[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68964-69031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26500]
[[Page 68963]]
Vol. 79
Wednesday,
No. 223
November 19, 2014
Part II
Consumer Product Safety Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Part 1422
Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs); Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 68964]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1422
RIN 3041-AC78
[Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087]
Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined
preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of injury and
death associated with recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs). To
address these risks, the Commission proposes a rule that includes:
lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements that specify a
minimum level of rollover resistance for ROVs and require that ROVs
exhibit sublimit understeer characteristics; occupant retention
requirements that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more
than 15 miles per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of both the driver
and front passengers, if any, are fastened, and would require ROVs to
have a passive means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit further
the ejection of a belted occupant in the event of a rollover; and
information requirements.
DATES: Submit comments by February 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2009-
0087, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 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 notice. 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
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC-2009-0087, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
Submit comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
aspects of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC or by email:
[email protected] or fax: 202-395-6881. In addition, comments
that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroleene Paul, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-
2225; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
proposing a standard for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).\1\
ROVs are motorized vehicles that combine off-road capability with
utility and recreational use. Reports of ROV-related fatalities and
injuries prompted the Commission to publish an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in October 2009 to consider whether there
may be unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with ROVs. (74
FR 55495 (October 28, 2009)). The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding
under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The Commission received
116 comments in response to the ANPR. The Commission is now issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would establish requirements
for lateral stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection
performance, as well as information requirements. The information
discussed in this preamble is derived from CPSC staff's briefing
package for the NPR and from CPSC staff's supplemental memorandum to
the Commission, which are available on CPSC's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2014/SafetyStandardforRecreationalOff-HighwayVehicles-ProposedRule.pdf and
http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/SupplementalInformation-ROVs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission voted (3-2) to publish this notice in the
Federal Register. Chairman Elliot F. Kaye and Commissioners Robert
S. Adler and Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve publication of
the proposed rule. Commissioners Ann Marie Buerkle and Joseph P.
Mohorovic voted against publication of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The Product
A. Products Covered
ROVs are motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use with the
following features: Four or more pneumatic tires designed for off-
highway use; bench or bucket seats for two or more occupants;
automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and braking; and a
maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per hour (mph). ROVs are
also equipped with rollover protective structures (ROPS), seat belts,
and other restraints (such as doors, nets, and shoulder barriers) for
the protection of occupants.
ROVs and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) are similar in that both are
motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use, and both are used for
utility and recreational purposes. However, ROVs differ significantly
from ATVs in vehicle design. ROVs have a steering wheel instead of a
handle bar for steering; foot pedals instead of hand levers for
throttle and brake control; and bench or bucket seats rather than
straddle seating for the occupant(s). Most importantly, ROVs only
require steering wheel input from the driver to steer the vehicle, and
the motion of the occupants has little or no effect on vehicle control
or stability. In contrast, ATVs require riders to steer with their
hands and to maneuver their body front to back and side to side to
augment the ATV's pitch and lateral stability.
Early ROV models emphasized the utility aspects of the vehicles,
but the recreational aspects of the vehicles have become very popular.
Currently, there are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and recreational.
Models emphasizing utility have larger cargo beds, higher cargo
capacities, and lower top speeds. Models emphasizing recreation have
smaller cargo beds, lower cargo capacities, and higher top speeds. Both
utility and recreational ROVs with maximum speed greater than 30 mph
are covered by the scope of this NPR.
B. Similar or Substitute Products
There are several types of off-road vehicles that have some
characteristics
[[Page 68965]]
that are similar to those of ROVs and may be considered substitutes for
some purposes.
Low-Speed Utility vehicles (UTVs)--Although ROVs can be considered
to be a type of utility vehicle, their maximum speeds of greater than
30 mph distinguish them from low-speed utility vehicles, which have
maximum speeds of 25 mph or less. Like ROVs, low-speed utility vehicles
have steering wheels and bucket or bench seating capable of carrying
two or more riders. All utility vehicles have both work and
recreational uses. However, low-speed utility vehicles might not be
good substitutes for ROVs in recreational uses where speeds higher than
30 mph are important.
All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)--Unlike ROVs, ATVs make use of
handlebars for steering and hand controls for operating the throttle
and brakes. The seats on ATVs are intended to be straddled, unlike the
bucket or bench seats on ROVs. Some ATVs are intended for work or
utility applications, as well as for recreational uses; others are
intended primarily for recreational purposes. ATVs are usually narrower
than ROVs. This means that ATVs can navigate some trails or terrain
that some ROVs might not be able to navigate.
Unlike ROVs, ATVs are rider interactive. When riding an ATV, the
driver must shift his or her weight from side to side while turning, or
forward or backward when ascending or descending a hill or crossing an
obstacle. Most ATVs are designed for one rider (the driver). On ATVs
that are designed for more than one rider, the passenger sits behind
the driver and not beside the driver as on ROVs.
Go-Karts--Go-karts (sometimes called ``off-road buggies'') are
another type of recreational vehicle that has some similarities to
ROVs. Go-karts are usually intended solely for recreational purposes.
Some go-karts with smaller engines are intended to be driven by
children 12 and younger. Some go-karts are intended to be driven
primarily on prepared surfaces. These go-karts would not be substitutes
for ROVs. Other go-karts have larger engines, full suspensions, can
reach maximum speeds in excess of 30 mph, and can be used on more
surfaces. These go-karts could be close substitutes for ROVs in some
recreational applications.
III. Risk of Injury
A. Incident Data
As of April 5, 2013, CPSC staff is aware of 550 reported ROV-
related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and April 5,
2013; there were 335 reported fatalities and 506 reported injuries
related to these incidents. To analyze hazard patterns related to ROVs,
a multidisciplinary team of CPSC staff reviewed incident reports that
CPSC received by December 31, 2011 concerning incidents that occurred
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011. CPSC received 428
reports of ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003
and December 31, 2011, from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident
(IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases.
ROV-related incidents can involve more than one injury or fatality
because the incidents often involve both a driver and passengers. There
were a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents. Of the 428
ROV-related incidents, there were a total of 231 reported fatalities
and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries (19
percent) could be classified as severe; that is, based on the
information available, the victim has lasting repercussions from the
injuries received in the incident. The remaining 207 victims were
either not injured or their injury information was not known.
Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 incidents involved drivers
under 16 years of age (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 years of
age or older (53 percent); and 125 involved drivers of unknown age (29
percent). Of the 227 incidents involving adult drivers, 86 (38 percent)
are known to have involved the driver consuming at least one alcoholic
beverage before the incident; 52 (23 percent) did not involve alcohol;
and 89 (39 percent) have an unknown alcohol status of the driver.
Of the 619 victims who were injured or killed, most (66 percent)
were in a front seat of the ROV, either as a driver or passenger, when
the incidents occurred. The remaining victims were in the rear of the
ROV or in an unspecified location of the ROV.
In many of the ROV-related incidents resulting in at least one
death, the Commission was able to obtain more detailed information on
the events surrounding the incident through an In-Depth Investigation
(IDI). Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 224 involved at least one
death. This includes 218 incidents resulting in one fatality, five
incidents resulting in two fatalities, and one incident resulting in
three fatalities, for a total of 231 fatalities. Of the 224 fatal
incidents, 145 (65 percent) occurred on an unpaved surface; 38 (17
percent) occurred on a paved surface; and 41 (18 percent) occurred on
unknown terrain.
B. Hazard Characteristics
After CPSC staff determined that a reported incident resulting in
at least one death or injury was ROV-related, a multidisciplinary team
reviewed all the documents associated with the incident. The
multidisciplinary team was made up of a human factors engineer, an
economist, a health scientist, and a statistician. As part of the
review process, each member of the review team considered every
incident and coded victim characteristics, the characteristics of the
vehicle involved, the environment, and the events of the incident.\2\
Below, we discuss the key hazard characteristics that the review
identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The data collected for the Commission's study are based on
information reported to the Commission through various sources. The
reports are not a complete set of all incidents that have occurred,
nor do they constitute a statistical sample representing all ROV-
related incidents with at least one death or injury resulting.
Additionally, reporting is ongoing for ROV-related incidents that
occurred in the specified time frame. The Commission is expecting
additional reports and information on ROV-related incidents that
resulted in a death or injury and that occurred in the given time
frame.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Rollover
Of the 428 reported ROV-related incidents, 291 (68 percent)
involved rollover of the vehicle, more than half of which occurred
while the vehicle was in a turn (52 percent). Of the 224 fatal
incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of
those incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat terrain. The slope of the
terrain is unknown in 39 fatal incidents.
A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 reported incidents,
including 231 fatalities and 388 injuries. Of the 231 reported
fatalities, 150 (65 percent) died in an incident involving lateral
rollover of the ROV. Of the 388 injured victims, 75 (19 percent) were
classified as being severely injured; 67 of these victims (89 percent)
were injured in incidents that involved lateral rollover of the ROV.
2. Occupant Ejection and Seat Belt Use
From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by CPSC, 817 victims
were reported to be in or on the ROV during the incident, and 610 (75
percent) were known to have been injured or killed. Seatbelt use is
known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were not
wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.
Of the 610 fatally and nonfatally injured victims who were in or on
the ROV, 433 (71 percent) were partially or fully ejected from the ROV;
and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck by
[[Page 68966]]
a part of the vehicle, such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, after
ejection. Seat belt use is known for 374 of the 610 victims; of these,
282 (75 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
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 seat belt.
C. NEISS Data
To estimate the number of nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs
that were treated in a hospital emergency department, CPSC undertook a
special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported
through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from
January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NEISS is a stratified national probability sample of
hospital emergency departments that allows the Commission to make
national estimates of product-related injuries. The sample consists
of about 100 of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that have at
least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency service. Consumer
product-related injuries treated in emergency departments of the
NEISS-member hospitals are coded from the medical record. As such,
information about the injury is extracted, but specifics about the
product and its use are often not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEISS does not contain a separate category or product code for
ROVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually assigned to an ATV
product category (NEISS product codes 3286--3287) or to the utility
vehicle (UTV) category (NEISS product code 5044). A total of 2,018
injuries that were related to ATVs or UTVs were recorded in NEISS
between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010. The Commission attempted
follow-up interviews with each victim (or a relative of the victim) to
gather more information about the incidents and the vehicles involved.
CPSC determined whether the vehicle involved was an ROV based on the
make and model of the vehicle reported in the interviews. If the make
and model of the vehicle was not reported, staff did not count the case
as involving an ROV.
A total of 688 surveys were completed, resulting in a 33 percent
response rate for this survey. Of the 688 completed surveys, 16 were
identified as involving an ROV based on the make and model of the
vehicle involved. It is possible that more cases involved an ROV, but
it was not possible to identify them due to lack of information on the
vehicle make and model.
The estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related
injuries occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and
August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010,
the estimated number of emergency department-treated, ROV-related
injuries is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval
of 1,100 to 4,900.
D. Yamaha Rhino Repair Program
CPSC staff began investigating ROVs following reports of serious
injuries and fatalities associated with the Yamaha Rhino. In March
2009, CPSC staff negotiated a repair program on the Yamaha Rhino 450,
660, and 700 model ROVs to address stability and handling issues with
the vehicles.\4\ CPSC staff investigated more than 50 incidents,
including 46 driver and passenger deaths related to the Yamaha Rhino.
The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to design changes through a repair
program that would increase the vehicle's lateral stability and change
the vehicle's handling characteristic from oversteer to understeer. The
repair consisted of the following: (1) Addition of 50-mm spacers on the
vehicle's rear wheels to increase the track width, and (2) the removal
of the rear stabilizer bar to effect understeer characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ CPSC Release #09-172, March 31, 2009, Yamaha Motor Corp.
Offers Free Repair for 450, 660, and 700 Model Rhino Vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC staff reviewed reports of ROV-related incidents reported to
the CPSC between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2012, involving Yamaha
Rhino model vehicles. (The data are only those reported to CPSC staff
and are not representative of all incidents.) The number of incidents
that occurred by quarters of a year are shown below in Figure 1.
[[Page 68967]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.000
After the repair program was initiated in March 2009, the number of
reported incidents involving a Yamaha Rhino ROV decreased noticeably.
CPSC staff also analyzed the 242 Yamaha Rhino-related incidents
reported to CPSC and identified 46 incidents in which a Yamaha Rhino
vehicle rolled over during a turn on flat or gentle terrain. Staff
identified forty-one of the 46 incidents as involving an unrepaired
Rhino vehicle. In comparison, staff identified only two of the 46
incidents in which a repaired Rhino vehicle rolled during a turn, and
each of these incidents occurred on terrain with a 5 to 10 degree
slope. Among these 41 reported incidents, there were no incidents
involving repaired Rhinos rolling over on flat terrain during a turn.
The Commission believes the decrease in Rhino-related incidents
after the repair program was initiated can be attributed to the vehicle
modifications made by the repair program. Specifically, correction of
oversteer and improved lateral stability can reduce rollover incidents
by reducing the risk of sudden and unexpected increases in lateral
acceleration during a turn, and increasing the amount of force required
to roll the vehicle over. CPSC believes that lateral stability and
vehicle handling have the most effect on rollovers during a turn on
level terrain because the rollover is caused primarily by lateral
acceleration generated by friction during the turn. Staff's review of
rollover incidents during a turn on level ground indicates that
repaired Rhino vehicles are less likely than unrepaired vehicles to
roll over. CPSC believes this is further evidence that increasing
lateral stability and correcting oversteer to understeer contributed to
the decrease in Yamaha Rhino incidents.
IV. Statutory Authority
ROVs are ``consumer products'' that can be regulated by the
Commission under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 U.S.C. 2052(a).
Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to promulgate a
mandatory consumer product safety standard that sets forth certain
performance requirements for a consumer product or that sets forth
certain requirements that a product be marked or accompanied by clear
and adequate warnings or instructions. A performance, warning, or
instruction standard must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce
an unreasonable risk or injury. Id.
Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must
follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. In
accordance with section 9, the Commission may commence rulemaking by
issuing an ANPR; as noted previously, the Commission issued an ANPR on
ROVs in October 2009. Section 9 authorizes the Commission to issue an
NPR including the proposed rule and a preliminary regulatory analysis
in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA and request comments
regarding the risk of injury identified by the Commission, the
regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible
alternatives for addressing the risk. Id. 2058(c). Next, the Commission
will consider the comments received in response to the proposed rule
and decide whether to issue a final rule along with a final regulatory
analysis. Id. 2058(c)-(f). The Commission also will provide an
opportunity for interested persons to make oral presentations of the
data, views, or arguments, in accordance with section 9(d)(2) of the
CPSA. Id. 2058(d)(2).
According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a
consumer product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make
appropriate
[[Page 68968]]
findings to be included in the rule, concerning the following issues:
(1) The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule is
designed to eliminate or reduce; (2) the approximate number of consumer
products subject to the rule; (3) the need of the public for the
products subject to the rule and the probable effect the rule will have
on utility, cost, or availability of such products; and (4) the means
to achieve the objective of the rule while minimizing adverse effects
on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices. Id.
2058(f)(1).
According to section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule,
the Commission must find that the rule is ``reasonably necessary to
eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such
product'' and that issuing the rule is in the public interest. Id.
2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). In addition, if a voluntary standard addressing the
risk of injury has been adopted and implemented, the Commission must
find that: (1) The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or
adequately reduce the risk of injury, or that (2) substantial
compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely. Id. 2058(f)(3(D).
The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes the
least burdensome requirements that would adequately reduce the risk of
injury. Id. 2058(f)(3)(E)&(F).
Other provisions of the CPSA also authorize this rulemaking.
Section 27(e) provides the Commission with authority to issue a rule
requiring consumer product manufacturers to provide the Commission with
such performance and technical data related to performance and safety
as may be required to carry out the CPSA and to give such performance
and technical data to prospective and first purchasers. Id. 2076(e).
This provision bolsters the Commission's authority under section 7 to
require provision of safety-related information, such as hang tags.
V. Overview of Proposed Requirements
Based on incident data, vehicle testing, and experience with the
Yamaha Rhino repair program, the Commission believes that improving
lateral stability (by increasing rollover resistance) and improving
vehicle handling (by correcting oversteer to understeer) are the most
effective approaches to reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover
incidents. ROVs with higher lateral stability are less likely to roll
over because more lateral force is necessary to cause rollover than an
ROV with lower lateral stability. ROVs exhibiting understeer during a
turn are less likely to rollover because steering control is stable and
the potential for the driver to lose control is low.
The Commission believes that when rollovers do occur, improving
occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use) will
mitigate injury severity. CPSC's analysis of ROV incidents indicates
that 91 percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt
at the time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction
with better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce
injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.
To address these hazards, the Commission is proposing requirements
for:
A minimum level of rollover resistance of the ROV when
tested using the J-turn test procedure;
A hang tag providing information about the vehicle's
rollover resistance on a progressive scale;
Understeer performance of the ROV when tested using the
constant radius test procedure;
Limited maximum speed of the ROV when tested with occupied
front seat belts unbuckled; and
A minimum level of passive shoulder protection when using
a probe test.
VI. CPSC Technical Analysis and Basis for Proposed Requirements
A. Overview of Technical Work
In February 2010, the Commission contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to
conduct an in-depth study of vehicle dynamic performance and static
rollover measures for ROVs. SEA evaluated a sample of 10 ROVs that
represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in the
U.S. market that year. SEA tested and measured several characteristics
and features that relate to the rollover performance of the vehicles
and to the vehicle's handling characteristics.
In 2011, SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and
analyze occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide
range of machines, including ROVs. The Commission contracted with SEA
to conduct occupant protection performance evaluations of seven ROVs
with differing occupant protection designs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ SEA's reports are available on CPSC's Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Lateral Stability
1. Definitions
Following are definitions of basic terms used in this section.
Lateral acceleration: acceleration that generates the
force that pushes the vehicle sideways. During a turn, lateral
acceleration is generated by friction between the tires and surface.
Lateral acceleration is expressed as a multiple of free-fall gravity
(g).
Two-wheel lift: point at which the inside wheels of a
turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a
vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a
precursor to a rollover event. We use the term ``two-wheel lift''
interchangeably with ``tip-up.''
Threshold lateral acceleration: minimum lateral
acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.
Untripped rollover: rollover that occurs during a turn due
solely to the lateral acceleration generated by friction between the
tires and the road surface.
Tripped rollover: rollover that occurs when the vehicle
slides and strikes an object that provides a pivot point for the
vehicle to roll over.
