[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 28, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55495-55499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25959]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1422

RIN 3041-AC78


Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'') is 
considering whether there may be unreasonable risks of injury and death 
associated with Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs). This advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) begins a rulemaking proceeding 
under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 4-0 to publish this ANPR in the Federal 
Register. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum and Commissioners Robert Adler, 
Thomas Moore, and Nancy Nord voted to publish the ANPR. Commissioner 
Anne Northup abstained from voting. Chairman Tenenbaum issued a 
statement, which can be found at http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/tenenbaum10212009.pdf.

DATES: Written comments in response to this document must be received 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by the Commission no later than December 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-
0087, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way: Federal 
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions 
for submitting comments. To ensure timely processing of comments, the 
Commission is no longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail 
(e-mail) except through http://www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper (preferably in five copies), 
disk, or CD-ROM submissions), to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be 
posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to  http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background comments or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, 
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Team, Directorate for Engineering 
Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7540 or e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background

    In general, ROVs are motorized vehicles having four or more low 
pressure tires designed for off-road use and intended by the 
manufacturer primarily for recreational use by one or

[[Page 55496]]

more persons. ROVs are a relatively new product in the motorized off-
road vehicle category, and, as explained in more detail in part B of 
this preamble below, their speed and design make them distinct from 
other vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), light utility 
vehicles, and golf carts. The number of manufacturers and importers 
marketing ROVs in the United States has increased substantially in 
recent years. The first utility vehicle that exceeded 30 mph, thus 
putting it in the ROV category, was introduced in the late 1990s. No 
other manufacturer offered a ROV until 2003. Since 2003, more than a 
dozen manufacturers and importers have entered the market, mostly in 
only the last couple of years.
    The Commission has received more than 180 reports of ROV-related 
injury and fatality incidents occurring between January 2003 and August 
2009. Additionally, non-fatal injuries involving ROVs are significant 
in nature, often resulting in amputation, degloving,\2\ or other severe 
injury of extremities that can cause permanent disfigurement. Although 
a voluntary standard for ROVs has been proposed (as discussed in part 
D.3 of this preamble), the Commission does not believe the proposed 
voluntary standard as currently drafted adequately addresses the risk 
of injury associated with ROVs. The Commission is considering whether 
there may be unreasonable deaths and injuries associated with ROVs such 
that rulemaking is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A degloving is a type of injury in which a large section of 
skin and tissue is torn away, sometimes to the bone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Product

    ROVs are motorized vehicles having four or more low pressure tires 
designed for off-road use and intended by the manufacturer primarily 
for recreational use by one or more persons. Other salient 
characteristics of an ROV include: A steering wheel for steering 
control, foot controls for throttle and braking, bench or bucket seats, 
rollover protective structure (ROPS), restraint system, and a maximum 
speed greater than 30 miles per hour (mph).
    Although similar in configuration to some light utility vehicles 
and golf carts, ROVs differ from these vehicle classes by their ability 
to reach speeds greater than 30 mph. In addition, ROVs are more likely 
than utility vehicles to be used recreationally in an off-road 
environment. Light utility vehicles are used primarily in farm and work 
applications and have maximum speeds of 25 mph or less. Similarly, golf 
carts are intended for low speed applications (15 mph or less) on 
moderate terrain.
    ROVs are intended to be used on similar terrain to that on which 
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are used, but are distinguished from ATVs 
by having a steering wheel instead of a handle bar, bench or bucket 
seats for the driver and passenger(s) instead of straddle seating, foot 
controls for throttle and braking instead of levers located on the 
handle bar, and ROPS and restraint systems that are not present on 
ATVs.
    Retail Prices: The suggested retail prices for ROVs are generally 
higher than those for other types of recreational and utility vehicles. 
The prices of the ROVs offered by the five major manufacturers range 
from about $8,000 to $14,000, depending upon factors such as engine 
size and other features. The retail prices of most of the models 
offered by the smaller importers and distributors range from about 
$6,000 to $8,000.
    There also is an active secondary market for ROVs. For models 
produced by the major manufacturers, prices for used ROVs range from as 
low as $2,000 to $3,000 for models produced in the early 2000's, to 
$5,000 to $8,000 for those produced in 2006 or 2007.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ National Automobile Dealers Association, Motorcycle/
Snowmobile/ATV/Personal Watercraft Appraisal Guide, September-
December 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sales and Numbers in Use: ROV sales have seen significant growth in 
a short time period. In 1998, only one manufacturer offered ROV models 
and fewer than 2,000 units were sold.\4\ By 2003, when a second major 
manufacturer entered the market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. In 2008, 
it is estimated that more than 126,000 ROVs were sold by more than a 
dozen different manufacturers or distributors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based upon analysis of sales data compiled by Power Products 
Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPSC's Product Population Model is a computer model that 
projects the number of products in use given information on product 
sales and the expected rate at which products fail or go out of use.\6\ 
The estimated approximate number of ROVs in use is a measure of risk 
exposure. Based on sales through 2008, and assuming an average product 
life of about 10 years, there may have been more than 416,000 ROVs in 
use at the end of 2008. This contrasts with fewer than 45,000 ROVs in 
use at the end of 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a more complete description of the Product Population 
Model, see M.L. Lahr and B.B. Gordon, Final Report on Product Life 
Model Feasibility and Development Study to Deputy Associate 
Executive Director for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 
Columbus, Ohio (14 July 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Risk of Injury

