cetera. These can be work
vehicles and they can be hunting vehicles. They can have an
impact on economic livelihood. And sometimes, like the Chairman
said, it's just to get out in the woods and have fun. And all
of that is OK. But because they are so widely used, we have to
understand that there are some safety concerns that we should
have with using these vehicles. And since 1985, there have been
over 3,200 people in this country who have died of ATV-related
activities, and 35 percent of those are under the age of 16.
There again, you see a disproportionate number of young people,
and that's something that I hope that we can explore today. The
safety of our children should never be ignored. That's why I'm
glad to see that the Chairman and this Committee are looking
into this.
And I do notice that the Consumer Product Safety Commission
has recently issued a rulemaking. I'd like to hear from you on
that, Ms. Leland, and, understand where that's headed and what
you think might happen with the rule. And, lastly, I want to
thank Mary Aitken, who came up here from Little Rock, with the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. She has a lot of
expertise in working with people, especially children, who have
suffered these type of injuries. And I know she had to
rearrange her schedule to be here.
So, I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today,
and all the testimony. And, again, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
thank you for your leadership on this issue.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Pryor. And it's, as
usual, a pleasure to work with you on issues of shared concern.
Before we listen to the testimony of our witnesses, I want
to introduce our first panelist that we have with us, and
that's Ms. Elizabeth Leland, the Project Manager for the ATV
Safety Review Team at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
She has a great deal of technical knowledge of the issues
concerning ATV safety, and has been integral in the
Commission's recent recommendations regarding future agency
action.
Thank you for agreeing to testify and bringing your
knowledge and wisdom, as well as timetables, to our
Subcommittee meeting here this morning.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH W. LELAND, PROJECT MANAGER, ATV SAFETY
REVIEW TEAM, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT
SAFETY COMMISSION

Ms. Leland. Good morning, and thank you for this
opportunity to speak today on the work of the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission in addressing safety issues related
to all-terrain vehicles, or ATVs. My name is Elizabeth Leland,
and I am the Project Manager for the ATV Safety Review Team.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, is a small
bipartisan agency charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than
15,000 types of consumer products. ATV safety has been a
subject of ongoing concern and activity at CPSC. Most recently,
CPSC staff presented to the Commissioners a briefing paper
outlining a number of recommendations to address the risk of
injury and death associated with this product. I ask the
Chairman's permission to submit the staff's recommendations to
the Committee for the record.
Senator Allen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]

Briefing Package--ATV Safety Review (May 2006)
Executive Summary
On June 8, 2005, Chairman Hal Stratton delivered a memorandum to
the staff asking the staff to review all ATV safety actions and make
recommendations on a number of issues. The memo directed the staff to
consider whether: (1) The current ATV voluntary standards are adequate
in light of trends in ATV-related deaths and injuries; (2) the current
ATV voluntary standards or other standards pertaining to ATVs should be
adopted as mandatory standards by the Commission; and (3) other
actions, including rulemaking, should be taken to enhance ATV safety.
In October 2005, the Commission issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to initiate a regulatory proceeding for ATVs
under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). The ANPR was issued as part of
the comprehensive review of regulatory and non-regulatory options for
addressing the risk of injury and death associated with ATVs, and it
invited written comments from the public regarding the risk of injury
associated with ATVs and ways in which these risks might be addressed.
Based on its evaluation of the regulatory alternatives and the
comments that were submitted in response to the ANPR, the CPSC staff
recommends issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) requiring:

adult (single-person and tandem) ATVs to meet specific
mechanical performance requirements;

youth ATVs to meet specific mechanical performance and
design requirements and to be categorized by speed limitation
alone rather than by speed limitation and engine size;

specific safety warnings to be provided to the purchaser
through hang tags, labels, a safety video, and the owner's
instruction manual;

a means for reporting safety-related complaints to the
manufacturer be provided to the purchaser;

a disclosure statement warning against the use of adult ATVs
by children and describing the possible consequences of
children riding adult ATVs be provided to and signed by
purchasers of all adult ATVs;

an acknowledgement-of-age statement be provided to and
signed by purchasers of children's ATVs;

a certificate offering free training to each member of the
purchaser's immediate family for which the ATV is age-
appropriate be provided to all purchasers of ATVs; and

three-wheeled ATVs to be banned.

In addition to these regulatory actions, the staff also recommends
that the Commission implement a series of non-regulatory activities to
enhance ATV safety. These would include continuing to work with
industry in voluntary standards activities, launching an ATV safety
website including an ATV data resource ``bank'' with information on
state legislative and regulatory activity, and implementing an
additional two-phase information and education effort.
______

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission--Memorandum

1. Introduction
In a memorandum dated June 8, 2005, Hal Stratton, the Chairman of
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) directed the CPSC
staff to review current all-terrain vehicle (ATV)-related voluntary
safety standards and to provide recommendations to the Commission as to
whether rulemaking should be used to make those standards mandatory. In
addition, the staff was directed to review various ATV safety-related
proposals and to provide recommendations about any other actions the
Commission should take to ``appropriately enhance the safety of ATV
operation and performance in the United States.''
This was followed in October 2005 with the Commission's issuance of
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that called for
critical information and practical solutions to improving ATV
safety.\1\ All interested stakeholders were encouraged to provide the
Commission with ``meaningful data, comments, and suggestions''
concerning ways to reduce the deaths and injuries associated with the
use of ATVs. By the closing date of the comment period, December 13,
2005, 165 comments were received, with one of those comments being
signed by about 1,500 interested individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, ``All Terrain Vehicles:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Request for Comments and
Information,'' 70 Federal Register 60031-60036 (October 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This briefing package presents proposals for Commission
consideration; these proposals are based on the staff's review of the
voluntary standards, the ATV safety-related proposals mentioned above,
and the comments that were received in response to the ANPR.

2. Background

A. CPSC's Involvement With ATVs: History and Current Activities
CPSC has had a long and extensive history with ATVs, punctuated by
legal, regulatory, and voluntary actions. In 1985, the Commission
issued an ANPR to consider several regulatory options to address ATV-
related deaths and injuries. In 1987, the Commission filed a lawsuit
under Section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) to declare
ATVs an imminently hazardous consumer product [15 U.S.C.
Sec. 2061(b)(l)]. The lawsuit was settled in 1988 by consent decrees
between the Commission and the ATV distributors who were active in the
domestic market (American Honda Motor Company, Inc.; American Suzuki
Motor Corporation; Polaris Industries, L.P.; Yamaha Motor Corporation,
USA; and Kawasaki Motors Corporation); the consent decrees were to be
effective for 10 years.
Under the consent decrees, the distributors agreed to take several
actions ranging from stopping the distribution of three-wheeled ATVs
and developing a performance standard for four-wheeled ATVs to
providing safety information to consumers through various media,
including labeling on the product itself. With respect to the use of
ATVs by children, the distributors agreed to represent that ATVs with
engine sizes between 70 and 90 cubic centimeters (cc) should be used by
those age 12 and older and that ATVs with engine sizes larger than 90cc
should be used only by those age 16 years and older. In addition, the
companies agreed to use their best efforts to assure that ATVs would
not be purchased by or for the use of anyone who did not meet the age
restrictions.
While the consent decrees were in effect, the distributors entered
into agreements with the Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice
to monitor their dealers' compliance with the age recommendations; they
further agreed to terminate the franchises of dealers who repeatedly
failed to provide information about the age recommendations to
prospective purchasers. The Commission compliance staff also began
conducting a dealer monitoring program.
In 1990, the voluntary standard for Four Wheel All-Terrain
Vehicles--Equipment, Configuration, and Performance Requirements, ANSI/
SVIA-1-1990, was published. The Commission withdrew its ATV ANPR in
1991, thus ending the rulemaking proceeding begun in 1985. The
Commission stated that a product standard that would adequately reduce
injuries and deaths from ATVs was not feasible at the time and that a
ban of all ATVs was not appropriate due to the extensive use of ATVs
for non-recreational purposes, their significant recreational value,
and the lack of any close substitutes.
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group (USPIRG), believing that the Commission should
have pursued a ban on the sale of adult ATVs for use by children under
16, challenged the Commission's termination of its rulemaking
proceeding in a 1993 lawsuit. In the lawsuit, CFA and USPIRG argued
that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it withdrew
the ANPR. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit upheld the Commission's action.
In 1998, the consent decrees expired, and the Commission entered
into Voluntary Action Plans (also known as Letters of Undertaking or
LOUs) with individual ATV distributors who had been subject to the
consent decrees and with three other ATV distributors (Cannondale
Corporation, Arctic Cat, Inc., and Bombardier Recreational Products,
Inc.) who had entered the market after the consent decrees had been
established. (Cannondale no longer makes ATVs.) The LOUs are agreements
that encompass many of the provisions of the consent decrees, including
the age recommendations. These action plans continue in effect today.
Additionally, the Commission staff and industry continue to monitor
separately the actions of dealers in providing information about the
age recommendations.
In 2001, the voluntary standard was revised to add several
provisions to enhance and clarify the standard. In 2002, the CFA and
eight other groups asked the Commission to take four actions to address
hazards presented by ATVs. The CPSC Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
docketed only the portion of their request that asked for a rule
banning the sale of adult-size four-wheeled ATVs sold for the use of
children under 16 years of age. The Commission solicited comments on
the petition through issuance of a Federal Register notice in October
2002. In 2003, the Commission held a public field hearing in West
Virginia and the Chairman held two public meetings, one in Alaska and
one in New Mexico, to hear the comments of interested parties; these
included ATV riders, state and local government officials, consumer
organizations, medical professionals, and manufacturers, distributors,
and retail dealers of ATVs.
In early 2005, the CPSC staff submitted a briefing package to the
Commission recommending that the CFA petition be denied.\2\ The
recommendation to deny was based primarily on four factors: the sales
ban requested by the petitioners would primarily address how ATVs are
sold, rather than how they would be used after they are purchased by
consumers; the CPSC lacks the ability to regulate or enforce how
consumers use products after purchase; while the Commission can affect
to some degree how ATVs are sold, it cannot control the behavior of
consumers or prevent adults from allowing children to ride adult-size
ATVs; and no data are available to show that a ban of the sale of
adult-size ATVs for use by children under the age of 16 years would be
more effective in preventing such use than the age recommendations
already in place under the LOUs. On October 6, 2005, the Commission
voted unanimously to defer action on the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission staff, ``Briefing
Package: Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, Request to Ban All-Terrain
Vehicles Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ATV-Related Injury and Death Data
In September 2005, the CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology completed
the 2004 Annual Report of ATV Deaths and Injuries. This report, showed
that:

In 2003, there were an estimated 740 deaths associated with
ATVs.\3\ In 2001, the most recent year for which death data
collection is complete, 26 percent of the reported deaths were
of children under 16 years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Death data collection for 2002 onward is incomplete.

The estimated risk of death was 1.1 deaths per 10,000 4-
wheeled ATVs in use in 2003.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See footnote 3.

The estimated number of ATV-related emergency-room-treated
injuries for all ages in 2004 was 136,100, an increase of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,600 from 2003. This increase was statistically significant.

Children under 16 years of age accounted for 44,700, or 33
percent, of the total estimated number of injuries in 2004.

There were about 188 emergency-room-treated injuries per
10,000 four-wheel ATVs in use in 2004.

C. Characteristics of the Current Market for ATVs
A detailed description of the ATV market was provided in the
staff's February 2005 briefing package.\5\ The characteristics of the
current ATV market that are particularly relevant to the focus of this
briefing package are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission staff, op. cit., Tab C,
p. 55.

ATV sales reached an estimated 921,000 units in 2005 and
preliminary data indicate that sales will continue to increase
in 2006. While the annual rates of increase have leveled off to
less than 5 percent since 2002 (after much larger rates of
increase in the late 1990s and early 2000s) annual sales
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
volumes remain at record levels by historical standards.

Imports, primarily from China and Taiwan, account for an
estimated 10 percent share of the U.S. market. It is
anticipated that the lower-cost imports from China and Taiwan
will continue to gain influence in the market.

The number of firms supplying ATVs to the U.S. market
continues to grow. In 2006, staff identified 80 importers of
ATVs sold in the U.S. Most of these importers also import and
sell scooters, motorcycles, and other wheeled recreational
products.

Imported ATVs can be purchased on the Internet and from mass
merchandisers such as Pep Boys, Wal-Mart, and others. This is a
change from the traditional method of selling ATVs through
established dealers and franchises.

3. Issues That Need To Be Addressed by a Mandatory Standard
The October 2005 ANPR initiated a regulatory proceeding and was the
first formal step in the review of regulatory and/or non-regulatory
options to address the hazards associated with the use of ATVs. Based
on the staff's evaluation of regulatory alternatives and the comments
that were submitted in response to the ANPR, the CPSC staff believes
that the following issues need to be addressed by a mandatory standard
to ensure a minimum level of safety associated with the use of ATVs:

ATVs sold in the domestic market, including those sold over
the Internet and through importers, should conform to accepted
uniform mechanical requirements.

ATV users should have information sufficient to enable them
to use the vehicle safely. This information should be provided
in hang tags, owner's manuals, warning labels, and an ATV
safety video.

Potential ATV purchasers, as well as ATV users, should be
warned about the serious possible consequences of allowing
children to use adult ATVs.

Each ATV purchaser and members of their immediate family for
whom the ATV is appropriate should be given an opportunity to
participate in free hands-on ATV training.

The guidelines for youth ATVs should be redefined, so that
children under the age of 16 can ride and be trained on ATVs
which are more likely to fit them physically and which conform
to their developmental capabilities.

Three-wheeled ATVs should be formally banned.

4. Regulatory Activity: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
To address the issues listed above, the CPSC staff asks that the
Commission consider issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that
would mandate safety requirements for ATVs. The staff's draft proposed
rule would require that:

adult (single-person and tandem) ATVs meet specific
mechanical performance requirements;

youth ATVs meet specific mechanical performance and design
requirements and be categorized by speed limitation alone
rather than by speed limitation and engine size;

specific safety warnings be provided to the purchaser
through hang tags, labels, a safety video, and the owner's
manual;

a means for reporting safety-related complaints to the
manufacturer be provided to the purchaser;

a statement of appropriate ages for youth ATVs be provided
to and signed by purchasers of children's ATVs;

a certificate offering free training be provided to all
purchasers of ATVs and each member of the purchaser's immediate
family for which the ATV is age-appropriate; and

three-wheeled ATVs be banned.

These requirements are set forth in the staff's draft proposed
rule. The rule consists of Requirements for Adult All-Terrain Vehicles
(this includes requirements for both single-person and tandem ATVs);
Requirements for Youth All-Terrain Vehicles; and Ban of Three-Wheeled
All-Terrain Vehicles.

5. Requirements for Adult, Tandem, and Youth ATVs
The staff's draft proposed rule incorporates many of the mechanical
requirements from the current voluntary standard for single-person ATVs
\6\ and draft provisions for two-person tandem ATVs.\7\ The specific
requirements and rationales are described below and discussed further
in a memorandum from the Directorate for Engineering Sciences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American National Standards Institute, Inc., American National
Standard for Four Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles--Equipment, Configuration,
and Performance Requirements, ANSI/SVIA-1-2001, c. 2001.
\7\ The draft provisions of two-person tandem ATVs were provided to
Chairman Stratton in a letter dated May 19, 2006, from Thomas S. Yager,
Vice President, Safety Programs, Specialty Vehicle Institute of
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Four-Wheeled Single-Person Adult ATVs
The staff's draft proposed rule for four-wheeled adult single-
person ATVs includes performance requirements for service brakes,
parking brake; mechanical suspension; engine stop switch; controls,
indicators, and gearing; electric start interlock; means for
conspicuity; handlebars; operator foot environment; lighting equipment;
spark arrester; tire marking; security; vehicle identification number;
and pitch stability. As shown in Table 1, each of these requirements is
intended to reduce the risk of injury and death associated with the use
of four-wheeled adult single-person ATVs.

Table 1--Mechanical Requirements for Four-Wheeled Adult Single-Person
ATVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATV Equipment Safety Intent of Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Brake Ensure ability to stop vehicle
Parking Brake Prevent rolling of an unattended ATV
Mechanical Suspension Improve pitch response and handling of
vehicle
Engine Stop Switch Ensure ability to shut off engine in
emergency
Controls, Indicators, Gearing Ensure ability to drive and control
the vehicle
Electric Start Interlock Prevent unintended movement when
engine is started by electric
cranking
Means for Conspicuity Provide conspicuity during daylight
hours
Handlebars Minimize risk of injury from contact
Operator Foot Environment Reduce possibility of inadvertent
contact between operator boot and
ground in front of rear tire or
between boot and tire itself
Lighting Equipment Provide nighttime visibility and
conspicuity
Spark Arrester Reduce fire potential
Tire Marking Ensure proper tire inflation for use
on non-paved surfaces
Security Prevent unauthorized access and use
Vehicle Identification Number Provide a means for identification and
notification of the owner and
manufacturer
Pitch Stability Reduce propensity to tip rearward or
forward
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Four-Wheeled Two-Person Tandem ATVs
Tandem ATVs are designed to carry one driver and one passenger; the
driver and passenger are seated in tandem, i.e., one behind the other.
Tandem ATV manufacturers recommend that the passenger be at least 12
years old.
Under the staff's draft proposed rule, tandem ATVs would be
required to meet the mechanical performance requirements shown in Table
1, with some additions and variations to account for the presence of a
passenger. The additions and variations would include: pitch stability
requirement test conditions, mechanical suspension requirements
(minimum travel distance is greater), lighting equipment (depending on
the width of the ATV, two headlamps and two tail lamps might be
required), passenger environment (backrest, location of the seat,
restraint, and handholds), and operator and passenger foot environment
requirements.

C. Four-Wheeled Youth ATVs
The staff's draft proposed rule for four-wheeled youth ATVs
includes equipment and performance requirements for service brakes;
parking brake; mechanical suspension; engine stop switch; controls and
indicators; electric start interlock; handlebars; operator foot
environment; lighting equipment; spark arrester; tire marking;
security; vehicle identification number; and pitch stability. The
intended safety effect of those requirements is the same as that for
adult single-person ATVs, shown above in Table 1.
In addition, the staff's draft proposed rule for youth ATVs
includes design requirements for service brakes; engine stop switch;
throttle control, and handlebars and special requirements for other
equipment. These special requirements include: required automatic
transmission (no manual transmission); no projecting headlamp; required
stop lamp; required speed limiting device for pre-teen and teen models;
and required flag pole bracket. These special requirements and their
safety intent are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2--Special Mechanical Requirements for Youth ATVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATV Equipment Safety Intent of Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Transmission Reduce complexity of driving, match
requirements with skills
Lighting:
No projecting headlamp and no Discourage nighttime driving
forward-facing light
Stop lamp required Improve conspicuity during braking
to help reduce rear-end collisions
Speed Limiting Device on teen and Allow children to develop skills
pre-teen models over time while limiting maximum
speed to that which they are
capable of handling
Flag Pole Bracket Provide means to have flag for
conspicuity
Brakes, Engine Stop Switch, Design requirements will
Throttle Control standardize location and method of
operation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current voluntary standard allows youth ATVs with a manual
transmission, while the staff's draft proposed rule would disallow
this. Due to the many cognitive skills required for safe ATV driving,
CPSC staff believes that it is best to allow children to master driving
skills before learning to coordinate gear shifting with the many other
skills involved when operating an ATV.
As described in a memorandum from the Division of Human Factors,
the staff believes that riding ATVs at night is a significant risk
factor for children and should be discouraged. Because headlamps on
youth ATVs may encourage nighttime and unsupervised riding in
challenging conditions, the staff believes that the prohibition of
headlamps in the voluntary standard should be carried over into the
staff's draft proposed rule. In order to lessen the likelihood of rear-
end collisions, however, the draft proposed rule is requiring a stop
lamp on youth ATVs.
The staff's draft proposed rule includes a new categorization of
the age guidelines for four-wheeled youth ATVs. Based on an analysis by
CPSC's Division of Human Factors, speed, not engine size, is a more
appropriate criterion for determining which ATVs should be recommended
for children under the age of 16. Thus, the staff's draft proposed rule
would base youth ATV age categories on speed limitation, rather than
speed limitation and engine size. Under the staff's draft proposed
rule, all references to engine size as a category marker would be
eliminated. Provided a manufacturer commits to the speed limitations of
the staff's draft proposed rule, the staff would not oppose and would
recommend a modification of the LOUs to delete the engine size
limitations.
CPSC staff believes that limiting maximum speed is the most
critical safety factor for youth ATV models. By eliminating the engine
size restriction, manufacturers will be able to produce a variety of
ATV models that meet speed restrictions but are more appropriately
sized to account for the wide variation in physical dimensions of young
people. By having the option of riding better-fitting ATVs that are not
performance limited by undersized engines, staff believes that more
youth will ride age-appropriate and speed restricted ATVs rather than
gravitating toward adult ATV models. Staff also believes that having
more engine power available to the youth rider could provide a safety
cushion under certain circumstances such as climbing hills. Staff has
no information to indicate that other performance characteristics
associated with larger engine sizes, such as increased torque,
acceleration, or weight, would have a potential negative safety effect
on youth riders.
The staff's draft proposed rule would limit the maximum speeds of
ATVs intended for children under the age of 16 years. As shown in Table
3 below, Teen ATVs, intended for children ages 12 and above, would have
a maximum unrestricted speed of 30 miles per hour (mph) and a device
that could limit the maximum speed to 15 mph. Pre-teen ATVs, intended
for children ages 9 and above, would have a maximum unrestricted speed
of 15 mph and a device that could limit the maximum speed to 10 mph.
The Junior ATV, intended for children ages 6 and above, would have an
unrestricted speed of 10 mph or less, with no required speed limiting
device.

Table 3--Age and Speed Categories: Four-Wheeled Youth ATVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Speed Limitation
Category (years) Max Speed Capability (with Speed Limiter)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Junior 6+ 10 mph or less None
Pre-teen 9+ 15 mph 10 mph
Teen 12+ 30 mph 15 mph
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Discussion: Mechanical Requirements
As noted above and in a memorandum from the Directorate for
Economic Analysis, ATVs imported by new entrants into the U.S. market
have increased in recent years, and this trend is likely to continue.
The ATVs sold by these companies are available to consumers through the
Internet, mass marketers, and importers. They are being marketed by
companies that have not been a part of the consent decrees or Voluntary
Action Plan agreements with the Commission. As indicated in a
memorandum from the Directorate for Engineering Sciences, available
evidence suggests that ATVs made by these companies do not meet some of
the mechanical requirements of the current ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 voluntary
standard. Mandating the mechanical requirements of the staff's draft
proposed rule would therefore help ensure that these ATVs meet basic
safety standards.
In addition, as noted in the preliminary regulatory analysis from
the Directorate for Economic Analysis, the existence of a mandatory
standard will enhance CPSC's ability to enforce mechanical safety
requirements at a time when many new manufacturers are entering the
market. At the present time, conformance to the mechanical safety
requirements of ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 is voluntary. As new firms enter the
market, the presence of a mandatory standard that can be more easily
enforced will make it more likely that new entrants will comply with
mechanical safety requirements.
Since the ATV manufacturers that have negotiated LOUs with CPSC are
believed to be substantially in conformance with the requirements of
the voluntary mechanical standard, mandating these mechanical
requirements will have, at most, a modest impact on injury and death
risk. These firms account for about 90 percent of the ATVs now being
sold in the U.S. market. However, because these manufacturers with the
largest share of the market are in substantial compliance with the
voluntary standard, the additional cost that would be incurred by
manufacturers to meet the mechanical requirements of the proposed rule
likely will be low. In fact, the costs for many manufacturers may be
limited to the cost of adding stop lamps to youth ATVs. The cost of
adding a stop lamp would amount to a few dollars or more, especially in
the case of youth ATVs which are not currently equipped with any wiring
for lighting. Most adult ATVs are thought to be already equipped with a
stop lamp.
With respect to youth ATVs, restricting ATV use by engine size
likely discourages consumers from purchasing appropriate ATVs for some
young riders. The frame size of youth ATVs as defined currently might
not comfortably fit larger children. Some children of ages 12 through
15 are larger than some adults; these adolescents and their parents may
prefer that they ride a larger ATV that better fits them physically.
Additionally, if the engine of the youth ATV lacks sufficient power for
acceleration or hill climbing, some children may resist using the youth
model and their parents may prefer that their children ride an adult
ATV.
Eliminating engine size as a criterion for categorizing youth ATVs
may, for several reasons, enhance safety by providing children with an
appropriate alternative to riding an adult ATV. It would allow ATV
manufacturers to introduce a wider variety of youth models, including
models with larger, more-physically-appropriate frames. Parents of
young riders would have an easier time finding a suitably-sized ATV for
their children and likely would be more willing to accept ATVs with the
recommended speed restrictions; in addition, parents might be more
willing to purchase youth models because they could be used for a
longer period of time without the need for replacement because their
children outgrew them. Moreover, acceptance and use of ATVs with the
age-recommended speed restrictions could reduce the number of ATV-
related injuries and deaths.
Increasing the availability of age-appropriate ATVs could also
increase safety by increasing the proportion of child ATV drivers who
receive formal ATV safety training. Currently, there are training
programs that will not allow a child ATV driver to be trained unless he
or she is on a youth ATV with a 90cc or less-sized engine. If modifying
the age recommendations for ATVs leads manufacturers to introduce more
ATVs with the recommended speed restrictions for young riders, and, as
a result, more children begin riding youth AWs, it will be possible for
more young riders to receive formal safety training.
The speed limitations for ATVs intended for children should not
impose substantial additional costs on manufacturers because they are
similar to those already in the ANSI/SVIA voluntary standard. Moreover,
the speed limitations in the staff's draft proposed rule are less
restrictive than the requirements for youth ATVs specified in the LOUs,
since they do not include the engine size limitations. Consequently,
the staff believes that this provision of the staff's draft proposed
rule increases the potential for safety in the form of reduced injuries
and deaths, without imposing additional costs and burdens on
manufacturers.