2. Static Measures to Evaluate ROV Lateral Stability
CPSC and SEA evaluated the static measurements of the static
stability factor (SSF) and tilt table ratio (TTR) to compare lateral
stability of a group of 10 ROVS.
a. Static Stability Factor (SSF)
SSF approximates the lateral acceleration in units of gravitational
acceleration (g) at which rollover begins in a simplified vehicle that
is assumed to be a rigid body without suspension movement or tire
deflections. NHTSA uses rollover risk as determined by dynamic test
results and SSF values to evaluate passenger vehicle rollover
resistance for the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).\6\ SSF relates
the track width of the vehicle to the height of the vehicle center of
gravity (CG), as shown in Figure 2. Loading condition is important
because CG height and track width vary, depending on the vehicle load
condition. Mathematically, the relationship is track width (T) divided
by two times the CG height (H), or SSF=T/2H. Higher values for SSF
indicate higher lateral stability, and lower SSF values indicate lower
lateral stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NHTSA, 68 FR 59250, ``Consumer Information; New Car
Assessment Program; Rollover Resistance,'' (Oct. 14, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68969]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.001
SEA measured track width and CG height values for the sample group
of 10 ROVs. SEA used their Vehicle Inertia Measurement Facility (VIMF),
which incorporates the results of five different tests to determine the
CG height. SEA has demonstrated that VIMF CG height measurements are
repeatable within 0.5 percent of the measured values.\7\
Using the CG height and track width measurement, SEA calculated SSF
values for several different load conditions. (See Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Heydinger, Gary J., et al, The Design of a Vehicle Inertia
Measurement Facility, SAE 950309, 1995.
Table 1--SSF Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle rank (SSF) SSF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F....................................................... 0.881
A....................................................... 0.887
H....................................................... 0.918
B....................................................... 0.932
D....................................................... 0.942
J....................................................... 0.962
E....................................................... 0.965
C....................................................... 0.991
G....................................................... 1.031
I....................................................... 1.045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Tilt Table Ratio (TTR)
SEA conducted tilt table tests on the ROV sample group. In this
test, the vehicles in various loaded conditions were placed on a rigid
platform, and the angle of platform tilt was increased (see Figure 3)
until both upper wheels of the vehicle lifted off the platform. The
platform angle at two-wheel lift is the Tilt Table Angle (TTA). The
trigonometric tangent of the TTA is the Tilt Table Ratio (TTR). TTA and
TTR are used to evaluate the stability of the vehicle. Larger TTA and
TTR generally correspond to better lateral stability, except these
measures do not account for dynamic tire deflections or dynamic
suspension compliances. Tilt testing is a quick and simple static test
that does not require sophisticated instrumentation. Tilt testing is
used as a rollover metric in the voluntary standards created by the
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) and the Outdoor
Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). TTA and TTR values measured by SEA
are shown in Table 2.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ROHVA developed ANSI/ROHVA 1 for recreation-oriented ROVs
and OPEI developed ANSI/OPEI B71.0 for utility-oriented ROVs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.002
[[Page 68970]]
Table 2--TTA and TTR Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTA Vehicle rank
Vehicle rank (TTA) (deg.) (TTR) TTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................. 33.0 A................. 0.650
B.............................. 33.6 B................. 0.664
D.............................. 33.7 D................. 0.667
I.............................. 35.4 I................. 0.712
H.............................. 35.9 H................. 0.724
J.............................. 36.1 J................. 0.730
F.............................. 36.4 F................. 0.739
E.............................. 38.1 E................. 0.784
C.............................. 38.8 C................. 0.803
G.............................. 39.0 G................. 0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because ROVs are designed with long suspension travel and soft
tires for off-road performance, staff was concerned that SSF and TTR
would not accurately characterize the dynamic lateral stability of the
vehicle. Therefore, CPSC's contractor, SEA, conducted dynamic J-turn
tests to determine whether SSF or TTR measurement corresponded with
actual dynamic measures for lateral stability.
3. Dynamic Test To Measure ROV Lateral Stability--the J-Turn Test
In 2001, NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test (also called drop-throttle
J-turn testing and step-steer testing) as a method to measure rollover
resistance of automobiles. NHTSA found the J-turn test to be the most
objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover
resistance. Specifically, the J-turn test is objective because a
programmable steering machine turns the steering wheel during the test,
and the test results show that the vehicle speed, lateral acceleration,
and roll angle data observed during J-turn tests were highly
repeatable.\9\ However, NHTSA determined that although the J-turn test
is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low
rollover resistance, the J-turn test is unable to measure the high
rollover resistance of most passenger automobiles.\10\ On pavement
where a high-friction surface creates high lateral accelerations,
vehicles with high rollover resistance (such as passenger automobiles)
will lose tire traction and slide in a severe turn rather than roll
over. The threshold lateral acceleration cannot be measured because
rollover does not occur. In contrast, vehicles with low rollover
resistance exhibit untripped rollover on a pavement during a J-turn
test, and the lateral acceleration at rollover threshold can be
measured. Thus, the J-turn test is the most appropriate method to
measure the rollover resistance of ROVs because ROVs exhibit untripped
rollover during the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Comprehensive
Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road,
Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA's Light Vehicle
Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 513.
\10\ Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Comprehensive
Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road,
Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA's Light Vehicle
Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 513.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J-turn tests are conducted by driving the test vehicle in a
straight path, releasing (dropping) the throttle, and rapidly turning
the steering wheel to a specified angle once the vehicle slows to a
specified speed. The steering wheel angle and vehicle speed are
selected to produce two-wheel lift of the vehicle. Outriggers, which
are beams that extend to either side of a vehicle, allow the vehicle to
roll but prevent full rollover. The sequence of events in the test
procedure is shown in Figure 4. SEA conducted drop-throttle J-turn
tests to measure the minimum lateral accelerations necessary to cause
two-wheel lift (shown in Step 3 of Figure 4) for each vehicle. Side
loading of the vehicle occurs naturally as a result of the lateral
acceleration that is created in the J-turn and this lateral
acceleration can be measured and recorded. The lateral acceleration
produced in the turn is directly proportional to the side loading force
acting to overturn the vehicle according to the equation F =
(m)(Ay), where F is force, m is the mass of the vehicle, and
Ay is lateral acceleration.
[[Page 68971]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.003
SEA conducted the J-turn testing at 30 mph. A programmable steering
controller input the desired steering angles at a steering rate of 500
degrees per second for all vehicles. The chosen steering rate of 500
degrees per second is high enough to approximate a step input, but
still within the capabilities of a driver. (A step input is one that
happens instantly and requires no time to complete. For steering input,
time is required to complete the desired steering angle, so a steering
step input is approximated by a high angular rate of steering input.)
SEA conducted preliminary tests by starting with a relatively low
steering angle of 80 to 90 degrees and incrementally increasing the
steering angle until two-wheel lift was achieved. When SEA determined
the steering angle that produced a two-wheel lift, SEA conducted the
test run for that vehicle load condition. For each test run, SEA
recorded the speed, steering angle, roll rate, and acceleration in
three directions (longitudinal, lateral, and vertical). SEA processed
and plotted the data to determine the minimum lateral acceleration
required for two-wheel lift of the vehicle.
The J-turn test is a direct measure of the minimum or threshold
lateral acceleration required to initiate a rollover event, or tip-up
of the test vehicle when turning. ROVs that exhibit higher threshold
lateral acceleration have a higher rollover resistance or are more
stable than ROVs with lower threshold lateral accelerations. Each of
the 10 ROVs tested in the study by SEA exhibited untripped rollover in
the J-turn tests at steering wheel angles ranging from 93.8 to 205
degrees and lateral accelerations ranging from 0.625 to 0.785 g. Table
3 shows the vehicles arranged in ascending order for threshold lateral
acceleration (Ay) at tip up, SSF, TTA, and TTR. Table 3
illustrates the lack of correlation of the static metrics (SSF, TTA, or
TTR) with the direct dynamic measure of threshold lateral acceleration
(Ay) at tip up.
[[Page 68972]]
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle rank (A)y Ay(g) SSF TTR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D................................ 0.625 0.942 0.667
B................................ 0.655 0.932 0.664
A................................ 0.670 0.887 0.650
J................................ 0.670 0.962 0.730
I................................ 0.675 1.045 0.712
F................................ 0.690 0.881 0.739
E................................ 0.700 0.965 0.784
H................................ 0.705 0.918 0.724
C................................ 0.740 0.991 0.803
G................................ 0.785 1.031 0.810
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011). Vehicle Characteristics Measurements
of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles--Additional Results for Vehicle
J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.
SEA also conducted J-turn tests on four ROVs to measure the
repeatability of the lateral acceleration measurements and found the
tests to be very repeatable.\11\ The results of the repeatability tests
indicate the standard deviation for sets of 10 test runs (conducted in
opposite directions and left/right turn directions) ranged from 0.002 g
to 0.013 g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Heydinger, G. (2013). Repeatability of J-Turn Testing of
Four Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Sports-and-Recreation/ATVs/SEAReporttoCPSCRepeatabilityTestingSeptember%202013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the SSF, TTR, and Ay values for each ROV
indicate that there is a lack of correspondence between the static
metrics (SSF and TTR) and the direct measurement of threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover. Static metrics cannot be used to evaluate ROV
rollover resistance because static tests are unable to account fully
for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by
the ROVs during a J-turn maneuver. Therefore, the Commission believes
that the lateral acceleration threshold at rollover is the most
appropriate metric to use when measuring and comparing rollover
resistance for ROVs.
C. Vehicle Handling
1. Basic Terms
Understeer: Path of vehicle during a turn in which the
vehicle steers less into a turn than the steering wheel angle input by
the driver. If the driver does not correct for the understeer path of
the vehicle, the vehicle continues on a straighter path than intended
(see Figure 5).
Oversteer: Path of vehicle during a turn in which the
vehicle steers more into a turn than the steering wheel angle input by
the driver. If the driver does not correct for the oversteer path of
the vehicle, the vehicle spirals into the turn more than intended (see
Figure 5).
Sub-limit understeer or sub-limit oversteer: Steering
condition that occurs while the tires have traction on the driving
surface.
Limit understeer or limit oversteer: Steering condition
that occurs when the traction limits of the tires have been reached and
the vehicle begins to slide.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.004
2. Staff's Technical Work
a. Constant Radius Test
SAE International (formerly Society of Automotive Engineers)
standard, SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady-State
Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, establishes test procedures to measure the vehicle handling
properties of passenger cars and light trucks. ROVs obey the same
principles of motion as automobiles because ROVs and automobiles share
key characteristics, such as pneumatic
[[Page 68973]]
tires, a steering wheel, and spring-damper suspension that contribute
to the dynamic response of the vehicle.\12\ Thus, the test procedures
to measure the vehicle handling properties of passenger cars and light
trucks are also applicable to ROVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Tab A of the CPSC staff's briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEA used the constant radius test method, described in SAE J266, to
evaluate the sample ROVs' handling characteristics. The test consists
of driving each vehicle on a 100 ft. radius circular path from very low
speeds, up to the speed where the vehicle experiences two-wheel lift or
cannot be maintained on the path of the circle. The test vehicles were
driven in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions. For a constant
radius test, ``understeer'' is defined as the condition when the
steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path increases
as the vehicle speed increases because the vehicle is turning less than
intended. ``Neutral steer'' is defined as the condition when the
steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path is
unchanged as the vehicle speed increases. ``Oversteer'' is defined as
the condition when the average steering wheel input required to
maintain the circular path decreases as the vehicle speed increases
because the vehicle is turning more than intended.
SEA tested 10 ROVs; five of those vehicles (A, D, F, I, and J)
exhibited sub-limit transitions to oversteer when tested on asphalt
(see Figure 6). The five remaining vehicles (B, C, E, G, and H)
exhibited a sub-limit understeer condition for the full range of the
test.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.005
b. Slowly Increasing Steer (SIS) Test
SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady-State
Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, also establishes test procedures for the Constant Speed
Variable Steer Angle Test. SEA calls this test the ``constant speed
slowly increasing steer (SIS) test.'' During the SIS test, the ROV
driver maintains a constant speed of 30 mph, and the vehicle's steering
wheel angle is slowly increased at a rate of 5 degrees per second until
the ROV reaches a speed limiting condition or tip-up. A programmable
steering controller (PSC) was used to increase the steering angle at a
constant rate of 5 degrees per second. During the test, instrumentation
for speed, steering angle, lateral acceleration, roll angle, and yaw
rate were recorded. SEA conducted SIS tests on the sample of 10 ROVs.
Figure 7 shows SIS test data plotted of lateral acceleration versus
time for Vehicle A and Vehicle H. Vehicle H is the same model vehicle
as Vehicle A, but Vehicle H is a later model year, where the sub-limit
oversteer has been corrected to understeer.
Plots from the ROV SIS tests in Figure 7 illustrate a sudden
increase in lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that
exhibit sub-limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral
acceleration is exponential and represents a dynamically unstable
[[Page 68974]]
condition.\13\ This condition is undesirable because it can cause a
vehicle with high lateral stability (such as a passenger car) to spin
out of control, or it can cause a vehicle with low lateral stability
(such as an ROV) to roll over suddenly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ (Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 204-205.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.006
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the
lateral acceleration suddenly increased from 0.50 g to 0.69 g
(difference of 0.19 g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled
over. (Outriggers on the vehicle prevented full rollover of the
vehicle.) In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a point where the
lateral acceleration increases exponentially because the condition does
not develop in understeering vehicles.\14\ The increase in Vehicle H's
lateral acceleration remains linear, and the lateral acceleration
increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in
5.5 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEA test results indicate that ROVs that exhibited sub-limit
oversteer also exhibited a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that
caused the vehicle to roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sudden
increase in lateral acceleration is directionally unstable and
uncontrollable.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 204-205; Bundorf, R. T.
(1967). The Influence of Vehicle Design Parameters on Characteristic
Speed and Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957). Research in the
Fundamentals of Automobile Control and Stability. SAE 570044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plots of the vehicle path during SIS tests illustrate further how
an oversteering ROV (Vehicle A) will roll over earlier in a turn than
an understeering ROV (Vehicle H), when the vehicles are operated at the
same speed and steering rate (see Figure 8). Vehicle A and Vehicle H
follow the same path until Vehicle A begins to oversteer and its turn
radius becomes smaller. Vehicle A becomes dynamically unstable, its
lateral acceleration increases exponentially, and the vehicle rolls
over suddenly. In contrast, Vehicle H continues to travel 300 more feet
in the turn before the vehicle reaches its threshold lateral
acceleration and rolls over. A driver in Vehicle H has more margin (in
time and distance) to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a
driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the
turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically
unstable.
[[Page 68975]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.007
The Commission believes that tests conducted by SEA provide strong
evidence that sub-limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable condition that
can lead to a rollover incident, especially given the low rollover
resistance of ROVs. All ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer reached
a dynamically unstable condition during a turn where the increase in
lateral acceleration suddenly became exponential. The CPSC believes
this condition can contribute to ROV rollover on level ground, and
especially on pavement.
D. Occupant Protection
1. Overview and Basic Terms
The open compartment configuration of ROVs is intentional and
allows for easy ingress and egress, but the configuration also
increases the likelihood of complete or partial ejection of the
occupants in a rollover event. ROVs are equipped with a ROPS, seat
belts, and other restraints for the protection of occupants (see Figure
9). Occupants who remain in the ROV and surrounded by the ROPS, an area
known as the protective zone, are generally protected from being
crushed by the vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover. Seat belts are
the primary restraint for keeping occupants within the protective zone
of the ROPS.
[[Page 68976]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.008
NHTSA evaluates the occupant protection performance of passenger
vehicles with tests that simulate vehicle collisions and tests that
simulate vehicle rollover.\16\ The NHTSA tests use anthropometric test
devices (ATDs), or crash test dummies, to evaluate occupant excursion
and injury severity during the simulation tests. The occupant movement
during these tests is called occupant kinematics. Occupant kinematics
is defined as the occupant's motion during a crash event, including the
relative motion between various body parts. Occupant kinematics is an
important element of dynamic tests because forces act on an occupant
from many different directions during a collision or rollover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (1971) 49 CFR
571.208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no standardized tests to evaluate the occupant protection
performance of ROVs. However, a test to evaluate occupant protection
performance in ROVs should be based on simulations of real vehicle
rollover. In a rollover event, the vehicle experiences lateral
acceleration and lateral roll. A valid simulation of an ROV rollover
will reproduce the lateral acceleration and the roll rate experienced
by an ROV during a real rollover event.
2. Seat belts
a. Seat Belt Use in Incidents
From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the Commission, 817
victims were reported to be in or on the ROV at the time of the
incident, and 610 (75 percent) were known to have been injured or
killed. Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348
(73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.
Of the 610 fatal and nonfatal victims who were in or on the ROV at
the time of the incident, 433 (71 percent) were ejected partially or
fully from the ROV, and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck
by a part of the vehicle, such as the roll cage or side of the ROV,
after ejection. Seat belt use is also known for 374 of the 610 victims;
of these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
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
victim; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.
A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 ROV-related
incidents reviewed the Commission's multidisciplinary team. Of these
victims, 353 (43 percent) were known to be driving the ROV, and 203 (24
percent) were known to be a passenger in the front seat of the ROV. Of
the 231 reported fatalities, 141 (61 percent) were the driver of the
ROV, and 49 (21 percent) were the right front passenger in an ROV.
ROHVA also performed an analysis of hazard and risk issues
associated with ROV-related incidents and determined that lack of seat
belt use is the top incident factor.\17\ ROHVA has stated: ``Based on
the engineering judgment of its members and its review of ROV incident
data provided by the CPSC, ROHVA concludes that the vast majority of
hazard patterns associated with ROV rollover would be eliminated
through proper seat belt use alone.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Heiden, E. (2009). Summary of Recreational Off-Highway
Vehicle (ROV) Hazard Analysis. Memorandum from E. Heiden to P.
Vitrano. Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087. Regulations.gov.
\18\ Yager, T. (2011) Letter to Caroleene Paul. 18 Apr. 2011.
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) written
response to CPSC staff's ballot on proposed American National
Standard ANSI/ROHVA 1-201X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Literature Review (Automotive)
CPSC staff reviewed the substantial body of literature on seat belt
use in automobiles. (See Tab I of staff's briefing package.) Although
seat belts are one of the most effective strategies for avoiding death
and injury in motor vehicle crashes, seat belts are only effective if
they are used.