    The Commission has received reports of 181 ROV-related fatality and 
injury incidents occurring between January 2003 and August 2009. Many 
reports were submitted to the CPSC by consumers, medical examiners, and 
police departments. In addition, the Commission obtained reports of 
ROV-related injury and fatality incidents through review of newspaper 
articles and other news sources, including online news reports. These 
incidents do not constitute a statistically derived sample of ROV-
related incidents.
    Because of the number and severity of the incidents, CPSC's 
Division of Hazard Analysis undertook a more thorough review of these 
incidents. From the 181 ROV-related incidents, the Commission is aware 
of 116 ROV-related fatalities and 152 ROV-related injuries. More than 
30 percent of the 181 incidents were reported to involve more than one 
victim (either deceased or injured). In considering these counts, it is 
important to emphasize that data collection is ongoing, and these 
counts are expected to increase as CPSC staff obtains additional 
information regarding ROV-related incidents. In addition, the 
Commission is expecting to receive additional information regarding 
some of the 181 incidents reviewed. This information, together with 
reports of additional ROV-related incidents, may result in changes to 
some of the information.
    Of the 152 injuries that were reported to have occurred as a result 
of ROV-related incidents, a number were very serious in nature. These 
injuries include deglovings, fractures, and crushing injuries involving 
the victims' legs, feet, arms and hands. In some cases, surgical 
amputation of the victims' injured limbs was required after the 
incident.
    Of the 181 reported incidents, 125 (69 percent) of the incidents 
appeared to have involved overturning of the ROV, with no known 
collision event preceding the overturning. Additionally, 20 (11 
percent) of the incidents were reported to have involved collision of 
the vehicle with either a stationary object or another motor vehicle.
    Vehicle Overturning: Of the 125 incidents that involved overturning 
of the ROV, the CPCS staff was able to determine in 107 incidents 
whether or not a victim was ejected from the vehicle. Ninety-eight 
percent (105 of 107) of these incidents appeared to involve at least 
one victim who exited the vehicle, either partially or completely. 
Deceased or injured victims

[[Page 55497]]