6. Information Requirements

A. Labels, Hang Tags, Owner's Manuals, and Safety Video
The staff's draft proposed rule includes several requirements for
safety warnings and safety information to be provided to consumers.
These would be provided on warning labels and hang tags and in owner's
manuals and safety videos. As discussed in the memorandum from the
Division of Human Factors, hazard communications, such as warning
labels, hang tags, safety videos, and owner's manuals, rely on
persuading consumers to alter their behavior to actively avoid a hazard
and, if understood and capable of being followed, can enable consumers
to make better and more informed decisions about how to use the product
safely.
The warning information on hang tags and labels will advise
consumers of the age recommendations for ATVs and warn that it is
unsafe to allow children to operate ATVs intended for adults or older
children and to carry passengers on a single-person ATV. Additional
safety messages about ATV operation would be required in owners'
manuals and in the safety video.
As noted in the report from the Directorate for Economic Analysis,
the ATV manufacturers with the greatest share of the market are thought
to be already substantially conforming to this requirement through the
LOUs. The warning requirements of the staff's draft proposed rule
should not impose any new costs on these manufacturers. For the
manufacturers that are not now in conformance, the cost of coming into
conformance will be minimal on a per unit basis. Even for manufacturers
with a very low sales volume, the cost of designing, printing, and
attaching a label or a hang tag or adding pages in an owner's manual
will be probably no more than a few dollars per vehicle.
The major manufacturers already are providing the safety video, and
the draft proposed standard will have no impact on their costs. For
those manufacturers who currently are not providing a safety video to
their consumers, the costs could be higher. The cost of duplicating a
video or DVD is no more than a few dollars. However, the cost of
producing a safety video could be several thousand dollars. For a
manufacturer or distributor with a low sales volume, this could be a
more significant cost. The cost or impact could be lower if a third
party video could be licensed or shared by many small manufacturers or
distributors.
The benefit of this provision is that it will ensure that all
consumers receive consistent basic safety and hazard information
regarding ATV use and operation. Although the benefit cannot be
quantified, it is possible, as discussed in the report from the
Directorate for Economic Analysis, that even a small reduction in the
number of ATV-related injuries to children as a result of fewer
children riding adult ATVs would result in benefits being larger than
costs.
As noted above, the staff's draft proposed rule requires that each
manufacturer provide consumers with a means of relaying safety-related
complaints and concerns to the manufacturer or importer. Manufacturers
must make available for this purpose a domestic telephone number and
mailing address, website or e-mail address. This contact information
must be contained in the owner's manual. Owner's manuals will also be
required to provide consumers with the instructions for reporting
safety-related information to CPSC.
This requirement could provide manufacturers with an early alert if
there is a potential hazard or defect with an ATV. This could allow
manufacturers to take preemptive actions to minimize the risk of injury
that might result. The cost of providing a means to report safety-
related problems would be small. Virtually all manufacturers or
distributors that sell ATVs in the U.S. already have domestic telephone
numbers, addresses and Internet sites. Moreover, many manufacturers and
distributors already include this information in the owner's manual.

B. Risk Disclosure Form
The staff's draft proposed rule would require that ATV dealers
provide purchasers of adult ATVs with a written statement that: (1)
clearly states that adult ATVs are not intended for the use of children
under the age of 16; and (2) gives the consumer specific information
about the possible injury consequences of allowing children to ride
adult ATVs. A proposed disclosure statement was developed by the
Division of Human Factors.
This requirement is a direct response to the high risk of injury of
children riding adult ATVs and to the comments of many parents,
including some whose child died while driving an adult ATV, that they
had never been warned about the risk.
The disclosure statement would be provided to purchasers prior to
completion of the sale. Consumers would be required to sign the
statement to acknowledge that they had been warned about the risks of
allowing children to drive adult ATVs. Dealers would be required to
keep the signed disclosure statement on file for at least 5 years after
the purchase so that compliance with the disclosure statement
requirement could be monitored and demonstrated. Similar disclosure
forms would be provided to purchasers of youth ATVs; these disclosure
forms would indicate the age of the child for which the youth model was
designed.
According to the Directorate for Economic Analysis, the benefits of
requiring a disclosure statement would be twofold: first, it would help
consumers make a more informed choice when they purchase an ATV; and,
second, as discussed in the memorandum from the Division of Human
Factors, signing the adult ATV disclosure form may prevent some adult
purchasers from allowing children to ride adult ATVs. Similar benefits
may result from the disclosure forms for youth ATVs.
Generally, when ATVs are sold, there is already some amount of
paperwork generated, including purchase contracts and financing
agreements. Therefore, the marginal costs of an additional form would
be minimal. Moreover, under the LOUs, manufacturers already require
that their dealers inform consumers about the age recommendations for
ATVs and monitor dealer compliance with that requirement. It is
possible, therefore, that the direct enforcement mechanism provided by
this disclosure statement would be no more costly than the current
methods of monitoring compliance with the LOUs. Consequently, if this
requirement would lead to even a small reduction in the number of
children who ride and are injured on adult ATVs, it is likely that the
benefits of the provision would exceed its costs.

7. Offer-of-Training Requirement
The staff's draft proposed rule would require manufacturers and
distributors of ATVs to provide to every purchaser of an ATV a training
certificate that would entitle the purchaser and members of the
purchaser's immediate family for whom the ATV is age-appropriate to
attend a free hands-on training course; the training course would have
to be designed to satisfy the requirements of the staff's draft
proposed rule. Manufacturers and distributors would be required to
maintain a written record that the certificate was provided.
The staff's draft proposed rule would require that certain topics
be included in the course content. The course would teach the student
how to handle a variety of circumstances encountered when driving and
would familiarize the rider with safety behavior and messages.
Classroom, field, and trail activities would be included.
According to the Division of Human Factors, ATV training is
important because operating an ATV seems deceptively easy; steering
controls are similar to a bicycle, and the throttle is generally simply
lever-operated with the thumb. ATVs, however, are high-speed motorized
vehicles that require repeated practice to drive proficiently.
Operating an ATV is somewhat comparable to operating other complex
high-speed motorized vehicles and requires repeated practice to
decrease the risk of injury. Formal training may act as a surrogate for
experience because it exposes new ATV drivers to situations they will
encounter while riding off-road and teaches them the proper driving
behavior to navigate those situations.
ATV manufacturers that account for about 90 percent of the U.S.
market already offer free training to purchasers of their ATVs and
members of their immediate families; purchasers of ATVs made by other
manufacturers or importers can take the course, but are required to pay
a fee.\8\ So, the primary impact of this requirement will be to extend
the free training offer to people who purchase ATVs from manufacturers
or importers that do not now offer free training. These manufacturers
account for about 10 percent of total domestic ATV sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As noted in the report from the Directorate for Economic
Analysis, some manufacturers also offer additional incentives to
encourage first-time buyers to take ATV safety training. Some
manufacturers give first-time purchasers an additional $100 if they
complete the training; while others offer free training to other
members of the purchaser's family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in the report from the Directorate for Economic
Analysis, the requirement that manufacturers offer free training is in
effect a requirement that they subsidize ATV safety training. The
purpose of a subsidy is to lower the cost of a product, e.g., ATV
training, so that individuals will be encouraged to purchase the
product or, in this case, to take training. A subsidy can be an
appropriate policy when it is believed that consumers will not purchase
the socially optimal quantity of a good without some intervention. A
consumer might not purchase the optimum quantity of a good for a
variety of reasons; for example, a consumer might underestimate the
value of the good to herself or himself.
In the case of ATV safety training, it is likely that many
consumers underestimate the benefits of training. According to the
Division of Human Factors, ATVs can appear ``deceptively easy'' to
operate but in fact require ``repeated practice to drive safely.'' Even
at low speeds, ATV drivers need to have ``situational awareness
necessary to negotiate hazards on unpaved terrain'' and make ``quick
judgments'' with regards to steering, speed, braking, weight shifting,
and terrain suitability. Consumers who underestimate the difficulty of
riding ATVs may conclude that the cost of the training, including the
cost in terms of time and travel, will exceed the benefits.
The cost to the manufacturer of offering free training depends upon
a number of factors, such as the length of the course, the number of
trainers, and the number of enrollees. If the training were similar to
that provided currently by the ATV Safety Institute to children and
adults, the value of a training certificate entitling the holder to a
four-to-five hour training course might be $75 to $125. Thus, the value
of the training subsidy might be $75 to $125 per trainee.
The cost to the ATV purchaser who has a training certificate would
be the time and cost involved in finding an available time and training
site and then arranging for transportation to the training. In
addition, there would be a cost associated with the possible
transportation of an ATV to the training site, and, for parents, the
transportation of a child to the site. In addition, for all who take
the training, there is the cost involved in spending several hours in
training rather than in an alternate activity.
The benefits of training to new ATV drivers could be substantial.
The Directorate for Epidemiology estimates, based on the results of the
2001 ATV injury and exposure surveys, that formal training may reduce
the risk of injury by about half. Based on this information, the
Division of Human Factors' finding that formal training can act as a
surrogate for experience, and the results of a recent ATV risk analysis
that found a strong inverse relationship between driving experience and
the risk of hospital emergency department-treated injury,\9\ the
Directorate for Economic Analysis estimates that the benefits of
training to new riders could be about $770 per rider. The estimated
cost, in terms of time spent getting to and from and taking the course,
would be about $295. Consequently, the net benefits of training per
consumer could be about $475.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Gregory B. Rodgers and Prowpit Adler, ``Risk Factors for All-
Terrain Vehicle Injuries: A National Case-Control Study,'' American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 153, No. 11 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a 2004 Rider Training Summary from SVIA, about 35 percent
of first-time ATV purchasers who were offered this training by member
firms actually took advantage of it. Only 7 percent of all purchasers
took any type of organized formal training, including dealer, SVIA,
local, and 4-H training courses. The Directorate for Economic Analysis
estimates that this requirement would likely increase the number of
riders trained annually by about 6,000 to 7,000; these riders would
primarily be those who would purchase ATVs from companies who do not
currently offer training. If the benefits of the training are $770 per
trainee and the cost of the training is $295, this could result in a
net benefit of about $3.3 million annually.

8. Ban: Three-Wheeled ATVs
Under the consent decrees, the major ATV manufacturers agreed to
stop the sale of new three-wheeled ATVs, which had been shown to be
less stable and more risky than four-wheeled ATVs. Until recently, no
new three-wheeled ATVs are known to have been marketed in the United
States since the late 1980s. However, the CPSC Office of Compliance has
found evidence that there are three-wheeled vehicles that meet the
definition of an ATV and that are being advertised and marketed as all-
terrain vehicles for sale in the United States. The ban on the sale of
three-wheeled ATVs contained in the staff's draft proposed rule would
formalize the implicit ban that has been in place for almost 20 years.
Formalizing the ban will likely not reduce ATV-related injuries from
their present levels, but it will help ensure that three-wheeled ATVs
will not be reintroduced into the U.S. market.
As described in the regulatory analysis in the report, the
justification for a ban on the sale of three-wheeled ATVs is based on
the substantially higher expected injury costs associated with the use
of three-wheeled ATVs, relative to four-wheeled ATVs, and the
likelihood that these higher costs outweigh any additional utility
three-wheeled ATVs would arguably provide to their owners.
The real costs of ATVs include the expected injury costs associated
with their use as well as their purchase price. According to a recent
multivariate analysis of the risks associated with ATVs, the risk of
injury on a three-wheeled ATV was about three times the risk on a
similar four-wheeled model.\10\ Using this estimate of relative risk,
the present value of the higher expected injury costs associated with
the use of a three-wheeled ATV would (at a 3 percent discount rate)
amount to about $23,700 over its expected useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The injury cost differential between the three-wheeled ATV and the
four-wheeled ATV would be offset somewhat by the lower estimated price
of a three-wheeled ATV. Assuming that three-wheeled ATVs cost about
$300 less than their four-wheeled counterparts, the total cost of a
three-wheeled ATV (including both the injury cost and the costs of
purchasing the ATV) might amount to about $23,400 more than the costs
of a similar four-wheeled ATV (over its useful life.)
A ban of three-wheeled ATVs would be beneficial (on average) if the
average extra valuation (utility or use value) that individuals put on
a three-wheeled ATV is less than about $23,400 over the useful life of
the product. Consequently, if the utility from a four-wheeled ATV is
not substantially different from the utility from a three-wheeled ATV,
the ban would be justified. Although the utility that individuals
receive from using ATVs cannot be quantified, available evidence
described in the report suggests that for most individuals, the utility
differential between three-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles is
minimal. Therefore, a ban of new three-wheeled ATVs appears to be
justified.

9. Non-Regulatory Activities
The CPSC staff believes that the staff should continue to work with
industry to improve aspects of the voluntary standard for ATVs, provide
data resources for state and local legislators, and conduct an ATV
safety information and education effort.

A. Voluntary Standards Activities
Many of the elements of the voluntary standard are incorporated
into the staff's draft proposed rule. CPSC staff does not intend, by
that action, to suggest that there is no need for voluntary standard
activities to continue.
CPSC staff believes that the voluntary standards process can play
an important role in dealing with any unanticipated mechanical issues
or new safety technology that may arise in the future. CPSC staff
believes that there are some technical issues that would benefit from
further testing and study. This work, however, will require time and
the coordinated application of both CPSC and private-sector resources.
CPSC staff believes that the most effective way to carry this out is
through close, ongoing interaction with standards committees that are
addressing ATVs in that regard.

B. Development of a Data Resource for Those Interested in State
Legislation
CPSC staff believes that the states have a critical role to play in
reducing ATV deaths and injuries. To be of assistance in efforts by the
states or local government to pursue legislation or other safety
actions, CPSC staff suggests that the Commission develop an online
state data resource ``bank.'' This ``bank'' would include information
on ATV-related activities in each of the states, death data by state,
and other pertinent state-related information.

C. Safety Information and Education, Including the Launch of a
Dedicated Website
CPSC staff believes that information and education are critical to
any effort to reduce the deaths and injuries associated with the use of
ATVs. With that in mind, the staff is recommending that the Commission
consider a coordinated media and information effort. The proposed
activities are described in a memorandum from the Office of Information
and Public Affairs; part I would commence if the Commission votes to
approve the NPR and would educate the public about recent developments
in ATV safety. The following elements would be included in this plan:

a national press conference.

satellite media tows (a speaker at one location conducts
interviews nationwide via satellite).

partnership and outreach through the CPSC Neighborhood
Safety Network.

Part II would consist of the establishment of an ATV Safety
Information and Education Working Group, whose purpose would be to
coordinate and enhance voluntary, ongoing safety education efforts for
ATV riders and purchasers. The Working Group would include
representatives from the public- and private-sectors, who would
consider the most effective and up-to-date strategies to influence
safety behavior regarding ATV use and, where appropriate, encourage a
coordinated effort to promote those strategies. CPSC staff believes
that a coordinated approach to ATV safety information and education is
the most efficient way to use resources, eliminate duplicative efforts,
and to help ensure that a consistent message is being presented to the
ATV user.
In addition, the staff has developed a proposed ATV safety website
for the Commission's consideration. Information to access that
(restricted access) website has been provided to the Commissioners so
that they can review the format and content. The site includes the
state data resource bank outlined above. The staff recommends that the
Commission approve launch of the site as a public-access ATV safety
resource.

10. Additional Staff Comments

A. Encouraging the Use of Protective Gear
CPSC staff continues to strongly encourage the use of helmets and
other protective gear by ATV riders. In addition, CPSC staff encourages
ATV retailers to co-merchandise ATV safety gear, particularly helmets,
alongside ATVs. Staff knows of one ATV manufacturer that offers
vouchers to ATV purchasers toward the purchase of a helmet and another
that displays protective gear nearby ATVs; CPSC staff applauds this
type of action and encourages similar co-merchandising on the part of
all manufacturers.

B. Insurance Discounts for Training
In early 2006, CPSC Office of Compliance staff attempted to contact
nine major insurance companies who reportedly provide insurance to ATV
owners. Information provided by seven of the nine companies which
responded to the staff's inquiry show that at least 345,000 ATV owners
have some type of ATV insurance, including bodily injury, personal
damage, collision, and coverage for a guest passenger (including a
guest passenger on a single-person ATV). Premiums are about $200
annually, and three of the responding insurance companies offer some
type of premium discount, ranging from five to 10 percent, for
participation in ATV training.

11. Summary
The CPSC staff believes that a comprehensive effort by the
Commission to address the deaths and injuries associated with ATV use
is warranted. This effort needs to include regulatory and non-
regulatory activities. The CPSC staff is proposing that the Commission
consider issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) which would
mandate mechanical, labeling, safety information, and training
requirements for four-wheeled single-person adult ATVs, four-wheeled
two-person tandem ATVs, and four-wheeled youth ATVs; the NPR also would
mandate a ban on three-wheeled ATVs intended for adults and children.
The CPSC staff is proposing that the Commission also consider
implementing non-regulatory activities including continued voluntary
standards activities, an ``ATV Safety'' website including ongoing
development of a data resource for state legislators and local
government officials, and a safety information and education effort.

12. Options Available to the Commission

A. Approve All of the Staff's Recommendations
If the Commission determines that available information indicates
that regulatory and nonregulatory approaches should be used to address
the deaths and injuries associated with the use of ATVs, it could
approve all of the staff's recommendations and approve the draft notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for publication in the Federal Register
under authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), approve launch of the website,
and direct the staff to pursue the other activities mentioned in this
briefing package.

B. Approve Some, But Not All, of the Staff's Recommendations
If the Commission determines that available information does not
warrant the use of all of the activities described in this briefing
package, it could direct the staff to implement those activities which
the Commission believes should be used to address the deaths and
injuries associated with the use of ATVs.

C. Defer Making a Decision on the Staff's Recommendations
If the Commission believes that there is insufficient information
to make a decision about the staff recommendation, it could defer its
decision and direct the staff to gather the additional information.

D. Do Not Implement Any of the Staff's Recommendations
If the Commission concludes that the available information does not
support proceeding with rulemaking or with implementing the non-
regulatory activities, it could direct the staff to terminate
rulemaking and to not proceed with implementing any of the non-
regulatory activities.

13. Staff Recommendation
The CPSC staff recommends that the Commission approve all of the
staff's recommendations put forth in this briefing package.

Ms. Leland. As early as 1985, the Commission stated its
safety concerns regarding ATVs in an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, and in 1987, CPSC filed a lawsuit against the major
ATV distributors. That lawsuit was settled by consent decrees
in which the distributors agreed to take a number of actions to
increase ATV safety. When those consent decrees expired, in
1998, the Commission entered into Voluntary Action Plans with
the companies.
Since that time, much has changed with regard to ATVs.
Sales have increased dramatically. U.S. retail sales of ATVs by
major distributors have increased from an estimated 293,000
sold in 1995 to an estimated 921,000 sold in 2005. We estimate
that since 1997 the number of ATV drivers has increased by 36
percent, from 12 million to over 16 million operators.
Looking at this explosive growth, it is not surprising that
we are also seeing increases in deaths and injuries reported
from ATV use. Based on studies conducted in 1997 and 2001, the
estimated number of ATV-related injuries treated in emergency
rooms rose from 53,000 to 110,000. Additionally, the number of
imports from new entrants to the ATV market has increased
markedly in recent years. A recent trade report estimated that
over 100 Chinese manufacturers export ATVs worldwide.
These new imports are generally, and significantly, less
expensive, and, unlike the major distributors that have
traditionally marketed ATVs through established dealers, many
of these new entrants market their products through U.S.
importer wholesalers or offer ATVs for sale directly to
consumers. Hundreds of websites offer these ATVs for sale.
In 2003, the Commission and CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton held
a series of regional field hearings that included: one in New
Mexico covering six western states, one in West Virginia, with
representation from seven states, and one in Alaska, to hear
directly from those who have personal and professional
knowledge of ATVs. Subsequently, Chairman Stratton directed the
staff to initiate a comprehensive review of all ATV safety
actions.
Based on its evaluation of regulatory alternatives and
public comments, the CPSC staff briefing paper presented to the
Commissioners last week recommends issuing a notice of proposed
rulemaking that would establish mandatory requirements
including that adult, youth, and tandem ATVs meet specific
mechanical performance requirements; that specific safety
warnings be provided to the purchaser of any ATV; that a
disclosure statement warning against the use of adult ATVs by
children, and describing the possible consequences of children
riding adult ATVs, be provided to, and signed by, purchasers of
all adult ATVs at the time of purchase; that a certificate
offering free training be provided to all purchasers; and that
3-wheeled ATVs be banned.
In 2003, there were an estimated 740 deaths associated with
ATVs. CPSC staff is recommending to the Commission that they
approve the staff's draft proposed mandatory standard as a
significant step forward in improving the safety of ATVs for
the children and adults who ride them.
Thank you, again, for calling attention to this important
safety issue. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leland follows:]

Prepared Statement of Elizabeth W. Leland, Project Manager, ATV Safety
Review Team, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to the
Subcommittee today on the work of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission in addressing safety issues related to all-terrain vehicles,
or ATVs. My name is Elizabeth Leland, and I am the Project Manager for
the ATV Safety Review Team.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, is a small,
bipartisan and independent agency charged with protecting the public
from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than
15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.
Since its inception, CPSC has delivered critical safety benefits to
America's families and contributed significantly to the reduction in
the national rate of deaths and injuries related to hazardous consumer
products. At CPSC we are proud of our safety mission and we are proud
of our record of achievement in reducing consumer product hazards to
American families over the years.
ATV safety is a subject of ongoing concern and activity at CPSC.
Most recently, CPSC staff presented to the Commissioners a briefing
paper outlining a number of recommendations including a recommendation
to issue a formal notice of proposed rulemaking, or NPR, to address the
risk of injury and death associated with this product. I will discuss
these recommendations later in my statement, and I ask the Chairman's
permission to submit the staff briefing paper and draft NPR to the
Committee for the record.
Since this product has been one of activity and concern to CPSC for
over twenty years, I would like to start by giving the Senators a brief
background of the agency's previous work on ATV safety. As early as
1985, the Commission stated its safety concerns regarding ATVs in an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking which outlined options that the
Commission was considering to address ATV-related hazards. In 1987,
CPSC filed a lawsuit against five companies that were the major ATV
distributors at that time.
In 1988 that lawsuit was settled with the companies by Consent
Decrees that stayed in effect for 10 years. In those Consent Decrees,
the distributors agreed to halt the distribution of three-wheel ATVs;
to provide warning labels, point-of-purchase safety materials, and
improved owners' manuals; to offer rider training; to conduct a
nationwide public awareness campaign; and to attempt to devise a
voluntary performance standard. When the Consent Decrees expired in
1998, the Commission entered into voluntary ``Action Plans'', or
Letters of Undertaking, with the five companies that had been parties
to the Consent Decree and three others that had since entered the
market. In those Letters of Undertaking, or LOUs, the companies agreed
to continue many of the actions that the Consent Decrees had required.
Since that time almost 10 years ago when those LOUs were signed
with the companies, much has changed with regard to ATVs. Sales have
increased dramatically. U.S. retail sales of ATVs by major distributors
have increased from an estimated 293,000 ATVs sold in 1995 to an
estimated 921,000 ATVs sold in 2005.
CPSC staff estimates that since 1997, the number of ATV drivers has
increased by 36 percent, from 12 million to over 16 million operators.
During that same time period, the number of ATVs has increased by 40
percent, from 4 million to 5.6 million, and the number of driving hours
has risen by 50 percent.
Looking at this extraordinary growth, it is not surprising that we
are also seeing increases in deaths and injuries reported from ATV use.
Based on injury and exposure studies conducted in 1997 and again in
2001, the estimated number of ATV-related injuries treated in hospital
emergency rooms rose during that 4 year period alone from 53,000 to
110,000.
Additionally, the number of ATV imports from new entrants to the
market has increased markedly in recent years. CPSC staff has
identified over 80 importers of ATVs. A recent trade report estimated
that 100 to 150 Chinese manufacturers and an estimated 22 Taiwanese
firms exported ATVs worldwide in 2005. We estimate that almost 100,000
ATVs were imported to the U.S. in 2004.
These new imports are generally less expensive. CPSC's 2004 market
study noted that the median suggested retail price for ATVs sold by
major distributors was $5,150. As a subgroup, the median price for
their youth ATVs was about $2,300. In contrast, a recent staff Internet
search of new ATVs with brand names other than those of traditional
distributors found that the average retail price of their larger ATVs
was only $1,340 while their youth ATVs had an average price of only
about $630.
The major distributors have traditionally marketed ATVs through
established dealers and franchises, but many of these new entrants
market their products through U.S. importer/wholesalers who in turn may
market to retail stores. Others offer ATVs for sale directly to
consumers through import brokers who transship imported units to
retailers, often without ever taking physical control of the products.
A recent CPSC surveillance effort reported that there were literally
hundreds of websites offering these ATVs for sale.
Clearly, the ATV market has grown significantly and changed
substantially over the past 10 years. In 2003, the Commission and CPSC
Chairman Hal Stratton held a series of regional field hearings that
included one in New Mexico covering six western states, one in West
Virginia with representation from seven states, and one in Alaska, to
hear directly from distributors, law enforcement and medical personnel,
consumers, state and local government officials and others who had
personal and professional knowledge of ATVs and related safety issues.
Subsequently, Chairman Stratton directed the staff to initiate a
comprehensive review of all ATV safety actions and make recommendations
to the Commission on a number of issues. The directive specifically
requested a review of the adequacy or inadequacy of current voluntary
standards and LOUs, and also an exhaustive study of other ATV safety-
related proposals including pre-sale training and certification
requirements, enhanced warning labels, formal notification of safety
rules by dealers to buyers, the addition of a youth ATV model, and
written notification of child injury data at the point-of-sale.
In October of 2005, the Commission issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking, or ANPR, to initiate a regulatory proceeding under
its authority granted by the Consumer Product Safety Act and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The ANPR was issued as part of
staff's comprehensive review of regulatory and non-regulatory options
for addressing the risks associated with ATVs.
Based on its evaluation of regulatory alternatives and the public
comments that were submitted in response to the ANPR, the CPSC staff
briefing paper presented to the Commission last week recommends issuing
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would establish the following
mandatory requirements:

that adult, youth and tandem ATVs meet specific mechanical
performance requirements;

that specific safety warnings be provided to the purchaser
of any ATV through hang tags, labels, a safety video, and the
owner's instruction manual;

that a means for reporting safety-related complaints to the
manufacturer be provided to the purchaser;

that a disclosure statement warning against the use of adult
ATVs by children and describing the possible consequences of
children riding adult ATVs be provided to and signed by
purchasers of all adult ATVs at the time of purchase;

that an acknowledgement-of-age statement be provided to and
signed by purchasers of children's ATVs;

that a certificate offering free training to each member of
a purchaser's immediate family for which the ATV is age-
appropriate be provided to all purchasers; and

that three-wheeled ATVs be banned.