Strategies for increasing seat belt use in passenger vehicles date
to January 1, 1972, when NHTSA required all new cars to be equipped
with passive restraints or with a seat belt reminder system that used a
visual flashing light and audible buzzer that activated continuously
for one minute if the vehicle was placed in gear with occupied front
seat belts not belted. In 1973, NHTSA required that all new cars be
equipped with an ignition interlock that allowed the vehicle to start
only if the driver was belted. The ignition interlock was meant to be
an interim measure until passive airbag technology matured, but public
opposition to the technology led Congress to rescind the legislation
and to prohibit NHTSA from requiring either ignition interlocks or
continuous audible warnings that last more than 8 seconds. NHTSA then
revised the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require a
[[Page 68977]]
seat belt reminder with warning light and audible buzzer that lasts 4
seconds to 8 seconds when front seat belts are not fastened at the time
of ignition. This standard still applies today (15 U.S.C. 1410 (b)).
Work by NHTSA indicates seat belt users can be separated loosely
into three categories: Full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers.
Part-time users and nonusers give different reasons for not wearing
seat belts. Part-time seat belt users consistently cite forgetfulness
and perceived low risk, such as driving short distances or on familiar
roads, as reasons for not using seat belts.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Block, 1998; Bradbard et al., 1998; Harrison and
Senserrick, 2000; Bentley et al., 2003; Boyle and Vanderwolf, 2003;
Eby et al., 2005; Boyle and Lampkin, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One approach to increasing vehicle occupant seat belt use is to
provide in-vehicle reminders to encourage occupants to fasten their
seat belts. However, possible systems vary considerably in design,
intrusiveness, and, most importantly, effectiveness.
Observational studies of cars equipped with the original NHTSA-
required seat belt reminders found no significant difference in seat
belt use among vehicles equipped with the continuous one minute visual-
audio system and vehicles not equipped with the reminder system.\20\
After NHTSA adopted the less stringent 4-second to 8-second visual and
audio reminder system requirements, NHTSA conducted observational and
phone interview studies and concluded that the less intrusive reminder
system was also not effective in increasing seat belt use.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Robertson, L. S. and Haddon, W. (1974). The Buzzer-Light
Reminder System and Safety Belt Use. American Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 814-815.; Robertson, L. S. (1975).
Safety Belt Use in Automobiles with Starter-Interlock and Buzzer-
Light Reminder Systems. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 65,
No. 12, pp. 1319-1325.
\21\ Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B. M. (1976). Effectiveness of
Various Safety Belt Warning Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national research project by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute endeavored to promote safety belt use
in the United States by developing an effective in-vehicle safety belt
reminder system.\22\ The project authors performed literature reviews
and conducted surveys and focus groups to design an optimal safety belt
reminder system. The authors concluded that principles for an optimal
safety belt reminder system include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Eby, D. W., Molnar, L. J., Kostyniuk, L. P., and Shope, J.
T. (2005). Developing an Effective and Acceptable Safety Belt
Reminder System. 19th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June 6-9, 2005. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot....01/esv/esv19/05-0171-O.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The full-time safety belt user should not notice the system.
2. It should be more difficult to cheat on the system than to use
the safety belt.
3. Permanent disconnection of the system should be difficult.
4. The system should be reliable and have a long life.
5. Crash and injury risk should not be increased as a result of the
system.
6. System design should be based on what is known about the
effectiveness and acceptability of system types and elements.
7. System design should be compatible with the manufacturer's
intended purpose/goals for the system.
NHTSA conducted a study of enhanced seatbelt reminder (ESBR)
effectiveness that compared results of controlled experiments with
field observations of actual seat belt use. Among the findings of the
ESBR effectiveness report are: (1) Systems with only visual reminders
are not effective; (2) ESBR systems, in general, promote greater seat
belt use by 3 to 4 percentage points; (3) more annoying systems are
more effective, but that creates the challenge of designing an
effective system that is acceptable; (4) potential gains in seat belt
use not only come from simply reminding users, but also from motivating
users, such as equating seat belt use with elimination of an annoyance;
and (5) the positive effects of ESBRs on belt use were more pronounced
for the low belt-use propensity groups.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Lerner, N., Singer, J., Huey, R., Jenness, J. (2007).
Acceptability and Potential Effectiveness of Enhanced Seat Belt
Reminder System Features. (DOT HS 810 848). Washington, DC: National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation. Freedman, M., Lerner, N., Zador, P., Singer, J., and
Levi, S. (2009). Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat Belt
Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal Reminder Systems. (DOT
HS 811 097). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Innovative Technologies
Automobiles. Researchers developed more innovative in-vehicle
technology, beyond visual and audible warnings, to study the
effectiveness of systems that hindered a vehicle function if the
driver's seat belt was not buckled. One system allowed drivers to start
the vehicle but delayed the driver's ability to place the vehicle in
gear if the seat belt was not buckled.\24\ Follow-up systems made it
more difficult for the driver to depress the gas pedal when the vehicle
exceeded 20-25 mph if the driver's seat belt was not buckled. Study
participants were more receptive to the latter system, which was a
consistent and forceful motivator to buckle the seat belt without
affecting the general operation of the vehicle.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., Reagan, I., Sifrit, K.,
Compton, R., & Tenenbaum, J. (2010). Increasing Seat Belt Use in
Service Vehicle Drivers with a Gearshift Delay. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 43, 369-380.
\25\ Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and Reagan, I.
(2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase Seat Belt Use of Service
Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS 811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROVs. In 2010, Bombardier Recreation Products (BRP) introduced the
Can-Am Commander 1000 ROV with a seat belt speed limiter system that
restricts the vehicle speed to 9 mph if the driver's seat belt is not
buckled. CPSC staff performed dynamic tests to verify that the
vehicle's speed was limited when the driver's seat belt was not
buckled. On level ground, the vehicle's speed was limited to 6 to 9 mph
when the driver was unbelted, depending on the ignition key and
transmission mode selected.
In 2013, BRP introduced the Can-Am Maverick vehicle as a sport-
oriented ROV that also includes a seat belt speed limiter system. CPSC
staff did not test the Maverick vehicle because a sample vehicle was
not available for testing.
In 2014, Polaris Industries (Polaris) announced that model year
2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs will include a seatbelt system that limits the
speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the seatbelt is not engaged.
(Retrieved at: http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/machine/sidebyside-vehicles-soon-to-get-safety-improvements/story-fnkerd6b-1227023275396.)
The Commission has not tested these vehicles because they are not yet
available on the market.
d. User Acceptance of Innovative Technologies in ROVs
Studies of seat belt reminder systems on automobiles are an
appropriate foundation for ROV analysis because ROVs are typically
driven by licensed drivers and the seating environment is similar to an
automobile. Staff decided to obtain data on ROV users' experience and
acceptance of seat belt reminders to validate the analysis.
CPSC staff was not aware of any studies that provide data on the
effectiveness of seat belt reminder systems on ROVs or user acceptance
of such technologies. Therefore, the CPSC contracted Westat, Inc.
(Westat), to conduct focus groups with ROV users to explore their
opinions of seat belt speed-limitation systems on ROVs. Phase 1 of the
effort involved
[[Page 68978]]
conducting focus groups of ROV users and asking questions about ROV use
and user opinions of the Can-Am speed-limitation system that were shown
in a video to the participants. Results from Phase 1 were used to
develop the protocol for Phase 2. Phase 2 of the effort conducts focus
groups of ROV users who provide feedback after driving and interacting
with an ROV equipped with a speed-limitation system.
Results of Phase 1 of the Westat study indicate that participants:
Admit to being part-time seat belt users;
cite familiarity and low-risk perception as reasons for
not wearing seat belts;
value easy ROV ingress and egress over seat belt use;
generally travel around 5 mph when driving on their own
property, and overall, drive 15 to 30 mph for typical use;
had a mixed reaction to the speed-limitation technology at
10 mph;
were more accepting of the speed-limitation technology if
the speed was raised to 15 mph or if the system was tied to a key
control.
Phase 2 of the Westat study is ongoing, and a report of the results
is expected by December 2014. The results will provide data on ROV
users' acceptance of a seat belt speed limitation technology with a
threshold speed of 10 mph, 15 mph, and 20 mph. CPSC believes the
results will provide additional rationale for determining a threshold
speed for a seat belt speed limitation technology that balances users
acceptance (as high a speed as possible) with safe operation of the ROV
without seat belt use (as low a speed as possible).
3. CPSC's Technical Work
To explore occupant protection performance testing for a product
for which no standard test protocol exists, CPSC staff contracted
Active Safety Engineering (ASE) to conduct two exploratory pilot
studies to evaluate potential test methods. After completion of the
pilot studies, CPSC staff contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to conduct
occupant protection performance evaluation tests, based on a more
advanced test device designed by SEA.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The ASE and SEA reports are available on CPSC's Web site
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Pilot Study 1
ASE used a HYGE \TM\ accelerator sled to conduct dynamic rollover
simulations on sample ROVs, occupied by a Hybrid III 50th percentile
male anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The HYGE \TM\ system causes a
stationary vehicle, resting on the test sled, to roll over by imparting
a short-duration lateral acceleration to the test sled. The torso of an
unbelted ATD ejected partially from the ROV during a simulated
rollover. In comparison, the torso of a belted ATD remained in the ROV
during a simulated rollover. The tests demonstrated that use of a seat
belt prevented full ejection of the ATD's torso.
b. Pilot Study 2
In a follow-up pilot study, ASE used a deceleration platform sled
rather than a HYGE \TM\ accelerator sled to impart the lateral
acceleration to the test vehicle. The deceleration sled is more
accurate than the HYGETM sled in re-creating the lower energy rollovers
associated with ROVs.
An unbelted ATD ejected fully from the vehicle during tests
conducted at the rollover threshold of the ROV. In comparison, a belted
ATD partially ejected from the vehicle during tests conducted at the
same lateral acceleration. These exploratory tests with belted and
unbelted occupants indicate the importance of using seat belts to
prevent full ejection of the occupant during a rollover event.
c. SEA Roll Simulator
SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and analyze
occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide range of
machines, including ROVs. The SEA roll simulator produces lateral
accelerations using a deceleration sled and produces roll rates using a
motor to rotate the test sled (see Figure 10).
[[Page 68979]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.009
SEA validated the roll simulator as an accurate simulation of ROV
rollover and occupant kinematics by comparing roll rates, lateral
accelerations, and ATD ejections that were created by the simulator
with actual values measured during autonomous rollover. Results show
that the roll simulator accurately re-creates the conditions of an ROV
rollover. CPSC believes that the vehicle kinematics on the SEA rollover
simulator accurately represent real-world events because SEA validated
the sled kinematics against full-vehicle, real-world rollover events.
SEA simulated tripped and untripped rollovers of seven sample ROVs
using belted and unbelted ATD occupants. Plots of the head excursion
data indicate how well the vehicle's occupant protection features
retain the occupant inside the protective zone of the ROPS during a
roll simulation (see Figure 11). Head displacement plots above the ROPS
Plane indicate the occupant's head stayed inside the ROPS zone, and
plots below the ROPS Plane indicate that the occupant's head moved
outside the ROPS zone.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.010
The SEA roll simulator test results indicate that five of the seven
ROVs tested allowed a belted occupant's head to eject outside the ROPS
of the vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover simulation. The occupant
protection
[[Page 68980]]
performance of belted occupants varied from vehicle to vehicle,
depending on seat belt design, passive hip and shoulder coverage,
whether the rollover was tripped or untripped, and ROPS dimensions and
geometry.
CPSC staff analysis of the SEA roll simulator test results
indicates that vehicles with the best occupant protection performance
restricted movement of the occupant with combinations of quick-locking
seat belts, passive coverage in the hip and shoulder areas of the
occupant, and large ROPS zones around the occupant's head. Rollover
tests indicate that a seat belt is effective at preventing full
occupant ejection, but in some cases where the seat belt does not lock
quickly, partial occupant ejection still occurs. However, when a seat
belt is used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier restraint,
testing indicates that the occupant remains within the protective zone
of the vehicle's ROPS during quarter-turn rollover events.
The SEA roll simulator test results also indicate that unbelted
occupants are partially or fully ejected from all vehicles, regardless
of the presence of other passive restraints, such as hip restraints or
shoulder restraints. Although passive shoulder barriers may not provide
substantial benefit for occupant protection in unbelted rollovers, the
roll simulator test results indicate that shoulder restraints
significantly improved occupant containment when used in conjunction
with a seat belt.
Although the SEA roll simulator is the most advanced test equipment
viewed by the Commission, to date, and the test results provide clear
evidence of occupant head excursion, not enough test data have been
generated to base dynamic occupant protection performance test
requirements on a device like the roll simulator. Therefore, the
Commission is using the roll simulator test results to focus on
occupant protection requirements that maximize occupant retention
through seat belt use with passive shoulder restraint.
d. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Occupant Protection Tests
CPSC staff tested 10 sample ROVs to the occupant retention system
(ORS) zone requirements specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. Requirements
are specified for Zone 1--Leg/Foot, Zone 2--Shoulder/Hip, Zone 3--Arm/
Hand, and Zone 4--Head/Neck. CPSC focused on the requirements for Zone
2 because occupant ejection occurs in this zone.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Tab H of the briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSI/ROHVA Zone 2--Shoulder/Hip requirements allow the vehicle to
pass one of two different test methods to meet that zone's requirement.
Under the first option, a construction-based method defines an area
near the occupant's side that must be covered by a passive barrier. The
test involves applying a 163-lbf. load at a point in the defined test
area without failure or deformation of the barrier. Under the second
option, a performance-based method specifies a tilt table test with a
vehicle occupied by a belted test dummy. When the vehicle is tilted to
45 degrees on the tilt table, the ejection of the dummy must not exceed
5 inches beyond the vehicle width.
Results of CPSC tests indicate that only four of 10 vehicles passed
the construction-based test requirements, and eight of 10 vehicles
passed the performance-based test requirements.\28\ CPSC analysis
identified a primary weakness with the performance-based tilt table
tests. The performance-based test criteria measure the torso excursion
outside the vehicle width, not the excursion outside the protective
zone of the ROPS. An occupant must remain inside the envelope of the
ROPS to be protected; therefore, the requirement allows an inherently
unsafe condition where the occupant moves outside the protective zone
of the vehicle's ROPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Tab H of the briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC measured the difference between the outermost point of the ROV
and the outermost point on the ROPS near the occupant's head (see
Figure 12). On one vehicle, the vehicle's maximum width was 6.75 inches
outside the maximum ROPS width near the occupant's head. Because the
requirement is based on a 5-inch limitation beyond the vehicle width,
the occupant's torso could be 11.75 inches (6.75 inches plus 5 inches)
outside of the vehicle ROPS and still meet the performance-based
requirement.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.011
[[Page 68981]]
CPSC also compared the occupant head excursion relative to the
torso excursion during the tilt table tests. Due to occupant rotation
during the tests, the maximum head displacement exceeded the torso
displacement by up to 3 inches. The discrepancy between head and torso
displacement and between the vehicle width and ROPS' width can result
in occupant head ejection that is 14.75 inches (11.75 inches plus 3
inches) outside the protective zone of the ROPS and still meet the
performance-based requirement.
VII. Relevant Existing Standards
A. Background
Two different organizations developed separate voluntary standards
for ROVs. The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA)
developed ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National Standard for Recreational
Off-Highway Vehicles, and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
developed ANSI/OPEI B71.9, American National Standard for Multipurpose
Off-Highway Utility Vehicles.
ROHVA member companies include: Arctic Cat, BRP, Honda, John Deere,
Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/ROHVA 1 started in 2008,
and work completed with the publication of ANSI/ROHVA 1-2010. The
standard was immediately opened for revision, and a revised standard,
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011, was published in July 2011.
OPEI member companies include: Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and
Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was started in 2008, and work was
completed with the publication of ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 in March 2012.
Both voluntary standards address design, configuration, and
performance aspects of ROVs, including requirements for accelerator and
brake controls; service and parking brake/parking mechanism
performance; lateral and pitch stability; lighting; tires; handholds;
occupant protection; labels; and owner's manuals.
CPSC staff participated in the canvass process used to develop
consensus for ANSI/ROHVA 1 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9. From June 2009 to the
present, CPSC staff has engaged actively with ROHVA and OPEI through
actions that include the following:
Sending correspondence to ROHVA and OPEI with comments on
voluntary standard ballots that outlined CPSC staff's concerns that the
voluntary standard requirements for lateral stability are too low, that
requirements for vehicle handling are lacking, and that requirements
for occupant protection are not robust;
Participating in public meetings with ROHVA and OPEI to
discuss development of the voluntary standard and to discuss static and
dynamic tests performed by contractors on behalf of CPSC staff;
Sharing all CPSC contractor reports with test results of
static and dynamic tests performed on ROVs by making all reports
available on the CPSC Web site;
Requesting copies of test reports on dynamic tests
performed on ROVs by ROHVA for CPSC staff to review;
Demonstrating dynamic test procedures and data collection
to ROHVA and OPEI at a public meeting at an outdoor test facility in
East Liberty, OH; and
Submitting suggested changes and additions to the ANSI/
ROHVA 1-2011 voluntary standard to improve lateral stability, vehicle
handling, and occupant protection (OPEI was copied).
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 was published in July 2011, without addressing
CPSC staff's concerns. CPSC staff requested, but has not received
reports or test results of static or dynamic tests conducted by
contractors on behalf of ROHVA.
ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 was published in March 2012, without
addressing CPSC staff's concerns.
On August 29, 2013, CPSC staff sent a letter to ROHVA with
suggested modifications to the voluntary standard requirements to
address staff's concerns. CPSC staff sent a courtesy copy of the August
29, 2013 recommendation letter to OPEI. On November 27, 2013, ROHVA
responded that ROHVA plans to adopt less stringent versions of CPSC
staff's suggested requirements to improve the lateral stability and
occupant protection performance of ROVs. On March 13, 2014, ROHVA sent
CPSC staff the Canvass Draft of proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-
2011. Staff responded to the Canvass Draft on May 23, 2014, and
summarized why staff believes ROHVA's proposed requirements will not
reduce the number of deaths and injuries from ROVs. The discussion
below also provides that explanation. On September 24, 2014, ANSI
approved the proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011, which is
identical to the Canvass Draft. ROHVA has advised that the revised
standard will soon be published as ANSI/ROHVA 1-2014. In addition, CPSC
staff met with representatives from ROHVA and OPEI on October 23, 2014.
Following is a link to the video of this meeting: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/Multimedia/?vid=70952.
On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff requesting
that the CPSC exclude from CPSC's rulemaking efforts multipurpose off-
highway utility vehicles (MOHUVs) that meet the ANSI/OPEI B71.9-12
standard requirements. We address this request in the response to
comments section of this preamble (Section VIII).