were ejected by being thrown out, falling out, jumping out, climbing 
out, or otherwise fully or partially exiting the vehicle. Partial 
ejections include victims' limbs (i.e., arms and legs) coming out of 
the vehicle and being crushed by some part of the vehicle.
    Of the 125 incidents that involved overturning of the ROV, the CPSC 
staff was able to determine in 72 incidents whether or not the victim 
was wearing a seat belt. Seventy-one percent (51 of 72) of these 
incidents appeared to involve at least one victim who was either not 
using the seat belt or was wearing it improperly. (Improper seat belt 
use includes situations where the victim did not use the shoulder 
portion of the three-point restraint system on the ROV.)
    Of the 125 incidents that involved overturning of the ROV, CPSC 
staff was able to determine in 71 incidents whether or not a victim was 
wearing a helmet. Ninety-six percent (68 of 71) of these incidents 
appeared to involve at least one victim who was either not wearing a 
helmet or who was wearing a helmet improperly.
    Vehicle Collision: Of the 20 incidents that involved collision of 
the ROV, CPSC staff was able to determine in 14 incidents whether or 
not a victim was ejected from the vehicle. Seventy-nine percent (11 of 
14) of these incidents appeared to involve at least one victim who 
exited the vehicle, either partially or completely. Deceased or injured 
victims were ejected by being thrown out, falling out, or otherwise 
completely or partially exiting the vehicle. Partial ejections include 
victims' limbs (i.e., arms and legs) coming out of the vehicle and 
being crushed by the vehicle. In some incidents, collision of the ROV 
was then followed by the overturning of the ROV. These incidents were 
categorized as ``ROV collision'' rather than as ``Overturning.''
    Of the 20 incidents that involved collision of the ROV, CPSC staff 
was able to determine in 12 incidents whether or not the victim was 
wearing a seat belt. Seventy-five percent (9 of 12) of the incidents 
appeared to involve at least one victim who was either not using the 
seat belt or who was wearing it improperly.
    Of the 20 incidents that involved collision of the ROV, CPSC staff 
was able to determine in 15 incidents whether or not a victim was 
wearing a helmet. Eighty-seven percent (13 of 15) of these incidents 
appeared to involve at least one victim who was either not wearing a 
helmet or who was wearing a helmet improperly.
    Societal Costs of Injuries: The societal costs of injuries include 
the medical cost of treating the injury, the cost of lost work due to 
the injury, intangible costs (such as pain and suffering), and the 
product insurance and litigation costs. The injury costs will vary by 
factors such as the severity of the injury (an injury resulting in a 
hospital stay is more costly than one that does not) and the body part 
affected (a head injury is usually more costly than an injury to a 
finger). Usually, the intangible cost (pain and suffering) is the 
largest component of the societal cost of injuries.
    Assuming the non-fatal injuries associated with ROVs are similar to 
those associated with ATVs in terms of the severity and type of injury, 
then the average societal cost of an injury would be about $38,000. 
Pain and suffering would account for about 67 percent of the cost, 
medical costs would account for almost 13% of the cost, and work loss 
would account for about almost 20% of the cost. The legal and liability 
costs would account for less than one percent of the total. (These 
estimates are based on the average cost of an injury associated with an 
ATV calculated using the CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM).)

D. Current Safety Efforts

    1. Testing: From November 2008 to January 2009, the Commission 
staff tested and evaluated several ROV models on the market. The 
staff's preliminary evaluations indicate that the vehicles may exhibit 
inadequate lateral stability, undesirable steering characteristics, and 
inadequate occupant protection during a roll over crash. CPSC staff 
believes improved lateral stability and vehicle handling can reduce 
some of the rollover related incidents. In addition, CPSC staff 
believes improved occupant retention and protection (including improved 
occupant use of seat belts) can reduce some of the occupant ejections 
associated with ROV rollover and collision. CPSC staff identified three 
factors related to the design of a ROV that have the greatest impact on 
occupant safety: (1) Static stability factor (SSF); (2) vehicle 
handling; and (3) occupant retention and protection.
    a. SSF: The SSF of a vehicle is the ratio of the vehicle's track 
width to twice the height of its center of gravity.\7\ The National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established a strong 
correlation between a vehicle's SSF and the risk of rollover in a 
single vehicle crash. The risk of rollover for automobiles in a single-
vehicle crash ranges from over 40% to less than 10% with a vehicle SSF 
range from 1.03 to 1.45.\8\ NHTSA's rollover ratings reflect the real-
world rollover experience of vehicles involved in over 86,000 single-
vehicle crashes.\9\ The higher the SSF value the more stable the 
vehicle, and the less likely the vehicle is to rollover. The SSF values 
for the ROV models (with 2 occupants) tested by CPSC staff ranged from 
0.84 to 0.92, which is far lower than the range for automobiles. CPSC 
staff believes that a SSF range of 0.84 to 0.92 is inadequate for a 
vehicle that is specifically designed to traverse conditions, such as 
uneven terrain and slopes, that present an even greater rollover hazard 
to vehicles than level, on-road conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SSF = T/2H, where T = vehicle track width and H = vertical 
distance from ground to vehicle's center of gravity.
    \8\ http://www.safercar.gov.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Vehicle Handling: Passenger cars are deliberately designed to 
understeer. If a vehicle understeers in a turn, the front wheels lose 
traction and the steering wheel needs to be turned more to stay on the 
path of the turn. This condition is directionally stable and 
predictable. If a vehicle oversteers in a turn, by contrast, the rear 
wheels lose traction and the steering wheel needs to be turned less to 
stay on the turn. This condition is directionally unstable because it 
can result in spin out or rollover of the vehicle. Controlling 
oversteer requires driver skill and knowledge in using acceleration and 
steering that is beyond the average driver.
    The CPSC testing of sample ROVs to SAE J266, Steady-State 
Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light 
Trucks, a standard vehicle handling test, indicates that some model 
ROVs exhibit severe oversteer while other model ROVs exhibit 
understeer. The CPSC staff believes that ROVs should exhibit understeer 
characteristics that are similar to automobiles because such 
characteristics are safer and more familiar to drivers.
    c. Occupant Retention and Protection: CPSC staff's testing of the 
sample ROVs to static and dynamic rollover simulations indicate that 
occupants may be better restrained in some model ROVs. Specifically, 
occupants may be better restrained in ROVs where the occupant seating 
location is significantly lower within the vehicle and the vehicle 
provides a physical shoulder guard on both the passenger and driver 
side that helps keep the occupant's upper torso within the vehicle.