In addition to these mandatory requirements, the staff also
recommends that the Commission implement a series of non-regulatory
activities to enhance ATV safety including an ATV data bank with
information on legislative and regulatory activity by the states and a
two-phase information and education drive that would also launch a
website dedicated solely to ATV safety.
In 2003 there were an estimated 740 deaths associated with ATVs. In
2001, the most recent year for which death data collection is complete,
26 percent of reported deaths were of children under 16 years old.
Based on these numbers, the non-fatal injury numbers I mentioned
earlier, and an evaluation of regulatory alternatives, CPSC staff is
recommending to the Commission that they approve the staff's draft
proposed mandatory standards as a significant step forward in improving
the safety of ATVs for the children and adults who ride them.
Thank you again for calling attention to this important safety
issue. I look forward to answering your questions.

Senator Allen. Ms. Leland, thank you for your testimony and
the work that you have done.
I understand that this is a proposed draft rule. You cannot
issue a final rule until you determine--the CPSC determines
that the existing voluntary standard will not adequately reduce
the risk of injury from ATVs, or that there will probably not
be substantial compliance with a voluntary standard. Are the
established ATV manufacturers that are members of what is
called the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, the SVIA--
are they complying with the current voluntary standard?
Ms. Leland. Yes. Our information is that they are complying
with the voluntary standard.
Senator Allen. Now, that's for the SVIA members.
Ms. Leland. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Allen. Right. Now, are there any ATV manufacturers
that are not complying with this voluntary standard?
Ms. Leland. Evidence available to us indicates that there
are new entrants coming into the United States from overseas,
primarily China and Taiwan. And our evidence shows that many of
those are not meeting the requirements of the voluntary
standard.
Senator Allen. How do you see getting them--or getting
all--regardless of whether they're manufactured in the U.S.,
Canada, Japan, Taiwan, China, wherever they may be
manufactured--how do you see getting them into compliance?
Ms. Leland. The staff believes that it is necessary to have
a mandatory standard that would have requirements for those
companies to meet, not only mechanical requirements, but also
other issues, such as labeling and training, and items and
specific information at the point-of-purchase.
Senator Allen. Have--these ATVs coming in from China that
are not in compliance, have they provided any action plans on
safety, training, or other mechanical safety design standard
compliance? In other words, are they doing anything? Are they
offering, in any way, to come into compliance with what all the
rest--the SVIA manufacturers are complying with?
Ms. Leland. I am not aware that that is happening on a
large scale. Our Compliance Office does try to keep track of
what is coming into the country through Internet surveillance,
through any means that we have, and we have tried to contact
some of those. Currently, there are upwards of 80 foreign
importers and distributors of ATVs in the United States, plus
additional companies offering to sell ATVs via the Internet and
other retail outlets. These companies have not provided and
have not offered to provide to the Commission any action plans
on safety, training, or compliance with mechanical
requirements. Compliance staff approaches firms on a case-by-
case basis requesting corrective actions, if appropriate, even
where the firm does not have an agreement with the Commission.
CPSC staff has encountered firms that would not change their
actions because they had not agreed to any provisions with the
Commission.
Senator Allen. Right. But you have tried to----
Ms. Leland. My understanding is that we do contact
companies that are bringing these ATVs into the country.
Senator Allen. Well, then what can you do, as a practical
matter? Even if you contact them, let's say they do not comply,
for whatever reason--what can anybody actually do to have them
comply with the standards that the rest of the industry agrees
to--and complies with?
Ms. Leland. That's precisely why staff is recommending that
the mandatory standard, the notice of proposed rulemaking, be
issued by the Commission, because staff feels that is the way
that we will be able to enforce having uniform mechanical
requirements for the vehicles, having uniform labeling
practices, safety practices, training practices.
Senator Allen. So, in other words, if--the way things stand
right now, if a company refuses, neglects, in any way doesn't--
simply does not comply, you have no enforcement--there's no
enforcement mechanism, whether it's through your agency or
otherwise, for those companies to actually comply with our
standards.
Ms. Leland. Our Office of Compliance would be better
prepared to address that. My understanding is that it is
difficult, with a voluntary standard, to really go after a
company----
Senator Allen. Enforce it.
Ms. Leland.--and so with the mandatory standard, it would
strengthen our enforcement mechanisms.
Senator Allen. And let me ask you one final question. Since
most motor vehicle laws are primarily determined by the states,
on everything from speed limits to helmet laws, seatbelt laws,
and the like, as well as age, how does the CPSC work with the
states in promoting and enforcing ATV safety? Does state
enforcement of ATV safety traditionally differ from Federal
enforcement?
Ms. Leland. We believe the states have a critical role to
play, and one of the recommendations staff is making is to
develop--to launch a dedicated Website devoted to ATV safety,
and that website will have resources--a resource bank, if you
will--for state legislators to use in developing and enacting
legislation.
Senator Allen. Do various states have different laws on ATV
use?
Ms. Leland. Yes. There is a wide variety across the
country. Some states do not have laws. Some do. Some address
helmets, some address age issues, some have different ages. So,
there is not a great deal of uniformity----
Senator Allen. Well----
Ms. Leland.--among the states.
Senator Allen.--we do have 50 different States and they all
have legislatures, and they all can act.
Ms. Leland. That's right.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
What has happened to Senator Pryor? He went to vote? OK.
Well, I don't have any further questions. Senator Pryor has
gone to vote. He may have some questions for you, Ms. Leland.
What we might do is go to the second panel of witnesses.
Ms. Leland, if--just to keep things somehow moving here, in the
way that the Senate operates, if you could stand by, and then
we can--I can introduce the witnesses, and maybe that by the
time I'm finished introducing the witnesses, Senator Pryor will
be back, but if you just could stand in the batter's box----
Ms. Leland. Sure.
Senator Allen.--and be ready for some further questions
from Senator Pryor--thank you, Ms. Leland.
Senator Allen. Can we have the men and women of the second
panel please come forward, I'd like to introduce you all. If
you want to sit in the order in which you'll be presented,
it'll first be Mr. Buche, then Ms. Weintraub, Mr. Williams, Dr.
Aitken, and then Ms. Halbert.
We'll now hear from our second panel.
First, Mr. Tim Buche is the President of the Specialty
Vehicle Institute of America. Mr. Buche has flown in from
California--so, it's still early for you--to testify in regard
to the ATV industry's compliance with recognized standards, as
well as to provide an overview of the current market for ATVs
in the United States. We're pleased you've agreed to discuss
safety matters directly affecting your industry, and we thank
you for testifying.
Next, we'll hear from Ms. Rachel Weintraub, who is the
Director of Product Safety and Senior Counsel at the Consumer
Federation of America. Ms. Weintraub has testified on this
issue previously and has devoted a great deal of time toward
examining the ATV safety issue. I know that you've become an
outspoken, well-recognized advocate for children's safety,
particularly concerning the operation of ATVs. We appreciate
your insight into this issue--that all parents can benefit,
really, from your education, but, more importantly, further
education, and we thank you for your commitment and for
testifying this morning.
Following Ms. Weintraub, we'll hear from Brett Williams,
the General Manager for Coleman PowerSports. That's the largest
ATV dealer in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Williams will
be able to discuss what's really important here, and that is
the point-of-purchase requirements for dealers, and
precautionary steps taken by dealerships and industry, toward
educating and protecting consumers who purchase ATVs. And we
thank you for agreeing to testify this morning, Mr. Williams.
Next will be Dr. Mary Aitken, Associate Professor in the
Department of Pediatrics of the University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences. Dr. Aitken is representing the views of the
American Academy of Pediatrics this morning. We hope to make
use of your expertise and real-life experiences in caring for
children to understand whether prudent steps exist toward
improving ATV safety. And we appreciate your time. And I know
Senator Pryor is the one, in particular, who asked you to be
here, and we look forward to your desires and ideas on how we
can better inform the people of this country on this issue. And
finally, we will hear from Susan Halbert, Senior Vice President
of the National 4-H Council. Ms. Halbert has worked on the
issue of ATV safety for many years, and therefore, is a great
source of institutional experience and knowledge regarding the
progression of ATV safety initiatives. The 4-H has developed a
strong ATV safety program, and Ms. Halbert will be able to
speak on the success of similar programs in helping to educate
children on proper riding habits. Thank you for coming today,
Ms. Halbert, and offering your perspective on this important--
very important issue.
So, we're going to start with you, Mr. Buche. You can
begin, and we thank you.

STATEMENT OF TIM BUCHE, PRESIDENT,
SPECIALTY VEHICLE INSTITUTE OF AMERICA (SVIA)

Mr. Buche. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Pryor, and
honorable members of the Subcommittee. I am Tim Buche,
President of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, or
SVIA.
The SVIA is a not-for-profit trade association formed in
1983, sponsored by Arctic Cat, BRP, Bush Hog, Honda, John
Deere, Kawasaki, Patriot, Polaris, Suzuki, Tomberlin, and
Yamaha. SVIA promotes the safe and responsible use of all-
terrain vehicles and serves as a resource for ATV research,
statistics, and vehicle standards. I welcome the opportunity to
speak before the Subcommittee on behalf of SVIA.
We are very concerned about the influx of these new
entrants to the ATV market whose products do not meet industry
safety standards. In 1985, the SVIA was accredited by the
American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, to develop a
voluntary standard for the equipment, configuration, and
performance requirements of 4-wheel ATVs. The ANSI
administrative processes and procedures for standards
development are rigorous, extensive, transparent, and subject
to audit. This year, SVIA, on another matter, engaged Marchica
& Deppa, an engineering consulting company specializing in
consumer product safety, to conduct testing on four
representative new entrant ATVs for compliance with the ANSI
standard, and delivery of safety information, the offer of
training, and product support programs to consumers. The two
principals of the company, Nick Marchica and Roy Deppa, have
more than 55 years combined experience at CPSC. A copy of the
report is offered, and I ask that it be accepted to the record
for the hearing.
Senator Allen. Any of your testimony or--if you did want to
summarize, your full testimony will be put in part of the
record. And, yes, of course, that document will be included as
part of the record of this hearing.
Mr. Buche. Very good, thank you.
The four ATVs tested were manufactured in China and are
being marketed and sold in the U.S. for use by children under
16. Among the report findings, all four new entrant ATVs failed
to comply with critical provisions of the ANSI standard. All
four failed to offer safety program elements that are part of
the action plans that the sponsoring SVIA member companies have
long agreed to with the CPSC. Three of the four new entrant
ATVs had flaws that may constitute substantial product hazards
requiring immediate recalls under the Consumer Product Safety
Act. The two smallest ATVs, which are being marketed and sold
for use by young children, were deemed too potentially
dangerous for a youth test-rider to operate. Marchica & Deppa
found numerous new entrant ATVs being marketed over the
Internet, all to children. Three of the four new entrant ATVs
tested were found on websites, purchased over the phone, and
delivered directly to the home of the one of the experts. These
vehicles were delivered with potentially dangerous errors in
set-up and adjustment. In addition, during testing, nuts and
bolts fell off one of the ATVs. The one ATV that was purchased
from a major auto retailer--auto parts retailer--was delivered
with no safety information at all. These safety problems are
serious and representative of the hazards created by
noncompliant new entrant ATV products. We estimate that the new
entrant ATVs accounted for about 20 percent of the unit sales
in the U.S., or around 165,000 units, in 2004, and that number
is growing, and growing dramatically. The problem of
noncompliant ATVs needs to be addressed immediately for the
safety of the American consumer.
The recently released CPSC draft proposal would address
this problem through a rulemaking to establish safety rules
based on the ANSI standard, but this could take years to
finalize. I urge the Subcommittee to consider taking immediate
legislative action to require all companies selling ATVs in the
United States to comply with these important standards and
safety practices.
Trade research indicates that there may be 200 or more
companies distributing ATVs in the U.S. market. SVIA has been
able to contact 62 known new entrants and invite them to
participate in its safety programs. We've provided copies of
the ANSI standard and a welcome to participate in our programs.
Five have accepted. Others have not.
ATV rider safety is a top priority of SVIA. In addition to
producing safety standards, we promote enforceable state
legislation, rider training and education, and of course,
parental supervision and responsibility. SVIA supports state
legislation that prohibits the use of adult-sized ATVs by
children under 16 and other key warned-against behaviors. CPSC
data show that 92 percent of ATV-related fatalities involve at
least one of these warned-against behaviors, and many involve
two or more. To provide rider training and education, SVIA
currently has over 900 active training sites in the United
States.
Finally, parents literally hold the key to a child's
safety. Adult supervision is essential for all riders under age
16. If you control the key, you control the use. We urge the
Committee to give top priority to fixing the new entrant ATV
problem through Federal legislation. The SVIA will continue to
do its part by promoting rider training and education, and
advocating state legislation regulating use and active parental
supervision. These steps are keys to improving ATV safety for
children and adults.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buche follows:]

Prepared Statement of Tim Buche, President,
Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA)

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Tim Buche, President of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, or
SVIA.
The SVIA is a not-for-profit trade association formed in 1983 and
sponsored by Arctic Cat, Bombardier, Bush Hog, Honda, Deere, Kawasaki,
Patriot, Polaris, Suzuki, Tomberlin and Yamaha. SVIA promotes the safe
and responsible use of all-terrain vehicles and serves as a resource
for ATV research, statistics, and vehicle standards.
I welcome the opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee on
behalf of the SVIA companies. A major concern of the SVIA is the influx
of new entrants to the U.S. ATV market whose products do not meet
industry standards and are sold to customers who receive no offer of
formal safety training.
I will address this topic in detail in a moment, but first I would
like to provide some background.
In 1985 SVIA was accredited by the American National Standards
Institute, or ANSI, to proceed with the development of a voluntary
standard for the equipment, configuration and performance requirements
of 4-wheel ATVs.
The ANSI administrative procedures for standards development are
rigorous, extensive, transparent, and subject to audit.
The SVIA, as an accredited standards developer using the ANSI
canvass method, assumed responsibility on behalf of the ATV industry
for managing the standards development process to assure that the final
product was acceptable to a consensus of interested parties and in full
compliance with ANSI guidelines.
As I mentioned previously, for some time there have been a number
of new entrants to the U.S. whose products do not meet the industry
standard and are sold to customers who receive no offer of formal
safety training. The SVIA considers these irresponsible sales
practices.
This year SVIA engaged Marchica & Deppa, LLC, an engineering
consulting company specializing in consumer product safety, to conduct
testing on four representative new entrant ATVs for compliance with the
ANSI standard and delivery of safety information, training and product
support programs to consumers. The two principals of the company have
more than 55 years' combined experience at CPSC. Roy Deppa was
previously Director of the Division of Mechanical Engineering and
Associate Director for the Office of Compliance. He also worked as
Chief Engineer of the original CPSC ATV Task Force in 1986. Nick
Marchica was Chairman of the original ATV Task Force and subsequently
served as Associate Executive Director for Engineering Sciences,
Assistant Executive Director of the Office of Compliance, and most
recently as Special Assistant to Commissioner Nancy Nord.
The four ATVs they tested were manufactured in China and are all
youth-size or small-size ATVs that are being marketed and sold for use
by children under 16. Marchica & Deppa reported their test results and
conclusions for each of the four new entrant ATVs. A copy of the report
is being submitted for the hearing record. *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report found that all four new entrant ATVs failed to comply
with the ANSI standard and that none met the safety program
requirements that the sponsoring SVIA member companies have agreed to
for many years under their Action Plans with CPSC. These failures were
significant, and include violations of critical ANSI standard
provisions such as maximum speed limitations for youth models, brake
and parking brake performance, and mechanical suspension. Marchica and
Deppa found that three of the four new entrant ATVs contained features,
such as lack of front brakes, no or inadequate suspension systems, and
starting in gear, that, in their expert opinion, may constitute
substantial product hazards, requiring immediate recalls under Section
15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act. And the two smallest-size ATVs,
which are being marketed and sold for use by young children, were
deemed ``too potentially dangerous'' for a youth test-rider to operate
because of poor brakes and excessive high speed.
In addition, Marchica & Deppa found numerous new entrant ATVs being
marketed to children over the Internet. Three of the four new entrant
ATVs tested were found on websites, purchased over the telephone, and
delivered directly to the home of one of the experts. These vehicles
were delivered without having been properly set up and adjusted, and
had major problems such as tires that were flat or severely overly
inflated, broken switches, and parts that were loose or dismantled.
During the testing, nuts, bolts, and grommets fell off one of the ATVs
while it was being operated.
The one ATV that was purchased from a store was delivered with no
safety information. In fact, the store salesperson only instructed that
if a passenger rode on the child-size ATV--which is designed for a
single operator--the passenger should loop a shutoff lanyard (which is
supposed to be used by parents for training purposes) around the wrist
of the passenger so that if he or she falls off, the engine will stop
and the vehicle will not run over the passenger. In addition, the
website for this ATV's distributor directs purchasers to another
website on safety; but, the ``safety'' website does not exist on the
Internet.
The safety problems found by Marchica & Deppa are serious and
representative of the hazards created by these new entrant ATV
products. Recent industry estimates indicate that new entrant ATVs now
account for approximately 20 percent of new sales in the U.S.--that's
20 percent of the new product market and growing. Action needs to be
taken now to address the rapidly escalating number of new entrant ATVs
that do not comply with the ANSI standards or provide U.S. consumers
with adequate safety instruction, warnings, and training.
The recently released CPSC Staff Briefing Package contains an
initial draft proposal to address this problem by proceeding with
rulemaking to establish a mandatory ATV safety standard, based on the
ANSI standard. But this draft proposal could take years to finalize.
This is a situation that needs to be addressed immediately, both for
the safety of American consumers and the good of the ATV industry
generally. I urge the Subcommittee to consider taking immediate
legislative action to elevate all companies selling ATVs in the United
States to these standards and practices demonstrated by SVIA member
companies.
The SVIA continues to extend a welcome to all new entrants into the
ATV market in the United States to participate in its programs--key
elements of which are aimed at deterring the use of adult-sized ATVs by
children under age 16--generally by marketing ANSI-compliant products
and providing appropriate safety information and training opportunities
to consumers, comparable to those provided under the Action Plans.
Although certain new entrants have accepted the invitation, most
have not.
ATV rider safety is the top priority of the SVIA companies and
their dealers. In addition to the new entrant issue I addressed
previously, the SVIA believes the most effective way to reduce ATV-
related injuries is through a three-pronged approach that includes:
enforceable state legislation, rider training and education, and
parental supervision and responsibility.
State legislatures have an important role to play. Because the
states have the authority to regulate--directly--the use of ATVs, SVIA
supports state legislation that prohibits the use of adult-sized ATVs
by children under 16, carrying passengers on ATVs designed for one
rider, operating without an approved helmet and eye protection, and
operation on public roads.
The second part of this approach is rider training and education,
which I briefly described previously.
The third component of our approach is parental or adult
supervision--and I'll add responsibility--for all riders under the age
of 16. Parents literally hold the key to a child's safety. Every ATV
has an ignition key, and the person who controls the key, controls the
use.
Parental supervision is not only a key element for a child's
safety, it is imperative. Children under the age of 16 must be
supervised at all times when riding a youth-sized ATV.
SVIA formed the ATV Safety Institute (ASI) division in 1988 to
implement an expanded national program of ATV safety and awareness that
SVIA initiated in 1983.
ASI's primary goal is to foster and promote the safe and
responsible use of all-terrain vehicles in the United States, thereby
reducing crashes and injuries that may result from improper use. ASI's
programs are designed to inspire rider awareness that promotes a
commitment to safety and respect for the environment.
ASI is the recognized leader in ATV safety. We improve the safety
of riders through the delivery of hands-on training and the publication
of educational materials for the ATV community.
More and more Americans are choosing to operate ATVs. Besides
recreational use, ATVs are also used in agriculture, a wide variety of
industries, and the Armed Forces and municipalities.
Along with increased use there has been an increase in ATV related
injuries and fatalities. Sadly, most of these incidents could have been
prevented. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) data show that 92
percent of ATV-related fatalities involved at least one or more warned-
against behavior on the part of the rider.
To improve rider safety and communicate responsible use messages,
ASI offers the ATV RiderCourse^SM nationwide.
The ASI RiderCourse is free for purchasers of new ATVs and it is
available to others for a reasonable fee. This includes purchasers of
used ATVs, purchasers of non-member products, and prospective riders.
The enrollment and training process is the same except that the ATV
rider initiates contact with ASI. This is easily accomplished through
the ASI Website, or toll-free telephone number. The cost for training
is $125 for adults and $75 for riders under age 16. Approximately 25
percent the annual training is completed by paying students.
Once training is completed, purchasers of new SVIA member company
ATVs are eligible for an incentive, typically $100 cash or equivalent
merchandise certificate. And through the ``Try Before You Buy''
program, paid students get all their training fees plus offered
incentives if they take paid training and then buy a new ATV from an
SVIA member company.
A major component of the ATV RiderCourse is what we call The Golden
Rules. These rules are reinforced beginning at the dealer, throughout
the training experience, and extended through educational materials. In
summary The Golden Rules are:

Take an approved training course.
Ride an ATV that's right for your age.
Supervise kids under 16.
Wear the right safety gear, especially a helmet.
Rider only, no passengers on single rider ATVs.
Ride only on designated trails and always ride responsibly.

The class is conducted completely outdoors and has a maximum size
of eight students for one instructor. The main themes in the ATV
RiderCourse are safety and responsible use.
Students practice basic safety techniques with hands-on exercises
covering starting and stopping, turning--both gradual and quick--
negotiating hills, emergency stopping and swerving, and riding over
obstacles. Particular emphasis is placed on the safety implications
relating to each lesson.
The course also covers protective gear, environmental
responsibility and state and local laws. Participants receive an ATV
RiderCourse Handbook, which reinforces the safety information and
riding techniques covered during the ATV RiderCourse. Students keep the
handbook as a reference as they continue to practice the skills taught
in the ATV RiderCourse.
Individuals 6 years of age and older may take the class once a
parent or guardian has determined that the youngster is appropriate to
ride youth-sized ATVs. We help parents make the decision as to whether
ATVing is appropriate for their child through the use of a publication
called ``Parents, Youngsters and All-Terrain Vehicles.''
This booklet includes a readiness checklist that covers visual
perception/motor skills development, physical development, social/
emotional development, and reasoning and decision-making ability. Only
after the parent has determined that ATV riding is the right activity
for their child, we will train the child with participation from the
parent.
In youth classes instruction is targeted as much at the parent as
it is to the child. Riders younger than 16 are restricted to ATVs of
the appropriate size recommended for the rider's age. There are special
teaching provisions for students younger than 16, and parents are
encouraged to attend as well. Students younger than 12 participate in
separate classes, and a parent must be present during the entire
course.
The ATV RiderCourse is only conducted by licensed ATV Safety
Institute Instructors. Each licensed Instructor completes a four-day
Instructor preparation program and must successfully complete a skills
assessment, knowledge test and student teaching experience. SVIA offers
its licensed Instructors ongoing professional development as a means to
continually enhance the delivery of instruction.
As delivery of the ATV RiderCourse has been enhanced, so too has
the administration of the program. As computer and telephony technology
improved, ASI began development of a centralized enrollment system in
an effort to provide more timely enrollment and training to purchasers.
The latest innovation to improve access to training is online
enrollment through the ASI website. This system allows students to
enroll 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. We are experiencing increased
use of this process and expect that its use will continue to grow.
Today, ATV Training is accomplished through a national network of:

Over 900 Active Training Sites.

Over 2,500 Active ASI licensed Instructors.

And 53 Active ASI licensed Chief Instructors.

Over 45,000 ATV RiderCourse students have been trained each year
since 2002. Total students trained since 1989 in the ATV RiderCourse is
661,729.
CPSC data show that first-time purchasers without prior riding
experience benefit most from ATV training.
Whether a new rider or an experienced one, the feedback ASI
receives from ATV RiderCourse participants is overwhelmingly positive.
Our goal is to encourage all riders, especially inexperienced riders,
to complete training. We accomplish this through continual program
improvement and expanded access.
ASI is committed to increasing public awareness of ATV safety
programs. ASI has developed a nationwide public awareness campaign to
promote the safe and responsible use of ATVs. Activities include a
collection of 21 public service announcements for print and web
applications addressing the ``Golden Rules.''
In addition to PSAs, SVIA makes available publications and videos
that communicate key safety messages and are useful tools for riders
and parents. These include the Tips and Practice Guide for All-Terrain
Vehicle Riders, the Parents, Youngsters and All-Terrain Vehicles
Booklet, and the Ride Safe, Ride Smart video. Through Video Placement
Worldwide, an international service company specializing in placing
sponsored educational materials in our Nation's classrooms; we have
distributed 3,500 copies of this video, which has been viewed by over
2.8 million people.
In addition to printed material, SVIA uses electronic media as
well, including a toll-free ATV Hotline, an ``ATV Rally'' interactive
CD-ROM that was distributed to 1.7 million children, and a School ATV
Safety and Awareness Campaign. In this campaign an e-mail to principals
across the country asking them to impress upon their students and their
parents the importance of all-terrain vehicle safety. A letter
accompanied the e-mail to parents and guardians, as well as a flyer
``What is an ATV?''. We received numerous positive responses, and
facilitated requests to translate the letter to parents and guardians
into Spanish, and to provide a complete supply of the letter and the
flyer for all of their students to take home. The e-mail was sent to
over 40,000 principals across the country and has a potential outreach
to 5.8 million teachers, parents and students.
The www.ATVSafety.org website provides visitors with information
about the ATV RiderCourse, Enrollment Express, safety tips, and
publications for parents.
Another opportunity for improved safety that SVIA supports is
managed recreation opportunities. An example is the Hatfield-McCoy
Trail system in West Virginia. This system is managed for family
recreation utilizing a well designed and maintained trail system with
enforced rules for riding. This area provides an excellent experience
for users, keeps riders out of inappropriate areas and has an excellent
safety record.
And finally, ASI participates in both enthusiast and non-enthusiast
events to promote the safe and responsible use of ATVs. In 2005, we
participated in over 60 events in 26 states.
No other industry has undertaken an initiative as comprehensive and
far-reaching as the members of the SVIA. SVIA believes it is crucial
that all new entrants to the U.S. ATV market, including non-SVIA
members, offer appropriate safety information and programs.
Safety messages are also prominently displayed via on-product
labels, hangtags, safety videos and in ATV safety alerts provided to
prospective purchasers. In addition, ATV dealers are prohibited from
selling adult-sized ATVs for use by children under 16.
The SVIA companies share the Subcommittee's strong interest in
compliance with ATV safety standards. We urge this Committee to give
top priority to fixing the new ATV entrant problem through Federal
legislation. The SVIA and its member companies will continue to do
their part by promoting rider training and education, state legislation
regulating ATV use, and active parental supervision. These steps are
the keys to improving ATV safety for children and adults.
Thank you.

Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Buche.
What we're going to do is now interrupt the second panel.
If Ms. Leland can come forward--what we did is----
Senator Allen.--and Mr. Buche--I've introduced all the
members on the second panel, and Mr. Buche is the first----
Senator Pryor. Right.
Senator Allen.--witness, and Ms. Leland stayed here ready
to answer----
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Allen.--your questions. Well, then I'm going to
turn the gavel over to Senator Pryor----
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Allen.--and I'm going to go vote. And then, once
you're through with Ms. Leland, then Ms. Weintraub----
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Allen.--we'll pick up.
Senator Pryor. [presiding] Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I'm sorry for the interruption there. I had to race over
and vote. I know the Chairman will be back in just a few
moments.
Ms. Leland, I know that you are in the process of a
rulemaking, right? Do you see the old compliance agreement and
some of these Voluntary Action Letters as adequate? In other
words, do you see the rule just following that track pretty
well or do you think that there will be some differences?
Ms. Leland. There are some differences in the staff's draft
proposed rule that we have presented to the Commissioners.
Staff proposes to revise the age guidelines so that youth will
have more models available to them which will physically fit
them, which will make them lean toward buying and using youth
models. It will also open up accessibility to training for
youths. So, that is a difference.
There are some mechanical requirements that are different
than in the current voluntary standard, including requiring
automatic transmission on youth models, prohibiting headlamps,
but requiring stoplamps. Staff is also recommending, as part of
the rule, that dealers offer certificates of training to each
purchaser's immediate family for whom the ATV is age
appropriate. And also, staff recommends that the dealers be
required to inform--with a piece of paper--inform the
purchasers of adult ATVs about the risks of children riding
adult ATVs. And the purchasers would be required to sign those,
and the dealers would need to keep those on record for at least
5 years.
Senator Pryor. OK. Let me back up there just for a second.
You mentioned headlamps. You're going to prohibit headlamps?
Ms. Leland. Yes.
Senator Pryor. Why is that?
Ms. Leland. Our Human Factors staff has done some research,
and we feel that youth should not be encouraged to ride at
night. And so, we feel it is necessary to prohibit those.
Senator Pryor. Do you have statistics that a
disproportionate percentage of accidents happen at night?
Ms. Leland. Our Human Factors staff has looked at research,
in terms of lighting and conspicuity. In an analysis of 184
deaths of children that occurred in 1999-2000, CPSC staff found
that nine involved children on youth ATVs; one of those
occurred after dark. Other than that analysis, CPSC staff has
not conducted a formal additional search of the data to
determine whether a disproportionate percentage of incidents
happen at night.
Ms. Leland. I don't think many children have been riding at
night, because there have not been the headlamps.
Senator Pryor. OK. And I assume, from what you're saying,
that you believe that youth-sized ATVs can be safe. I know that
no vehicle is completely 100 percent safe, but they can be safe
for children. In other words, I guess I can see an argument
that there shouldn't be any youth-size at all, because it's not
so much a matter of the size of the vehicle, it's the operator
of the vehicle. Do you have a comment on that?
Ms. Leland. We have data to show that the risk of injury
for youth on a youth-appropriate ATV is half that of a youth on
an adult ATV. We feel that with proper supervision, with all of
the warnings, with the training, that youth can ride youth
ATVs.
Senator Pryor. OK. Now, as I understand it, the numbers of
accidents and injuries on ATVs have increased. And to some
extent, this is probably because the number of sales have
increased. But, as I understand it, the CPSC is saying that
it's not just about the number of ATVs that are out there.
There's also something else going on. Is it a fact that ATVs
are getting bigger and more powerful? Is it a fact that you
have some of these imports that are coming in to this country
that don't meet safety standards? What's going on in this
industry?
Ms. Leland. We did studies in 1997 and 2001, and those
studies did show that there is something more than sales--the
increase in sales--to account for the increase in injuries. And
I think what you say, in terms of models coming in that don't
meet the standard, in terms of youth riding adult ATVs, that
all of that plays a part.
Senator Pryor. And as I understand it, some would like to
see a ban on ATV usage below a certain age--say, age 16--they
would just like to see an absolute ban on that. The CPSC
apparently does not agree with that suggestion. And could you
tell us why?
Ms. Leland. The staff is recommending that certain parts of
our proposed rule will address the issue of alerting the
parents to the risks of children riding ATVs. Staff feels that
our change in age guidelines would allow children to have
accessibility to training. They would be riding age-appropriate
and fit-appropriate ATVs. And, with the disclosure statement,
parents would have all of that information. Staff feels that we
have enforceable solutions to the problems of children riding
adult ATVs.
Senator Pryor. OK. It also seems to me that when I look at
these two models here on the floor in the Committee room today,
clearly one has a number of safety features that the other
doesn't. It's intuitive to me that the one without the safety
features would be more prone to accidents and injuries. But my
question for you is, do the statistics bear that out?
Ms. Leland. The new entrants are new on the market, and so
there is not a track record for those. We do have incidents on
the new foreign-entrants ATVs. We do not know at this time if
the number of incidents occurring on ATVs made by the new
foreign-entrants are disproportionate to the share of the
market held by these companies. These new entrants introduced
their models into the U.S. market in 2000, and by 2005,
approximately 10 percent of ATV sales in the United States were
ATVs that were produced by these new entrants. Because of the
large number of ATVs already in use, the proportion of all ATVs
currently in use that were produced by these new entrants is
probably substantially less than 10 percent. These new-entrant
products have been primarily youth ATVs; the majority of our
youth incidents occur with youth driving and riding on adult
ATVs.
Senator Pryor. My understanding is that some of these new
imports vary in terms of the number of safety features they
have or don't have. It just depends on the manufacturer, and
that changes a lot from model to model. But, as I understand
it, some have said that some of these new imports, a few models
of them, at least, are--the safety issues are so severe that
maybe they should be recalled. Does the CPSC have the power to
recall those right now?
Ms. Leland. I believe that we do.
Senator Pryor. And are you in the process of doing that, or
is that underway, or----
Ms. Leland. Our Office of Compliance keeps track of what is
coming into the market through various methods. And to the
extent that we can contact those companies and be in touch with
them and develop a recall plan, we can do that. One of the
reasons the CPSC staff would recommend mandating the standard
is that we would have more enforceability. We would be able to
work with Customs officials when these products are coming into
the market.
Senator Pryor. OK. Do the statistics show that there was a
fairly pronounced increase in ATV-related deaths right after
the consent decree expired. Is that true?
Ms. Leland. Yes.
Senator Pryor. And even though the manufacturers still
continue to, on a voluntary basis, more or less meet all the
terms of the consent decree--do you have an explanation of why
you saw an increase in deaths after that consent decree
expired?
Ms. Leland. There are a lot of factors that go into riding
ATVs. Many of the incidents involve the use--the way people use
them, not following safety recommendations. That could play a
part of it. As the sales were going up, people were coming into
the market, buying the ATVs. I had mentioned that many of the
youth cannot get training, because they're buying the adult
ATVs. So, there are a lot of factors involved----
Senator Pryor. Right.
Ms. Leland.--in that.
Senator Pryor. OK. And as part of your rulemaking, are you
looking at helmets as a possible requirement?
Ms. Leland. The staff proposed rule does not include
requirements for helmets. We continue to encourage users to
wear protective gear, including helmets, and helmets that meet
the DOT or the Snell standard. Traditionally, CPSC has not--as
in the case of bicycles, CPSC has not required that helmets be
available at purchase. So, at this point, the staff is
recommending that people continue to wear them. We do mention
them in the labels and in the warnings that are mandated. There
is information there, telling consumers about the necessity of
wearing a helmet. We do encourage companies to co-merchandise
helmets with the ATV. We have heard of some companies that do
that. We have heard of companies that offer vouchers so that
people can use that toward the purchase of a helmet. So, we----
Senator Pryor. OK.
Ms. Leland.--recommend those types of activities.
Senator Pryor. And the last question I have is--I see these
two models here on the floor today, and you have one that's
from a traditional manufacturer, and the other one is one of
these newer imports. One thing I've noticed in Arkansas is that
a lot of these imports are sold at nontraditional outlets. I
think you talked about direct marketing through the Internet,
et cetera. But I see them--some of them, at least--being sold
in tire stores and auto-parts places--places that are not truly
dealers. And I do have a concern that when people are
purchasing these vehicles at these dealers, they're going for
the cheapest model. People are getting what they pay for.
They're getting a model that really doesn't meet the standards
that we've customarily had in our marketplace. So, do you have
any comment on that?
Ms. Leland. That is our concern. In fact, we have seen ATVs
for sale directly on the website that can be shipped directly
to your home. We do not believe that those come with any type
of safety information, no offers of training. So, that is our
concern, as well. And our concern is that the numbers of these
vehicles being sold through these nontraditional means may
increase. That is why, actually, as part of our proposed rule,
we would require that there be a domestic contact, an address,
telephone number, some way that the American consumer would be
able to contact the company.
Senator Pryor. And you mention dealer requirements, as
well, which would cover just any retailer; it doesn't have to
be truly an auto dealer--I mean, a motorcycle or ATV dealer,
per se, correct?
Ms. Leland. That's correct. And that would also affect
website sales.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have, and I think
we're ready for Ms. Weintraub.
Thank you.
Senator Allen [presiding]. Great, thank you. That actually
folded in well.
Ms. Leland, thank you so much for coming and testifying and
holding over a little bit. Thank you.
Ms. Weintraub, I'd now like to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF RACHEL WEINTRAUB,

DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT SAFETY/SENIOR COUNSEL,

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA (CFA)

Ms. Weintraub. Thank you, Chairman Allen and Ranking Member
Pryor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and for
holding this very important hearing.
My name is Rachel Weintraub. I am the Director of Product
Safety and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America.
CFA is a nonprofit association of 300 consumer groups, with
a combined membership of more than 50 million people. CFA was
founded in 1968 to advance the consumers' interests through
advocacy and education.
CFA has been deeply concerned about the safety of ATVs for
many years. CFA believes that the current ATV safety standards
are failing to protect consumers. We respectfully disagree with
CPSC staff's recommendations, and believe that CPSC, Congress,
and states should play a much more active role in preventing
ATV deaths and injuries.
According to the latest data from CPSC, ATV deaths and
injuries affected at least 136,100 people, in terms of having
injuries serious enough to require them to go to emergency
rooms. The estimated number of ATV-related fatalities increased
from 621 in 2002 to 740 in 2003. Children under 16 suffered 31
percent of all injuries in 2004 and 28 percent of all
fatalities.
Numbers alone, though, can be cold and sterile. ATVs affect
real people, our neighbors, our children, our friends. This
past weekend alone, there were reports of 18 deaths across the
country. I just want to give you one real-life example. And,
unfortunately, there are many, many to choose from.
On May 6, 2002, 10-year-old Kyle Rabe went ATV-riding with
his friend Zach in a grassy field in rural Oregon. Kyle was a
cautious rider, and he took the time to put on all the
appropriate safety gear. On his way home, Kyle hit a rut in his
path, lost control of the ATV, it rolled on its side, pinning
Kyle to the ground by the small of his back. He was unable to
breathe. CPR was administered 15 minutes after the crash, but
it was too late. His father remembers tasting the cookies and
milk on his breath that he had just had for a snack. Kyle had
been riding for over a year and a half without an incident.
Despite Kyle's experience, when the 500-pound ATV landed on top
of him, he was too small to escape.
The current approach to ATV safety, the industry's self-
regulating approach, is truly not working. Not only has self-
regulation by the ATV industry led to larger and faster ATVs
and more children being killed and injured, these increases
have frequently been by statistically significant margins, and
the Commission has routinely noted this in annual reports of
ATV deaths and injuries. Importantly, they've also noted that
they are not explained solely by rising ATV sales or usage.
The failure of the current approach compels the enforcement
of a mandatory standard focused, in part, on banning the sale
of adult-sized ATVs for use by children. Important evidence
that the current voluntary system is failing is based, in part,
on CFA's analysis of CPSC data, which found less than 4 percent
of injured ATV drivers receive formal safety training; more
than 40 percent of injured drivers in 2001 stated that their
ATV did not have warning labels, or they didn't know if they
did at the time of the incident, while, across the board, the
vast majority did, at that time, and still do; and nearly 90
percent of children under 16 years of age were injured while
riding adult-sized ATVs.
Our society suffers not only because ATVs cost the lives of
almost 750 people each year in the United States. These deaths,
and the over 135,000 ATV injuries incurred each year, also cost
society considerable amounts of money. An analysis of ATV
deaths in West Virginia alone from 1999 to 2003 found that ATVs
have cost $3.4 million in the state. And this takes into
account medical costs, the costs of work lost, and the costs of
quality-of-life. Taking into account the same factors for the
entire country, it cost the United States $8.9 billion between
1999 and 2003.
CFA analyzed all ATV recalls conducted by CPSC, those that
were indicated on CPSC's website. We found some disturbing
trends that CPSC staff, in their briefing package, failed to
address. For example, we found that 77 percent of all recalls
were due to a mechanical failure--36 percent of all ATV recalls
involved a suspension failure, while 18 percent of all recalls
were due to drive-train failures. Together these two system
failures make up 52 percent, over half, of ATV recalls. We also
found that 62 percent of all ATVs were recalled due to the
potential for the operator to lose control of the ATV. CFA is
unaware of any other category of recalled products which could,
in such large percentages, lead to such life-threatening
hazards.
CFA is profoundly disappointed with the recommendations
contained in the CPSC staff's briefing package. Significantly,
the staff fails to recommend that the Commission take strong
actions to truly protect children from ATV deaths and injuries.
To name just a few of our concerns, CPSC staff's recommendation
to weaken the definition of youth-sized ATVs by removing the
engine-size component is incredibly problematic. There has been
no evidence presented that such a change will save lives, nor
any indication from the injury data. Further, we have no
confidence that the speed governors will not be easily removed
or modified to decrease or eliminate their utility. The
training portion of the staff's recommendation does not appear
to be substantially different from the status quo, fails to
ensure the substantive quality of the training, and doesn't do
enough to ensure that training will be made geographically
available to everyone who needs it. The ban on 3-wheel ATVs
should be accompanied by a recall of all 3-wheel ATVs currently
on the market.
And, finally, the briefing package, as well as this
hearing, contains numerous references to the problem of
imported ATVs. While it is clear that large ATV manufacturers
fear the rising percentage of less expensive ATVs as an
economic threat, there has been no evidence that we've seen put
forth other than the recent study disclosed just a few days
ago, certainly not in the briefing package, that indicates that
these ATVs pose an added threat to health and safety. In
contrast, CFA found that in 2005 alone, 94 percent of all of
the ATVs that were recalled, were recalled by major ATV
manufacturers. We're concerned that this import issue is
shifting the focus from other very, very serious concerns with
ATVs. We will look at the data as it emerges, but there are
problems with the rest of the 80 or 90 percent of the market
involving the major ATV manufacturers and the ATVs they
produce.
While CPSC can, and, in our opinion, should, ban the sale
of adult-sized ATVs for use by children under 16, we urge CPSC
and industry to join us as we work on State efforts to set
licensing and rider training requirements, prohibit riders from
carrying passengers, and require ATV riders to wear helmets and
other protective equipment. Since CPSC staff has failed to
recommend that the Commission issue a regulation banning the
sale of adult-sized ATVs for use by children, we urge the
introduction of legislation that would make the knowing sale of
an adult-sized ATV for use by children a violation of the
Consumer Product Safety Act. We also suggest that the Committee
request GAO studies analyzing CPSC compliance efforts on the
ATV voluntary action plans, actual costs to society of ATV
deaths and injuries, and analysis of enforcement mechanisms to
ensure compliance with existing state laws and the potential
for enforcement of a Federal law.
Each and every year, more and more people, especially
children, get killed or injured as they ride ATVs. The current
approach, the voluntary approach, has allowed these deaths and
injuries to not only continue, but also to increase. These
deaths and injuries cost society billions of dollars and
devastate families forever. CFA urges this Committee to
introduce legislation that would actually protect children from
the well-documented hazards of riding adult-sized ATVs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub follows:]

Prepared Statement of Rachel Weintraub, Director of Product Safety/
Senior Counsel, Consumer Federation of America (CFA)

I. Introduction
Chairman Allen, Ranking Member Pryor, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today and for
holding this meeting. My name is Rachel Weintraub; I am Director of
Product Safety and Senior Counsel at Consumer Federation of America
(CFA). CFA is a nonprofit organization association of 300 consumer
groups, with a combined membership of more than 50 million people. CFA
was founded in 1968 to advance the consumers' interest through advocacy
and education.
Consumer Federation of America has been deeply concerned about the
safety of ATVs for many years. In fact, we have been involved in ATV
safety issues since the 1980s when three-wheel ATVs dominated the
market. We opposed the consent decree between CPSC and ATV
manufacturers in 1988 because we felt that it did not adequately
protect consumers. We petitioned CPSC in the 1990s and again in 2002,
and legally challenged CPSC's abandonment of their ATV rulemaking in
the 1990s. The Commission deferred action on our most recent petition,
CP-02-4/HP-02-1,\1\ which requests that the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission ban the sale of adult-size four-wheel all-terrain
vehicles ``ATVs'' sold for use by children under sixteen years of age.
We have testified before the Commission on two occasions in support of
our petition.\2\ The CPSC briefing package that has just been released
makes recommendations to the CPSC Chairman and Commissioners about how
they should proceed on this issue. While CFA has enormous respect for
CPSC staff, we respectfully disagree with their recommendations and
believe that CPSC should play a much more active role in preventing ATV
deaths and injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consumer Federation of America filed the petition on August 20,
2002, along with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College
of Emergency Physicians, Bluewater Network, Danny Foundation for Crib &
Child Product Safety; Kids in Danger, National Association of
Orthopaedic Nurses and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
\2\ CFA testified in the June 5, 2003 field hearing in West
Virginia and in the March 2005 hearing on CPSC staff's briefing
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. ATV Death and Injury Data
According to the latest data from CPSC on ATV deaths and injuries,
released in October 2005,\3\ at least 136,100 people have suffered ATV
injuries that were serious enough to require emergency room treatment
in 2004. This is an increase of almost 8 percent, from 125,500 in 2003.
Children under 16 suffered 31 percent of all injuries in 2004, or
44,700 injuries, up from 38,600 injuries in 2003, 37,100 injuries in
2002 and 34,300 in 2001. This age group received more serious injuries
than any other. The estimated number of ATV-related fatalities
increased from 621 in 2002 to 740 in 2003, according to the latest data
from CPSC. In 2004, ATVs killed at least 130 children younger than 16,
accounting for 28 percent of all fatalities. Between 1985 and 2004,
children under 16 accounted for 31 percent of all injuries and 31
percent of all deaths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2004 Annual Report on
All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV)-Related Deaths and Injuries, October 2005,
available on the web at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/
atv2004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers alone can be cold and sterile. I want to talk about some of
the children who make up these statistics.
On May 6, 2002, 10-year-old Kyle Rabe went riding with his friend
Zach in a grassy field in rural Oregon. Kyle was a cautious rider and
he took the time to put on riding boots, gloves, layered clothing, and
a full-face, approved helmet. On his way home, Kyle took a shortcut
down a gentle slope, hit a rut in his path, and lost control of the
ATV, sending it careening to the left and throwing Kyle down the hill.
The ATV rolled on its side, pinning Kyle to the ground by the small of
his back. Kyle was unable to breathe despite being uninjured. CPR was
administered 15 minutes after the crash but it was too late. Kyle had
been riding for over a year and a half without an accident. Despite
Kyle's experience, when the 500-pound ATV landed on top of him, he was
too small to escape.
James Anderson was just 14 years old when he died on August 8,
2004. On a vacation in New Hampshire with a group of friends, a
supervising parent allowed James to ride a 700-pound 500cc ATV that
could travel highway speeds. James crashed that ATV into a tree on a
backwoods trail, killing him instantly. Before that weekend, James had
never ridden anything but a bicycle.
Bryan ``B.J.'' Smith was a confident young man who dreamed of being
a football star. One Monday, he and his cousin decided to show off for
a few neighborhood friends on a newly purchased ATV. B.J. was driving
the ATV at a very high speed when a dog ran out and clipped one of the
front wheels, spinning the ATV and throwing B.J. 25 feet. B.J. remained
in a coma for 3 weeks at the hospital, enduring multiple brain
surgeries, infections, and seizures. It took four and a half months in
the hospital and two stints in rehab facilities for B.J. to return
home. B.J. was lucky to survive his accident but will never be able to
play football again.

III. Failure of the Current Voluntary Approach
CFA's recommended policy solution is premised on the fact that the
current approach to ATV safety--the industry's self-regulating
approach--is not working. Not only has self-regulation by the ATV
industry led to larger and faster ATVs and more children being killed
and injured, but each year the number of deaths and injuries climb.
These increases have frequently been by statistically significant
margins and the Commission has routinely noted in annual reports of ATV
deaths and injuries that these increases cannot be explained solely by
rising ATV sales or usage. We believe that the failure of the current
approach compels CPSC, Congress and state governments to be involved,
in part, through the enforcement of a mandatory standard.
A court-approved consent decree between ATV manufacturers and the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which forced the industry to
end production of highly dangerous three-wheel ATVs, expired in 1998.
Since that time, some manufacturers have been operating under
voluntary, unenforceable ``action plans.'' These action plans rely on
fine print in ads, warning labels, and recommendations enforced at the
discretion of manufacturers. This voluntary approach is failing to curb
the rising tide of ATV death and injuries and CPSC staff's
recommendations do nothing more than continue this failed approach.
In 2003, CPSC issued the latest in a long line of studies
documenting the dramatic increase in ATV injuries and deaths.\4\ In
assessing trends between 1997 and 2001, the Commission provides
compelling evidence that the industry is failing to protect consumers.
CPSC concludes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Levenson, Mark S., U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
``All Terrain Vehicle 2001 Injury and Exposure Studies,'' January 2003.

ATV-related injuries requiring emergency room treatment more
than doubled, rising by 108 percent from 52,800 to 110,100,
while the number of ATVs in use increased by less than 40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
percent;

Injuries suffered by children under 16 increased 66 percent
to more than 34,000 in 2001. The proportion of these children
among the driving population grew by 13 percent;

Injuries caused by bigger and more powerful ATVs, defined by
the Commission as machines with engines bigger than 400cc, shot
up 567 percent, from 3,662 to 24,437, while the number of these
machines grew by less than half as much;

Less than 4 percent of injured ATV drivers received formal
safety training from a dealer, salesperson or organized
training program. This proportion is unchanged since 1997;

More than 40 percent of drivers injured in 2001 stated that
their ATV did not have warning labels or they did not know if
it did at the time of their accident; and

Nearly 90 percent of children under 16 years-of-age were
injured while riding adult-size ATVs, in spite of the
industry's voluntary policy not to sell these machines for use
by children. This proportion is also unchanged since 1997.

IV. Cost to Society
Our society suffers not only because ATVs cost the lives of almost
750 people each year in the United States. These deaths and the over
135,000 ATV injuries incurred each year also cost society considerable
amounts of money. An analysis of ATV deaths in West Virginia alone from
1999 to 2003 found that ATVs have cost $3.4 million, taking into
account medical costs, the costs of workloss and cost of quality-of-
life.\5\ Taking into account the same cost factors, estimated ATV
deaths in the United States from 1999 to 2003 have cost $8.9 billion.
These figures do not consider the cost of ATV injuries and do not take
into account the costs of medivac transport, for example, that many
jurisdictions have to pay for when an ATV crash in a rural area occurs
far from a hospital trauma center. Tragically, these vast costs compel
government action. With appropriate Federal and state regulations,
lives as well as billions of dollars could be saved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Helmkamp, Jim, Ph.D., MS, FACE Director, West Virginia
University Injury Control Research Center, Research Professor,
Department of Community Medicine West Virginia University conducted a
Human Capital approach study incorporating medical, work loss and
quality of life components to estimate the cost of reported ATV-related
fatalities. This approach is based upon the 2002 National Highway
Administration report, ``The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2000'' (Report DOT HS 809-446). The assumption was made that ATVs are
motor vehicles, and in the absence of a specific model for ATV-related
fatalities, the NHTSA model is used for ATV crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Recall Analysis--Problems Illustrated
CFA analyzed \6\ all ATV recalls conducted by CPSC that are cited
on CPSC's website.\7\ Our initial goal was to determine whether there
were any pervasive hazards appearing among recalled ATVs. Specifically,
we encourage CPSC to propose safety standards that could solve the most
pervasive problems appearing in recalls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CFA was assisted in this effort by an engineer who works for
Consumers' Union, publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine. This engineer
helped to categorize the failure type, system failure and type of
hazard.
\7\ http://www.cpsc.gov/cgi-bin/recalldb/prodpr.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC conducted 48 recalls of ATVs involving a total of 1,206,400
units from June 2000 to November 2005. From January to November 2005,
there were 17 ATV recalls involving 80,910 units. The ATVs recalled in
2005 alone make up 35 percent of the number of ATV recalls and 7
percent of the total number of units recalled. 94 percent (45 out of
48) of all ATV recalls were conducted due to the potential for serious
bodily injury or death.
Failure Type: We categorized ATV recalls by type of failure to
capture the type of system failure upon which the recall was
predicated:

77 percent of all recalls were due to a mechanical failure.
13 percent of all recalls were due to a fuel or fire risk.
8 percent of all recalls were due to an electrical failure.
2 percent of all recalls were due to a labeling error.

System Failure: We sought to characterize ATVs by a more specific,
system-wide failure type:

36 percent of all ATV recalls involve a suspension failure.
18 percent of all ATV recalls involve a drive train failure.
16 percent of all ATV recalls involve a brake failure.
11 percent of all ATV recalls involve a fuel leak.
9 percent of all ATV recalls involve a throttle failure.
7 percent of all ATV recalls involve wheel failures.
4 percent of all ATV recalls involve a computer failure.
2 percent of all ATV recalls involve an electrical or wiring
failure.
2 percent of all ATV recalls involve an oil leak.
2 percent of all ATV recalls involve a missing label.

We believe that failures in the suspension category are
particularly important for CPSC to consider as it moves forward with an
ANPR on ATVs. CPSC should seek to determine why 34 percent of all
recalls were due to suspension failures and why 18 percent of all
recalls were due to drive train failures. Together, these two system
failures make up 52 percent--over half--of all ATV recalls. We urge
CPSC to use its institutional expertise to determine why these
suspension and drive train failures occurred in ATVs manufactured by
numerous companies and what types of performance or design standards
could be instituted to prevent these types of failures in the future.
We are concerned that the CPSC staff's briefing package does not
adequately take this information into account.
Hazards posed by recalled ATVs: We sought to categorize ATV recalls
by the type of hazard posed by the ATV. We found:

62 percent of all ATVs were recalled due to the potential
for the operator to lose control of the ATV.