B. Voluntary Standards Provisions Related to the Proposed Rule
In this section, we summarize the provisions of the voluntary
standards that are related to the specific requirements the Commission
is proposing and we assess the adequacy of these voluntary standard
provisions.
1. Lateral Stability
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to
address static lateral stability and differing provisions to address
dynamic lateral stability:
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.2
Stability Coefficient (Kst) and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section
8.6 Stability Coefficient (Kst) specify a stability
coefficient, Kst, which is calculated from the vehicle's
center of gravity location and track-width dimensions. The value of
Kst for a vehicle at curb weight (without occupants) is
required to be no less than 1.0.
Adequacy: The Commission believes the stability coefficient
requirement does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs
because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire
deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs in a dynamic
maneuver. For practical purposes, Kst and SSF values provide
the same information for ROVs because the difference in front and rear
track widths are averaged in the SSF calculation. Table 4 shows the
results of SSF measurements made by SEA for driver-plus-passenger load
condition. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the SSF (or
Kst) were used instead of the threshold lateral acceleration
at rollover (Ay) illustrates how poorly a stability
coefficient correlates to the actual rollover resistance of the
vehicle. The stability coefficient does not account for dynamic effects
of tire compliance, suspension compliance, or vehicle handling, which
are important factors in the vehicle's lateral stability.
[[Page 68982]]
Table 4--Vehicle Ascending Rank Order Ay vs. SSF
[Operator plus passenger load]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle rank
Vehicle rank (Ay) Ay (g) (SSF) SSF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.............................. 0.625 F................. 0.881
B.............................. 0.655 A................. 0.887
A.............................. 0.670 H................. 0.918
J.............................. 0.670 B................. 0.932
I.............................. 0.675 D................. 0.942
F.............................. 0.690 J................. 0.962
E.............................. 0.700 E................. 0.965
H.............................. 0.705 C................. 0.991
C.............................. 0.740 G................. 1.031
G.............................. 0.785 I................. 1.045
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements
of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles--Additional Results for Vehicle
J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.
Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested pass the Kst minimum
of 1.0 for an unoccupied vehicle, as specified by ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and
ANSI/OPEI B71.9-12. The Kst value of an ROV with no
occupants is of limited value because an ROV in use has at least one
occupant. The Commission believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI
stability coefficient requirement is a requirement that all ROVs can
pass, does not reflect the actual use of ROVs, does not promote
improvement in lateral stability, and does not correspond to the actual
rollover resistance of ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold
lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct measure for rollover
resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for a stability
coefficient requirement.
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.1 Tilt
Table Test and ANSI/OPEI Section 8.7 Tilt Table Stability specify tilt
table tests in the driver-plus-passenger load condition and the gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) load condition. The minimum tilt table
angle (TTA) requirement for an ROV with a driver-plus-passenger load
condition is 30 degrees, and the minimum TTA for GVWR load condition is
24 degrees.
Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt table requirement does not
adequately address lateral stability in ROVs because static tests are
unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension
compliance exhibited by ROVs in a dynamic maneuver. Table 5 shows the
results of tilt table measurements made by SEA for driver-plus-
passenger load condition. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank
if the TTA were used instead of the direct measurement of threshold
lateral acceleration at rollover (Ay) illustrates how poorly
the TTA corresponds to the actual rollover resistance of the vehicle.
The tilt table test does not account for dynamic effects of tire
compliance, suspension compliance, or vehicle handling, which are
important factors in the vehicle's lateral stability.
Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested passed the minimum 30 degree
TTA requirement specified by ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. The ROV with the lowest
rollover resistance, as directly measured by threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover (Vehicle D, Ay = 0.625 g, TTA =
33.7 degrees), exceeds the voluntary standard TTA requirement by 3.7
degrees, or 12 percent above the 30 degree minimum. The ROV that was
part of a repair program to increase its roll resistance, Vehicle A,
exceeds the TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 percent above the 30
degree minimum.
Table 5--Vehicle Ascending Rank Order Ay vs. TTA
[Operator plus passenger load]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle rank TTA
Vehicle rank (Ay) Ay (g) (TTA) (deg.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.............................. 0.625 A................. 33.0
B.............................. 0.655 B................. 33.6
A.............................. 0.670 D................. 33.7
J.............................. 0.670 I................. 35.4
I.............................. 0.675 H................. 35.9
F.............................. 0.690 J................. 36.1
E.............................. 0.700 F................. 36.4
H.............................. 0.705 E................. 38.1
C.............................. 0.740 C................. 38.8
G.............................. 0.785 G................. 39.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles--Additional Results for Vehicle J.
Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.
The CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table
requirement does not detect inadequate rollover resistance. The TTA
requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual
rollover resistance of ROVs, allows a vehicle that was part of repair
program to pass the test without having undergone the repair, and
provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral
stability of ROVs. The CPSC believes the threshold lateral acceleration
at rollover is a direct measure of rollover resistance, and its use
would eliminate the need for a tilt table test requirement.
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.3
Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic stability test based on a
constant steer angle test performed on pavement. The standard describes
the method for driving the vehicle around a 25-foot radius circle and
slowly increasing the speed until 0.6 g of lateral acceleration is
achieved; or 0.6 g lateral acceleration cannot be achieved because the
vehicle experiences two-wheel lift of the inside wheels, or the vehicle
speed is limited and will not increase with further throttle input. The
vehicle passes the dynamic test if at least eight out of 10 test runs
do not result in two-wheel lift.
Adequacy: The CPSC does not believe the ANSI/ROHVA requirement
accurately characterizes the lateral stability of an ROV because it
does not measure the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. The
Commission is not aware of any standards, recognized test protocols, or
real-world significance that supports using a constant steer angle test
to assess dynamic lateral stability.
CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct constant steer angle testing,
as specified by the ROHVA standard, on vehicles A, F, and J of the ROV
study.\29\ Table 6 shows the results of the tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Heydinger, G. J. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and
OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers--Vehicles A, F, and J. Retrieved from: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.)
Table 6--Summary of Constant Steer Angle Test for 25 ft. Radius Path
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turn direction (CW =
Vehicle clockwise CCW = Test end condition/ ROHVA Test pass/fail outcome
counter-clockwise) limit response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle A......................... Right (CW)........... Two-wheel lift...... Fail.
Left (CCW)........... Two-wheel lift...... Fail.
Vehicle F......................... Right (CW)........... Maximum Speed*...... Pass.**
Left (CCW)........... Maximum Speed*...... Pass.**
[[Page 68983]]
Vehicle J......................... Right (CW)........... Two-wheel lift...... Fail.
Left (CCW)........... Maximum Speed/ Pass.
Spinout.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Maximum speed occurred very near 0.6 g of corrected lateral acceleration for Vehicle F.
** Two-wheel lift occurred for Vehicle F after the driver slowed from maximum speed at the end of the test.
Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers--Vehicles A, F, and J.
Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.
The Commission is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability
can pass ROHVA's dynamic stability requirement because the small turn
radius limits the ROV's speed and prevents generation of the lateral
accelerations necessary to assess rollover resistance (as shown by the
results for Vehicle F). The Commission is also concerned that the
effects of oversteer can allow an ROV to pass the test because maximum
speed is reached by vehicle spinout (as shown by the results for
Vehicle J).
NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure the
rollover resistance of automobiles.\30\ NHTSA determined that the J-
turn test is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with
low rollover resistance. Vehicles with low rollover resistance exhibit
untripped rollover on pavement during a J-turn test and the lateral
acceleration at the rollover threshold can be measured. Lateral
acceleration is the accepted measure by vehicle engineers for assessing
lateral stability or rollover resistance.\31\ This value is commonly
used by engineers to compare rollover resistance from one vehicle to
another. The ANSI/ROHVA test protocol does not measure the lateral
acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the parameters of the test appear
tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. Based on CPSC's testing and
review, the Commission does not believe the ANSI/ROHVA dynamic
stability requirement is a true measure of rollover resistance, and the
CPSC does not believe the requirement will improve the lateral
stability of ROVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Comprehensive
Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road,
Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA's Light Vehicle
Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 513.
\31\ Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 309-319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 8.8
Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic stability test based on a 20 mph
J-turn maneuver performed on pavement. At a steering input of 180
degrees in the right and left directions, the vehicle shall not exhibit
two-wheel lift.
Adequacy: The Commission does not believe the ANSI/OPEI requirement
accurately characterizes the lateral stability of an ROV because the
ANSI/OPEI requirement does not measure the threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover. The Commission is not aware of any standards
or recognized test protocols that support using a J-turn maneuver with
180 degrees of steering wheel input to assess dynamic lateral stability
of an ROV.
OPEI's use of the J-turn maneuver does not measure the lateral
acceleration at two-wheel lift that produces ROV rollover. There is no
correspondence between the proposed ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability
requirement and ROV lateral stability because the 180-degree steering
wheel input does not correspond to a turning radius. For example, an
ROV with a low steering ratio will make a sharper turn at 180 degrees
of steering wheel input than an ROV with a high steering ratio. (The
steering ratio relates the amount that the steering wheel is turned to
the amount that the wheels of the vehicle turns. A higher steering
ratio means the driver turns the steering wheel more to get the vehicle
wheels to turn, and a lower steering ratio means the driver turns the
steering wheel less to get the vehicle wheels to turn.) In the proposed
ANSI/ROHVA J-turn test, a vehicle with a larger steering ratio will
make a wider turn and generate less lateral acceleration than a vehicle
with a smaller steering ratio.
The steering ratio is set by the ROV manufacturer and varies
depending on make and model. SEA measured the steering ratios of the 10
sample ROVs that were tested (see Figure 13). If the dynamic lateral
stability requirement is defined by a steering wheel angle input, a
manufacturer could increase the steering ratio of a vehicle to meet the
requirement rather than improve the vehicle's stability.
[[Page 68984]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.012
CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct J-turn testing, as specified
by the ANSI/OPEI standard, on vehicles A, F, and J (see Table 7).
Table 7--Summary of J-Turn Test Results
[20 mph with 180 degrees steering wheel angle input]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed required for 2- OPEI 20 mph test pass/fail
Vehicle Turn direction wheel outcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle A......................... Right................ 22 mph.............. Pass.
Left................. 21 mph.............. Pass.
Vehicle F......................... Right................ 21 mph.............. Pass.
Left................. 22 mph.............. Pass.
Vehicle J......................... Right................ 21 mph.............. Pass.
Left................. 23 mph.............. Pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers--Vehicles A, F, and J.
Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.
CPSC is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability can pass
OPEI's dynamic stability requirement because an ROV that was part of a
repair program (Vehicle A) to increase its roll resistance passed the
ANSI/OPEI stability test. When the ANSI/OPEI J-turn maneuver was
conducted just one mile above the requirement at 21 mph, Vehicle A
failed. Similarly, when the maneuver was conducted at 22 mph, Vehicle F
and Vehicle J failed. These results indicate that the parameters of the
test protocol allow most ROVs to pass.
NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure
rollover resistance of automobiles and determined that the J-turn test
is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low
rollover resistance.\32\ Vehicles with low rollover resistance exhibit
untripped rollover on pavement during a J-turn test and the lateral
acceleration at the rollover threshold can be measured. Lateral
acceleration is the accepted measure by vehicle engineers for assessing
lateral stability or rollover resistance.\33\ This value is commonly
used by engineers to compare rollover resistance from one vehicle to
another. The ANSI/OPEI test protocol does not measure the lateral
acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the parameters of the test appear
tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. Based on CPSC's testing and
review, the CPSC does not believe the ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability
requirement is a true measure of rollover resistance, and the CPSC does
not believe the requirement will improve the lateral stability of ROVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Comprehensive
Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road,
Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA's Light Vehicle
Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 513.
\33\ Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 309-319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Vehicle Handling
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 both lack provisions to
address vehicle handling:
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 ANSI/OPEI B71.9-
2012 do not specify a vehicle handling requirement.
Adequacy: CPSC's testing and review indicate that a requirement for
sub-limit understeer is necessary to reduce ROV rollovers that may be
produced by sub-limit oversteer in ROVs. Tests conducted by SEA show
that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a condition where the
lateral acceleration increases suddenly and exponentially.
[[Page 68985]]
The CPSC believes this condition can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or
cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and experience tripped
rollover.
ROVs that understeer in sub-limit conditions do not exhibit a
sudden increase in lateral acceleration. Therefore, the CPSC concludes
that ROVs should be required to operate in understeer at sub-limit
conditions based on the associated inherent dynamic stability of
understeering ROVs and the smaller burden of steering correction it
places on the average driver who is familiar with driving a passenger
vehicle that operates in sub-limit understeer.
SIS tests conducted by SEA that illustrate the sudden increase in
lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-
limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral acceleration is
exponential and represents a dynamically unstable condition. This
condition is undesirable because it can cause a vehicle with low
lateral stability (such as an ROV) to roll over suddenly.
In Figure 14, Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions to oversteer;
Vehicle H is the same model ROV, but a later model year in which the
oversteer has been corrected to understeer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.013
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the
lateral acceleration suddenly increased in less than 1 second, and the
vehicle rolled over. In contrast, Vehicle H never reaches a dynamically
unstable condition because the condition does not develop in
understeering vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral
acceleration remains linear, and Vehicle H rolls over more than 5
seconds later than Vehicle A.
3. Occupant Protection
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to
address occupant retention during a rollover event.
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 11.2 Seat
Belt Reminder and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 5.1.3.2 Seat Belt
Reminder System specify that ROVs shall be equipped with a seat belt
reminder system that activates a continuous or flashing warning light
visible to the operator for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is
started.
Adequacy: The CPSC believes the requirement for an 8-second
reminder light is not adequate to increase meaningfully seat belt use
rates in ROVs because the system is not intrusive enough to motivate
drivers and passengers to wear their seat belts. Results from past
studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual
reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies also conclude that reminder
systems must be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat
belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user
behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass
the system.
The Commission's analysis of ROV-related incidents indicates that
91 percent of fatal victims, and 73 percent of all victims (fatal and
nonfatal), were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident.
Without seat belt use, occupants experience partial to full ejection
from the ROV, and many occupants are struck by the ROV after ejection.
Based on review of ROV incident data and CPSC's testing described
above, the Commission believes that many ROV deaths and injuries can be
eliminated if occupants are wearing seat belts.
Automotive researchers have developed technology that motivates
drivers to buckle seat belts by making it more difficult to drive
faster than 20-25 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled.\34\
This concept shows promise in increasing seat belt use because the
technology was acceptable to users and was 100 percent effective in
motivating drivers to buckle their seat belts. One ROV manufacturer has
also introduced a technology that limits the vehicle speed if the
driver's seat belt is not buckled. ROVs with the speed-limitation
technology have been in the market since 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and Reagan, I.
(2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase Seat Belt Use of Service
Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS 811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Hilton, Bryan W. (2012). The Effect of Innovative Technology on
Seatbelt Use. Masters Theses. Paper 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68986]]
Given the low seat belt use rate in ROV-related incidents, as well
as the substantial potential reduction in injuries and deaths if seat
belt use were higher, the CPSC believes that the requirement for seat
belt reminders should be more stringent and should incorporate the most
recent advances in technology developed in the automotive and ROV
market.
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 11.3 ORS
Zones specifies construction and performance requirements for four
zones that cover the leg/foot, shoulder/hip, arm/hand, and head/neck
areas of an occupant. (Occupant retention system (ORS) is defined in
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 as a system, including three-point seat belts, for
retaining the occupant(s) of a vehicle to reduce the probability of
injury in the event of an accident.) The construction requirements
specify a force application test to set minimum guidelines for the
design of doors, nets, and other barriers that are intended to keep
occupants within the protection zone of the ROPS. The performance
requirements use a tilt table and a Hybrid III 50th percentile male
anthropomorphic test device (ATD) to determine occupant excursion when
the vehicle is tilted 45 degrees laterally.
Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt table performance requirements
for Zone 2--Shoulder/Hip are not adequate to ensure that occupants
remain within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a
rollover event. The tilt table test method measures the torso ejection
outside the vehicle width, not the ejection outside the protective zone
of the ROPS. The CPSC's test results indicate the tilt table test
allows unacceptable occupant head excursion beyond the protective zone
of the vehicle ROPS. The Commission also believes the tilt table test
method is not an accurate simulation of an ROV rollover event because
the test method does not reproduce the lateral acceleration and roll
experienced by the vehicle, and by extension, the occupants, during a
rollover.
CPSC staff also believes the construction-based test method for
Zone 2 is inadequate because the specified point of application (a
single point) and 3-inch diameter test probe do not accurately
represent contact between an occupant and the vehicle during a rollover
event. Specifying a single point does not ensure adequate coverage
because a vehicle with a passive barrier at only that point would pass
the test. Similarly, a 3 inch diameter probe does not represent the
upper arm of an occupant and therefore does not ensure adequate
coverage.
Voluntary Standard Requirement: ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 5.1.4
Occupant Side Retention Devices specifies ROVs shall be equipped with
occupant side retention devices that reduce the probability of
entrapment of a properly belted occupant's head, upper torso, and limbs
between the vehicle and the terrain, in the event of a lateral
rollover. Physical barriers or design features of the vehicle may be
used to comply with the requirement, but no performance tests are
specified to determine compliance with the requirement.
Adequacy: The Commission believes the occupant side retention
requirements are not adequate because they lack performance
requirements to gauge occupant protection performance. Performance
requirements, based on occupant protection performance tests of ROV
rollovers, are needed to ensure that occupants remain within the
protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a rollover event.
VIII. Response to Comments
In this section, we describe and respond to comments to the ANPR
for ROVs. We present a summary of each of the commenter's topics,
followed by the Commission's response. The Commission received 116
comments. The comments can be viewed on: www.regulations.gov, by
searching under the docket number of the ANPR, CPSC-2009-0087. Letters
with multiple and detailed comments were submitted by the following:
[ssquf] Joint comments submitted on behalf of Arctic Cat Inc.,
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Companies);
[ssquf] Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI);
[ssquf] The OPEI/ANSI B 71.9 Committee (Committee); and
[ssquf] ROHVA.
The respondents were ROV manufacturers and their associations,
consultants to ROV manufacturers, and more than 110 consumers. Eighteen
commenters supported developing regulatory standards for ROVs. The
other commenters opposed rulemaking action. The commenters raised
issues in five areas:
Voluntary standard activities,
Static stability metrics,
Vehicle handling,
Occupant protection, and
Consumer behavior.