[[Page 55498]]

    2. Repair Program: In March 2009, the Commission negotiated a 
repair program involving the Yamaha Rhino 450, 660, and 700 model ROVs 
to address stability and handling issues with the vehicles.\10\ CPSC 
staff investigated more than 50 incidents, including 46 driver and 
passenger deaths. The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to design changes 
through a retrofit program that would increase the vehicle's SSF and 
change the vehicle's handling characteristic from oversteer to 
understeer. The repair consisted of: (1) The addition of rear spacers 
on the vehicle's rear wheels and the removal of the rear anti-sway bar 
to increase vehicle stability and improve handling; and (2) continued 
installation of half doors and passenger hand holds to help keep 
occupants' arms and legs inside the vehicle during a rollover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ CPSC Release 09-172, Yamaha Motor Corp. Offers 
Free Repair for 450, 660, and 700 Model Rhino Vehicles, (March 31, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Voluntary Standard: CPSC staff met with representatives of the 
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) on December 12, 
2008, to discuss the development of an American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) standard for ROVs. ROHVA was formed by four 
manufacturers, and one of its stated purposes is to develop a voluntary 
standard for ROVs. The ROHVA representatives presented an outline for a 
voluntary standard that included requirements for vehicle 
configuration, service and parking brake performance, and lateral and 
pitch stability. At this meeting, CPSC staff expressed concerns about 
the lateral stability and occupant protection aspects of the ROV class 
of vehicles. In particular, CPSC staff expressed concern regarding a 
proposed requirement for a 20 degree tilt angle for a fully loaded 
vehicle. CPSC staff suggested that ROHVA consider NHTSA's use of a 
vehicle's SSF to describe lateral stability and discussed the 
possibility of using an SSF greater than 1.0 as a minimum lateral 
stability requirement for ROVs. The ROHVA representatives rejected 
using SSF. In addition, CPSC staff encouraged ROHVA to develop 
requirements dedicated to ensuring adequate occupant protection.
    On June 12, 2009, CPSC staff received a copy of the draft proposed 
American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, ANSI/
ROHVA 1-200X. The draft voluntary standard addresses design, 
configuration and performance aspects of ROVs, including requirements 
for accelerator, clutch, and gearshift controls; engine and fuel cutoff 
devices; lighting; tires; service and parking brake performance; 
lateral and pitch stability; occupant handholds and rollover protection 
structure (ROPS); seat belts; and requirements for labels and owner's 
manuals.
    CPSC staff reviewed the draft standard and found no improvement 
from the proposals made by ROHVA at the December 2008 meeting in the 
areas of lateral stability and occupant protection. ROHVA continues to 
propose low tilt angles as a lateral stability requirement, continues 
to define stability coefficients for an unoccupied vehicle (an 
unrealistic use configuration), fails to address vehicle handling, and 
fails to address occupants coming out of a vehicle during a rollover 
event. This notice, in parts D.3.a through D.3.c of this preamble 
immediately below, discusses the CPSC staff's concerns on specific 
aspects of the draft standard.
    a. Vehicle Stability: Section 8 of the draft voluntary standard, 
Lateral Stability, requires the following: That all ROVs, in a fully 
loaded configuration with occupants and cargo, laterally tilt up to 20 
degrees on a tilt table without lifting off; that all ROVs, loaded with 
two occupants, laterally tilt up to 28 degrees on a tilt table without 
tipping over; and that all ROVs, in an unloaded configuration, meet a 
stability coefficient calculated from the vehicle's track width, center 
of gravity, and wheelbase that is at least 1.0.
    CPSC staff does not believe the requirements in Section 8, Lateral 
Stability, are adequate to address vehicle rollover. As noted in part 
D.1.a of this preamble, CPSC staff believes that the lateral stability 
requirement for ROVs should be in an occupied configuration, and, at a 
minimum, should be in the 1.03 to 1.45 SSF range.
    b. Vehicle Handling: The proposed voluntary standard does not 
include any requirements that address vehicle handling. CPSC staff 
believes ROVs should exhibit predictable understeering characteristics 
similar to passenger cars that will be familiar to and safer for 
drivers. As stated earlier in part D.1.b of this notice, understeering 
characteristics are safer and more familiar to drivers.
    c. Occupant Retention and Protection: Section 4.7 of the draft 
voluntary standard, Seat Belt, requires that each seating position in a 
ROV have a minimum of a three-point seat belt that meets SAE J2292 
Combination Pelvic/Upper Torso (Type 2) Operator Restraint Systems for 
Off-Road Work Machines.
    The staff does not believe the requirement in section 4.7 is 
adequate to address occupant retention, especially in a rollover 
scenario. Occupant retention for ROVs is imperative because the 
vehicles are used in an off-road environment and at a relatively high 
rate of speed. CPSC testing indicates the current minimum requirement 
for a three-point seat belt does not adequately protect the occupant 
and does not address occupant limbs, torso, and head coming out of the 
vehicle. The staff believes a number of factors, such as occupant 
seating location within a vehicle, physical side guards such as doors 
and shoulder guards, four-point seat belts, and technologies for 
increasing seat belt use, can improve occupant retention.