19 percent of all ATVs were recalled due to the potential
for fire.

15 percent of all ATVs were recalled due to the potential
for a failure of the ATV to stop.

2 percent of all ATVs were recalled for a failure to comply
with labeling requirements.

2 percent of all ATVs were recalled due to the potential for
a flying projectile to hit an ATV operator or bystander.

The hazard posed by a large majority of recalled ATVs is severe,
leading to the potential for a loss of control, serious injury or
death. The seriousness of the potential hazard should compel CPSC to
look critically at the pervasive causes for ATV recalls and to
seriously consider solutions that will solve some of these problems.
CFA is unaware of any other category of recalled products which could,
in such large percentages, lead to such life threatening hazards

VI. Weakness of CPSC Briefing Package
CFA is profoundly disappointed with the recommendations contained
in the CPSC staff's briefing package. Significantly, the staff fails to
recommend that the Commission take strong actions to truly protect
children from ATV deaths and injuries. Further, the staff's
recommendation largely keeps in place the same failed voluntary system
which relies upon the ATV industry to communicate safety information to
consumers as a way to curb ATV death and injuries.
CFA is concerned about the following components of the CPSC staff's
recommendations:

The specific mechanical performance requirements fail to
take into account all factors leading to ATV recalls as well as
all technological means of increasing safety.

CPSC staff's recommendation to weaken the definition of
youth-size ATVs by removing the engine size component is
incredibly problematic. There has been no evidence presented
that such a change will save lives nor any indication from the
injury and death statistics compiled by CPSC that would suggest
abandoning this principle. Thus, we see no support for the
creation of a new ``transitional'' class of ATVs, which would
serve to place children on larger, heavier and more powerful
ATVs. Further, we have no confidence that the speed governors
will not be easily removed or modified to decrease or eliminate
their utility.

The safety warnings, hang tags, etc. will be used to
communicate safety information to consumers. This is merely a
perpetuation of the same failed components of the ATV Action
Plans. This relies upon the premise that consumers are actually
aware of the warned-against behaviors as advertised on warning
labels of ATVs. Unfortunately, CPSC staff failed to analyze
important data which proves that the contrary is true. In
looking at CPSC and the ATV industry's survey of people injured
on ATVs, CFA analyzed the Injury Special Study Raw Data Files
for 1997 and 2001, which were provided as Attachment 2 to
CPSC's response to FOIA request from CFA, dated February 11,
2003, for 1997 and 2001, and it is clear that only a small
percentage of the public is aware of the recommended size
limitation for child operation. Only 13 percent of the injured
ATV riders who responded to the CPSC's special survey of a
representative sample of those injured in ATV accidents, were
aware of a warning label about vehicle size for children under
12 and only 38 percent were aware of a warning label for
children under 16. Thus, the conclusion in the briefing package
is vastly incorrect when it assumes that the public is aware of
the warning messages and falls short when it recommends the
same flawed approach.

Furthermore, there is no evidence confirming that the presence
of a label on a product assures consumer understanding and
knowledge about the dangers of that product. However, CPSC
staff does not cite a single source which demonstrates that
parents fully understand the meaning and ramifications of those
labels and then purchase adult-size ATVs for their children
anyway. The failure to provide evidence in and of itself
undermines staff's position. By extension, it maintains that
parents knowingly ignore that fact that their children face
significant risk or serious injury and death when riding adult-
size ATVs. We reject this supposition. In fact, parents from
across the country have told us that they did not understand
the risks or how dangerous ATVs can be. While the disclosure
statement warning consumers about the possible consequences of
riding ATVs is better than the status quo it is insufficient,
alone, to significantly decrease ATV deaths and injuries.

The ``training'' portion of the staff's recommendation does
not appear to be substantially different from the status quo,
fails to ensure the substantive quality of the training and
doesn't do enough to ensure that training will be made
geographically available.

The ban on three-wheel ATVs should be accompanied by a
recall of all three-wheel ATVs in the market.

The briefing package contains numerous references to the
``problem of imported ATVs.'' While, it is clear that the large
ATV manufacturers fear the rising percentage of less expensive
ATVs as an economic threat, there has been no evidence put
forth in the briefing package or anywhere else indicating that
these ATVs pose an added threat to health and safety. In
contrast, CFA has found that:

-- For ATV recalls listing the country of manufacture, 20
were manufactured in the United States, 3 were manufactured in
Canada, 3 were manufactured in Japan, 1 was manufactured in
Taiwan; and 1 was manufactured in China.

-- 91.7 percent of ATVs recalled involved ATVs manufactured
by major ATV manufacturers who are members of the Specialty
Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Polaris joined SVIA in September of 2005.

-- In 2005 alone, 94 percent (16 out of 17) of ATVs recalled
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
were manufactured by major ATV manufacturers.

Thus, CFA is concerned that efforts to deal with imported ATVs will
have a marginal if any benefit to the health and safety of Americans
riding ATVs.

VII. Benefit of a Federal Rule--Role of CPSC

A. Children Should Not Ride Adult-Size ATVs
The Commission, as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP), the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the ATV
industry's trade association, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of
America (SVIA) have long standing policies stating that it is
inappropriate for children under 16 years old to operate or otherwise
ride adult-size ATVs. Our petition sought to give CPSC the necessary
tools to enforce this guideline since no Federal mandatory ATV safety
laws currently exist now. The Commission and experts in child health
have concluded that children should not ride adult-size ATVs because
ATVs are inherently difficult to operate for adults and beyond the
development capability of children to control. Unfortunately, the
staff's briefing package does not even consider the substance of our
petition, but rather dismisses it out of hand.

According to CPSC, drivers of ATVs must make complex split-
second decisions: If the ATV hits a bump, the driver has to
determine almost instantaneously, the throttle setting,
steering angle, and position of his/her body on the ATV. Such
information can only be processed so fast and if the occurrence
of the circumstances exceeds the ability of the driver to react
appropriately, an incident will likely occur.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
All-Terrain Vehicles, March 1991, p. 19.

CPSC has determined that children do not have the physical or
mental abilities to make these complex, split-second decisions. We are
not aware of any change in this perspective by CPSC.
The AAP and AAOS have issued formal policies concluding that ATVs
are a significant public health risk; that children younger than 16
should not be allowed to operate ATVs, and that the safe use of ATVs
requires the same or greater skill, judgment and experience as needed
to operate an automobile.
While there seems to be almost universal agreement among experts
that children should not be riding adult-size ATVs, no mechanisms are
in place to ensure that this does not happen. Unfortunately, we know
that children do ride adult-size ATVs and that that too many children
are getting killed and injured when they drive vehicles that are too
large for them. For example, over 90 percent of children who were
injured on ATVs were driving vehicles that are too large. Our petition
seeks to solve this problem through the issuance of a mandatory
regulation that would give CPSC enforcement authority over ATV dealers
who knowingly sell adult-size ATVs for use by children under age 16.

B. CPSC's Role
Federal regulation barring the sale of certain ATVs for children
could significantly change legal and other dynamics facing the ATV
industry, and dealers in particular. When the consent decrees were in
effect, CPSC reported that compliance was consistently high. Compliance
dropped dramatically when replaced with a voluntary approach. When the
legal hammer was removed, dealers appear to have concluded that the
risks of violating the voluntary standard are outweighed by the
benefits associated with selling adult-size ATVs in violation of those
standards. On-going monitoring by manufacturers failed to encourage
widespread and consistent compliance. With a Federal regulation in
place and stepped up enforcement by CPSC, we believe the legal dynamics
would be very similar to those that existed under the consent decrees.
If dealer compliance rises, then sales of adult-size ATVs for use by
children would decline. Reduction in such sales would indirectly affect
use, because a smaller number of adult-size ATVs would be available to
this age group.

VIII. Role for States in Conjunction With Federal Role
We recognize that CPSC does not have the authority to take every
action necessary to solve the full scope of the problems currently
caused by ATVs. While CPSC can ban the sale of adult-size ATVs for use
by children under 16, we urge CPSC and industry to support state
efforts to set licensing and rider training requirements, prohibit
riders from carrying passengers, and require ATV riders to wear helmets
and other protective equipment. We also believe that, with the Federal
and state governments taking strong action and providing more
information to consumers, parental responsibility will increase as
well.

IX. Congressional Role
CFA believes that there is an important role for Congress to play
in seeking to solve the public health crisis caused by ATVs.

A. Legislation Prohibiting Knowingly Selling an Adult-Size ATV for Use
By Children a Violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act
Since CPSC staff has failed to recommend that the Commission issue
a regulation banning the sale of adult-size ATVs for use by children,
we urge the introduction of legislation that would make the knowing
sale of an adult size ATV for use by children a violation of the
Consumer Product Safety Act.

B. Request GAO Studies
We also suggest the request for GAO studies analyzing CPSC
compliance efforts on the ATV voluntary action plans; actual costs to
society of ATV deaths and injuries; and an analysis of enforcement
mechanisms to ensure compliance with existing state laws and the
potential for enforcement of a Federal law. We believe that these
studies will fill existing gaps in the current knowledge of what is
known about ATVs and their consequences.

X. Conclusion
Each and every year, more and more people, especially children, get
killed or injured as they ride ATVs. The current voluntary approach to
safety has allowed these deaths and injuries to not only continue but
also to increase. Every year, more and more families have to deal with
the loss of loved ones, caring for a severely injured family member as
well as the vast costs of medical care all caused by riding ATVs.
Unfortunately, the staff's briefing package recommends a continuation
of the current voluntary regime. Thus, CFA is vastly disappointed that
CPSC staff has not urged a bolder course of action for CPSC. Finally,
due to the absence of a strong recommendation from CPSC staff, CFA
urges this Committee to consider requesting studies from GAO to fill in
gaps in our knowledge about ATVs as well as introducing legislation
that would actually protect children from the well-documented hazards
of riding adult-size ATVs.

Senator Allen. Thank you, Ms. Weintraub, for your
testimony.
Now we'd like to hear from Mr. Williams. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF BRETT WILLIAMS, GENERAL MANAGER, COLEMAN
PowerSports

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to come and offer
some testimony to you today.
I'm not much of a political animal. My name is Brett
Williams. I'm the General Manager of Coleman PowerSports. We
are a large power sports dealer/retailer--motorcycles,
watercraft, ATVs, of course--with two locations----
Senator Allen. Bring your microphone even closer.
Mr. Williams.--one in Falls Church, and one in Woodbridge.
ATVs have become a major part of our business. My, for lack
of a better term, ``expertise'' in this area, I guess, is,
where the rubber meets the road, I've worked at the dealership
level from 1987 until now, spent some time as a representative
for a major manufacturer, American Suzuki, and have seen ATVs
go from the odd things that we sold off-in-the-corner to close
to 30 percent of our business. Again, we're a major retailer.
We sell in the hundreds of these a year. The people who are
buying them are very much, you know, family oriented. They are,
we call them, ``vacations on trailers,'' where they're buying
two or three, for the whole family. They're good citizens. They
obviously care about safety of themselves and children. We care
about their safety.
All the ATVs we currently sell are from the major
manufacturers: BRP, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Polaris, and
Yamaha. We've been very satisfied with the quality of the ATVs,
themselves, and the standards by which they hold us to. There
are--and it's a severalfold thing. We have highly-paid, highly-
trained guys that build these ATVs, because they do come
crated, they do come partially assembled. And there are three
layers of people that are getting to them before the consumer.
There's a technician that builds them, a master technician that
does a quality control of them, and then, of course, a service
manager or service advisor that's going over the unit with the
customer at time of delivery. So, three layers of people have
touched this unit from the time it arrived in the crate until
the time it's given to the consumer.
There's a billed checklist with safety things, 50 to 75
points of which we have to check--you know, tighten, as far as
bolts, and the assembly process, and then what we have to then
go over with the consumer. My concern with these come on that
same level. They're often sold to consumers--the off brands--
either directly, as this one was, on the Internet, where it
arrives to the consumer in a crate, and you're hoping that they
can put it together, like the dresser you got from IKEA, as
opposed to something that you're going to put your child on and
let him ride. We have--we're having trouble with them. There
are large parts--Pep Boys retailer next to us that was selling
these, just the month before Christmas. I noticed they've--they
disappear during the rest of the year, and they show up at Pep
Boys right around November. And, even us, we probably sell as
many of these youth-unit ATVs in the 2 weeks before Christmas
as we do in the 3 months before, as, obviously, these are being
bought for Christmas presents.
And as we are reviewing the age requirements, and we have,
you know, a customer in front of us--and I've had several
uncomfortable conversations, especially this last year, with
parents who are angry at my sales people for not selling their
ten-year-old a 90cc or 110cc ATV, because it's against our
voluntary agreement. And once we know that that's who it's for,
we refuse the sale altogether, even if the parent then says,
``Well, then, it's not for him, it's for me,'' you know, which
is a common thing to say. This year, the new argument is,
``Well, the guy at Pep Boys will sell me whatever I want.'' So,
it became an ongoing issue with us being the bad guy by telling
them they can't--their child can't operate this vehicle, and it
shouldn't be operated by their child, and the guy at Pep Boys
saying it wasn't a problem, if they even talked to anybody over
there.
They're operating these things that are being purchased
without safety gear, without helmets, without training. We not
only offer training--the certificate's given to them that's
then done by the ATV Institute--we offer training onsite. We
have a cone set up, and we get to go through the controls with
the child, the operator, preferably, how to operate the
controls, the reverses, the parking brakes, all the little
safety features. We do teach the parents how to change the
governor settings so that they can operate how fast or slow the
ATV will move for the child. There are even some hidden
governors and hidden restricters that only a parent could get
to, as far as throttle restrictions and exhaust restriction
devices.
My concern here is--we have a lot of philosophical
differences in what is safe and what's not. And four-wheelers
are fun. They are a risk behavior. You can control that risk
with the safety of the unit and the safety of the operator and
proper supervision, obviously. Parents have to be involved--
adults have to be involved in where and how they're using them.
I'm concerned, now, with these--because, you're right,
there are not a lot of studies yet, but I say it borders on
common sense, that this vehicle does not have proper footwell
protection, there's no parking brake, there's no guard on the
chain or drive system. A child can easily run over his own foot
with it. Some of these come with no front brakes. The controls
that are being used in the throttles and hands are the same
that they use on small mopeds and bicycles; they're not meant
to be operated the way an ATV is. My shop currently--I've got
15 to 20 of these that we've taken on trade for these vehicles,
but then don't sell. We scavenge them for parts, or we put them
into our mechanics lien auctions for people that want to use
the motors and things like that. We just don't consider them
safe for use by consumers.
As, kind of, averse as I can be to Federal regulation, I do
think that if it's going to be done properly, if we're going to
make a difference here, that the one legislation that should be
considered is that all ATVs, domestic and foreign, be held to
the same product and safety standards, and that all the U.S.
consumers receive the adequate safety information and free
hands-on training for new ATVs. And I would add that these are
delivered by a professional that has been trained in ATVs and
safety and the operation of it, and not just given to somebody
to use.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

Prepared Statement of Brett Williams, General Manager,
Coleman PowerSports

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for the opportunity to appear here this morning. My name is Brett
Williams. I am the General Manager of Coleman PowerSports. We have two
Coleman PowerSports stores in Virginia, located in Falls Church and
Woodbridge, where we employ over 120 persons. Our dealership originally
opened in 1963 and is part of PowerRide MotorSports, Inc., a network of
seven dealerships across the United States. Coleman PowerSports handles
a wide range of motorized products, including all-terrain vehicles
(ATVs).
ATVs are a major part of our business at Coleman PowerSports. ATVs
are terrific products that can be used for a wide range of things. Some
models are primarily for recreational use; other models can be used for
all sorts of practical purposes, such as light hauling, transportation
around family farms or work places, or getting out to favorite trails
or hunting places.
We sell a lot of ATVs to customers in the greater Washington
metropolitan area and beyond. Some customers enjoy ATV outings with
their entire families. There are local ATV riding clubs that also
sponsor different riding events. It's a great way for people to get out
and enjoy the outdoors. Like our customers, the vast majority of ATV
enthusiasts are responsible citizens who care about their families and
their rights to participate together in recreational activities.
As General Manager, I oversee our dealership's sales practices.
Coleman Motorsports sells several brands of ATVs from the major
manufacturers, including Bombardier, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Polaris,
and Yamaha. We have been very satisfied with the quality of these
vehicles, which are manufactured in accordance with the ATV industry's
voluntary product standards. Our customers have also been satisfied
with the quality of these products--in fact, many of them are repeat
buyers.
In addition, the major ATV manufacturers require us to take many
steps to promote safe and proper use of the vehicles. At Coleman
PowerSports, we believe that these requirements are part of responsible
selling practices. We take these practices seriously because we care
about our customers and want their ATV experiences to be safe and
enjoyable. All responsible dealers do. For example, all of our sales
personnel are trained about the minimum age recommendations for the
different ATV models. We expect all of our sales personnel to follow
these requirements, and we do not allow adult-size ATVs, which are
models with engine displacements of 90cc or greater, to be sold for use
by children under 16. Our dealership agreements with the major ATV
manufacturers prohibit such sales, and we make every effort at Coleman
PowerSports to make sure that these requirements are followed.
We also know that the manufacturers and the CPSC send
investigators, posing as shoppers, to test whether our dealership is
following the minimum age recommendations. Our dealership works hard to
make sure all sales personnel comply with these directives. As General
Manager, I want to keep it that way.
Our dealership also promotes the free hands-on training programs
offered by the major ATV manufacturers. The training program is a great
way for new customers to gain experience and knowledge of safe riding
practices. In addition, we provide all new ATV purchasers with a safety
alert, a safety video, and other instructional materials when they buy
an ATV. We sell helmets, protective gear, and other riding accessories,
and encourage new purchasers to make sure they are properly outfitted
before they start using their ATVs.
We believe that all of these efforts make a difference. Most of our
customers enjoy their ATVs year after year without any accident or
problem. Unfortunately, when we read about ATV-related accidents in the
newspaper or hear about them from a customer, they almost always
involve use of the vehicles in ways that are expressly warned against
in the safety materials and on-product labels. This includes letting
children under 16 operate adult-size ATVs, carrying passengers, and
riding without helmets or other protective gear. These activities go to
the use of the vehicles. We can do our part in educating consumers, but
once they take an ATV out of the dealer showroom, they assume
responsibility for how it is used. Parents and adults should always
supervise children operating ATVs. Of course, adults also need to
exercise good judgment and follow the warnings and instructions on the
vehicles when they ride. By demonstrating safe and responsible riding
practices, parents are the most effective models for teaching their
kids to ride safe too.
Most ATV users want to do the right thing, especially parents.
There's a lot of good safety information available to ATV riders. We
need to continue to encourage them to pay attention to it. We also
believe that state ATV safety laws are another potentially effective
way to promote safe and responsible use of the vehicles. However, we do
not support the proposed Federal ban on dealer sales of adult-size ATVs
for use by children under 16. As I previously indicated, the major ATV
manufacturers already prohibit us from making such sales. The problem
is not in the dealer showrooms. It is out where the products are being
used. So if you really want to make a positive difference on ATV
safety, the focus should be ensuring American consumers have safely-
designed, quality products and are given the appropriate riding
instructions, warnings, and training to use their ATVs safely and
responsibly. Passing a Federal law that is targeted against small
independent businesses, like our dealerships, is nothing more than a
political gesture that will have no positive real-world effect.
There is a role, however, for meaningful Federal legislation. Over
the past several years, there has been a flood of new ATV products,
mostly from China and Taiwan, that are being sold through
nontraditional retail outlets, including the Internet and big box
stores. These products are poorly made, do not comply with the ATV
industry's voluntary standards, and are being sold with virtually no
safety, training, or product support. By short-cutting on quality and
safety, these products are being sold at cheaper prices and steadily
gaining greater and greater market share, but at unacceptable costs to
consumers from a safety and reliability standpoint. A number of
Virginia consumers have brought these noncompliant ATVs to our
dealership for repair. The units are so poorly made that repair is not
an option. And we simply cannot assume the risk of even trying to fix
these vehicles, given their shoddy construction and the obvious safety
hazards they create. Instead, we tell consumers to dispose of them and
to only purchase ATVs that comply with the industry's voluntary
standards and provide the type of safety, training, and product support
that the major ATV companies offer.
All manufacturers, distributors, and retailers that sell ATVs in
the United States should be held to the same standards. The continuing
flood of these noncompliant ATVs hurts our business, unfairly harms the
reputation of the entire ATV industry, and--most importantly--
undermines the safety of U.S. consumers. On behalf of all the ATV
dealers in Virginia and across the country, we ask that this
Subcommittee consider Federal legislation that provides a level-playing
field for ATV safety, by ensuring that: (1) all U.S. consumers receive
adequate safety information and training opportunities; and (2) all ATV
manufacturers and distributors--domestic and foreign--are held to the
same product safety and quality standards. That type of Federal law
would make a positive and immediate difference, and it should be
enacted as soon as possible to promote the safety of U.S. consumers and
to end the unfair and unethical practices of these new entrants who are
damaging the industry and small businesses like our dealership.
Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in this
morning's hearing. I welcome your questions.

Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Williams, for your testimony.
In fact, that's one of--we're going to hear from all the
witnesses. We hear all these. It's good to hear what the
differences are in the safety features. And you are aware of
the point-of-sale, point-of-contact, and I commend you for the
responsible way that you, at Coleman PowerSports, sell. And
obviously, you could make more money doing the other way, but
thank you for your ethical, responsible behavior and your
testimony.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Dr. Aitken?

STATEMENT OF MARY AITKEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL
SCIENCES

Dr. Aitken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dr. Mary
Aitken, and I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony
on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The AAP commends you and the entire Subcommittee for
holding hearings on the safety and regulatory issues involved
with all-terrain vehicles. For over 20 years, the AAP has been
calling attention to the grave risks of ATV-riding for
children, and urging the Federal Government to take more
aggressive action to curb the deaths and injuries associated
with ATV crashes.
ATVs do pose unique dangers to the children who ride or
operate them. Allow me to share with you just a few of the
statistics regarding children and ATVs.
Between 1982 and 2004, over 2,000 children were killed in
ATV crashes. In 2004 alone, 130 children perished due to
injuries sustained when riding an ATV. An estimated 44,700
children were treated in emergency departments for ATV-related
injuries in 2004, the equivalent of about 900 school buses of
children. Injuries sustained by children riding adult-sized
ATVs are often very serious, including brain, spinal cord,
abdominal, and complicated orthopedic injuries.
I can speak to the dangers of ATVs from my personal
clinical experience. I practice at the only tertiary-care
pediatric hospital in a rural state where ATV use is very
common. Just this week, sadly, an 11-year-old who was visiting
Arkansas from California died of severe brain injuries after he
failed to negotiate a hill and the ATV he was riding flipped.
This child, who had no ATV experience, was riding alone and
without a helmet when injured, according to news reports.
Currently, Arkansas Children's Hospital admits more than 60
children each year, an average of at least one per week, due to
significant ATV injuries, and our emergency department treats
many more. Traumatic brain injuries and severe orthopedic
injuries are the most frequent injuries we see in children
ranging from only a few months old, riding as ATV passengers,
to pre-teen and teen drivers. We recently published a case
series describing seven patients with severe face and neck
lacerations who had driven their ATVs through barbed-wire
fences, including one youth who narrowly survived a near
decapitation. He will likely experience lifelong disability as
a result of his injuries. ATV injuries also tend to be
extremely dirty, and, in some cases, necessitate multiple
surgeries to clean and repair the damage. Some patients must
essentially be treated as burn victims and receive skin grafts.
I know, from my experience both as a clinician and as a
researcher, that the impact on the children and on their
families is both profound and long-lasting.
The primary Federal power regarding off-road vehicles is
vested in the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Over the past
two decades, the CPSC has engaged in an uneven and sometimes
inconsistent pattern of regulation for ATVs. The Academy and
its partners have engaged in repeated efforts to educate the
Nation about the hazards of ATVs for children and urge the
courts and the CPSC to adopt stricter standards. Today,
however, the only Federal regulation of ATVs consist of consent
decree provisions under voluntary action plans which are
unenforceable and carry no penalties for noncompliance.
In Arkansas, we've been very successful in engaging with
ATV manufacturers and dealers in our safety efforts, and I'm
convinced that collaboration between the industry, the public
health community, and other groups are vitally important to
solving the problem of ATV injury. My own experience indicates
that ATV dealers and other industry representatives are
sincerely concerned, as we all are, about this problem and want
to see ATVs used as recommended.
The Voluntary Action Plans require dealers to obtain signed
acknowledgement from purchasers that they understand the age
requirements for ATV use. However, CPSC's own undercover
inspections have revealed uneven compliance with this
requirement. The 2005 staff briefing package acknowledged that
compliance with this requirement appears to have declined since
1998, ``In 1998, compliance was 85 percent, and in the years
2002 and 2003, 60 percent. However, for 2004, the compliance
rate was 70 percent.'' This indicates that over those 3 years,
approximately one-third of dealers failed to comply with these
requirements. These figures represent an unacceptable failure
rate and indicate the ineffectiveness of the voluntary plans in
this regard.
Like the CPSC, the Senate Commerce Committee has the power
to reduce ATV-related deaths and injuries amongst our Nation's
children. If the Federal Government adopted limitations on ATV
use by children, this would serve as both a powerful message
and a model for states and localities. The attention and
publicity generated would educate parents, many of whom are
unaware of the safety risks for the vehicles. The American
Academy of Pediatrics has issued specific recommendations for
all policymakers regarding children and ATVs. First, children
under 16 should not operate ATVs. An ATV can weigh in excess of
500 pounds and travel at speeds greater than 60 miles an hour.
Children do not possess the physical strength, coordination, or
judgment necessary to pilot these vehicles effectively. When a
child crashes in one of these large machines, it often rolls
over on them or traps them beneath it. The result is
devastating injuries, as I've described.
A driver's license should be required to operate an ATV. No
state or local government allows its children to drive cars,
yet an unlicensed child is permitted to drive an ATV at high
speeds without a helmet on unpaved surfaces in virtually every
area. This defies all logic. The safe use of ATVs requires the
same or greater skill, judgment, or experience as needed to
drive an automobile. Alcohol use by operators of ATVs should be
prohibited, with zero tolerance among 16- to 20-year-old
operators. ATV use should be banned on paved roads. Appropriate
protective gear should be required to operate an ATV. Carrying
passengers on an ATV should be prohibited. ATVs should not be
operated before sunrise or after sunset. And, finally,
manufacturers should continue to redesign ATVs to improve
safety.
Unfortunately, the measures proposed today by the CPSC fail
to address any of the AAP's policy recommendations adequately.
As a result, the CPSC proposals cannot be expected to have any
meaningful impact on ATV injuries or deaths among children. The
AAP is disappointed by the CPSC document, which represents a
fundamental lack of leadership and vision for keeping our
children safe.
In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges you
to support meaningful restrictions on children riding or
operating ATVs. Clearly, ATVs pose a significant hazard to the
children who ride them. This fact is indisputable. The cost to
society is also high, not only in loss of life and health, and
but in actual dollars. In March 2005, in the journal
Pediatrics, we published a study that estimated hospital
charges alone were in excess of $74 million over a 2-year
period for pediatric ATV injuries. If no further action occurs
this year, we can expect over 100 children to die and over
40,000 to visit emergency rooms again next year due to ATV-
related incidents.
The present state of affairs has been ineffective in
keeping our children safe. I hope the Committee will take a
leadership role in this issue and assure the safety of children
by supporting the commonsense measures recommended by the
American Academy of Pediatrics.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to make this
testimony, and the AAP looks forward to working with you on
these safety issues.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Aitken follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mary Aitken, Associate Professor, Department of
Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

I appreciate this opportunity to testify today before the Senate
Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and
Insurance regarding all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). My name is Dr. Mary
Aitken, and I represent the American Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit
professional organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians,
pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists
dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children,
adolescents, and young adults.
The AAP commends the Subcommittee and you, Chairman Allen, for
holding this hearing on the safety and regulatory issues involved with
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). For over 20 years, the AAP has been
calling attention to the grave risks of ATV riding for children and
urging the Federal Government to take more aggressive action to curb
the deaths and injuries associated with ATV crashes.
ATVs pose unique dangers to children who ride or operate them.\1\
In fact, from the perspective of injury prevention, children riding
ATVs often represent the perfect recipe for tragedy due to the
confluence of multiple high-risk factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. All-Terrain Vehicle
Injury Prevention: Two-, Three-, and Four-Wheeled Unlicensed Motor
Vehicles. Pediatrics, 2000;105 (6):1352-1354.