The comment topics are separated by category.
Voluntary Standard Activities
1. Comment: Comments from the Companies, ROHVA, and several
individuals state that the CPSC should work with ROHVA to develop a
consensus voluntary standard for ROVs.
Response: As described in detail in the previous section of this
preamble, CPSC staff has been engaged actively with ROHVA since 2009,
to express staff's concerns about the voluntary standard and to provide
specific recommendations for the voluntary standard and supply ROHVA
with CPSC's test results and data supporting the staff's
recommendations.
CPSC believes the history of engagement with ROHVA, as detailed
above, shows that CPSC staff has tried to work with ROHVA to improve
the voluntary standard requirements to address low lateral stability,
lack of vehicle handling requirements, and inadequate occupant
protection requirements. The Commission does not believe deferring to
ROHVA will address those areas of concern because, although ROHVA has
made changes to the voluntary standard, the requirements still do not
improve the lateral stability of ROVs, do not eliminate sub-limit
oversteer handling, and do not improve occupant protection in a
rollover event.
2. Comment: Comments from the Committee and ROHVA state that the
Commission should defer to the current voluntary standards for ROVs.
Several comments state that the current voluntary standards are
adequate.
Response: In the previous section of this preamble, we explain in
detail why the requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-
2012 do not adequately address the risk of injury and death associated
with ROVs. We summarize that explanation below.
Lateral Stability. The Commission believes the static stability
requirements and the dynamic lateral stability requirements specified
in both voluntary standards do not measure the vehicle's resistance to
rollover. Static and dynamic tests conducted by SEA on a sample of ROVs
available in the U.S. market indicate that the tests specified in ANSI/
ROHVA 1-2011 and the ANSI/OPEI B71.9 will not promote improvement in
the rollover resistance of ROVs.
Vehicle Handling. In addition, ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI
B71.9-2012 do not have requirements for vehicle handling. The
Commission believes that a requirement for sub-limit understeer is
necessary to reduce ROV rollovers that may be produced by sub-limit
oversteer in ROVs. Tests
[[Page 68987]]
conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a
condition where the lateral acceleration increases suddenly and
exponentially. The Commission believes this runaway increase in lateral
acceleration can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or cause ROVs to slide
into limit oversteer and experience tripped rollover.
Occupant Protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9--2012
require only an 8-second reminder light to motivate users to buckle
seat belts. This requirement is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) seat belt reminder requirements for
automobiles. Manufacturers in the automotive industry have long since
exceeded such minimal seat belt reminder requirements because numerous
studies have proven that the FMVSS requirements, and indeed visual-only
reminders, are not effective.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B.M. (1976). Effectiveness of
Various Safety Belt Warning Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the occupant protection requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011
and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 are not based on valid occupant protection
performance tests that simulate conditions of vehicle rollover. ANSI/
OPEI B71.9-2012 does not include any performance requirements for
occupant protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 includes performance
requirements based on static tilt tests that allow unacceptable
occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the vehicle ROPS.
3. Comment: On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff
requesting that the CPSC exclude multipurpose off-highway utility
vehicles (MOHUVs) from CPSC's rulemaking efforts. OPEI states that
there are key differences between work-utility vehicles and
recreational vehicles. The differences include: Maximum vehicle speed,
engine and powertrain design, cargo box configuration and capacity,
towing provisions, and vehicle usage.
Response: The Commission's proposed requirements for lateral
stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection are intended to
reduce deaths and injuries caused by ROV rollover and occupant
ejection. ROVs are motorized vehicles that are designed for off-highway
use and have four or more tires, steering wheel, non-straddle seating,
accelerator and brake pedals, ROPS, restraint system, and maximum
vehicle speed greater than 30 mph.
``MOHUVs,'' as defined by ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012, are vehicles with
four or more wheels, a steering wheel, non-straddle seating, and
maximum speed between 25 and 50 mph. Therefore, the Commission believes
that an MOHUV that exceeds 30 mph is an ROV that is subject to the
scope of the proposed rulemaking. The differences cited by OPEI between
work-utility vehicles and recreational vehicles, e.g., the cargo
capacity or the powertrain of a vehicle, do not exclude these ROVs from
the hazard of rollover and occupant ejection.
Static Stability Metrics
1. Comment: Comments from CEI state that the Static Stability
Factor (SSF), defined as T/2H, is not an appropriate metric for
stability because there is no correlation between SSF values and ROV
rollovers.
Response: The Commission agrees that the SSF is not an appropriate
metric for ROV lateral stability because CPSC staff compared the actual
lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured
by the J-turn test, and found that static measures (whether
Kst, SSF, or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the
vehicle's rollover resistance. The static tests are unable to account
fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance
exhibited by ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover (Ay) is the most appropriate metric to use
because it is a direct measure of the vehicle's resistance to rollover.
2. Comment: Comments from the Companies and the Committee state
that NHTSA decided not to implement a minimum SSF standard for on-road
vehicles because it would have forced the radical redesign of the
characteristics of many, and in some cases, all vehicles of certain
classes, which would have raised issues of public acceptance and
possibly even the elimination of certain classes of vehicles.
Response: Contrary to the comment's implication that setting a
minimum lateral stability (in this case SSF) is detrimental to vehicle
design, and that NHTSA abandoned the use of SSF, NHTSA concluded that
there is a causal relationship between SSF and rollover, and NHTSA has
incorporated the SSF in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) rating of
vehicles. In June 1994, NHTSA terminated rulemaking to establish a
minimum standard for rollover resistance because it would be difficult
to develop a minimum stability standard that would not disqualify whole
classes of passenger vehicles (light trucks and sport utility vehicles)
that consumers demand. Instead, by January 2001, NHTSA concluded that
consumer information on the rollover risk of passenger cars would
influence consumers to purchase vehicles with a lower rollover risk and
inspire manufacturers to produce vehicles with a lower rollover
risk.\36\ NHTSA found consistently that given a single-vehicle crash,
the SSF is a good statistical predictor of the likelihood that the
vehicle will roll over.\37\ The number of single-vehicle crashes was
used as an index of exposure to rollover because this method eliminates
the additional complexity of multi-vehicle impacts and because about 82
percent of light vehicle rollovers occur in single-vehicle crashes.
NHTSA decided to use the SSF to indicate the risk of rollover in
single-vehicle crashes and to incorporate the new rating into NHTSA's
New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Based on NHTSA's statistical
analysis of single-vehicle crash data and vehicle SSF value, the NCAP
provides a 5-star rating system. One star represents a 40 percent or
higher risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash; two stars represent
a risk of rollover between 30 percent and 40 percent; three stars
represent a risk of rollover between 20 percent and 29 percent; four
stars represent a risk of rollover between 10 percent and 19 percent;
and five stars represent a risk of rollover of less than 10 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor
of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved
from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.
\37\ Rollover Prevention Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6859 RIN 2127-
AC64. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/rollover/Chapt05.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A subsequent study of SSF trends in automobiles found that SSF
values increased for all vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, and
SUVs tended to have the worst SSF values in the earlier years. NHTSA's
intention that manufacturers improve the lateral stability of passenger
vehicles was achieved through the NCAP rating, a rating based
predominantly on the SSF value of the vehicle.
Based on dynamic stability tests conducted by SEA and improvements
in the Yamaha Rhino after the repair program was initiated, the
Commission believes that setting a minimum rollover resistance value
for ROVs can improve the lateral stability of the current market of
ROVs, without forcing radical designs or elimination of any models. The
Commission also believes continued increase in ROV lateral stability
can be achieved by making the value of each model vehicle's threshold
lateral
[[Page 68988]]
acceleration at rollover available to consumers. Publication of an ROV
model's rollover resistance value on a hang tag will allow consumers to
make informed purchasing decisions regarding the comparative lateral
stability of ROVs. In addition, publication of rollover resistance will
provide a competitive incentive for manufacturers to improve the
rollover resistance of their ROVs.
3. Comment: Comments from the Companies and the Committee state
that Kst is the more appropriate stability factor than SSF
because it accounts for differences in the rear and track width, as
well as differences in the fore and aft location of the vehicle's
center of gravity.
Response: Kst is a three-dimensional calculation of the
two-dimensional SSF, and when the front and rear track widths are
equal, Kst equals SSF. For practical purposes,
Kst and SSF provide the same information on ROVs. Occupant-
loaded values of Kst and SSF are informative to the design
process of ROVs; however, Kst and SSF values do not account
for all the dynamic factors that affect actual rollover resistance.
Therefore, they do not represent the best stability metric for ROVs.
The Commission compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover
threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found
that the static measures (whether Kst, SSF, or TTA) are not
accurate predictors of the vehicle's actual lateral stability. Direct
dynamic measurement of the vehicle's resistance to rollover is possible
with ROVs. Therefore, the Commission believes that J-turn testing to
determine the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover should be used
as the standard requirement to determine lateral stability.
4. Comment: Comments from CEI and the Companies state that tilt
table angle or tilt table ratio should be used as a measure of lateral
stability.
Response: As stated above, the staff compared the actual lateral
acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the
J-turn test, and found that the static measures (whether it is
Kst or SSF or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the
vehicle's actual lateral stability.
The Commission believes that the tilt table requirement in ANSI/
ROHVA 1-2011 does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs. A
comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the TTA were used instead
of the direct measurement of lateral acceleration at rollover
(Ay) illustrates how poorly the TTA correlates to the actual
rollover resistance of the vehicle. The tilt table test does not
account for dynamic effects of tire compliance, suspension compliance,
and vehicle handling, which are important factors in the vehicle's
lateral stability.
Direct dynamic measurement of the vehicle's resistance to rollover
is possible with ROVs. Therefore, the Commission believes that J-turn
testing to determine the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover
should be used as the standard requirement to determine lateral
stability.
5. Comment: Comments from the Companies state that the ANSI/ROHVA
1, American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles,
lateral stability requirement of Kst = 1 and TTA = 30
degrees is adequate and should be adopted by CPSC.
Response: SEA tested 10 representative ROV samples to the tilt
table requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. All of the ROVs tested pass
the minimum 30-degree TTA, which indicates that the tilt table
requirement is a status quo test. Vehicle D, the vehicle with the
lowest rollover resistance (Ay = 0.625 g, TTA = 33.7
degrees), exceeds the TTA requirement by 3.7 degrees, or 12 percent
above the 30-degree minimum requirement. Vehicle A, the ROV that was
part of a repair program to increase its roll resistance, exceeds the
TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 percent above the 30-degree
minimum.
CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement
is a requirement that all ROVs can pass and will not promote
improvement among vehicles that have lower rollover resistance. The TTA
requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual
rollover resistance of ROVs; the requirement allows the Yamaha Rhino to
pass the test without having undergone the repair; and the requirement
provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral
stability of ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover value is a direct measure for rollover
resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for tilt table testing
as a requirement.
6. Comment: Comments from the Companies, the Committee, and several
individuals state that the SSF values recommended by CPSC staff for
ROVs would make the vehicles unusable for off-road use and would
eliminate this class of vehicle.
Response: Based on the testing and data discussed in this preamble,
CPSC staff no longer recommends using the SSF value as a measure of an
ROV's rollover resistance. The SSF value of a vehicle represents the
best theoretical lateral stability that the vehicle can achieve. CPSC
staff compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of
several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that the static
measures (whether it is Kst, or SSF, or TTA) are not
accurate predictors of the vehicle's actual lateral stability due to
the extreme compliance in the vehicle's suspension and tires.
Therefore, the Commission believes that neither the Kst, nor
the SSF is an accurate measure of an ROV's lateral stability. Rather,
the vehicle's actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold is the
appropriate measure of the vehicle's lateral stability.
Vehicle Handling
1. Comment: Comments from CEI and the Companies state that
measurements of understeer/oversteer made on pavement are not
applicable to non-pavement surfaces. ROVs are intended for off-highway
use and any pavement use is product misuse, they assert.
Response: Both the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI standards specify
dynamic testing on a paved surface. This indicates that ROHVA and OPEI
agree that testing of ROVs on pavement is appropriate because pavement
has a uniform high-friction surface. Tests conducted on pavement show
how the vehicle responds at lateral accelerations that range from low
lateral accelerations (associated with low friction surfaces like sand)
up to the highest lateral acceleration that can be generated by
friction at the vehicle's tires. This provides a complete picture of
how the vehicle handles on all level surfaces. The amount of friction
at the tires, and thus, the lateral accelerations generated, varies on
non-paved surfaces. However, the vehicle's handling at each lateral
acceleration does not change when the driving surface changes.
2. Comment: Comments from CEI state that CEI has performed various
tests and analyses on ROVs that demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit
oversteer are not unstable.
Response: The Commission disagrees with the statement that ROVs
that exhibit oversteer are stable. Vehicles that exhibit sub-limit
oversteer have a unique and undesirable characteristic, marked by a
sudden increase in lateral acceleration during a turn. This dynamic
instability is called critical speed and is described by Thomas D.
Gillespie in the Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics as the speed ``above
which the vehicle will be unstable.'' \38\ Gillespie further explains
that an oversteer vehicle ``becomes
[[Page 68989]]
directionally unstable at and above the critical speed'' because the
lateral acceleration gain approaches infinity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 204-205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEI states that their tests demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit
oversteer are not unstable. However, testing performed by SEA shows
that oversteering ROVs can exhibit a sudden increase in lateral
acceleration resulting in a roll over. Plots from SIS tests illustrate
this sudden increase in lateral acceleration, which is found only in
vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer (see Figure 15). Vehicle A is
an ROV that transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same model ROV,
but a later model year in which the oversteer has been corrected to
understeer.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.014
When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the
lateral acceleration suddenly increased from 0.50 g to 0.69 g
(difference of 0.19 g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled
over. (Outriggers on the vehicle prevented full rollover of the
vehicle.) In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a dynamically unstable
condition because the condition does not develop in understeering
vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains
linear, and the lateral acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g
(same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 seconds. A driver in Vehicle
H has more margin to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a
driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the
turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically
unstable.
SEA test results indicate that ROVs that exhibited sub-limit
oversteer also exhibited a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that
caused the vehicle to roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sudden
increase in lateral acceleration is directionally unstable and
uncontrollable.\39\ Tests conducted by SEA provide strong evidence that
sub-limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable condition that can lead to a
rollover incident, especially given the low rollover resistance of
ROVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of Vehicle Design
Parameters on Characteristic Speed and Understeer. SAE 670078;
Segel, L. (1957). Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control
and Stability. SAE 570044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Comment: Comments from CEI and the Companies state that all
vehicles, whether they understeer or oversteer, can be driven to limit
conditions and can spin or plough. Any vehicle can exhibit ``limit
oversteer'' through manipulation by the driver.
Response: The Commission does not dispute that operator input and
road conditions can affect limit oversteer or understeer in a vehicle.
The vehicle handling requirements proposed by the Commission specify
that vehicles exhibit sub-limit understeer. The Commission believes
that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable condition that can lead to a
rollover incident. Ten sample ROVs were tested by SEA; five of the 10
vehicles exhibited a desirable sub-limit understeer condition, and five
exhibited a transition to undesirable sub-limit oversteer condition.
CPSC's evaluation indicates that ROVs can be designed to understeer
with minimal cost and without diminishing the utility or recreational
value of this class of vehicle.
4. Comment: Comments from the Companies state that oversteer is
desirable for path-following capability. Specifically, vehicles in
oversteer will generally follow the path and allow directional control
of the vehicle. High rear tire slip angles and tire longitudinal slip
are needed for traction on off-highway surfaces, such as loose soil.
Response: The Commission is not aware of any studies that define
``path-following capability'' and its relation to the sub-limit
understeer or oversteer design of the vehicle. Of the 10 sample ROVs
tested by SEA, five vehicles exhibited a desirable sub-limit understeer
condition. The Commission is not aware of any reports of the steering
of sub-limit understeering vehicles causing loss of control or
preventing the driver from navigating off-road terrain.
A significant body of research has been developed over many years
regarding the science of vehicle dynamic handling and control. The
Commission has reviewed technical papers regarding vehicle handling
research and finds no agreement with the statement that ``a vehicle in
an oversteer condition will generally follow the path and allow
directional control of the vehicle to be maintained longer.'' In fact,
the Commission's research finds universal characterization of sub-limit
oversteer as directionally unstable, highly undesirable, and
dynamically unstable at or above the
[[Page 68990]]
critical speed.\40\ The Commission's review of 80 years of automotive
research did not find support for the suggestion that sub-limit
oversteer provides superior precision in handling and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Olley, M. (1934). Independent Wheel Suspension--Its Whys
and Wherefores. SAE 340080.; Stonex, K. A. (1941). Car Control
Factors and Their Measurement. SAE 410092.; Segel, L. (1957).
Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control and Stability.
SAE 570044.; Bergman, W. (1965). The Basic Nature of Vehicle
Understeer--Oversteer. SAE 650085.; Bundorf, R. T. and Leffert, R.
L. (1976). The Cornering Compliance Concept for Description of
Vehicle Directional Control Properties. SAE 760713.; and Milliken,
William F., Jr., et al. (1976). The Static Directional Stability and
Control of the Automobile. SAE 760712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, limit oversteer is described by the Companies as the
result of the driver ``operating the vehicle in a turn at a speed
beyond what is safe and reasonable for that turn or applying excessive
power in a turn.'' A vehicle in limit oversteer is essentially sliding
with the rear of the vehicle rotating about the yaw axis. A vehicle in
a slide is susceptible to a tripped rollover. ROVs have low rollover
resistance and are at high risk of a violent, tripped rollover.
Autonomous vehicle testing by SEA has duplicated these limit oversteer
conditions and found that tripped rollovers can create in excess of 2 g
to 3 g of instantaneous lateral acceleration, which produces a violent
rollover event. CPSC's evaluation indicates that eliminating sub-limit
oversteer will reduce unintentional transitions to limit oversteer.
The Commission does not agree that producing power oversteer by
spinning the rear wheels is a necessity for negotiating low-friction,
off-highway surfaces. Drifting or power oversteering is a risky
practice that presents tripped rollover hazards and does not improve
the vehicle's controllability. However, the practice of power
oversteering is the result of driver choices that are not under the
control of the manufacturer or the CPSC, and will not be significantly
affected by the elimination of sub-limit oversteer.
5. Comment: Comments from the Companies state that requiring ROVs
to exhibit understeer characteristics could create unintended and
adverse risk, such as gross loss of mobility. These commenters assert
that CPSC would be trading one set of purported safety issues for
another, equally challenging set of safety issues, and running against
100 years of experience in off-highway vehicle design and driving
practice, which suggests that for off-highway conditions, limit
oversteer is at least sometimes, if not most often, preferable to limit
understeer.
