[Senate Report 114-357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 642
114th Congress } { Report
2d Session } SENATE { 114-357
_______________________________________________________________________
ROV IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION ACT OF 2015
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1040
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 22, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-010 WASHINGTON : 2016
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred fourteenth congress
second session
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel
Calendar No. 642
114th Congress } { Report
2d Session } SENATE { 114-357
======================================================================
ROV IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION ACT OF 2015
_______
September 22, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1040]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1040) to direct the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and the National Academy of Sciences
to study the vehicle handling requirements proposed by the
Commission for recreational off-highway vehicles and to
prohibit the adoption of any such requirements until the
completion of the study, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 1040, the ROV In-Depth Examination Act of
2015, is to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the
vehicle handling requirements proposed by the CPSC for
recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs) and to prohibit the
adoption of any such requirements until the completion of the
study.
Background and Needs
ROVs are motorized vehicles having four or more tires
designed for off-road use and intended by the manufacturer for
recreational use by one or more persons. ROVs are distinct from
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in that they have a steering wheel
instead of a handle bar for steering, bench or bucket seats for
the driver and passenger(s) instead of straddle seating, and
foot controls for throttle and breaking instead of handle bar
controls.
According to the CPSC, they have has reviewed 428 reports
of ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003,
and December 31, 2011, from its Injury and Potential Incident
and In-Depth Investigation databases.\1\ These reports document
a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents, with 231
reported fatalities and 388 reported injuries.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Consumer Product Safety Commission, ``Safety Standards for
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)'', November 19, 2014, Proposed
Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 68964, 68965.
\2\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPSC found that, of the ``428 reported ROV-related
incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle,
more than half of which occurred when the vehicle was in a turn
(52 percent).''\3\ CPSC staff also found that, ``of the 224
fatal incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved rollover of the
vehicle, and 56 of those incidents (38 percent) occurred on
flat terrain.''\4\ Additionally, staff also found that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 225 fatal victims who were in or on the ROV at
the time of the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected
partially or fully from the vehicle, and 146 (75
percent) were struck by a part of the vehicle after
ejection. Seat belt use is known for 155 of the 194
ejected victims; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not
wearing a seatbelt.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Id. at 68965-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, the CPSC issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking on ROVs due to CPSC staff concerns
regarding specific aspects of the voluntary industry draft
standard being discussed at the time.\6\ Specifically, CPSC
staff were concerned that the lateral stability and occupant
protection aspects of the draft were not sufficient to prevent
rollovers or protect occupants in the event of a crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Consumer Product Safety Commission, ``Safety Standards for
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)'', proposed October 28, 2009,
74 Fed. Reg. 55495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A voluntary industry standard promulgated by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited Recreational
Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) was later issued in
2010. The ANSI-ROHVA standard establishes minimum requirements
for ROVs, including, among other things, lateral and pitch
stability, occupant protection systems, and safety labeling.
This standard was subsequently updated, with the benefit of
CPSC staff participation, in 2011 and again in 2014. At the
time, staff was prohibited by regulation from voting on the
adoption of voluntary standards, but CPSC staff provided input
and technical expertise to assist the ANSI process.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\16 C.F.R. 1031.11d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051
et seq.), the CPSC may promulgate mandatory safety standards
reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with a consumer product.\8\ As in this
case, when a voluntary standard exists, the CPSC must rely on
the voluntary standard if it determines both that compliance
with the standard would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk
of injury addressed and that there will be substantial
compliance with the voluntary standard.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq.
\9\15 U.S.C. 2056(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the initial briefing packet to CPSC Commissioners
recommending that the CPSC issue a proposed rule, CPSC staff
based the recommendation to proceed with a mandatory standard
on an outdated version of the ANSI-ROHVA standard, which was
updated in 2014 to address CPSC concerns. This staff proposal
drew significant criticism from some stakeholders and from a
bipartisan group of Senators (Senators Klobuchar, Heller,
Johnson, Blunt, Pryor, Cruz, Rubio, Fischer, Ayotte, Franken,
McCaskill, and Manchin), that wrote in support of delaying the
rulemaking to review the updated voluntary standard.\10\ In
addition, the Senators recommended that ``CPSC staff and the
industry reach an agreement on voluntary standards that
adequately address the risk of injury concerning ROVs.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Letter from Sen. Klobuchar et al. to Elliot Kaye, Chairman,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, October 17, 2014, at http://
www.heller.senate.gov/public/--cache/files/bab9c722-7405-4c13-88ce-
350ef5ca7b29/10--17--2014--letter--from--senators--to--CPSC.PDF.