Person Factors: Children lack the physical and developmental
maturity to operate an off-road vehicle safely, especially in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
terms of judgment.

Environment Factors: Areas where ATVs are used are often
difficult to access for rescue crews due to distance and
challenging terrain.

``Agent'' Factors: ATVs allow high rates of speed and
completely expose the driver. ATVs have a well-known tendency
to roll if not used properly.

All-Terrain Vehicles
Allow me to share with you the statistics regarding children and
ATVs:

Between 1982 and 2004, over 2,000 children were killed in
ATV crashes. In 2004 alone, 130 children perished due to
injuries sustained when riding an ATV.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2004 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries, September 2005, Table 3.

An estimated 44,700 children were treated in emergency
departments for ATV-related injuries in 2004--the equivalent of
900 schoolbuses full of children. A line of 900 schoolbuses
would stretch from the White House to Silver Spring, Maryland.
These injuries have increased every year since 1995 and now
exceed the near-record injury rates of 1985, when unstable
three-wheeled ATVs were still in major production.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2004 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries, September 2005, Table 5.

Injuries sustained by children riding an adult-sized ATV are
often very serious, including severe brain, spinal, abdominal,
and complicated orthopedic injuries. ATV riding involves almost
twice the risk of injury serious enough to require
hospitalization than any other activity studied. This is true
even for activities generally considered to be high risk,
including football (62 percent higher risk for ATV riding),
snowboarding (110 percent higher risk for ATV riding) and
paintball (320 percent higher risk for ATV riding).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 158.

Children lack the strength, coordination, and judgment to
operate ATVs safely. In a Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) study, the primary causes of children's deaths on an ATV
were overturning, collision with a stationary object, and other
collisions.\5\ Each of these implies the inability to control
the vehicle properly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 110.

I can also speak to the dangers of ATVs from my personal clinical
experience. I practice at the only tertiary-care pediatric hospital in
a rural state where ATV use is very common. Just this week, an 11-year-
old child from California, visiting family in Arkansas, died of severe
brain injuries after he failed to negotiate a hill and the ATV he was
riding flipped. The child, who had no ATV experience, was riding alone
and without a helmet when injured, according to news reports.
Currently, Arkansas Children's Hospital admits more than 60 children
each year--an average of at least one per week--due to significant ATV
injuries, and our emergency department treats many more. Traumatic
brain injuries and severe orthopaedic injuries are the most frequent
injuries we see, in children ranging from only a few months old riding
as ATV passengers to pre-teen and teenage drivers. We recently
published a case series describing 7 patients with severe face and neck
lacerations due to driving ATVs through barbed wire fences, including
one youth who narrowly survived a near decapitation who will likely
experience lifelong disability as a result of his injuries. ATV
injuries also tend to be extremely dirty, in some cases necessitating
multiple surgeries to clean and repair the damage. Some patients must
essentially be treated as burn victims and receive skin grafts. I know
from my experience as a clinician and an injury prevention researcher
that the impact on the children and their families is profound and
long-lasting.
Mr. Chairman, if an infectious disease caused this level of death
and disability, the Federal Government would spend millions of dollars
toward studying, curing and ultimately preventing it. In the case of
ATVs, however, the government has done virtually nothing over the past
twenty years.
The primary Federal regulatory power regarding off-road vehicles is
vested in the CPSC. Over the past two decades, the CPSC has engaged in
an uneven and sometimes inconsistent pattern of regulation of ATVs.
ATVs first began to be widely adopted as both utility and recreational
vehicles around 1980. Accordingly, ATV deaths rose from 29 in 1982 to
299 in 1986--an increase of 930 percent in just 4 years. After pressure
from the American Academy of Pediatrics and other concerned groups, the
CPSC initiated negotiations with ATV manufacturers that resulted in a
consent decree in 1987. The consent decree included a number of very
modest measures:

An end to the sale of unstable three-wheeled ATVs (which
manufacturers were already phasing out);

Age recommendations related to engine size in ATV marketing,
which dealers would convey to consumers;

Labels to warn purchasers that children under 16 should not
ride adult-sized ATVs; and

Free driver training and public awareness campaigns by ATV
sellers.

These measures fell far short of a ban on ATV use by children,
which the American Academy of Pediatrics and its partners had urged. As
ATVs grew in popularity in the following years, death and injury rates
also continued to rise unabated.
The Academy and its partners engaged in repeated efforts throughout
the 1990s to educate the Nation about the hazards of ATVs for children
and to urge the courts and the CPSC to adopt stricter guidelines.
Despite these initiatives, the consent decree expired without further
action in 1998. The ATV manufacturers agreed to continue abiding by
consent decree provisions under Voluntary Action Plans, which were
unenforceable and carried no penalties for noncompliance.
In Arkansas, we have been successful in engaging ATV manufacturers
and dealers in our safety efforts, and I am convinced that
collaboration among the industry, the public health community, and
other groups is vitally important to solving the problem of ATV injury.
My experience indicates that ATV dealers and other industry
representatives are sincerely concerned about this problem and want to
see ATVs used as recommended. The Voluntary Action Plans require
dealers to obtain a signed acknowledgement from purchasers that they
understand the age recommendations for ATV use. However, CPSC's own
undercover inspections have revealed variable compliance with this
requirement. The 2005 staff briefing package acknowledged, moreover,
that compliance with this requirement appears to have declined since
1998: ``in 1998, compliance was 85 percent, and in the years 2002 and
2003, 60 percent. However, for 2004, the compliance rate was 70
percent.'' \6\ This indicates that over those 3 years, approximately
one-third of dealers were failing to comply with the requirements.
These figures represent an unacceptable failure rate and indicate the
ineffectiveness of the Voluntary Action Plans in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 5 years (2000-2004), an average of 500 people have
died each year of ATV-related injuries. An average of over 115,000 per
year people have been injured during that same time. Of these, an
average of 131 deaths and over 37,000 injuries each year have been
among children under the age of 16. Thirty-one percent of all ATV
deaths now occur among children under the age of 16.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2004 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries, September 2005, Tables 3 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the alarming increases in ATV deaths and injuries,
government regulation continues to be all but absent. For the past
several years, regulation has consisted almost exclusively of
voluntary, unenforceable measures. Recently, the Academy's Committee on
Injury and Poison Prevention reviewed the evidence regarding children
and ATVs and reaffirmed its long-standing recommendation that no child
under the age of 16 should operate or ride an ATV.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. All-Terrain Vehicle
Injury Prevention: Two-, Three-, and Four-Wheeled Unlicensed Motor
Vehicles. Pediatrics, 2000; 105 (6):1352-1354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to this lack of activity at the appropriate regulatory
agencies, in 2003 the American Academy of Pediatrics joined a number of
other groups, including the American College of Emergency Physicians
and Consumer Federation of America, to petition the CPSC once again to
ban the use of ATVs by children under the age of 16. This petition
underwent 2 years of review at the agency. In February 2005, the CPSC
issued a briefing package recommending that the petition be denied.
This recommendation was based primarily on two lines of reasoning:
first, that a sales ban would not necessarily influence riding
behavior; and second, that major distributors of ATVs already ban the
sale of full-sized ATVs for use by children. The American Academy of
Pediatrics considers both of these reasons to be specious. The sale of
numerous products to children is banned, regardless of how or whether
children may obtain or use those products otherwise (fireworks,
lighters, and cigarettes are among the most obvious examples).
Furthermore, the ban on the sale of ATVs for use by children is
voluntary, and the CPSC's own surveys show that dealer compliance is
inconsistent.\9\ In March 2005, I testified before the CPSC to urge the
commissioners to approve this ban. The American Academy of Pediatrics
continues to support this ban fully and works toward its adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPSC Commissioners have not yet voted upon the petition to ban
the sale of adult-sized ATVs for use by children under the age of 16.
Instead, this petition was rolled into a broad review of ATV issues
directed to be undertaken by the CPSC Chairman. The staff briefing
package on this issue was released on May 31.
Like the CPSC, the Senate Commerce Committee has the power to
reduce ATV-related deaths and injuries among our Nation's children. If
the Federal Government adopted limitations on ATV use by children, this
would serve as both a powerful message and a model for states and
localities. The attention and publicity generated would educate
parents, who are often unaware of the safety risks of these vehicles.
Last year, my colleague, Dr. Denise Dowd of Kansas City, Missouri,
testified before the House Resources Subcommittees on National Parks
and Forests and Forest Health to urge that restrictions be placed on
ATV usage by children on public lands.

Policy Recommendations
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued specific
recommendations for all policymakers regarding children and off-road
motorized vehicles:
Children under 16 should not operate ATVs. An ATV can weigh in
excess of 500 pounds and travel at speeds of over 60 miles per hour.
Children do not possess the physical strength, coordination, or
judgment necessary to pilot these vehicles safely.\10\ When a child
crashes on one of these large machines, it often rolls over them or
traps them beneath it. The result is devastating injuries, including
crushed internal organs and multiple broken bones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A driver's license should be required to operate an ATV. No state
or local government allows children to drive cars. Yet an unlicensed
child is permitted to drive an ATV at high speeds, without a helmet, on
unpaved surfaces in virtually any area. This situation defies all
logic. The safe use of ATVs requires the same or greater skill,
judgment, and experience as needed to operate an automobile. A driver's
license should be required to operate any motorized vehicle.
Alcohol use by operators of ATVs should be prohibited, with zero
tolerance among 16- to 20-year-old operators. Just as alcohol- or drug-
impaired operation of automobiles threatens the lives of drivers,
passengers, and bystanders and is prohibited, operation of any
motorized vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs should be
forbidden. Young drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs are
particularly dangerous because of their relative inexperience and
poorer judgment. Alcohol use by those under the age of 21 is already
banned by Federal and state laws, and zero tolerance policies for
underage ATV operators would strengthen the prohibition and send a
strong message to parents and adolescents.
ATV use should be banned on paved roads. All-terrain vehicles lack
the features necessary to operate safely on roads and highways. Most
have few or no lights, mirrors, signals or safety features. A
significant number of crashes occur on paved roads where cars or trucks
cannot see the ATV, or where ATV operators make unexpected maneuvers.
In the CPSC survey on ATV crashes mentioned earlier, the highest number
of fatalities occurred on paved surfaces.\11\ Use of ATVs should be
allowed only on designated, well-maintained trails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 108
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate protective gear should be required to operate an ATV.
Research regarding motorcycles and bicycles tells us that helmets save
lives and that helmet laws result in greater helmet
use.\12\^, \13\^, \14\ The Federal Government
should take a leadership role and require operators of ATVs to wear a
helmet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Kraus J.F., Peek C., McArthur D.L., Williams A. The effect of
the 1992 California motorcycle helmet use law on motorcycle crash
fatalities and injuries. JAMA. 1994; 272: 1506-1511.
\13\ Watson G.S., Zador P.H., Wilks A. Helmet use, helmet laws, and
motorcyclist fatalities. Am J Public Health. 1981; 71: 297-300.
\14\ Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. Bike Helmets.
Pediatrics, 2001; 108(4): 1030-1032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrying passengers on an ATV should be prohibited. The vast
majority of ATVs are not designed to carry passengers. An ATV's large
seat is meant to allow a rider to shift his or her weight and maneuver
adequately. Children can easily be thrown from these vehicles at high
speeds. The Academy is even aware of cases where parents drive ATVs
with children strapped onto the rear in a car seat, in the tragically
mistaken perception that this is somehow safe. In a recent CPSC
analysis of 184 child deaths involving ATVs, the agency concluded that,
``CPSC has long recommended against the carrying of passengers on ATVs,
and yet 24 percent of the deceased children were riding as passengers,
and 45 percent of the fatalities occurred in multiple rider situations.
Certainly, if CPSC's recommendations had been followed, the deaths of
at least 45 child passengers would not have occurred.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Consumer Product Safety Commission, Briefing Package on
Petition No. CP-02-4/HP-02-1, ``Request to Ban All-Terrain Vehicles
Sold for Use by Children under 16 Years Old,'' February 2005, p. 110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATVs should not be operated before sunrise or after sunset. ATVs
are challenging to operate safely even under ideal conditions. Darkness
adds an unacceptable degree of additional risk, due to both unseen
hazards and the difficulty of being seen by other vehicles. The use of
ATVs in low light or darkness should be prohibited.
Manufacturers should redesign ATVs to improve safety. Some of the
hazards arising from ATVs can be attributed the design of the products
themselves. Seat belts should be standard, and ATVs should have a roll
bar to prevent the driver from being crushed by the weight of the
vehicle in the event of a rollover. Headlights that automatically turn
on when the engine is started should be installed on all ATVs to
improve visibility by other vehicles. Speed Governors (devices that
limit maximum speed) should be installed on ATVs used by inexperienced
operators (such as teenagers or renters). Efforts should be made to
design ATVs so that they cannot carry passengers.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges you to
support meaningful restrictions on children riding or operating ATVs.
Clearly, ATVs pose a significant hazard to children who ride them. This
fact is indisputable. The cost to society is also high, not only in
regard to loss of life and health but in actual dollars. In March 2005,
the journal Pediatrics published a study in which my colleagues and I
estimated that total hospital charges for children's ATV injuries over
a two-year period exceeded $74 million.\16\ If no further action occurs
this year, we can expect over 100 children to die and over 40,000 to be
treated in emergency rooms again next year due to ATV-related incidents
alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Killingsworth, Jeffrey, et al., ``National Hospitalization
Impact of Pediatric All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries,'' Pediatrics, 2005;
115(3): e316-e321.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present state of affairs has been entirely ineffective in
keeping children safe. I hope this Committee will take a leadership
role on this issue and ensure the safety of children by supporting the
common-sense measures recommended by the American Academy of
Pediatrics. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify about the
dangers of all-terrain vehicles for children, and the AAP looks forward
to working with you on ATV safety issues.

Senator Allen. Thank you, Dr. Aitken, for your testimony.
Now we'd like to hear from Ms. Halbert, with the 4-H.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN W. HALBERT,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 4-H COUNCIL

Ms. Halbert. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about
ATV safety this morning and about the complex issues that are
related to ATV safety.
I'm a little disappointed that Senator Stevens isn't here,
because I started with this issue when it became a major
concern in the State of Alaska, about 1981. I had people from
all parts of the state reporting to me that kids were trying to
see how far they could slide sideways down the dirt roads in
the villages. And, needless to say, Alaska still uses the
vehicles like you and I would use our cars and trucks today.
So, it's a very different situation that started us off.
There is likely to be a continued increase in the number of
ATV safety--riders in the future. If you look at our population
statistics in this country, there's a big bulge around that 13-
16 age range. We know that injuries will potentially increase,
because the current surge of imported ATVs focuses on young
riders, as well as on first-time purchasers who don't have any
background and experience and training in riding, and the
safety education in the main risk factors that affect them.
We also know that many young people regularly ride ATVs
that are much too big for them, in spite of our many years of
focusing on trying to help them understand how to fit the rider
to the appropriate-size vehicle. My experience, however,
suggests that youth probably won't respond by just hearing
someone say, ``You shouldn't ride this vehicle. It's too big
for you. It's not right.'' Just saying no to teenagers, or
having an official ban that says something like that probably
isn't going to change their behavior. To date, it hasn't had
much effect on changing the behavior of their parents either,
or any other adult that's responsible for them.
The 4-H Community ATV Safety Program was created more than
20 years ago to address the reality that youth will continue to
ride and take risks. It started as a collaboration between
industry, the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension's 4-H
Youth Program, as well as the CPSC and our public health
officials in the State of Alaska. It has continued to this day
as a major collaboration at the national level as well as in
the many states where we operate local programs.
The focus of our program has continued to be on
understanding the key risk factors--they've been mentioned by
just about everyone testifying this morning--around the use of
the ATV protective gear, staying off roads, off the places
alongside the roads, not riding on pavement, and making sure
that young people have training and understand how they can
ride a particular vehicle based on their maturity level, as
well as their physical size and ability, physically.
4-H, in this time, has reached more than 18 million youths
and adults through courses, workshops, exhibits, classroom
activities, and regular 4-H club meetings. We are supported by
small grants from--largely from the industry. We've created
many grant programs, where people in local communities apply to
us for funding as a pass-through, to help them get the money
together, and the resources so that they can do local ATV
safety programs in their communities.
We also have created specialized curriculum that focus on
those risk factors and make it a fun, exciting, enjoyable way
for young people to learn. We believe that hands-on training,
such as the SVIA offers, is extremely important, but that we
need to reach young people at an earlier age and in places that
are more local and more community friendly where they can not
only learn those messages, but then take part, as teenagers, in
sharing those messages with other people.
We've conducted ongoing evaluation research of our efforts,
and documented clearly, in a document that we've provided to
you, that those efforts are successful in changing the
behaviors of young people. Many parents have told us that they
didn't even understand the risk that their young people were
placed in when it comes to not wearing protective gear, not
having the experiential training. So, as they've learned those
things, they've begun to take more attention to paying--making
sure their young people have helmets and other protective gear.
And we also emphasize youth/adult partnerships. We enable
young people to take on meaningful roles from the beginning in
helping design and market and deliver the safety messages to
their peers. It's--often, as you might guess, they are listened
to a lot more by young people than any of us would be, as
adults.
In short, our focus is on young people--not on products.
However, minimum product standards were established many years
ago, and I still call--get calls from around the country from
people who are asking me why those products that they see
available don't have basic information on them, why they don't
offer training. I've actually approached--a few years ago, I
worked a little bit with Wal-Mart to try to help them use our
safety tips brochures, at least, at the minimum, to make them
available when they're selling these new machines.
In conclusion, I have several specific recommendations or
suggestions I'd like to offer.
One of them is, we have a very limited effort in our
ability to offer safety training and safety education and
awareness, because we don't have the funds, as a nonprofit, to
do that as widely as we could. So, if we could increase that
kind of support, I think we could do a lot more, at the most
local level.
I'd also like to recommend that we--public agencies promote
modeling the behaviors we're talking about. There are a lot of
law enforcement agencies using all-terrain vehicles. Young
people see them all the time, and they--the law enforcement
officials sometimes are not wearing helmets. Youth, in 1998,
recommended that we ask the manufacturers to create a machine,
whatever the engine size is, that everyone agrees is
appropriate. The frame size is not appropriate for most
teenagers. Teenage wrestlers just don't fit on these machines
very well. And so, they're not going to ride them. They are
going to look for something that's bigger, that's more
appropriate, that's not demeaning, from their perspective, at
their place in life, in high peer pressure.
We'd also like to see more attention focused on parents,
the people who give the young people the keys, allow them
access to ride.
And, last, I think all of us could really provide attention
to giving young people opportunities to partner with us as we
try to find ways to address the issues that we're all talking
about here today.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak this
morning, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Halbert follows:]

Prepared Statement of Susan W. Halbert, Senior Vice President,
National 4-H Council

Thank you for this opportunity to testify about ATV safety. I share
your deep concern about this issue. Every year, far too many people are
injured or killed while driving ATVs. But I speak to you today
convinced there is a viable way to dramatically reduce this problem.
Youth-focused training programs based on sound educational principles
have proven effective in improving attitudes and behaviors relating to
ATV safety.
We need these types of programs now more than ever. Since 1985,
children under the age of 16 have consistently represented the largest
category of people injured while using ATVs according to the Consumer
Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) research. And there is likely to be
an increase in the number of young ATV riders in the near future.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our Nation's population pyramid
currently bulges at the ages of 13-20.
Clearly, we must address the main risk factors, which include
riding without a helmet and without training, while carrying
passengers, driving on paved roads, and under the influence of alcohol
and/or illicit drugs. In addition, many young people regularly ride
ATVs that are simply too big for them. Consequently, the 4-H movement
fully supports the CPSC stance that youth under the age of 16 should
not operate adult-size ATVs.
While rules and regulations play a vital role in mitigating these
risks, they are very hard to enforce. That is one reason why I advocate
that all youth should have to complete safety training before they ride
independently.
I'm proud to say that the 4-H Community ATV Safety Program has been
committed to this goal for more than 20 years. With the Commission's
support, we've reached more than eighteen (18) million youth and adults
through courses, workshops, exhibits, classroom activities, and regular
4-H club meetings. These experiences are supported by small grants and
specialized curriculum funded by private donors.
And the results have been excellent. For example, a 2002 study
conducted by Halley Research demonstrated that our program helped
increase the number of youth who always wear helmets by nearly 10
percent. I was also impressed with the report's qualitative findings.
One participant said, ``I shared with my sister, my little brother, and
my friends how it's important to follow the safety tips that we learned
in the ATV school.''
What a powerful statement! It underscores the importance of placing
ATV safety in the larger context of positive youth development--a
movement that provides young people with the support, the
relationships, and the research-based experiential learning
opportunities they need to become competent and contributing citizens.
This philosophy is the backbone of 4-H ATV safety initiatives. For
instance, we emphasize youth-adult partnerships, which enable young
participants to take on meaningful roles, from preparing and marketing
events to actually presenting safety information. It's really no
surprise that this emphasis has played a critical role in our program's
success--most youth are more receptive to messages about safety when
their peers deliver them.
I believe the youth development field is uniquely suited to deliver
ATV safety training to young people. A 2001 national survey revealed
that 85 percent of 4-H'ers agree or strongly agree that experience in
4-H helps them improve their decisionmaking capabilities.
Simple bans on the sale of such vehicles will not achieve the
safety and education programs, the wise and careful use of the
vehicles, and the reduction in injuries and fatalities we all seek.
Rather, a comprehensive education and safety training program designed
for the appropriate needs and the unique population of each area holds
the best hope for results. Such programs will be even more effective if
we continue to emphasize engaging youth as full advisors in the design,
marketing, and implementation of such programs to their peers. By
engaging young ATV users through such a ``youth-in-governance''
process, we experience increased enthusiasm, use, and effectiveness in
the safety education programs local 4-H professional staff and
volunteers administer. And we continue to find new--and more
effective--ways for government agencies such as the CPSC to conduct
their work in matters related to our Nation's young people.
I encourage you to encourage the importance of education, and the
effectiveness of local grass roots activities. One size does not fit
all, and the changes we all seek will not come from either Washington,
or our state capitals. Rather, a program designed for and relevant to
the needs and interests of today's youth holds the best hope for
progress in the Nation's 3,067 counties. The 4-H history in ATV safety
training is remarkable for its ability to reach both youth, and their
parents--advocating wise and safety-conscious decisions by both groups.
I hope all of us will seek ways to enhance these efforts as the most
effective way to accomplish the goals of safe and proper use of ATVs.
To conclude, while regulations and legislation may be able to
improve safety, they simply do not provide enough protection for our
young people. Therefore, I urge the Commission to continue supporting
ATV training programs based on sound youth development practices.
Senator Allen, members of the Committee, thank you again for
holding this important meeting. I'll be more than happy to answer any
questions, either today or at a later date.

Appendix A

The 4-H History in ATV Safety Training
In 1981, thanks to the initiative of a local 4-H agent, America's
4-H movement created an ATV Safety Program. Six months of research into
the injuries and fatalities among youth riding these vehicles revealed
there was no organization with curriculum or programs available to
address the problem. In 1989, National 4-H Council with support
provided by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and American Honda
Motor Company developed a program of safety education. Four regional
workshops, with representatives from 37 states, developed a nationwide
network of state safety programs. Each program recognized the unique
diversity of their state, the typical use of such vehicles within their
state, and the appropriate safety education program. They also
structured such programs to reflect the unique 4-H mission and the
teaching of life skills. (4-H has always made youth/adult partnerships,
and the active participation of youth key cornerstones of their
programs and curricula.)

Program Description
The purpose of The National 4-H's Community ATV Safety Program is
to positively influence the behavior of young people in four areas
shown to increase their risk of ATV-related injuries and fatalities.
These factors include:

The use of helmets and other protective gear.
Carrying passengers.
Riding on pavement.
Riding on or alongside the road.

The 4-H program consists of a series of multi-state ATV safety
workshops to train youth-adult teams on the principles of ATV safety,
use of an experiential curriculum specifically designed for the youth
age range of most concern and how to plan and implement safety programs
at the local level. Teams usually consist of an equal number of both
youth and adults. At the conclusion of these workshops, teams are
encouraged to apply for grants from National 4-H Council to implement
ATV safety training programs in their area. As a nonprofit
organization, National 4-H Council has consistently depended on private
donors to support training, curriculum development, mini-grants to
communities and ongoing research.