Response: ROVs that exhibit sub-limit understeering are currently
in the U.S. market in substantial numbers. The Commission is not aware
of any reports of the steering of sub-limit understeering vehicles
causing loss of control or preventing the driver from navigating off-
road terrain. The CPSC is not aware of any reports of sub-limit
understeering vehicles that exhibit the unintended consequences
described by the Companies.
The Commission believes that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable
condition that can lead to a rollover incident. Based on the Yamaha
Rhino repair program and the SEA test results indicating that half of
the sample ROVs tested already exhibit sub-limit understeer, the CPSC
believes that ROVs can be designed to understeer with minimum cost and
without diminishing the utility or recreational value of this class of
vehicle.
6. Comment: Comments from CEI, the Companies, and the Committee
state that no correlation can be shown between understeer/oversteer and
ROV crashes or rollovers.
Response: From a design and engineering perspective, the physics of
vehicle rollover inherently support the fact that increasing a
vehicle's resistance to rollover will make the vehicle more stable. In
addition, eliminating a vehicle characteristic that exhibits a sudden
increase in lateral acceleration during a turn will reduce the risk of
rollover. The constant radius tests and SIS tests conducted by SEA
provide strong evidence that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable
condition that can lead to a rollover incident.
Of the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the CPSC, 291 (68
percent) involved lateral rollover of the vehicle, and more than half
of these (52 percent) occurred while the vehicle was turning. Of the
147 fatal incidents that involved rollover, 26 (18 percent) occurred on
a paved surface. A vehicle exhibiting oversteer is most susceptible to
rollover in a turn where the undesirable sudden increase in lateral
acceleration can cause rollover to occur quickly, especially on paved
surfaces, where an ROV can exhibit an untripped rollover.
The Commission believes that improving the rollover resistance and
vehicle steering characteristics of ROVs is a practical strategy for
reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover events.
Occupant Protection
1. Comment: Comments from CEI, the Companies, and the Committee
state that seat belt use is critically important. Increasing seat belt
use is the most productive and effective way to reduce ROV-related
injuries and deaths because seat belt use is so low among those injured
in ROV incidents. A major challenge is clearly how to get occupants to
use the seat belt properly.
Response: The Commission agrees that the use of seat belts is
important in restraining occupants in the event of a rollover or other
accident. Results of the Commission's testing of belted and unbelted
occupants in simulated ROV rollover events indicate that seat belt use
is required to retain occupants within the vehicle. Without seat belt
use, occupants experience partial to full ejection from the vehicle.
This scenario has been identified as an injury hazard in the CPSC's
review of ROV-related incidents. Of those incidents that involved
occupant ejection, many occupants suffered crushing injuries caused by
the vehicle.
After reviewing the literature regarding automotive seat belts, the
Commission believes that an 8-second reminder light, as required in
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012, is not adequate to increase
meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs because the system is not
intrusive enough to motivate drivers and passengers to wear their seat
belts. Results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders
conclude that visual reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies
conclude further that effective reminder systems have to be intrusive
enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive
reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the
reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.
Based on literature and results from the Westat study, the
Commission believes that a seat belt speed limiting system that
restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph, if the driver
seat and any occupied front seats are not buckled, is the most
effective method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs.
The system is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and
the system consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts
to achieve speeds above 15 mph.
2. Comment: Comments from CEI state that four-point and five-point
seat belts are not appropriate for ROVs. In contrast, several
individual comments state that five-point seat belts should be required
on ROVs.
Response: The Commission identified lack of seat belt use as an
injury hazard in the CPSC's review of ROV-related incidents. The
majority of safety restraints in the ROV incidents were
[[Page 68991]]
three-point restraints, and to some extent, two-point seat belts.
Although four-point seat belts might be superior to three-point seat
belts in retaining occupants in a vehicle, three-point seat belts have
been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of death and serious
injury in automotive applications. The Commission believes that it is
unlikely that users who already do not use three-point seat belts will
use the more cumbersome four-point and five-point seat belts.
A more robust seat belt reminder system than the current voluntary
standard requirement for a visual reminder light is necessary to
motivate users to wear their seat belts because automotive studies of
seat belt reminders indicate that visual reminders do not increase seat
belt use. Dynamic rollover tests of ROVs indicate that a three-point
seat belt, in conjunction with a passive shoulder restraint, is
effective in restraining an occupant inside the protective zone of the
vehicle's ROPS during a quarter-turn rollover.
3. Comment: Comments from CEI state that occupant protection
requirements should be based on meaningful tests.
Response: The Commission agrees that ROV occupant protection
performance evaluations should be based on actual ROV rollovers or
simulations of real-world rollovers. Occupant protection performance
requirements for ROVs in the voluntary standard developed by ROHVA
(ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011) and the voluntary standard developed by OPEI (ANSI/
OPEI B71.9-2012) are not supported by data from rollover tests.
The SEA roll simulator is the most accurate simulation of an ROV
rollover event because it has been validated by measurements taken
during actual ROV rollovers. Rollover tests indicate that a seat belt,
used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier, is effective at
restraining occupants within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS
during quarter-turn rollover events.
ROV Incident Analysis
1. Comment: Comments from CEI state that ROV rollover incidents are
caused by a small minority of drivers who intentionally drive at the
limits of the vehicle and the driver's abilities, and intentionally
drive in extreme environments.
Response: Of the 224 reported ROV incidents that involved at least
one fatality, 147 incidents involved lateral rollover of the vehicle.
Of the 147 lateral rollover fatalities, it is reported that the ROV was
on flat terrain in 56 incidents (38 percent) and on a gentle incline in
18 incidents (12 percent). Of the 224 fatal ROV incidents, the vehicle
speed is unknown in 164 incidents (73 percent); 32 incidents (14
percent) occurred at speeds of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less; and 28
incidents (13 percent) occurred at speeds more than 20 mph. (Vehicle
speeds were reported (i.e., not measured by instrumentation); so these
speeds can be used qualitatively only and not as accurate values of
speed at which incidents occurred.) Of the 224 fatal ROV incidents, the
age of the driver was less than 16 years old in 61 incidents (27
percent). Of the 231 fatalities, 77 victims (33 percent) were children
less than 16 years of age.
A review of the incident data shows no indication that the majority
of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who ``purposely push the
vehicle to and beyond its limits by engaging in stunts, racing, and
intentional use of extreme environments.'' An analysis of the reported
ROV incidents indicates that many of the details of the circumstances
of the event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are not known. In
cases in which details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of
the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope
terrain; and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour.
Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are
children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related
fatalities are children under 16 years of age.
2. Comment: Comments from the Companies state that the CPSC failed
to use data from the NEISS in its analysis of ROV hazards. The comments
suggest further that analysis of the NEISS data on utility-terrain
vehicles (UTVs) indicate that UTVs, and therefore, ROVs, have a low
hospitalization rate.
Response: The joint comment's conclusions based on the commenters'
analyses of the NEISS UTV data are not technically sound because the
NEISS results do not specifically identify ROVs. NEISS has a product
code for UTVs and several product codes for ATVs, but there is no
separate product code for ROVs. ATVs have a straddle seat for the
operator and handlebars for steering. UTVs have bucket or bench seats
for the operator/passengers, a steering wheel for steering, and UTVs
may or may not have a ROPS. ROVs are a subset of UTVs and are
distinguished by having a ROPS, seat belts, and a maximum speed above
30 mph. However, many official entities, news media, and consumers
refer to ROVs as ATVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually
assigned to either an ATV product category or to the UTV product
category in NEISS. At a minimum, ROVs can be thought of as a subset of
UTVs and/or ATVs, and cannot be identified on a consistent basis
through the NEISS case records because NEISS requires knowledge of the
make/model of the vehicle (which is not coded in the NEISS for any
product). Occasionally, the NEISS narrative contains make/model
identification, but this cannot be used to identify ROVs accurately and
consistently.
CPSC conducted a special study in 2010, in which all cases coded as
ATVs or UTVs were selected for telephone interviews to gather
information about the product involved. Sixteen of the 668 completed
surveys had responses that identified the vehicle as an ROV. Staff's
analysis shows that many ROVs are coded as ATVs; many UTVs are also
coded as ATVs; and identification of ROVs and UTVs is difficult because
the NEISS narratives often do not include enough information to
identify the product. The miscoding rate for UTVs and ROVs is high, and
most likely, the miscoding is due to consumer-reported information in
the emergency department.
The CPSC added the UTV product code 5044 to the NEISS in 2005. In
the years 2005 to 2008 (the years cited in the joint comment document),
the UTV product code had mostly out-of-scope records, with a large
number of utility trailers and similar records. After these out-of-
scope records are removed, the only viable estimate is obtained by
aggregating the cases across 2005 to 2008, to get an estimated 1,300
emergency department-treated injuries related to UTVs (see Tab K, Table
1). This estimate is considerably less than the estimate reported by
Heiden in the joint comment. This estimate also does not include the
UTV-related injuries that were miscoded as ATVs in the ATV product
codes.
As the years have passed and the UTV product code is being used
more as intended, a completely different picture is seen for UTVs. From
2009 to 2012, there are an estimated 6,200 emergency department-
treated, UTV-related injuries (which can be attributed to an increase
in the number of UTV-related injuries, a larger portion of injuries
being identified in NEISS as UTVs, or a combination of all of these and
other factors not identified). Of these estimated 6,200 injuries, only
80.2 percent are treated and released. The proportion of treated and
released injuries for UTVs is significantly below the proportion of
treated and released for all consumer products (92.0 percent of
estimated consumer product-related, emergency department-treated
injuries
[[Page 68992]]
were treated and released from 2009 to 2012). This illustrates a hazard
of more severe injuries associated with UTVs.
In conclusion, data are insufficient to support the argument that
UTV injuries are not as severe as those associated with other products.
As more data have become available in recent years, it appears that
about 80 percent of the injuries associated with UTVs have been treated
and released as compared to about 92 percent of the injuries associated
with all consumer products.
3. Comment: The Companies provided their own analysis of ROV-
related reports that were used in the CPSC's ANPR analysis. In
particular, the Companies criticize Commission staff's analysis because
asserting that staff's analysis did not include factors related to
incident conditions and user behavior.
Response: Commission staff's analysis of incidents for the ANPR was
a preliminary review of reported incidents to understand the overall
hazard patterns. For the NPR, Commission staff conducted an extensive,
multidisciplinary review of 428 reported ROV-related incidents
resulting in at least one death or injury. The results of this study
are summarized in two reports in the NPR briefing package, along with
analyses of victim characteristics, hazard patterns, environmental
characteristics, and make and model characteristics. (The approach
taken in the comments from the Companies, to remove reports from the
analysis because there is unknown information, is not the Commission's
approach in analyzing ROV-related incidents.) Unknowns from all reports
are included with the knowns to ensure that the full picture is seen
because every report will have at least one piece of unknown
information, and every report will have at least one piece of known
information. The unknowns are reported in all tables, if unknowns were
recorded for the variables used.
The analysis of IDIs summarized in the comments from the Companies
does not define ``excessive speed,'' ``dangerous maneuver,'' or ``sharp
turn.'' In fact, in other places in the comments, the companies
mention: ``There is also no evidence suggesting that speed is an
important factor in preventing accidents.'' The companies also state:
``Tight steering turn capability is an important feature in certain
ROVs, particularly those for trail use, because of the need to respond
quickly to avoid obstacles and trail-edge drop-offs, and otherwise
navigate in these off-highway terrains'' Thus, there is ambiguity in
what the definitions could mean in the analysis of the IDIs (When is
the vehicle at an excessive speed? When is a turn too sharp? When is a
maneuver dangerous?). The Commission's approach to analyzing the 428
incidents summarized in the reports available in the NPR briefing
package is to consider the sequence of events, the vehicle, the driver,
any passenger, and environment characteristics across all incidents.
All definitions are set and used consistently by the multidisciplinary
review team to understand the hazard patterns and incident
characteristics across all incidents, not to set responsibility in one
place or another.
4. Comment: Comments from CEI state that the CPSC should begin to
address human factors that pertain to risk-taking behavior of the small
minority of ROV users who operate the vehicles at their limits without
crash-worthiness concerns. In particular, CEI proposes that the CPSC
focus primarily on changing consumer behavior to wearing seat belts,
wearing helmets, and refraining from driving ROVs irresponsibly.
Response: The Commission agrees that human factors and behavior
affect the risk of death and injury for ROV users. However, the CPSC
believes that establishing minimum requirements for ROVs can also
reduce the hazards associated with ROVs. As explained in this preamble,
the ANSI/ROHVA voluntary standard does not adequately addresses the
risk of injury and death associated with lateral rollovers of ROVs
because the standards do not have robust lateral stability
requirements, do not have vehicle handling requirement to ensure
understeer, and do not have robust occupant restraint requirements to
protect occupants from vehicle rollover.
An analysis of the reported ROV incidents indicates that many of
the details of an event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are
not known. Where details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of
the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope
terrain, and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour.
Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are
children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related
fatalities are children under 16 years of age. There is no indication
that the majority of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who
intentionally drive under extreme conditions.
Regarding seat belt use, results from past studies on automotive
seat belt reminders conclude that visual seat belt reminders are
ineffective. Numerous studies further conclude that effective reminder
systems have to be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their
seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing
user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users
bypass the system.
The Commission believes that a seat belt speed-limiting system that
restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the driver seat
and any occupied front seats are not buckled is the most effective
method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs. The system
is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and the system
consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve
speeds above 15 mph.
IX. Description of the Proposed Rule
A. Scope, Purpose, and Compliance Dates--Sec. 1422.1
The proposed standard would apply to ``recreational off-highway
vehicles'' (ROVs), as defined, which would limit the scope to vehicles
with a maximum speed greater than 30 mph. The proposed standard would
include requirements relating to lateral acceleration, vehicle
handling, and occupant protection. The requirements are intended to
reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of injury associated with
ROVs. The proposed standard would specifically exclude ``golf cars,''
``all-terrain vehicles,'' ``fun karts,'' ``go karts,'' and ``light
utility vehicles,'' as defined by the relevant voluntary standards. The
Commission proposes two compliance dates: ROVs would be required to
comply with the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements
(Sec. Sec. 1422.3 and 1422.4) 180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. ROVs would be required to comply with the
occupant protection requirements (Sec. 1422.5) 12 months after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The Commission
recognizes that some ROV manufacturers will need to redesign and test
new prototype vehicles to meet the occupant protection requirements.
This design and test process is similar to the process that
manufacturers use when introducing new model year vehicles. As
described more fully in Section X, staff estimates that it will take
approximately 9 person-months per ROV model to design, test, implement,
and begin manufacturing vehicles to meet the occupant protection
performance requirements. Therefore, the Commission believes that 12
months is a reasonable time period for manufacturers to comply with all
of new mandatory requirements.
[[Page 68993]]
B. Definitions--Sec. 1422.2
The proposed standard would provide that the definitions in section
3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In
addition, the proposed standard would include the following
definitions:
``Recreational off-highway vehicle''--a motorized vehicle
designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four or more
wheels with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating for two or more
occupants; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and
braking; rollover protective structures (ROPS); occupant restraint; and
maximum speed capability greater than 30 mph.
``two-wheel lift''--point at which the inside wheels of a
turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a
vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a
precursor to a rollover event. We use the term ``two-wheel lift''
interchangeably with ``tip-up.''
``threshold lateral acceleration''--minimum lateral
acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.
C. Requirements for Dynamic Lateral Stability--Sec. 1422.3
1. Proposed Performance Requirement
a. Description of Requirement
The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a minimum
requirement for lateral stability. The dynamic lateral stability
requirement would set a minimum value for the lateral acceleration at
rollover of 0.70 g, as determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn
test. The 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test uses a programmable steering
controller to turn the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at prescribed
steering angles and rates to determine the minimum steering angle at
which two-wheel lift is observed. These are the conditions and
procedures that were used in testing with SEA. Under the proposed
requirements, the data collected during these tests are analyzed to
compute and verify the lateral acceleration at rollover for the
vehicle. The greater the lateral acceleration value, the greater is the
resistance of the ROV to tip or roll over.
b. Rationale
The J-turn test is the most appropriate method to measure the
rollover resistance of ROVs because the J-turn test has been evaluated
by NHTSA as the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with
low rollover resistance. As discussed previously, static metrics, such
as SSF and TTR, cannot be used to evaluate accurately ROV rollover
resistance because static tests are unable to account fully for the
dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs
during a J-turn maneuver. The Commission also verified that the J-turn
test is objective and repeatable for ROVs by conducting numerous J-turn
tests on several ROVs.
As explained above, testing conducted by CPSC staff and SEA
supports the proposed requirement that ROVs demonstrate a minimum
threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g or greater in a J-
turn. Results of J-turn tests performed on a sample of 10 ROVs
available in the U.S. market indicate that six of the 10 ROVs tested
measured threshold lateral accelerations below 0.70 g (values ranged
from 0.625 g to 0.690 g). The Commission believes that minor changes to
vehicle suspension and/or track width spacing, similar to the changes
in the Yamaha Rhino repair program, can increase the threshold lateral
acceleration of these vehicles to 0.70 g or greater. The Yamaha repair
program improved the rollover resistance of the Yamaha Rhino from 0.670
g (unrepaired Yamaha Rhino) to 0.705 g (repaired Yamaha Rhino).
Based on CPSC's evaluation of ROV testing and the decrease in
injuries and deaths associated with Yamaha Rhino vehicles after the
repair program was implemented, the Commission believes that improving
the rollover resistance of all ROVs can reduce injuries and deaths
associated with ROV rollover events.
2. Proposed Requirements for Hang Tag
a. Description of Requirement
The Commission is proposing a requirement that ROV manufacturers
provide technical information for consumers on a hangtag at the point
of purchase.
As discussed previously, the Commission is proposing a requirement
that ROVs meet a minimum lateral acceleration of 0.70 g at rollover, as
identified by J-turn testing. The Commission proposes requiring a
hangtag on each ROV that would state the actual measured lateral
acceleration at rollover (as identified by the J-turn testing) of each
ROV model. The Commission believes that the hang tag will allow
consumers to make informed decisions on the comparative lateral
stability of ROVs when making a purchase and will provide a competitive
incentive for manufacturers to improve the rollover resistance of ROVs.
The proposed rule specifies the content and format for the hang
tag, and includes an example hang tag. Under the proposal, the hang tag
must conform in content, form, and sequence as specified in the
proposed rule.