\11\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC participated in the voluntary standards process to
revise the then-existing standard, but did not agree with the
proposed new ANSI-ROHVA standard. CPSC Commissioners voted
along a 3-2 party line vote to proceed with the publication of
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on grounds that the
ANSI-ROHVA standard does not adequately address vehicle
stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection and safety
labeling.\12\ The NPRM was published on November 19, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Consumer Product Safety Commission, ``Safety Standards for
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)'', proposed November 19, 2014,
79 Fed. Reg. 68964, (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 1422).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 7, 2015, the CPSC held a public meeting during
which it heard testimony from stakeholders regarding its ROV
NPRM. During that meeting, consumer groups expressed general
support for the CPSC's decision to proceed with its rulemaking
while industry stakeholders and members of the user community
questioned the scientific validity of the proposed rule and
expressed concerns, for instance, that ``the remedies
prescribed . . . could well have unintended consequences of
making these vehicles less safe in the off-road
environment.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Public Meeting: Oral Presentations Regarding the Recreational
Off-Highway Vehicles Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Before the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission at 346, January 7, 2015, (statement
of Larry E. Smith, Exec. Dir., Ams. For Responsible Recreational
Access).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2015, the CPSC Commissioners voted unanimously
to extend the comment period for the NPRM concerning ROVs. The
comment period remained open until June 19, 2015.
Summary of Provisions
S. 1040 would suspend the authority of the CPSC to
establish standards concerning the performance or configuration
of ROVs pending independent examination of the mandatory design
standards proposed in the NPRM. S. 1040 would require that CPSC
enter into an agreement with the NAS to conduct a study on
matters concerning the ROV lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements proposed by the CPSC. In carrying out its
study, the NAS would be required to consult with the
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Secretary of Defense. S. 1040
would establish a deadline of no later than 480 days from the
date of enactment for the NAS to complete its study and would
require that the NAS transmit its report to the CPSC, the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives. S. 1040 would require that the CPSC consider
the results of the study in any subsequent rulemaking regarding
the performance or configuration of ROVs, or the provision of
point-of-sale information regarding ROV performance. S. 1040
would allow the CPSC to contract with an appropriate
organization other than the NAS to conduct the study, in the
event that the CPSC is unable to enter into an agreement with
the NAS, and provided that the organization is: (1) not part of
the Government; (2) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and
(3) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the
NAS.
Legislative History
Senators Heller and Manchin introduced S. 1040 on April 22,
2015. The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Ayotte,
Boozman, Cotton, Crapo, Daines, Gardner, Lankford, and
Sullivan. On May 20, 2015, the Committee considered the bill
and reported S. 1040, as amended. For purposes of consideration
and subject to additional amendments, the Committee first
adopted an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) offered by
Senators Heller and Manchin that would clarify the elements to
be included in the study and would adjust the bill's reporting
requirements.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 1040--ROV In-Depth Examination Act of 2015
S. 1040 would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) to study standards for recreational off-highway vehicles
(ROVs) that are specified in a proposed rule issued by the CPSC
in 2014. The bill would prohibit CPSC from adopting any
requirements on the performance or configuration of ROVs--
including those in the proposed rule related to lateral
stability, vehicle handling, occupant protection, and consumer
information--until after completion of the study. Based on
information from the agency, CBO estimates that the study would
cost about $1 million, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct
spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do
not apply.
S. 1040 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople.
The estimate was approved by Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
The bill, as reported, would modify the CPSC's authority to
establish current standards concerning the performance or
configuration of ROVs. In this regard, S. 1040 would prevent
the CPSC from establishing any such standards until the
completion of a study on proposed lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements. S. 1040 includes a prohibition on the
CPSC's exercise of any authority pursuant to section 27(e) of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2076(e)) to require
ROV manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to
prospective purchasers and to the first purchase of a
recreational off-highway vehicle for purposes other than resale
until the completion of study on proposed lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirements.
The Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office
that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The
bill would impose no costs on States or tribal organizations.
number of persons covered
This bill would direct the CPSC and the NAS or alternate
contract organization to study the vehicle handling
requirements proposed by the CPSC for ROVs and to prohibit the
adoption of any such requirements until the completion of the
study. It does not authorize any new regulations and therefore
will not subject any individuals or businesses to new
regulations.
economic impact
The bill is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
Nation's economy.
privacy
The bill would not have any adverse impact on the personal
privacy of individuals.
paperwork
S. 1040 would create a new reporting requirement for the
NAS or alternate contract organization. The NAS or alternate
contract organization would be directed to complete and
transmit to the CPSC and Congress a report of its study on
proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section would designate the bill's short title as the
``ROV In-Depth Examination Act of 2015.''