Research
The 4-H Community ATV Safety Program has conducted ongoing research
and evaluation of the program since its inception in Alaska in 1982. We
have consistently been able to document an increase in the use of
helmets and other protective gear and decreases in all risk behaviors
identified by the CPSC. The most recent study, conducted by Halley
Research, LLC, in cooperation with National 4-H Council between January
2001 and January 2003, revealed both the success of their present
program and suggestions for further improvement in the future. In
summary, as a result of the 4-H Community ATV Safety Program:

Youth increased how often they wear helmets while operating
ATVs.

Youth decreased how often they carry passengers while
operating ATVs.

Youth decreased how often they ride on pavement when
operating ATVs.

Youth decreased how often they ride on or alongside the road
when operating ATVs.

Youth reduced ATV-related injuries or accidents.

The 4-H Community ATV Safety Program Provides Community-Based Grants
Through Funding from the Specialty Vehicle Institute of
America

2005 4-H Community ATV Safety Grant Program--Financial Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Grants Issued 22
Geographic Impact (States) 20
Extensions Granted 6
Total Grant Funds Distributed $135,000
In-kind and Other Contributions $78,865
Number of Youth Involved 16,120
Number of Adults Involved 15,149
Number of Youth in Leadership Roles 115
Age of Youth Involved (range) 7-18
Number of Newspaper Articles 48
Number of Radio Presentations 13
Number of people reached with media 498,114
efforts
Number of Speeches, Presentations and 68
Exhibits
Projects primarily located Small towns and rural areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2006 4-H Community ATV Safety Grant Program--Financial Summary
[Total Grant Funds Requested and Granted as of May 31, 2006: $99,643]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Grants Issued 18
Geographic Impact (States) 16
Extensions Granted
Total Grant Funds Distributed $99,643
Projected In-kind and Other Contributions $175,588.40
Number of Youth Involved
Number of Adults Involved
Number of Youth in Leadership Roles
Age of Youth Involved (range) 7-18
Number of Newspaper Articles
Number of Radio Presentations
Number of people reached with media
efforts
Number of Speeches, Presentations and
Exhibits
Projects primarily located
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Allen. Thank you, Ms. Halbert, for your testimony
and your efforts--not just yours, but that of the 4-H, as well.
Let me go with, say, 10 minutes, or 7--what do you want to
go with?
Senator Pryor. Either one.
Senator Allen. All right. I'll ask some questions. Senator
Pryor will ask some questions. We'll see if there'll be a
second round or not.
Let me first address these questions mostly to you, Mr.
Buche. Mr. Williams, if you so desire, you may want to--I'm
going to be asking about sales and compliance issues.
Can you describe, Mr. Buche, some of the state-level
programs that you and your members undertake? There are two
different--several different levels here. Number one is just
the vehicle standards, the safety-standards aspects. Mr.
Williams explained, oh, about half a dozen different dangers in
a less-safe vehicle than those complying with the current
standards. The other noncomplying vehicles have: feet getting
caught, the chain wrapping up in a cuff or the variety of
different problems. Then you get the enforcement aspects of
this, which, generally speaking, motor vehicles are--as far as
things such as helmets, helmet laws--it's not a--that's not a
Federal--you could have a Federal law, but my general view is
that it should be left to the states to determine such laws.
The Federal standard is more of one of the design, the
engineering, the safety of the product sold, no matter whether
it's in Arkansas, Virginia, Alaska, or any other state in the
United States. Then you get the aspect of the dealers and the
different responsibilities of someone who is actually
distributing one of these products, and what requirements are
there of them? In most cases, the dealers or distributorships
are a contract between the manufacturer and whomever the
distributor is; and those laws for distributors, for the most
part, are state laws.
Now, to actually get this effective, it would seem to me
that the programs are going to have to be as localized as
possible. The major relationship that you would have would be
with the states. So that's what I'd like you to share with us.
What state-level efforts are you all making to make sure that
your members are undertaking it? And how much do you all spend,
as an association, on safety issues? Do you recommend--Mr.
Williams, you went through some of the training, and they don't
have to go to a 4-H center, they can do it on their own lots,
but do you recommend a helmet being purchased and so forth? So,
I'd just like to hear, just operationally, how this works in
the real world and what sort of compliance do you have in
working at the state or local level?
Mr. Buche. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Important to note that, still, there's the Federal role--
the vehicle, as you say, is best addressed federally. To have a
vehicle standard nationally is important. We think that the
sales practices can also be embraced federally. And we'd also
like to see the free training offer with purchase for all
eligible-age family members for that vehicle that is purchased
extended to every single buyer.
When we move to the state----
Senator Allen. Do you agree with that, Mr. Williams? Let me
interrupt. Seeing how you're going to be one that would have to
comply with such an assertion.
Mr. Williams. I do. At that level--if offering it to the
consumer, yes, I think every consumer should be offered--every
buyer, every family member should be offered----
Senator Allen. OK.
Mr. Williams.--that training.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Carry on, Mr. Buche.
Mr. Buche. OK, thank you.
Senator Allen. I just want to adduce testimony here
logically.
Mr. Buche. OK, very good.
To look at, then, the state, we really look to the use
issues. And just to do a quick recap, there are 5 states with
currently no ATV legislation whatsoever. There are 20 states
with fairly comprehensive--25 states with fairly comprehensive
legislation, and 20 that have parts of our model state
legislation. The quick recap of the model state legislation:
protective gear is required--eye protection and approved
helmet; prohibiting single--no passengers on a single-rider
ATV--so passenger----
Senator Allen. Some--you say that's model state
legislation?
Mr. Buche. This is our proposed legislation that we're
trying to enact in every state.
Senator Allen. You would actually propose a prohibition on
two-seaters?
Mr. Buche. No, the prohibition would be for a passenger on
a single-operator ATV. Tandem ATVs, one passenger. And they're
designed----
Senator Allen. Oh.
Mr. Buche.--accordingly. Next, no one under 16 operating an
adult-sized ATV. Again, 92 percent of the fatalities with youth
are youth using an adult-sized ATV, the terrible story we heard
of Kyle and a 500-pound ATV. Had he been on the appropriate-
sized vehicle, that would have been 150 pounds and limited to
15 miles per hour. So, again, it comes to use. And that's a----
Senator Allen. Would you make that a Federal law? I
understand the other aspects. Would you actually make that a
Federal law?
Mr. Buche. Well, I'm talking now specifically about----
Senator Allen. A model.
Mr. Buche.--state legislation.
Senator Allen. OK, this would be what you would like to see
the states----
Mr. Buche. At the state level, because we're dealing with
youths----
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Buche.--and we feel that the states have the ability to
enforce safety provisions and certainly the youth age limits
are critical to that. Adult supervision that--we require
parental supervision--that's active supervision, not knowing
that someone is out riding in the field, but watching them
ride, to be active. It's important to remember that 16 million
people use these products. Many are families, and they are
riding together. The tragedies we hear of are when we see a
youth off in a field on his own, no experience, no helmet. The
warned-against behaviors that we've really tried to incorporate
and address through state legislation are key. Education, in
our model state legislation we'd like to see mandatory training
for those under 16--not just the offer, but mandatory training.
And some states now require proof of an ATV-course completion,
a certificate, to show that if you're on public lands, you've
been trained. So, certainly that is key to the model state
legislation. We know that the product is----
Senator Allen. Who enforces that? Game wardens?
Mr. Buche. It depends.
Senator Allen. But how do--on public lands, most----
Mr. Buche. Sure.
Senator Allen.--most--I suppose if you are in and they
allow vehicles in the national forest--they're not going to
allow them in too many of the national parks, but they may--
most, at least in Virginia, are on private land.
Mr. Buche. Sure.
Senator Allen. And so, you know, even game wardens have a
heck of a job trying to keep track of folks, and most of these
folks are not on roads. They may be on a road to cross a road
to get over to some other piece of property, but mostly on
private land. It seems to me that the states could pass such
laws. You do have to recognize how difficult this is to
actually enforce. And to expect a parent, who's going to let
their kids go out, and they're going to be going into the
woods, they'll be in the mountains, they'll be exploring
around, they'll be going through creeks and all the rest, and
to be watching--it's one thing if they're out in a field and
you have 10 acres there and you can watch them in some flat
lands, there are no trees, and it's plowed-up, you know,
soybean field or something like that, but most of the time
they're not in a place where parents can watch them. So, you do
recognize, just practically that--to make a law that says a
parent has to be supervising all the time is not likely to
occur. It may be a desirable sort of thing, out in the real
world, kids like to go off and explore and see things. And,
granted, they're going to do different things.
I think your best idea that I would emphasize is the way
that you have these so-called ``governors'' on ATVs and having
parents being able to figure out what sort of horsepower it can
get--I know you have those on some of the jet skis, for
example. And if you have those sort of controls, I think that's
a really important safety matter, regardless of the size of--
the cc's of the engine, that parents could control that when
the kids are out of sight.
Mr. Buche. I would point out that, more and more, you're
seeing ATV riding parks, states that are setting aside land.
Senator Allen. Right.
Mr. Buche. In California, we have the State Vehicular
Recreational Areas. And the good thing with enforcement there
is that the riders are riding in a specific area, enforcement
becomes much easier. Other states are enacting that.
Senator Allen. I see.
Mr. Buche. I think the key is that it's a solid deterrent
when people know the rules. The laws are communicated through
the dealerships. And it's why the new entrant poses a
particular challenge when they're not supporting the safety
programs, because those people don't hear of training. If a new
entrant purchaser comes to Mr. Williams' store, he's able to
offer our training, the ATV Safety Institute training offered
by SVIA, to those new purchasers. There's no----
Senator Allen. How much do you all spend on such training,
as an association?
Mr. Buche. Collectively, the membership spends in excess of
$8 million per year, and then each company spends millions in
supporting direct training costs, advertising, communication,
public information, education, Secret Shopper programs, which
are conducted both by the manufacturers and the CPSC. Important
to note that compliance issues--because that has been brought
up--important to note there is that the offer to sell does not
mean that that person would have made it out of the dealership
with the vehicle. There are a number of disclosures along the
way, other people involved in the sale, and catching someone at
the parts counter or a salesman that may say, ``Yes, we'd sell
you that,'' doesn't mean that delivery would take place. And
it's key that we have responsible sales practices. We think
Federal legislation can embrace that, as well.
Senator Allen. All right. Now, you heard the differences in
these--some of the ATVs that were manufactured and sold that
the former CPSC engineers bought and tested and found
defective, you consider that a problem, is that correct?
Mr. Buche. It's a serious----
Senator Allen. All right. Now, what, specifically, would
you have us do about that? Because this is important testimony
as to what we might consider as legislation here.
Mr. Buche. I think one of the good opportunities is the
ANSI standard. SVIA is the ANSI standards developer. We have
just conducted our pre-canvas mailing. That's to notify all
substantially interested parties that the process is in place.
And later this year, all interested parties will be able to
comment on that standard. That standard could be embraced,
then, through CPSC, or even Federal legislation, to set an ATV
safety standard. If you start with a safe vehicle, then you're
really left to address only the use issues, but with unsafe
vehicles in the marketplace, particularly sold to new entrants
who are attracted by, you know, a low price, a good value,
until they determine the safety issues--the examples we have
before us here, this 80cc--it's a 79cc Yamaha that complies
with the ANSI standard, the ``Ride Safe, Ride Smart'' video,
three workbooks, speed limiters in that model--that would be
set up for 15 miles an hour at point of delivery. The unit to
the left, though slightly smaller in physical size, is 110cc's,
with inappropriate--we have a list of about 14 safety
violations.
Senator Allen. Why don't you list them for us.
Mr. Buche. Let's--to go through those--no front brakes--I'm
sorry, no parking brake, no mechanical suspension, the flagpole
bracket for conspicuity not present, it has a headlight, it
lacks spark arrester----
Senator Allen. What's wrong with it--what's wrong with the
headlight?
Mr. Buche. Well, this youth model should not have a
headlight. That could encourage nighttime use. That's against
the standard. That's against CPSC recommendations.
Senator Allen. So, you agree with--I think it was Ms.
Weintraub, or maybe it was Dr. Aitken, who said that you ought
to have--they shouldn't be able to drive these things at night?
Mr. Buche. Well, we're anxious to discuss that, and we
think the CPSC rulemaking process will allow industry and other
interested parties to comment on without the light and riding
at night, whether you're in more danger. So, I think that's yet
to be determined. But as this----
Senator Allen. Carry on with the other----
Mr. Buche. As the current----
Senator Allen.--violations.
Mr. Buche.--standard would allow, this is an inappropriate
vehicle. The brake performance was key. And, important to note
here, in particular, this vehicle went almost 30 miles an hour,
an arithmetic average of 29.1 miles per hour, as set up and
delivered in a crate to the home of one of the experts who
tested it. So, there are a number of failures here. There was a
flat tire. Three of the tires were overinflated, which also is
against the standard. It's important that these are low-
pressure tires for best traction and compatibility in an off-
road environment. The delivery failed, in that it was delivered
without proper setup. The speed-limiting device, I mentioned.
The performance requirements, does not have an ATV parking
brake. And it started in gear, so that as you start it, you
could go in motion right then. There's an interlock on
compliant products. So, there were a number of failings,
including the delivery, including the lack of safety support
programs; and, of course, no offer of free training with
purchase.
So, this is a very serious matter. This market is growing.
The chart over here is from one of the trade publications. We
would put the volume at about 20,000 more units each year, but
a similar trend. So, this will only exacerbate the problem.
Again, if you start with unsafe vehicles and factor in the use
issues, we've got a serious complication here that we think
Federal legislation could address with an ANSI safety standard.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Buche.
Senator Pryor?
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start, if I may, with Dr. Aitken. I'm curious about
the types of injuries you've seen in your practice, in the
emergency room, et cetera, there at Arkansas Children's
Hospital. You mentioned face lacerations, and you also
mentioned head injuries. On the head injuries, would helmets
have made a significant difference there?
Dr. Aitken. Unfortunately, helmet use is not very
widespread at all. I did--I can give you one anecdote, though,
where I'm sure the helmet saved the life of a child. I was
seeing, actually, the boy's sister in the clinic, and noticed
that this 11-year-old had an incredible amount of abrasions and
lacerations and an arm in a cast, and he told me that he had
come off his ATV. He was riding with another child and suffered
a concussion, despite the use of a helmet. He later sent me his
helmet, which had a crack in it. So, I'm convinced that that
had a significant role in his survival. And--but,
unfortunately, in the ER and in the in-patient setting, we see
very few helmeted patients at all at Arkansas Children's
Hospital.
Senator Pryor. I assume you see a lot of broken bones?
Dr. Aitken. Yes, there are a lot of broken bones.
Senator Pryor. And what about neck and spinal injuries?
Dr. Aitken. We definitely see those. And those are amongst
the most serious injuries we see. Again, the head injuries are
most common, and they can range from concussions to very
serious injuries that can kill a child and certainly have
lifelong disability. The orthopedic injuries can be very
complicated--pelvic fractures or femur fractures that can
sometimes require multiple surgeries. We also see, as I
mentioned, some--we've seen several recently--very dirty wounds
that require surgery every couple of days until they're fully
stabilized.
Senator Pryor. And I assume some of the complex injuries--
complicated injuries you're talking about are the result of
crushing, where the ATV falls on the person?
Dr. Aitken. Right. One of the most common mechanisms for
injury that we see--and, again, 60 percent of the injuries we
see occur on roadways, not in--not on unpaved surfaces--are
when the child is either hit by another motor vehicle, usually
a car, or the vehicle flips onto the child and causes severe
injury.
Senator Pryor. That's interesting. So, you estimate about
60 percent of the ones you see are on roadways.
Dr. Aitken. That's what we see.
Senator Pryor. Is that also may be due to the fact that
they get on a roadway, and it's flat, and they can really open
up?
Dr. Aitken. I think that's part of it. And the visibility
issues. And--I mean, if a car interacts with an ATV, the car
will win. And, unfortunately, we see that frequently.
Senator Pryor. OK. Let me ask about the parents of these
children. When you talk to parents, are they surprised that
their children have been hurt? Did they go through the safety
training? Were they aware how fast the vehicle could go, or how
dangerous it was? Give us your general impressions.
Dr. Aitken. Many of the parents express surprise at the
severity of the injuries their children have sustained, really
didn't seem to understand the inherent instability of the
vehicles in the hands, especially, of the younger children. And
they--most of the folks--we've done focus groups with adult and
youth ATV riders to try to frame our safety campaigns that
we're doing, and, of the 50 or so people we interviewed, only
one had undergone the training, and she was a middle-aged
woman, who was probably not the riskiest driver that we
interviewed. So, it is--many of the parents have not received
any of the training, and the children have not, at all.
Senator Pryor. And I know you've been involved in trying to
raise awareness of ATV safety in Arkansas. Tell us some of the
things that you've done in Arkansas to try to prevent ATV
injuries.
Dr. Aitken. There have been several things. We've had an
active workgroup at Children's Hospital since about 2001, when
we became aware in the late 1990s, of the doubling in the
number we see at the hospital. And, as I said, we have not just
medical people, we do have some industry representatives that
have been very, very helpful in making sure that we're aware of
the practical issues involved. We have done public service
announcements and educational campaigns that have been
statewide, but also focused on a couple of high-risk counties
in the mountainous parts of the state to make sure we engage
with hometown health improvement committees and other groups
that can begin to really inform parents better.
Senator Pryor. By the way, Mr. Chairman, just so you know,
Arkansas Children's Hospital doesn't just focus on ATV safety.
They have a lot of carseat safety and a lot of other safety
programs where they try to educate the public.
Also--and this may be a little bit beyond your area of
expertise, Dr. Aitken, but I know the American Academy of
Pediatrics is very concerned about this--does the AAP have a
set of recommendations where they'd like to see alterations in
the design of ATVs? In other words, do they have a list of
things, like weight limits and governors and brakes and
headlights and all those? Do they have a set of agreed-to
things you'd like to see in design?
Dr. Aitken. Yes, there is a policy recommendation that was
published in the 1980s, and then renewed in 2001, which has
some general recommendations about safety equipment. We
certainly would encourage, if possible, the further study of
roll bars and safety belts so that if the children--if the
vehicle does roll, there will be some protection against the
crushing injuries; some of the factors to make them more
visible. But, again, the main message that we have promoted is
that children are sometimes physically too small to ride these
vehicles. And, even if they're physically large enough, they
may not have the maturity or judgment to really ride them
properly.
Senator Pryor. Does AAP recommend that there be a ban on
people under 16 operating ATVs?
Dr. Aitken. That has been the recommendation, that children
under 16 be discouraged from riding the vehicles.
Senator Pryor. OK. In my time remaining, Mr. Buche, I want
to ask a follow-up on one of the Chairman's questions, just so
I'm clear in my mind. There's a so-called 2-Up ATV, which is
apparently an ATV that's actually designed for two people. If I
understand what you're saying, you think that single-rider ATVs
should only have one rider; but, if you have one that is
designed for two people, do you think that's OK for them to
ride that way?
Mr. Buche. Yes, we do.
Senator Pryor. And----
Mr. Buche. In fact----
Senator Pryor. Go ahead.
Mr. Buche. Yes, we do. In fact, there are a couple of
iterations, the fore/aft--in other words, front/back--seating.
And there are newer products coming that are side-by-side. So,
they are designed for two, and they work quite well. And we
conduct the training for those vehicles, as well.
Senator Pryor. Do you prefer legislation or regulation?
Mr. Buche. We truly believe that we're here to ask for
legislation. We believe that the Federal Government could act
to make sure safe vehicles are available and only safe vehicles
are available, to the U.S. consumer. We'd take that even a step
further to say that sales practices could be embraced and a
requirement, federally, that the offer of free training for the
purchaser of the vehicle, and all eligible-aged family members,
so that the people have the best chance to get training.
I might also note that we offer training before the
purchase. If someone's thinking of an ATV, we want to determine
if it's right for them, we charge $75 for youth, and $125 for
those 16-and-over. For those under 10, we require that the
parent stay for the entire class, and we actually teach the
parent how to be a good, active supervisor. So, there should be
no excuse for not getting the training. In our view, the only
constraint to training is demand. There is a lack of demand,
and we make numerous calls to every purchaser of our member-
company products enticing them to take the training, and, in
fact, offering cash incentives or gift certificates back to the
retailer as an incentive.
Senator Pryor. Do you believe that the training should be
mandatory? In other words, before the sale can be completed,
they should complete the training?
Mr. Buche. We think, federally, if you could act to
encourage the offer of free training by the manufacturers and
distributors; and, at the state level, we encourage mandatory
training for those under 16, and we think that's where the
state could get involved, in that they would be able to enforce
that.
Senator Pryor. As I look at the possibility of legislation,
or even regulation, I see a couple of goals. One, obviously, is
safety. Clearly, that's a huge goal of what legislation or
rulemaking could accomplish. But, also, I do think there is a
level-playing-field argument here, that certainly you can bring
to market much cheaper vehicles that don't have all the safety
equipment on it, and it would entice consumers to buy that. So,
as a matter of fairness, I think that we ought to consider
leveling that playing field so everybody's playing by the same
rules.
Ms. Weintraub, let me ask you, if I may, is it your belief
that the U.S. ATV industry has been voluntarily complying with
the standards put forth in the 1988-1998 consent decree? Do you
think they are continuing to comply with that?
Ms. Weintraub. No. In fact, we think there's not only
widespread noncompliance, a lack of enforcement, as well as an
inadequacy of the standards as they exist now. Our concern with
the import issue is that it would be requiring a level playing
field for a playing field that's inadequate, basically. So, we
think there is a lot of work to do to improve the ANSI
standard, make the ATV action plans enforceable, have the
Consumer Product Safety Commission actually release the
compliance numbers, which were redacted from the 2005 briefing
package. We still don't know what actual compliance is with the
voluntary action plans.
Senator Pryor. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few more questions, but I'll wait
until the second round.
Senator Allen. No, no.
Senator Pryor. Are you sure?
Senator Allen. Well----
Senator Pryor. Why don't you go, and I'll wait for the
second round.
Senator Allen. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Buche, let me bring this up with here again. Ms.
Weintraub, I believe, was talking about how many ATVs were
recalled, for a variety of reasons. There were two or three
significant reasons with it. These recalls are voluntary
recalls, I think Ms. Weintraub said. Do your companies initiate
these voluntary recalls?
Mr. Buche. Yes. The matter of recalls, I think--the matter
of recalls, in fact, points out that the system works. These
are voluntary recalls by the manufacturers. They are made
immediately upon any opportunity to improve the product or make
an adjustment. They're done at no expense to the consumer. And
it's important to note that there's a reliable reputable
dealer, much like Mr. Williams, about 7,000 dealers nationally,
where that product may be taken back to a dealership of that
brand to correct any problem that was found with the vehicle.
Senator Allen. Do you--I know you're looking at the ATV
industry--do you know of any other product that has that level
of recalls for repairs or defects?
Mr. Buche. I really couldn't compare to other industries,
but I am very proud of our member companies and the
responsibility they take to make sure that consumers have good
and safe product, and they support that after the sale.
Senator Allen. Now, you heard Mr. Williams and what Coleman
PowerSports does, as far as the training onsite. Is that fairly
unique? And, if it is unique, do you partner with any other
agencies? Do you work, for example, with 4-H in any places?
Because I'm not sure every one of your hundreds and hundreds of
dealerships are all the same as Coleman PowerSports in having
those capabilities, especially if they're in city areas, having
a lot of land around there. It costs a lot of money. So, how do
your other dealerships or your members handle training?
Mr. Buche. Great. The ASI, the ATV Safety Institute, is a
division of the SVIA, and it offers the free training on behalf
of all of our participating member companies, every single SVIA
member. We do make the Try Before You Buy Program available.
That's available to all. And many----
Senator Allen. What--the what program?
Mr. Buche. The Try Before You Buy. In other words take the
training course----
Senator Allen. Oh, Try Before You----
Mr. Buche.--before you buy the vehicle. That may help you
determine if ATVing's right for you or your family. Many
dealers--I think it's important to remember, these are small,
independent businesses in the community. They are active
enthusiasts, often riding with their customers. And they take
safety and their responsibility in the community very
seriously. The Secret Shopper Program exists to offer an
additional incentive to do the right thing all the time. I'll,
again, reiterate that, though the relationship between the
dealer and the manufacturer is between them, and the
association is not involved, we are aware that dealers have,
when acting improperly, lost the ability to sell that product.
Again, testimony to how seriously these member companies take
their responsibility to the American consumer.
Senator Allen. Well, let me ask you this, then. Again, Mr.
Williams, I'm going to pull you into this. You mentioned
another company that is selling these less safe, more dangerous
ATVs, or those with fewer safety devices on them, and they're
selling everything from--they're not in motor sports. And I
don't want to repeat the name of the company, because it's--you
did.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. And I--you know, I'm just listening to your
testimony. It doesn't need to come out of my mouth. As a
practical matter, you're dealing with an inherently--a
product--it's not as dangerous as a chainsaw, but it is--just
like any other motor vehicle, there's a risk to operating any
motor vehicle. In the event--just--this is in a very litigious
society--would those who are selling, number one, a vehicle
that, at the outset, is not meeting these voluntary standards--
would that cause added liability for whomever the manufacturer
is, but what they're going to go to first is not some company
in China, which will probably be very hard to get after, unless
they have some assets here, but they're going to go after that
person who actually sold that product that is less safe than
the voluntary--they're--granted, let's say, right now, they're
voluntary; let's assume, then, they're mandatory standards--
would they not incur liability on the part of a parent if--or
any purchaser by engaging in the sale of, one, a less safe
product; two, a product that does have certain risk to it, and
being neglectful--I'm just thinking of the creativity of
lawyers--but selling a product, and it did not offer any
training, no questioning as to who's going to operate this, and
any instruction on how that product would operate--do they
not--maybe you could--Mr.--I'm going to ask Mr. Williams that,
but, Mr. Buche, you may know what kind of lawsuits might have
been filed across the country in these sort of situations. But,
go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Well, I would just say the simple point of
fact, yes, it would leave them very open to that kind of
litigation, you know, against them, where--every manufacturer
we have has continuing liability clauses in our dealer
agreements, so if something does go wrong with a product, or
somebody is injured, Yamaha will also, you know, defend its
product and speak on behalf of the dealer. If there was a
product defect, there's that continuing liability, moving up a
chain with a major distributor and people that can step forward
if something did go wrong. Where, with these, there are none.
If there is a distributor at all, it's often a distributor of,
you know, many other kinds of products, canoes and kayaks. They
might just be a private, kind of, road-rep, road-warrior kind
of guy that sells these things out of a trailer, and if they--
you know, they'll--you'll see these makes, kind of, change
their name of make with the--this one being the Longchang, and
then there are Pandas and things, and they'll all look the
same. And the name changes about every 6 to 8 months. And we've
wondered how many times that has come because of a lawsuit of
some form or another, so that manufacturer just goes away, and
now it has been rebadged as something else, and it's a new
manufacturer with the exact same unit.
Senator Allen. What are your experiences with such
litigation, Mr. Buche----
Mr. Buche. While I'm----
Senator Allen.--what you're seeing across the country?
Mr. Buche. While I'm not aware of litigation, specifically,
I think we look to marketing practices and, as Mr. Williams
said, the change in company names. We've identified over 400
companies in China and Taiwan that say they manufacture and
distribute ATVs. We don't know how many of those are truly
independent, distinct manufacturers. But I think we look to a
couple of things. We look to their claims. And they claim they
send hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the U.S. And we look
to their marketing practices, their lack of support, and the
lack of offer of training. And I think this one example, here
to my right, just points out, on the top, how our member
companies promote their product, and the listing of free
training promotion of the adult supervision, proper riding gear
complying with ATV size recommendations for ATVs for youth,
speed restrictions, and the educational safety programs, and,
on the bottom, one of the new entrants--this is pulled from a
website, similar pictures in owners' manuals--I'm not great at
guessing age, but I would put this child at 3-4, maybe, at
best--an owner's manual that shows a barefoot rider in a
swimsuit on a large vehicle. So, we look to their marketing
practices, and we look to the lack of support, the lack of a
resident address for the corporation in the U.S., a number of
product names, and then we compare to those complying products
and these leading companies.
Some have worried that this could smell of protectionism.
We would say, ``Absolutely, the protection of the U.S.
consumer.'' And we're proud of our member companies. We want to
level the playing field, but we want to level it at our level,
and we're proud of that.
Senator Allen. Well, your member companies are not just
U.S. companies. I guess Polaris is American, but Bombardier is
Canadian, and obviously Yamaha and--what--many of them are
Japan-based companies. I don't know if----
Mr. Buche. Right.
Senator Allen.--there's any other--I don't know if Brazil
or Germany or France makes these, but----
Mr. Buche. Japan-based. But, I think, also important to
note that most adult-sized ATVs are manufactured here in the
United States, with plants by Japanese-owned companies, but
American subsidiaries. So, again, these are, in all intents and
purposes, American companies distributing safe and responsible
products, marketing responsibly to our fellow U.S. consumers
and riders.
Senator Allen. All right. One other thing. On the 3-
wheelers, are they being manufactured any longer?
Mr. Buche. Not by the responsible companies. We have yet to
actually acquire from a new entrant, but we understand that
there are plans, or rumors, of 3-wheel product coming in from
new entrants. The manufacturers--the leading manufacturers
voluntarily agreed, in the late 1980s, to discontinue sale of
3-wheelers, and they have done that, with no manufacturing or
marketing. But, again, concern with a new entrant which will
bring anything that they think might sell. Some of these
companies--in our research, we've found ATV companies whose
other line of business is to manufacture lawn and garden patio
furniture, a number of industries where they----
Senator Allen. Well, you can----
Mr. Buche.--simply put an engine on a frame.
Senator Allen. Yes, but I wouldn't criticize the company
because they do a lot of different things. John Deere has
tractors, or lawn tractors, and they may be good at motorized
vehicles, as well.
Mr. Buche. We're just concerned about their commitment to
the market and the U.S. consumer.
Senator Allen. Now, Ms. Weintraub said that those 3-
wheelers that are presently, however many 3-wheelers may be out
there still, ought to be recalled. Ms. Weintraub, who is to pay
or compensate the owners of these 3-wheelers? And how many of
them are out there? I----
Ms. Weintraub. Well----
Senator Allen.--the industry has recognized that 3-wheelers
are inherently more dangerous than a 4-wheeler. It's just a
matter of----
Ms. Weintraub. Which----
Senator Allen.--physics and balance. But how many are there
out there, and who would compensate the owners for the taking
of that 3-wheeler?
Ms. Weintraub. Well, I know that according to the most
recent data from CPSC, in terms of injuries, 3-wheel ATVs are
responsible for about 10 percent of injuries. So, they're still
on the market, through the used market, which is rather
substantial in the ATV industry. Many of the--my understanding
is that the manufacturers of the 3-wheelers in--before new
production was banned--remained the same manufacturers who are
now manufacturing 4-wheel ATVs. So, I think it's those
manufacturers, to the extent that they do exist, which I
believe they do, in large numbers, they would ultimately be
responsible for the cost of the recall.
Senator Allen. I would guess that the folks at Coleman
PowerSports, and the industry, generally, would not want to be
buying used 3-wheelers.
Mr. Williams. Let's be really selfish. As a dealer, I would
sell a lot of 4-wheelers that way, if Yamaha has to buy it
back. I just think it's a really bad idea, in general, but--the
same with these, on selfish note. There's nothing stopping us
from becoming retailers of the off-brand kind. So,
protectionism at the dealer level almost doesn't exist. If I
want to sell these, I can. You know, they don't have franchise
agreements, so I could call Panda and have, you know, 300 of
them delivered, and put them together, and start selling them
as such--there's no--as a matter of fact, there would probably
be some economic plus to selling them, because of their low
cost and their lack of an established MSRP. Dealers can really
sell these for whatever they wanted to, because there's no
market--you know, you don't know the off brand, you don't know
what its market is, you don't know what it would sell for. But,
in the end, you know, unless you wanted to start reducing your
customer base by selling something like this, it's just not a
good idea.
Ms. Weintraub. Chairman Allen, if I may.
Senator Allen. Yes, Ms. Weintraub.
Ms. Weintraub. I mean, if the issue that we're all working
on here is safety, I think it makes sense to get a vehicle that
people agree--which is--really is universal among all different
stakeholders--that the 3-wheelers are hazardous. Whether
they're more hazardous than 4-wheelers is another story.
Senator Allen. Well, they are more hazardous than 4-
wheelers. I think that's understood, just a matter of physics
and--the difference in driving--I don't know if you've ever
driven these things, but a 3-wheeler doesn't operate like any
other vehicle you drive. It doesn't operate like a motorcycle
or a bicycle. And a 4-wheeler is like a wide-track motorcycle,
in many respects.
Ms. Weintraub. In terms of stability, I completely agree;
however, in terms of looking at the data, the death and injury
numbers are almost what they--with 4-wheelers are almost what
they were with 3-wheelers in the late 1980s. So, in terms of
pervasiveness of an impact on American consumers, the 4-
wheelers seem to be at the same level as 3-wheelers. But I
think, going back to recalling, I mean, we advocated for a
recall at the time the consent decree was put into effect, and
we thought that made a lot of sense. If, you know, CPSC felt,
at that time, that these ATVs were so dangerous that they
should be considered an inherently dangerous substantial
product hazard, then banning them from new production was a
very important step, but it didn't solve the problem of all the
vehicles on the market. And, as time has shown, it has been 20
years, and these vehicles are still having an impact on death
and injuries across the country. So, I think, to close the
loophole----
Senator Allen. Did you find--do you know of any analogy
that--of where--for example, I'm going to use chainsaws again.
Chainsaws are much safer than they were 20 years ago, but a lot
of chainsaws are still working--you keep them oiled, sharpen
the chains, you know, repair the parts, if you can find them--
and so, does that mean--but where--has a product, like a 3-
wheeler, not--even a Pinto--they had the lawsuit on the Pinto.
They didn't--Ford wasn't forced to, ``Here, we're going to go
and buy all these Pintos,'' or the Chevy Novas, way before your
time. I just vaguely remember, as a young pup, myself. Where
else has a government commanded a private company that sold a
legal product to actually then buy them back and compensate
that owner? Maybe there is an analogy. You may know. I'm just--
seeing if there's any precedent for such a command.
Ms. Weintraub. Well, the vast majority of the recalls at
the Consumer Product Safety Commission are actually voluntary,
so it doesn't have to be a mandatory action. In fact, the ATV
manufacturers who produced the 3-wheelers could voluntarily
say, you know, ``In our interest to protect the safety of
American consumers, we want to voluntarily recall these
products.''
Senator Allen. Fair enough. That's not the government
commanding them, and they----
Ms. Weintraub. Right.
Senator Allen.--could do it, if they so desire.
Senator Pryor?
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Weintraub, let me ask, on the 2-Ups, does the Consumer
Federation of America believe that they should be included in
the definition of ATV?
Ms. Weintraub. It's a complicated question. Ultimately----
Senator Pryor. That's why I asked it.
Ms. Weintraub. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Weintraub. Ultimately, you know, we--with this whole
discussion, we have some philosophical concerns about the
existing standards, about whether they are adequate. We also
have concerns that ATVs inherently, because of their wide
seat--or long seat--seem to encourage dual passengers, even
though they're not designed for dual passengers. So, our
concern is that having a vehicle specifically designed for two
passengers may impact the occurrence of more than one passenger
on a 1-Up, on a machine designed for one person.
So, that's sort of our philosophical concern. However, if
there are going to be 2-Up machines on the market, we would
hope that they would, you know, at least be required to meet
the same standards, even though we think there needs to be more
effective standards. So----
Senator Pryor. So, if they're going to be in the
marketplace, you'd like them to be regulated or covered by a
rule or statute.
Ms. Weintraub. Yes. I mean, they're virtually not
regulated. The system is voluntary. But, yes, we would want the
voluntary standards. So, the existing safety regime, voluntary
as it is, inadequate as it may be, to at least cover tandems,
if they're going to be on the market, yes.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Buche and Mr. Williams, I just have an
observation for you. I have a popular magazine, which says it's
the number-one sport-quad magazine, which I take their word for
it that it is, called ATV Sport.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. As you notice, there are all kinds of
pictures of people having lots of fun on ATVs. One thing I
notice is, a major manufacturer has in their ad, racing and
fun. In fact, there are two ads, back to back. And, there is a
lot of fun, a lot of great stuff going on here. But then, when
you read the fine print, that's where the safety stuff comes,
and it's so small that you just don't notice it unless you're
really looking for it. But one thing I noticed in here is, it
does give you some basic safety information. It says, ``ATVs
can be hazardous to operate. For your safety, always wear a
helmet, eye protection, and protective clothing,'' and all of
that's good, ``always avoid paved surfaces,'' which we talked
about a few moments ago, ``never ride on public roads, never
carry passengers or engage in stunt riding.'' You know, all
that's good. But the problem is that even though it says,
``don't engage in stunt riding,'' almost every picture in this
magazine has them jumping over things and popping wheelies on
the cover and--you know, so, it's just an observation that it's
a balance that I think the manufacturers and the promoters of
the sport need to strike, in terms of pushing safety out there.
These things can be dangerous, and, obviously, there are lots
of injuries that occur. And I would just, sort of, caution the
industry to think about, you know, how the industry is
presented.
Mr. Williams, I do have a couple of questions for you. And
we have these two models here on the floor today. And I assume,
given these two models, you like the Yamaha. Is that right?
Mr. Williams. Yes. Yes, of these two.
Senator Pryor. And I think that you've mentioned, just
briefly, some of the things you don't like about the Longchang
model, and some of them are safety, but let me ask about some
of the less expensive imports you see. You mentioned, in your
testimony--what do you see--when these less expensive imports
come into your shop, you know, some on a trade-in or some
people want to get them fixed or whatever--what do you see? In
my limited experienced with them, and hearing what some of the
witnesses have said today, it sounds like there might be some
design problems with them, some craftsmanship problems, just
inconsistency in engineering? What do you see----
Mr. Williams. Sure.
Senator Pryor.--when you see them in your shop?
Mr. Williams. It really does run the gamut. I would say
that the biggest portion would be electrical, ignition
systems--the little CDI box, or the computer that tells the
unit how to run--failing, and then not being able to get that
part again. A lot of ignition systems going out, lighting
systems that don't work properly. I actually have a
disagreement with some of the industry about headlights,
because if you've ever ridden on, you know, a pathway, whether
it's real dusty and things like that, headlights really let you
know somebody else is coming at you. They don't necessarily
promote nighttime riding. I think they're a safety, to have
lights on both sides. But they often don't work on these. And,
when they don't, you know, it's hard to take the hard stance
and tell somebody you can't work on their unit, but, at the
same time, it's hard to put a technician on a 3-hour diagnosis
to find some mystery electrical problem, where he bought the
unit for $900, and I'm going to charge him $700 to fix it.
That's just not going to fly. So, we really try hard to trade
them out of those and onto one of the more reliable
manufacturers that we can then service.
Senator Pryor. So, it sounds to me like there are a variety
of problems with them, safety being one, but other mechanical
problems as well.
Mr. Williams. Broken parts, bolts that break off, things
like that, a lot of it's pot metal instead of steel.
Senator Pryor. OK. So, it sounds like you would not want
your family on one of those.
Mr. Williams. Absolutely not.
Senator Pryor. Is that fair to say?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Senator Pryor. The other thing I was going to ask is, I
hope you didn't find it offensive a few moments ago when I
called that the ``El Cheapo.''
Mr. Williams. No, it is, I guess. You know, I mean--and the
hard part is telling consumers that they don't have that
option, you know, if somebody does want to--you know, it's hard
to say it when a youth model is involved. You know, if an adult
wants to go and buy a substandard unit to go ride on, because
he's--he doesn't care as much about safety, or thinks he's
going to ride it less or something, I don't care. It's when a
parent says, ``Well, you know, my son really doesn't ride it
that much,'' or, ``It's not that big a deal,'' you know, and I
start thinking, ``Well, it's not that a big a deal until he
kills himself on it,'' you know, and then it'll be a very big
deal. So, yes, I do become concerned when it's out there for--
you know, the youth isn't the one that's going to buy that
unit. He's not making the decision as to what's safe or what's
not.
Senator Pryor. And your company does not sell these cheaper
imports, but is it your understanding that other dealers may be
starting to sell those?
Mr. Williams. Many dealers have, kind of, caved to picking
up the lesser expensive brands, just to at least have them
available.
Senator Pryor. Because they want something in that price
point?
Mr. Williams. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Pryor. OK.
Mr. Chairman, that's really all I have. I actually have a
few other questions, if I can submit those for the record, to
save everybody some time.
But one thing I would say to the panel here, to all the
panelists, is, if we are going to push legislation, it would be
very, very helpful for the members of the panel to really sit
down and work through some legislation, so there might be some
consensus on what that might look like. And I know that we have
a range of views here, but it would be awfully helpful to us,
here in the Senate and in the Congress, if we could find
something that we could all support and could feel good about.
So, with that, I just want to thank the panel for being
here; and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing this.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you, Senator Pryor. And I, also,
thank all our witnesses, Ms. Leland and this panel, as well,
for your interest and work in attempting to address this issue
in a proper way, in a proper jurisdictional way, dealing with
ATV safety.
One thing that is clear from this is, you don't have to
wait around for Congress or any state to act. Parents need to
be responsible. There is a value in having this hearing, the
fact that it's covered, and it'll be covered in the media, that
parents may actually pay greater attention. Hopefully, they'll
buy from responsible dealers, but also recognize that their
most cherished loved ones, their young children, or others who
may be driving on these vehicles, need to have safety training.
They can be dangerous. They're a lot of fun. And, again, I
don't want to outlaw fun. And nor should any government outlaw
fun. But people do need to be personally responsible. And it's
hard to say, ``Well, gosh, if 15, 16, or younger kid ought to
be responsible,'' sure, he or she should be, but, ultimately,
it's the parents purchasing these ATVs.
And so, the one thing that I think we've discerned from
this is that, at a bare minimum, there ought to--where there is
a consensus on what the safety standards ought to be on these
vehicles, ought to be uniform throughout this country, because
it seems to me that's just--it may be not enough for Ms.
Weintraub or Dr. Aitken in it; however, it is something that
does make some sense, because there shouldn't be an
unreasonable risk to injury or even death. I think we've heard
some good, reasoned analysis today on ways that the Federal
Government may, along with the states, assist in educating
parents. The dealerships are going to be involved in this, as
well, in your responsibilities on proper ATV safety
precautions. And I'm glad to hear there's at least somewhat of
an agreement here as to compliance, insofar as the ATV market
here in the United States. It does make sense, if you're going
to sell an ATV here in this country, to have certain safety
requirements.
And as far as the practices and the rules and regulations,
a lot of those, where appropriate, ought to be at the state
level. There will be some at the national level.
But, again, I think this hearing has increased public
awareness. And that, in itself, is the most important aspect of
it. It is a shame that you'd have to have Federal--I'm one who
generally does not like more regulations. I don't like more
laws. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is moving in this
regard, but sometimes agencies have limited ability to make it
enforceable. And so, we're going to work with the good research
from the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I think Ms.
Leland's very knowledgeable and could be helpful to us, as
well, Senator Pryor, as--in the event that we decide to move
forward with legislation, we want to do it in a considered and
measured way, with, in my view, minimal intrusion, but also
making sure that there is that--I don't call it so much a level
playing field, but minimum standards, safety standard, insofar
as the manufacture of these vehicles that are being sold here
in the United States.
So, I thank, again, you, Senator Pryor, for your interest,
your leadership, and also our witnesses, for your testimony and
the time you took to prepare your testimony. And we look
forward to working with you in the months and years to come.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