The Commission proposes the following ROV hangtag requirements:
Content. Every ROV shall be offered for sale with a
hangtag that graphically illustrates and textually states the lateral
acceleration threshold at rollover for that ROV model. The hangtag
shall be attached to the ROV and may be removed only by the first
purchaser.
Size. Every hangtag shall be at least 15.24 cm (6 inches)
wide by 10.16 cm (4 inches) tall.
Attachment. Every hangtag shall be attached to the ROV and
be conspicuous to a person sitting in the driver's seat; and the
hangtag shall be removable only with deliberate effort.
Format. The hang tag shall provide all of the elements
shown in the example hangtag (see Figure 16).
b. Rationale
Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to require, by
rule, that manufacturers of consumer products provide to the Commission
performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may
be required to carry out the purposes of the CPSA, and to give
notification of such performance and technical data at the time of
original purchase to prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser
of the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e)). Section 2 of the CPSA provides that
one purpose of the CPSA is to ``assist consumers in evaluating the
comparative safety of consumer products.'' 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2).
Other federal government agencies currently require on-product
labels with information to help consumers in making purchasing
decisions. For example, NHTSA requires automobiles to come with
comparative information on vehicles regarding rollover resistance. 49
CFR 575.105. NHTSA believes that consumer information on the rollover
risk of passenger cars would influence consumers to purchase vehicles
with a lower rollover risk and inspire manufacturers to produce
vehicles with a lower rollover risk.\41\ A subsequent study of SSF
trends in automobiles found that SSF values increased for all vehicles
after 2001, particularly SUVs, which tended to have the worst SSF
values in the earlier years.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor
of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved
from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.
\42\ Walz, M.C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor of
Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809868. Retrieved
from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68994]]
EnergyGuide labels, required on most appliances, are another
example of federally-mandated labels to assist consumers in making
purchase decisions. 16 CFR part 305. Detailed operating cost and energy
consumption information on these labels allows consumers to compare
competing models and identify higher efficiency products. The
EnergyGuide label design was developed based on extensive consumer
research and following a two-year rulemaking process.
Like NHTSA rollover resistance information and EnergyGuide labels,
the proposed ROV hang tags are intended to provide important
information to consumers at the time of purchase. Providing the value
of each ROV model vehicle's threshold lateral acceleration to consumers
will assist consumers with evaluating the comparative safety of the
vehicles in terms of resistance to rollover. Requiring that ROV lateral
acceleration test results be stated on a hangtag may motivate
manufacturers to increase the performance of their ROV to achieve a
higher reportable lateral acceleration, similar to incentives created
as a result of NHTSA's NCAP program.
The proposed hangtag is based, in part, on the point-of-purchase
hangtag requirements for ATVs. ATVs must have hangtags that include
general warning information regarding operation and operator and
passenger requirements, as well as behavior that is warned against.
Most ROV manufacturers are also manufacturers of ATVs. Accordingly, ROV
manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the hangtag requirements
for ATVs. The ANSI/SVIA 1-2010 voluntary standard that applies to ATVs
requires ATVs to be sold with a hangtag that is to be removed only by
the purchaser and requires ATV hangtags to be 6-inches tall x 4-inches
wide. Because ROV manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the
hangtag requirements for ATVs, the Commission is proposing the same
size requirements for ROV hang tags.
The hang tag graph draws its format from well-recognized principles
in effective warnings. When presenting graphical information, it is
important to include labels so that the data can be understood. Graphs
should have a unique title, and the axes should be fully labeled with
the units of measurement. Graphs should also be distinguished from the
text, by adding white space, or enclosing the graphs in a box.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Markel, M. (2001). Technical Communication. Boston, MA:
Bedford/St. Martin's.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.015
[[Page 68995]]
(1) The ROV icon helps identify the product. The icon is presented
at a slight angle to help consumers readily identify the label as
addressing ROV rollover characteristics. Research has shown that
pictorial symbols and icons make warnings more noticeable and easier to
detect than warnings without such symbols and icons.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Hang tag not shown to scale.
\45\ Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., and Laughery, K. (1999). Warnings
and Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Graph label, ``Better,'' indicates that the higher the value
(as shading increases to the right), the higher the ROV's resistance to
rolling over during a turn on a flat surface.
(3) The Manufacturer, Model, Model number, Model year help the
consumer identify the exact ROV described by the label. Likewise, the
EnergyGuide label provides information on the manufacturer, model, and
size of the product so that consumers can identify exactly what
appliance the label describes.\46\ The Commission is proposing a
similar identification of the ROV model on the hangtag so that
consumers can compare values among different model ROVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Guide to EnergyGuide label retrieved at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliances-use-energyguide-label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Textual information. Technical communication that includes
graphs should also include text to paraphrase the importance of the
graphic and explain how to interpret the information presented.\47\
Additionally, including a graphic before introducing text may serve as
a valuable reference for consumers, by maintaining attention and
encouraging further reading.\48\ The textual informational in the
hangtag provides consumers with more definition of the values given in
the graph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Markel, M. 2001.
\48\ Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer product
instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Linear scale, and anchor showing minimally acceptable value on
the scale. Currently, the EnergyGuide label uses a linear scale with
the lowest and highest operating costs for similar models so that
consumers can compare products; the yearly operating cost for the
specific model is identified on the linear scale.\49\ The Commission is
proposing a linear scale format for the ROV hangtag, as well. The text
identifies the minimally accepted lateral acceleration at rollover as
being 0.7 g. When providing this on the scale, people are able to
determine visually how a specific model compares to the minimal value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ FTC. Retrieved from: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliances-use-energyguide-label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Scale starts at 0.65 g to allow a shaded bar for those ROVs
meeting only the minimally acceptable lateral acceleration value.
D. Vehicle Handling--Sec. 1422.4
1. Description of Requirement
The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a vehicle
handling requirement, which requires that ROVs exhibit understeer
characteristics. The understeer requirement would mandate that ROVs
exhibit understeer characteristics in the sublimit range of the turn
circle test. The test for vehicle handling or understeer performance
involves driving the vehicle around a 100-foot radius circle at
increasing speeds, with the driver making every effort to maintain
compliance of the vehicle path relative to the circle. SEA testing was
based on a 100-foot radius circle. Data collected during these tests
are analyzed to determine whether the vehicle understeers through the
required range. The proposed rule would require that all ROVs exhibit
understeer for values of ground plane lateral acceleration from 0.10 to
0.50 g.
2. Rationale
The CPSC believes that the constant radius test is the most
appropriate method to measure an ROV's steering gradient because SAE
J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady-State Directional
Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,
establishes the constant radius test as a method to measure understeer/
oversteer in passenger cars. The test procedures are also applicable to
ROVs because ROVs are similar to cars, have four steerable wheels and a
suspension system, and thus, ROVs obey the same principles of motion as
automobiles.
The Commission believes that the appropriate lateral acceleration
range to measure steering gradient is from 0.10 g to 0.50 g because SEA
test results indicate that spurious data occur at the beginning and end
of a constant radius test conducted up to vehicle rollover. Data
collected in the range of 0.10 g to 0.50 g of lateral acceleration
provide the most accurate plots of the vehicle's steering
characteristic.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements
of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/96037/rov.pdf. Page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer
transition to a condition where the lateral acceleration increases
suddenly and exponentially. Based on testing and relevant literature,
the CPSC believes that this condition can lead to untripped ROV
rollovers or may cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and
experience tripped rollover. Ensuring sub-limit understeer eliminates
the potential for sudden and exponential increase in lateral
acceleration that can cause ROV rollovers.
The decrease in Rhino-related incidents after the repair program
was initiated and the low number of vehicle rollover incidents
associated with repaired Rhino vehicles are evidence that increasing
the lateral stability of an ROV and correcting oversteer
characteristics to understeer reduces the occurrence of ROV rollover on
level terrain. In particular, the Commission believes the elimination
of runaway lateral acceleration associated with oversteer contributed
to a decrease in Rhino-related rollover incidents.
As mentioned previously, ROVs can be designed to understeer in sub-
limit operation with minimum cost and without diminishing the utility
or recreational value of this class of vehicle. Half of the vehicles
CPSC tested already exhibit sub-limit understeer condition for the full
range of the test, and this includes both utility and recreational
model ROVs.
E. Occupant Retention System--Sec. 1422.5
The proposed rule includes two requirements that are intended to
keep the occupant within the vehicle or the ROPs. First, each ROV would
be required to have a means to restrict occupant egress and excursion
in the shoulder/hip zone defined by the proposed rule. This requirement
could be met by a fixed barrier structure or structure on the ROV or by
a barrier or structure that can be put into place by the occupant using
one hand in one operation, such as a door. Second, the proposed rule
would require that the speed of an ROV be limited to a maximum of 15
mph, unless the seat belts for both the driver and any front seat
passengers are fastened. The purpose of these requirements is to
prevent deaths and injury incidents, especially incidents that involve
full or partial ejection of the rider from the vehicle.
1. Speed Limitation
a. Requirement
The Commission proposes a performance requirement that limits the
maximum speed that an ROV can attain to 15 mph or less when tested with
unbuckled front seat belts during the maximum speed test. Section 5 of
ANSI/
[[Page 68996]]
ROHVA 1-2011, ``Maximum Speed,'' establishes test protocols to measure
maximum speed on level ground. Because ROV manufacturers are already
familiar with these test procedures and the proposed test would add
elements to a test procedure manufacturers already conduct to meet the
voluntary standard, the CPSC believes that the maximum speed test from
ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 is the most appropriate method to measure the limited
speed of an ROV.
b. Rationale
i. Importance of Seat Belts
As discussed in section V of this preamble, results of the CPSC's
exploratory testing of belted and unbelted occupants in simulated ROV
rollover events indicate that seat belt use is required to retain
occupants within the vehicle. This conclusion corresponds with the
incident data for ROV rollovers, in which 91 percent of the fatal
victims who were partially or fully ejected from the vehicle were not
wearing seat belts. Of the incidents that involved occupant ejection,
many occupants were injured when struck by the vehicle after ejection.
The Commission believes that many of the ROV occupant ejection deaths
and injuries can be eliminated if occupants wear seat belts.
Studies have shown that automobile seat belt reminders do not
increase seat belt use, unless the reminders are aggressive enough to
motivate users to buckle seat belts without alienating the user into
bypassing or rejecting the system. Based on the Commission's testing
and literature review and the low seat belt use rates in ROV-related
incidents, the Commission believes that a seat belt speed limiting
system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if any
occupied front seats are not buckled, is the most effective method to
increase seat belt use rates in ROVs.
ii. Likely Acceptance of Speed-Limitation Technology
The Commission believes that in-vehicle technology that limits the
speed of the ROV if the front occupied seats are not buckled will be
accepted by ROV users because the technology does not interfere with
the operation of the ROV below the threshold speed, and users will be
motivated to wear seat belts if they wish to exceed the threshold
speed. This conclusion is based on automotive studies that show drivers
accepted a system that reduced vehicle function (i.e., requiring more
effort to depress the accelerator pedal) after a threshold speed, if
the driver's seat belt was not buckled. The system did not interfere
with the operation of the vehicle below the threshold speed, and
drivers were willing to buckle their seat belts to access unhindered
speed capability of the vehicle.
The Commission also believes that speed-limitation technology will
be accepted by ROV users because the technology is already included on
the BRP Can-Am Commander and Can-Am Maverick model ROVs, and the
manufacturer with the largest ROV market share, Polaris, announced that
it will introduce the technology on model year 2015 Ranger and RZR
ROVs.
The Commission's literature review concludes that intrusive
reminders are effective at changing user behavior, as long as the
reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system. Limitation
of vehicle speed is the intrusive reminder for ROV users to buckle
their seat belt; therefore, the Commission believes that the threshold
speed for a seat belt speed-limitation system should be as high as
possible to gain user acceptance (and reduce bypass of the system), but
low enough to allow relatively safe operation of the vehicle.
iii. Choice of 15 MPH
The Commission believes 15 mph is the appropriate speed threshold
for a seat belt speed-limitation system. Based on information about
ROVs and vehicles similar to ROVs, the Commission concludes that ROVs
can be operated relatively safely at 15 mph. For example:
ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1-2004, American National Standard for
Golf Carts--Safety and Performance Specifications, specifies the
maximum speed for golf carts at 15 mph. This standard establishes 15
mph as the maximum acceptable speed for unbelted drivers and passengers
(golf carts do not have seat belts or ROPS) in vehicles that are often
driven in off-road conditions.
SAE J2258, Surface Vehicle Standard for Light Utility
Vehicles, specifies a speed of 15 mph as acceptable for a vehicle, with
a lateral stability of at least 25 degrees on a tilt table test,
without seat belts or ROPS. This standard also establishes 15 mph as
the maximum acceptable speed for unbelted drivers and passengers in
vehicles that are driven in off-road conditions.
Polaris Ranger and RZR model year 2015 ROVs will be
equipped with a seat belt speed limiter that limits the vehicle speed
to 15 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled. The decision by the
largest manufacturer of ROVs establishes 15 mph as the maximum
acceptable speed for unbelted ROV drivers.
Additionally, the principles of physics support this conclusion.
The fundamental relationship between speed and lateral acceleration is:
A = V\2\/R where A = lateral acceleration
V = velocity
R = radius of turn
The minimum proposed lateral acceleration threshold at rollover for
ROVs is 0.70 g, and the typical turn radius of an ROV is 16 feet.\51\
Therefore, without any additional effects of tire friction, the speed
at which rollover would occur during a turn on level ground is 13 mph.
(The CPSC recognizes that on a slope, the lateral acceleration due to
gravity can cause ROV rollover at speeds below 15 mph. However, the
CPSC believes that it is appropriate to use level ground as a
baseline.) In reality, friction at the tires would increase the speed
at which rollover occurs to above 13 mph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Turn radius values retrieved at: http://www.atv.com/features/choosing-a-work-vehicle-atv-vs-utv-2120.html and http://www.utvunderground.com/2014-kawasaki-teryx-4-le-6346.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. User Acceptance of 15 mph
Based on CPSC's study and the experience of some ROVs that have
speed limitations, the Commission believes that ROV users are likely to
accept a 15 mph threshold speed limitation. The following reasons
support this conclusion:
Results of Westat's Phase 1 focus group study of ROV users
indicate that ROV users value easy ingress and egress from an ROV and
generally drive around 15 mph to 30 mph during typical use of the ROV.
Users had mixed reactions to a speed threshold of 10 mph and were more
accepting of a speed-limitation technology if the threshold speed was
15 mph.
There are many situations in which an ROV is used at slow
speeds, such as mowing or plowing, carrying tools to jobsites, and
checking property. The Commission believes that a speed-limitation
threshold of 15 mph allows the most latitude for ROV users to perform
utility tasks where seat belt use is often undesired.
The Commission believes that ROV user acceptance of a seat
belt speed-limitation system will be higher at 15 mph than the speed
threshold of 9 mph on the Commander ROV. Although BRP continues to sell
the Can-Am Commander and Can-Am Maverick ROVs with speed limitations
set at around 10 mph, focus group responses indicate that many ROV
users believe that 10 mph is too low a speed limit to
[[Page 68997]]
be acceptable, and therefore, these users will bypass the system. The
15 mph threshold is 50 percent higher than a 10 mph threshold, and
staff believes that the difference in the speed threshold will increase
user acceptance of the system. Polaris's decision to include seat belt
speed limiters with a 15 mph threshold speed in model year 2015 Ranger
and RZR ROVs supports the Commission's belief that user acceptance of a
speed-limitation system will be higher at 15 mph than 10 mph.
2. Shoulder Probe Test
a. Requirement
CPSC is proposing a performance requirement that ROVs pass a probe
test at a defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder. The probe test
is the most appropriate method to measure the occupant protection
performance in the shoulder area of the ROV because various forms of
the probe test are already used in the voluntary standard for ROVs and
ATVs to determine occupant protection performance.
The test applies a probe with a force of 163 lbs., to a defined
area of the vehicle's ROPS near the ROV occupants' shoulder. The
vertical and forward locations for the point of application of the
probe are based upon anthropometric data. The probe dimensions are
based on the upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, and the
dimensions of a 5th percentile adult female represent the smallest size
occupant that may be driving or riding an ROV. The 163 lb. force
application represents a 50th percentile adult male occupant pushing
against the barrier during a rollover event. The probe is applied for
10 seconds and the vehicle structure must absorb the force without
bending more than 1 inch.
b. Rationale
After exploring several methods to test occupant protection
performance of ROVs during a rollover event, CPSC believes the SEA roll
simulator is the most accurate simulation of a rollover because the
roll simulator is able to reproduce the lateral acceleration and roll
rate experienced by ROVs in rollover events. SEA conducted simulations
of tripped and untripped rollovers on ROVs with belted and unbelted ATD
occupants. CPSC's analysis of SEA's test results indicate that the best
occupant retention performance results, where occupants remain within
the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS, occurred when a seat belt is
used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier restraint.
F. Prohibited Stockpiling--Sec. 1422.6
The proposed rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions to prohibit
excessive production or importation of noncomplying ROVs during the
period between the final rule's publication and its effective date.
Anti-stockpiling provisions typically exist to prevent the production
or importation of significant numbers--significantly beyond typical
rates--of noncomplying products that can be sold after the effective
date of a safety standard, which could present an unreasonable risk of
injury to consumers. In order to balance the protection of consumers
and the burden to manufacturers and importers of compliance with the
effective date of a rule, a production limit is typically set at some
minimal percentage above a single year's production rate as selected by
the manufacturer or importer. This allows the manufacturer or importer
to select the date most conductive to compliance, even if production or
importation occurs at an unusually robust pace during the selected
period.
The prohibited stockpiling provision herein limits the production
or importation of noncomplying products to 10% of the amount produced
or imported in any 365-day period designated, at the option of each
manufacturer or importer, beginning on or after October 1, 2009, and
ending on or before the date of promulgation of the rule.
G. Findings--Sec. 1422.7
In accordance with the requirements of the CPSA, we are proposing
to make the findings stated in section 9 of the CPSA. The proposed
findings are discussed in section XVI of this preamble.
X. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission is proposing to issue a rule under sections 7 and 9
of the CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission prepare a
preliminary regulatory analysis and that the preliminary regulatory
analysis be published with the text of the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C.
2058(c). The following discussion is extracted from staff's memorandum,
``Draft Proposed Rule Establishing Safety Standard for Recreational
Off-Road Vehicles: Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.''