E. Regulatory Alternatives To Address the Risks of Injury

    The Commission could address the risks of injury associated with 
ROVs through rulemaking. Alternatively, the Commission could defer to 
the voluntary standards process. Based on the continuing deaths and 
injuries involving ROVs and a review of the draft requirements 
currently proposed by ROHVA, the Commission has preliminarily 
determined that the draft voluntary standard will not adequately 
address the deaths and injuries associated with ROV rollovers and 
collisions.

F. Request for Information and Comments

    In accordance with section 9(a) of the CPSA, the Commission invites 
comments on the following matters:
    1. With respect to the risk of injury identified by the Commission, 
the regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible 
alternatives for addressing the risk.
    2. Any existing standard or portion of a standard which could be 
issued as a proposed regulation.
    3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary 
standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along 
with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so.
    In addition, the Commission is interested in receiving the 
following information:
    1. Definition of an ROV.
    2. Technical reports of testing, evaluation, and analysis of the 
dynamic stability, handling characteristics, and occupant protection 
characteristics for ROVs.
    3. Technical reports or standards that describe the minimum 
performance requirements for stability, handling characteristics, and 
occupant protection characteristics for ROVs.
    4. Technical information on test and evaluation methods for 
defining ROV characteristics that are specifically relevant to the 
vehicle's stability.

[[Page 55499]]

    5. Technical reports and evaluations of any prototype ROVs with 
enhanced safety designs.
    6. Technical information on ROV/vehicle design specific to vehicle 
handling (e.g., suspension design and the use of sway bars).
    7. Minimum and maximum track width considerations in ROV design.
    8. Minimum and maximum ground clearance considerations in ROV 
design.
    9. Minimum and maximum speed considerations in ROV design.
    10. Information on the center of gravity heights of occupied and 
unoccupied ROV models currently on the market.
    11. Information about the applicability of sensor technology to 
improve the safety of ROVs.
    12. Technical information on technologies for increasing seat belt 
use.
    13. Technical information on technologies for increasing the 
performance of seat belts.
    14. Technical studies and evaluations of three-point, four-point, 
and five-point seat belts.
    15. Technical information on ROPS design as it pertains to ground 
impact footprint and potential crushing injuries to the occupant.
    16. Information on test procedures to evaluate occupant retention 
and protection performance during roll over.
    17. Information on how non-fatal injuries associated with ROVs 
compare with those associated with ATVs in terms of severity and type 
of injury.

List of Relevant Documents

    1. Briefing memorandum from Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to the Commission, ``Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicles (ROVs),'' September 25, 2009.
    2. Memorandum from Caroleene Paul, Division of Mechanical 
Engineering, CPSC, to Robert J. Howell, Assistant Executive Director 
for Hazard Identification and Reduction, ``Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicles (ROVs),'' September 25, 2009.
    3. Memorandum from Sarah Garland, Mathematical Statistician, 
Division of Hazard Analysis, CPSC, and Robin Streeter, Mathematical 
Statistician, Division of Hazard Analysis, CPSC, to Caroleene Paul, 
Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Review of 
Reported Injuries and Fatalities Associated with Recreational Off-
Highway Vehicles (ROVs),'' September 2009.
    4. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Economist, Directorate for 
Economic Analysis, CPSC, to Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Recreational Off-Highway 
Vehicles: Market Information,'' September 25, 2009.

    Dated: October 22, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-25959 Filed 10-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P