Section 2. Recreational off-highway vehicle standards study
Section 2 of the bill would define various terms used
within the section. It would establish that the CPSC shall have
no authority to establish any standards concerning the
performance or configuration of ROVs until after the completion
of a study on the proposed lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements. It contains a savings clause which
states that nothing in this section would be construed as
suggesting that ROVs shall not be manufactured in compliance
with applicable voluntary standards. Section 2 would require
that the CPSC enter into an agreement with the NAS to determine
the technical validity of the lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements for purposes of reducing the risk of ROV
rollovers in the off-road environment, including the
repeatability and reproducibility of testing for compliance
with such requirements. The study also would determine whether
there is a technical basis to provide information on a point-
of-sale hangtag about a vehicle's rollover resistance on a
progressive scale.
Section 2 would further require the NAS, in carrying out
its study, to consult with the Administrator of NHTSA and the
Secretary of Defense. Section 2 would establish a deadline of
no later than 480 days from the date of enactment for the NAS
to complete its study and would require that the NAS transmit
its report to the CPSC, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives. Section 2 would
require that the CPSC consider the results of the study in any
subsequent rulemaking regarding the performance or
configuration of ROVs, or the provision of point-of-sale
information regarding ROV performance. Section 2 would further
allow the CPSC to contract with an appropriate organization
other than the NAS to conduct the study, in the event that the
CPSC is unable to enter into an agreement with the NAS, and
provided that the organization is: (1) not part of the
Government; (2) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and (3)
has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the NAS.
Subsection (c)(4)(B) of this section would incorporate by
reference the other appropriate organization to the
requirements of the Act, in the event that the CPSC exercises
this option.
Votes in Committee
Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment, to the amendment
(in the nature of a substitute) offered by Senators Heller and
Manchin, to authorize the CPSC to accept amounts from
manufacturers of ROVs to carry out the study on proposed
lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. By a
rollcall vote of 8 yeas and 16 nays as follows, the amendment
was defeated:
YEAS--8 NAYS--16
Mr. Nelson Mr. Wicker
Ms. Cantwell\1\ Mr. Blunt
Mr. Blumenthal Mr. Rubio\1\
Mr. Schatz Ms. Ayotte
Mr. Markey\1\ Mr. Cruz
Mr. Booker Ms. Fischer
Mr. Udall\1\ Mr. Moran\1\
Mr. Peters Mr. Sullivan
Mr. Johnson\1\
Mr. Heller
Mr. Gardner
Mr. Daines
Ms. McCaskill
Ms. Klobuchar
Mr. Manchin\1\
Mr. Thune
\1\By proxy
Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment, to the amendment
(in the nature of a substitute) offered by Senators Heller and
Manchin, to authorize NHTSA to regulate ROVs. By a rollcall
vote of 7 yeas and 17 nays as follows, the amendment was
defeated:
YEAS--7 NAYS--17
Ms. Cantwell\1\ Mr. Wicker
Mr. Blumenthal Mr. Blunt
Mr. Schatz Mr. Rubio\1\
Mr. Markey\1\ Ms. Ayotte
Mr. Booker Mr. Cruz
Mr. Udall\1\ Ms. Fischer
Mr. Peters Mr. Moran\1\
Mr. Sullivan\1\
Mr. Johnson\1\
Mr. Heller
Mr. Gardner\1\
Mr. Daines
Mr. Nelson
Ms. McCaskill
Ms. Klobuchar
Mr. Manchin
Mr. Thune
\1\By proxy
By a rollcall vote of 15 yeas and 9 nays as follows, the
bill was ordered reported with amendments:
YEAS--15 NAYS--9
Mr. Wicker Ms. Cantwell\1\
Mr. Blunt Ms. McCaskill
Mr. Rubio\1\ Ms. Klobuchar
Ms. Ayotte Mr. Blumenthal
Mr. Cruz Mr. Schatz
Ms. Fischer Mr. Markey\1\
Mr. Moran\1\ Mr. Booker
Mr. Sullivan\1\ Mr. Udall\1\
Mr. Johnson\1\ Mr. Peters
Mr. Heller
Mr. Gardner\1\
Mr. Daines
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Manchin
Mr. Thune
\1\By proxy
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]