Prepared Statement of Edward J. Heiden, Ph.D., President,
Heiden Associates

ATV Recall Analysis
At the June 6, 2006 hearing of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on
Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance, a representative of
the Consumer Federation of America presented testimony regarding all-
terrain vehicle (ATV) recalls between June 2000 and November 2005.
Following your testimony on behalf of SVIA at the hearing, the
Subcommittee Chairman, Senator George Allen, asked how these ATV
recalls compared to recalls of other products. You indicated you would
provide a response for the hearing record.
At your request, Heiden Associates has conducted an analysis of the
number of units, incidents and injuries involved in ATV recalls during
the specified time period. Attached are three exhibits summarizing our
analysis of how ATV recalls compare to other consumer product recalls
announced by CPSC press release or recall alert between June 2000 and
November 2005.
Table 1 one provides summary information on recalls for the 31
product categories in which there were three or more recalls announced
that collectively involved at least one million products. ATVs, with
1.21 million recalled products, ranked 27th on this list of 31 product
categories.
Table 2 ranks the recalled product categories by the number of
reported incidents per 10,000 products recalled. The list was confined
to product groups with recalls of 5,000 products or more. ATVs ranked
24th out of the 42 product categories with incident rates of 10 or more
per 10,000 affected products.
Table 3 ranks categories of products in terms of the number of
injuries per 10,000 products recalled. The list is also restricted to
product groups with recalls of 5,000 products or more. There were 72
categories of products with injury rates of 0.5 or higher per 10,000
affected products (or one per 20,000 affected units). ATVs ranked 59th
out of the 72 product groups on this list.
This analysis indicates the ATV recalls from June 2000 to November
2005 involved fewer units collectively, and are characterized by lower
incident and injury rates per 10,000 affected products, than is the
case for recall programs involving many other significant categories of
consumer products during the same time period. These results,
especially those in Table 3, support the view that the ATV recall
activity was largely preventive and precautionary. In fact, there were
no injuries reported in 31 of the 47 ATV recall notices for which this
information was available, and no product incidents were reported in 18
of the ATV recall notices.
We also extracted and reviewed recall announcements from the NHTSA
vehicle recall database for the same time period of June 2000 to
November 2005. It is not possible to separate these recalls into those
involving cars or trucks specifically without reviewing and coding the
individual program descriptions. However, there were 944 car and truck
recalls reported in the NHTSA database which involved 10,000 or more
units in the recall. The total number of affected vehicles included in
these recalls was nearly 115 million. In comparison, the 1.2 million
ATVs included in the 48 recalls conducted during the same time period
seems very small.

Table 1--Product Recalls by Number of Recalled Products
[Recalls Announced June 2000-November 2005 w/ Press Release or Recall
Alert]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Recalls Products Incidents Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cigarette lighters 12 14,938,400 5 1
lamps/lights 32 8,480,010 989 46
slow cookers 6 7,885,000 5,439 53
baby carriers 6 7,542,135 2,969 301
air guns 4 7,525,800 172 171
chairs 21 6,226,454 185 58
candles 36 6,138,036 164 20
stuffed animals 4 4,346,500 33 0
exercise equipment 14 3,266,039 894 172
notebook computers 14 3,083,282 60 0
juice extractors 4 2,746,058 68 45
printers 4 2,656,431 5 0
coffeemakers 6 2,546,160 282 12
battery chargers 4 2,525,660 6 2
fans 7 2,416,800 39 1
cut-off wheels 3 2,186,400 172 0
high chairs 3 2,185,000 327 164
portable heaters 11 2,153,800 211 5
strollers 8 1,958,730 1,391 538
fireworks 8 1,901,000 7 5
basketball 3 1,778,600 28 1
food processors 4 1,759,300 30 21
dehumidifiers 3 1,502,500 20 0
scooters 11 1,497,772 564 47
toys 12 1,383,490 8 1
drills 7 1,275,000 87 7
all-terrain vehicles 48 1,207,538 2,247 80
cell phone batteries 3 1,190,000 36 3
baby jumpers 3 1,082,300 211 47
pacifiers/teethers 13 1,018,907 8 0
extension cords 5 1,001,200 5 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: List includes all product groups with 3+ recalls of 1,000,000
products or more.

Table 2--Product Recalls by Number of Incidents per 10,000 Recalled
Products
[Recalls Announced June 2000-November 2005 w/Press Release or Recall
Alert]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Inc. Rate
Product Products Incidents per 10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
deck/railing materials 11,000 370 336.4
leaf blowers/vacuums 11,191 285 254.7
thermos bottles 45,000 654 145.3
spinning ride toys 103,000 1,427 138.5
steam cleaners 30,100 347 115.3
pressure cookers 7,400 63 85.1
spas 26,050 206 79.1
riding mowers 218,814 1,592 72.8
tables 7,000 33 47.1
playpens 102,000 421 41.3
table saws 59,900 241 40.2
snowboard bindings 17,000 63 37.1
water disinfection systems 12,500 40 32.0
refrigerators 26,000 82 31.5
fireplaces 8,334 22 26.4
camping stoves 32,986 74 22.4
handheld vacuum AC adapters 10,000 22 22.0
mugs 6,500 14 21.5
cribs 472,773 980 20.7
gasoline stove fuel 9,700 20 20.6
toaster ovens 7,000 14 20.0
hair straightening irons 20,000 38 19.0
hikers 7,500 14 18.7
all-terrain vehicles 1,207,538 2,247 18.6
wet/dry vacuums 6,500 12 18.5
pans 8,700 16 18.4
water coolers 12,000 20 16.7
baby table toys 20,000 32 16.0
baby changing tables 5,000 8 16.0
lawn mowers 507,000 760 15.0
battery for GPS 10,300 15 14.6
grills 917,374 1,256 13.7
cordless sweepers 59,400 80 13.5
fire alarm control panels 6,000 8 13.3
baby toys 21,000 27 12.9
deep fryer baskets 50,000 63 12.6
weather radios 10,000 12 12.0
cotton candy machines 188,000 225 12.0
miter saws 6,400 7 10.9
air conditioners 61,060 63 10.3
steel kettles 13,000 13 10.0
wax/candle melting pots 9,000 9 10.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: List includes product groups with recalls of 5,000 products or
more.

Table 3--Product Recalls by Number of Injuries per 10,000 Recalled
Products
[Recalls Announced June 2000-November 2005 w/Press Release or Recall
Alert]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Inj. Rate
Product Products Injuries per 10,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
steam cleaners 30,100 222 73.75
pressure cookers 7,400 53 71.62
wet/dry vacuums 6,500 12 18.46
miter saws 6,400 7 10.94
wax/candle melting pots 9,000 6 6.67
goalie masks 5,000 3 6.00
thermos bottles 45,000 23 5.11
fireplaces 8,334 4 4.80
furniture 31,849 14 4.40
baby toys 21,000 9 4.29
cowboy hats 5,200 2 3.85
propane cylinders 6,400 2 3.13
strollers 1,958,730 538 2.75
baby walkers 537,200 143 2.66
toy battery packs 7,900 2 2.53
steel kettles 13,000 3 2.31
pans 8,700 2 2.30
baby changing tables 5,000 1 2.00
deep fryer baskets 50,000 10 2.00
minibikes 5,000 1 2.00
jackets and vests 5,100 1 1.96
wooden baby gates 20,500 4 1.95
climbing gear 42,539 8 1.88
human transporters 6,000 1 1.67
push toys 54,900 9 1.64
sprayers 6,100 1 1.64
baby strollers 300,000 48 1.60
mugs 6,500 1 1.54
bicycles 993,565 151 1.52
crib mobiles 47,000 7 1.49
choral risers with guard rails 7,000 1 1.43
ball toys 43,000 6 1.40
glove compartment organizers 15,000 2 1.33
bicycle parts 7,720 1 1.30
children's tent sets 15,700 2 1.27
brushcutters/trimmers 63,600 8 1.26
gun holster 8,000 1 1.25
teapots 24,257 3 1.24
camping stoves 32,986 4 1.21
pogo sticks 154,000 17 1.10
water guns 38,600 4 1.04
hair straightening irons 20,000 2 1.00
grout sealer 300,000 28 0.93
toy stands 300,000 26 0.87
air powered rockets 140,000 12 0.86
bicycle accessories 120,604 10 0.83
riding mowers 218,814 18 0.82
radial arm saws 3,700,000 300 0.81
children's tent set 13,040 1 0.77
grills 917,374 69 0.75
high chairs 2,185,000 164 0.75
toy animal farms 67,000 5 0.75
weather thermometers 28,000 2 0.71
infant swings 57,000 4 0.70
toy chests 14,400 1 0.69
pencils w/sharpeners 176,000 12 0.68
air hockey tables 15,000 1 0.67
water kettles 15,000 1 0.67
all-terrain vehicles 1,207,538 80 0.66
defrost heaters 16,000 1 0.63
hand trucks 32,000 2 0.63
cribs 472,773 29 0.61
outdoor appliance timers 16,700 1 0.60
playground equipment 605,636 36 0.59
toddler beds 1,200,000 69 0.58
toy play rings 18,000 1 0.56
exercise equipment 3,266,039 172 0.53
benches 19,757 1 0.51
ranges/ovens 159,630 8 0.50
baseball video games 140,000 7 0.50
ear guards 60,000 3 0.50
eyelash curlers 220,000 11 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: List includes product groups with recalls of 5,000 products or
more.