A. Introduction
The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule for ROVs. This rulemaking
proceeding was initiated by an ANPR published in the Federal Register
on October 28, 2009. The proposed rule includes: (1) Lateral stability
and vehicle handling requirements that specify a minimum level of
rollover resistance for ROVs and requires that ROVs exhibit sublimit
understeer characteristics, and (2) occupant retention requirements
that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more than 15 miles
per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of both the driver and front
passengers, if any, are fastened; and in addition, would require ROVs
to have a passive means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit
further the ejection of a belted occupant in the event of a rollover.
Following is a preliminary regulatory analysis of the proposed
rule, including a description of the potential costs and potential
benefits. Each element of the proposed rule is discussed separately.
For some elements, the benefits and costs cannot be quantified in
monetary terms. Where this is the case, the potential costs and
benefits are described and discussed conceptually.
B. Market Information
1. Manufacturers and Market Shares
The number of manufacturers marketing ROVs in the United States has
increased substantially in recent years. The first utility vehicle that
exceeded 30 mph, thus putting the utility vehicle in the ROV category,
was introduced in the late 1990s. No other manufacturer offered an ROV
until 2003. In 2013, there were 20 manufacturers known to CPSC to be
supplying ROVs to the U.S. market. One manufacturer accounted for about
60 percent of the ROVs sold in the United States in 2013. Another seven
manufacturers, including one based in China, accounted for about 36
percent of the ROVs sold in the same year. None of these seven
manufacturers accounted for more than 10 percent of the market. The
rest of the market was divided among about 12 other manufacturers, most
of which were based in China or Taiwan.\52\ Commission staff's analysis
attempted to exclude vehicles that had mostly industrial or commercial
applications and were not likely to be purchased by consumers. The
Commission has identified more than 150 individual ROV models from
among these manufacturers. However, this count includes some models
that appear to be very similar to other models produced by the same
manufacturer but sold through different distributors in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Market share is based upon Commission analysis of sales
data provided by Power Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 92 percent of ROVs sold in in the United States are
manufactured in North America. About 7 percent of the ROVs sold in the
United States are
[[Page 68998]]
manufactured in China (by nine different manufacturers). Less than 1
percent of ROVs are produced in other countries other than the United
States or China.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ This information is based upon a Commission analysis of
sales data provided by Power Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven recreational vehicle manufacturers, which together account
for more than 90 percent of the ROV market, established ROHVA. The
stated purpose of ROHVA is ``to promote the safe and responsible use of
recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs) manufactured or distributed in
North America.'' ROHVA is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) to develop voluntary standards for ROVs. ROHVA members
have developed a voluntary standard (ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011) that sets some
mechanical and performance requirements for ROVs. Some ROV
manufacturers that emphasize the utility applications of their vehicles
have worked with the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) to
develop another ANSI voluntary standard that is applicable to ROVs
(ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012). This voluntary standard also sets mechanical
and performance requirements for ROVs. The requirements of both
voluntary standards are similar, but not identical.
2. Retail Prices
The average manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of ROVs in
2013 was approximately $13,100, with a range of about $3,600 to
$20,100. The average MSRP for the eight largest manufacturers (in terms
of market share) was about $13,300. The average MSRP of ROVs sold by
the smaller, mostly Chinese manufacturers was about $7,900.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ MSRPs for ROVs were reported by Power Products Marketing,
Eden Prairie, MN (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The retail prices of ROVs tend to be somewhat higher than the
retail prices of other recreational and utility vehicles. The MSRPs of
ROVs are about 10 percent higher, on average, than the MSRPs of low-
speed utility vehicles. A comparison of MSRPs for the major
manufacturers of ATVs and ROVs indicates that ROVs are priced about 10
percent to 35 percent higher than ATVs offered by the same
manufacturer.\55\ Another source indicates that the price of one ROV or
other utility vehicle is about two-thirds the price of two ATVs.\56\
Go-karts usually retail for between $2,500 and $8,000.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ This information is based upon a Commission analysis of
data provided by Power Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN, (2014),
and an examination of the suggested retail prices on several
manufacturers' Internet sites.
\56\ ``2009 Utility Vehicle Review,'' Southern Sporting Journal,
October 2008, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 58-70, accessed through: http://web.ebscohost.com on March 17. 2011.
\57\ Tom Behrens, ``Kart Racing: Fast times out on the
prairie,'' The Houston Chronicle, November 27, 2008, p. 4. (accessed
from http://www.chron.com on January 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sales and Number in Use
Sales of ROVs have increased substantially since their
introduction. In 1998, only one firm manufactured ROVs, and fewer than
2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a second major manufacturer
entered the market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. The only dip in sales
occurred around 2008, which coincided with the worst period of the
credit crisis and a recession that also started about the same time. In
2013, an estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by 20 different
manufacturers.\58\ The chart below shows ROV sales from 1998 through
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ This information is based upon a Commission analysis of
sales data provided by Power Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number of ROVs available for use has also increased
substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not
have specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs. However,
using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we estimate
that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010.\59\ By
the end of 2013, there were an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. (See
Figure 17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, Division of Hazard
Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, Associate Executive Director, Directorate
for Epidemiology, ``2001 ATV Operability Rate Analysis,'' U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda Maryland (19 August
2003). ``Operability rate'' refers to the probability that an ATV
will remain in operation each year after the initial year of
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 68999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.016
Most ROVs are sold through retail dealers. Generally, dealers that
offer ROVs also offer other products, such as motorcycles, scooters,
ATVs, and similar vehicles. ROVs are also sold through dealers that
carry farm equipment or commercial turf management supplies.
While sales of ROVs have increased over the last several years,
sales of competing vehicles have leveled off, or declined. Low-speed
utility vehicles have been on the market since the early 1980s. Their
sales increased from about 50,000 vehicles in 1998, to about 150,000
vehicles in 2007. In 2011, however, sales fell to about 110,000
vehicles. A substantial portion of these sales were for commercial
applications rather than consumer applications.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ This information is based upon a Commission analysis of
information provided by Power Products Marketing of Eden Prairie,
MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After several years of rapid growth, U.S. sales of ATVs peaked in
2006, when more than 1.1 million ATVs were sold.\61\ Sales have
declined substantially since then. In 2012, less than 320,000 ATVs were
sold, including those intended for adults, as well as those intended
for children under the age of 16 years.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Mathew Camp, ``Nontraditional Quad Sales Hit 465,000,''
Dealer News, April 28, 2008. Available at: http://www.dealernews.com/dealernews/article/nontraditional-quad-sales-hit-465000?page=0,0, accessed June 19, 2013.
\62\ Estimates of ATV sales are based on information provided by
the Specialty Vehicle Manufacturers Association and on confidential
data purchased from Power Products Marketing of Minneapolis, MN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One factor that could account for part of the decline in ATV sales
is that after many years of increasing sales, the market may be
saturated. Consequently, a greater proportion of future sales will
likely be replacement vehicles or vehicles sold due to population
growth. Another factor could be the increase in sales of ROVs. Some
riders find that ROVs offer a more comfortable or easier ride, and ROVs
are more likely to appeal to people who prefer the bench or bucket
seating on ROVs over the straddle seating of ATVs. It is also easier to
carry passengers on ROVs. Most ATVs are not intended to carry
passengers, and the side-by-side seating offered by ROVs appears to be
preferred over the tandem seating on the few ATVs intended to carry
passengers.\63\ A disadvantage of an ROV compared to an ATV is that
many ROVs are too wide to travel on some trail systems intended for
ATVs. However, some of the more narrow ROVs are capable of negotiating
many ATV trails.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ ``UTV Sales Flatten Out in 2008,'' Dealer News, August
2009, p. 40(4). ``2009 Kawasaki Teryx 750 FI 4x4 Sport RUV Test Ride
Review,'' article posted on: http://www.atvriders.com, accessed 20
August 2009 and Tom Kaiser, ``Slowing sales: It's now a trend,''
Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 44(1).
\64\ Chris Vogtman, ``Ranger shifts into recreation mode,''
Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 46(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the several types of vehicles that could be substitutes for
ROVs, go-karts appear to be the smallest market segment. After
increasing sales for several years, go-kart sales peaked at about
109,000 vehicles in 2004. Sales of go-karts have since declined
significantly. In 2013, fewer than 20,000 units were sold. However,
many of these are aimed at young riders or intended for use on tracks
or other prepared surfaces and would not be reasonable substitutes for
ROVs for some purposes.\65\ The decline in go-kart sales may be due to
the influx of inexpensive ATVs imported from China, which may have led
some consumers to purchase an ATV rather than a go-kart.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ ``U.S. Go-Kart Market in Serious Decline,'' Dealer News,
October, 2009, p. 38.
\66\ (``Karts Feel the Chinese Crunch,'' Dealer News, November
2007, p. 44(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries Associated With ROVs
The intent of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of injury and
death associated with incidents involving ROVs. Therefore, any benefits
of the proposed rule could be measured as a
[[Page 69000]]
reduction in the societal costs of injuries and deaths associated with
ROVs. This section discusses the societal costs of injuries and deaths.
1. ROV Injuries
a. Nonfatal Injuries
To estimate the number of nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs
that were treated in hospital emergency departments, CPSC undertook a
special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported
through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from
January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010. NEISS is a stratified national
probability sample of hospital emergency departments that allows the
Commission to make national estimates of product-related injuries. The
sample consists of about 100 of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals
that have at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency service.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Schroeder T, Ault K. The NEISS Sample (Design and
Implementation): 1999 to Present. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission; 2001. Available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/neiss/2001d011-6b6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEISS does not contain a separate product code for ROVs. Injuries
associated with ROVs are usually assigned to either an ATV product code
(NEISS product codes 3286-3287) or to the utility vehicle category
(NEISS product code 5044). Therefore, the Commission reviewed all NEISS
cases that were coded as involving an ATV or a UTV that occurred during
the first 8 months of 2010 and attempted follow-up interviews with each
victim (or a relative of the victim) to gather more information about
the incidents and the vehicles involved. The Commission determined
whether the vehicle involved was an ROV based on the make and model of
the vehicle reported in the interviews. If the make and model of the
vehicle was not reported, the case was not counted as an ROV. Out of
2,018 NEISS cases involving an ATV or UTV during the study period, a
total of 668 interviews were completed for a response rate of about 33
percent. Sixteen of the completed interviews were determined to involve
an ROV. To estimate the number of ROV-related injuries initially
treated in an emergency department in 2010, the NEISS weights were
adjusted to account for both non-response and the fact that the survey
only covered incidents that occurred during the first 8 months of the
year. Variances were calculated based on the adjusted weights. Based on
this work, the Directorate for Epidemiology estimated that there were
about 3,000 injuries (95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900)
involving ROVs in 2010 that were initially treated in hospital
emergency departments.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Sarah Garland, Directorate for Hazard Analysis, ``NEISS
Injury Estimates for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs),''
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (September 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEISS injury estimates are limited to injuries initially treated in
hospital emergency departments. NEISS does not provide estimates of the
number of medically attended injuries that were treated in other
settings, such as physicians' offices, ambulatory care centers, or
injury victims who bypassed the emergency departments and were directly
admitted to a hospital. However, the Injury Cost Model (ICM), developed
by CPSC for estimating the societal cost of injuries, uses empirical
relationships between cases initially treated in hospital emergency
departments and cases initially treated in other medical settings to
estimate the number of medically attended injuries that were treated
outside of a hospital emergency department.\69\ According to ICM
estimates, based on the 16 NEISS cases that were identified in the 2010
study, injuries treated in hospital emergency departments accounted for
about 27 percent of all medically treated injuries involving ROVs.
Using this percentage, the estimate of 3,000 emergency department-
treated injuries involving ROVs suggests that there were about 11,100
medically treated injuries involving ROVs in 2010 (i.e., 3,000 injuries
initially treated in emergency departments and 8,100 other medically
attended injuries) or 194 medically attended injuries per 10,000 ROVs
in use (11,100 / 570,000 x 10,000).\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ For a more complete discussion of the Injury Cost Model see
Ted R. Miller, et al., The Consumer Product Safety Commission's
Revised Injury Cost Model, (December 2000). Available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF. http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100304/costmodept2.PDF.
\70\ Using the ICM estimates for all cases involving ATVs and
UTVs, injuries that were initially treated in a hospital emergency
department accounted for about 35 percent of all medically-attended
injuries. If this estimated ratio, which is based on a larger
sample, but that includes vehicles that are not ROVs, was used
instead of the ratio based strictly on the 16 known ROV NEISS cases
in 2010, the estimated number of medically-attended injuries would
be 8,600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Fatal Injuries
In addition to the nonfatal injuries, there are fatal injuries
involving ROVs each year. As of April 5, 2013, the Commission had
identified 49 fatalities involving ROVs that occurred in 2010, or about
0.9 deaths per 10,000 ROVs in use ((49 / 570,000) x 10,000). The actual
number of deaths in 2010 could be higher because reporting is ongoing
for 2010. Overall, CPSC has counted 335 ROV deaths that occurred from
January 1, 2003 to April 5, 2013. There were no reported deaths in
2003, when relatively few ROVs were in use. As of April 5, 2013, there
had been 76 deaths reported to CPSC that occurred in 2012.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Memorandum from Sarah Garland, Division of Hazard Analysis,
``Additional ROV-related incidents reported from January 1, 2012
through April 5, 2013,'' U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Bethesda, MD (8 April 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Societal Cost of Injuries and Deaths Associated With ROVs
a. Societal Cost of Nonfatal Injuries
The CPSC's ICM provides comprehensive estimates of the societal
costs of nonfatal injuries. The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS and
provides estimates of the societal costs of injuries reported through
NEISS. The major aggregated components of the ICM include: Medical
costs; work losses; and the intangible costs associated with lost
quality of life or pain and suffering.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ A detailed description of the cost components, and the
general methodology and data sources used to develop the CPSC's
Injury Cost Model, can be found in Miller et al. (2000), available
at http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF and http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100304/costmodept2.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical costs include three categories of expenditure: (1) Medical
and hospital costs associated with treating the injury victim during
the initial recovery period and in the long run, the costs associated
with corrective surgery, the treatment of chronic injuries, and
rehabilitation services; (2) ancillary costs, such as costs for
prescriptions, medical equipment, and ambulance transport; and (3)
costs of health insurance claims processing. Cost estimates for these
expenditure categories were derived from a number of national and state
databases, including the National Healthcare Cost and Utilization
Project--National Inpatient Sample and the Medical Expenditure Panel
Survey, both sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality.
Work loss estimates, based on information from the National Health
Interview Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as a
number of published wage studies, include: (1) The forgone earnings of
parents and visitors, including lost wage work and household work, (2)
imputed long term work losses of the victim that would be associated
with permanent impairment, and (3) employer productivity losses, such
as the costs incurred when employers spend time juggling schedules or
training replacement workers. The earnings estimates were updated most
recently with weekly earnings data from the Current
[[Page 69001]]
Population Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census in conjunction
with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Intangible, or non-economic, costs of injury reflect the physical
and emotional trauma of injury as well as the mental anguish of victims
and caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult to quantify because they
do not represent products or resources traded in the marketplace.
Nevertheless, they typically represent the largest component of injury
cost and need to be accounted for in any benefit-cost analysis
involving health outcomes.\73\ The Injury Cost Model develops a
monetary estimate of these intangible costs from jury awards for pain
and suffering. While these awards can vary widely on a case-by-case
basis, studies have shown them to be systematically related to a number
of factors, including economic losses, the type and severity of injury,
and the age of the victim.\74\ Estimates for the Injury Cost Model were
derived from a regression analysis of about 2,000 jury awards in
nonfatal product liability cases involving consumer products compiled
by Jury Verdicts Research, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Rice, D.P. & MacKenzie, E.J. (1989). Cost of injury in the
United States: A report to Congress, Institute for Health and Aging.
San Francisco, CA: University of California and The Johns Hopkins
University.
\74\ Viscusi, W.K. (1988). Pain and suffering in product
liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards? Int.
Rev. Law Econ. 8, 203-220 and Rodgers, G.B. (1993). Estimating jury
compensation for pain and suffering in product liability cases
involving nonfatal personal injury. J. For. Econ. 6(3), 251-262.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to estimating the costs of injuries treated in U.S.
hospital emergency departments and reported through NEISS, the Injury
Cost Model uses empirical relationships between emergency department
injuries and those treated in other settings (e.g., physicians'
offices, clinics, ambulatory surgery centers, and direct hospital
admissions) to estimate the number, types, and costs of injuries
treated outside of hospital emergency departments. Thus, the ICM allows
us to expand on NEISS by combining (1) the number and costs of
emergency department injuries with (2) the number and costs of
medically attended injuries treated in other settings to estimate the
total number of medically attended injuries and their costs across all
treatment levels.
In this analysis, we use injury data from 2010, as a baseline from
which to estimate the societal cost of injuries associated with ROVs.
We use the year 2010 because 2010 is the year for which we have the
most comprehensive estimates of both fatal and nonfatal injuries
associated with ROVs. According to ICM, the average societal cost of a
medically attended injury associated with ROVs in 2010 was $29,383 in
2012 dollars. Based on this estimate, the total societal costs of the
medically attended injuries involving ROVs in 2010 was about $326.2
million in 2012 dollars (11,100 injuries x $29,383). About 75 percent
of the cost was related to the pain and suffering. About 9 percent of
the cost was related to medical treatment, and about 16 percent was
related to work and productivity losses victim, caregivers, visitors,
and employers. Less than 1 percent of the cost was associated with the
costs of the legal and liability system.
These cost estimates are based on a small sample of only 16 NEISS
cases. This sample is too small to reflect the full range of injury
patterns (i.e., the different combinations of injury diagnoses, body
parts, and injury dispositions) and rider characteristics (i.e., age
and sex) associated with ROV injuries. In fact, because the 16 NEISS
cases did not include any case in which the victim required admission
to a hospital, the cost estimates are probably low. Nevertheless, this
estimate will be used in this analysis with the knowledge that the
estimate's use probably leads to an underestimate of the societal costs
associated with ROVs and underestimates of the potential benefits of
the proposed rule intended to reduce the risk of injury associated with
ROVs.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ An alternative method for estimating the injury costs would
be to assume that the patterns of injury associated with ROVs are
similar to the injury patterns associated with all ATVs and UTVs.
According to ICM estimates for all ATVs and UTVs (NEISS Product
Codes 3285-3287 and 5044), injuries treated in hospital emergency
departments accounted for about 35 percent of the medically attended
injuries. This would suggest that the number of medically attended
injuries involving an ROV was about 8,600. The average cost of a
medically attended injury involving an ATV or UTV was $42,737.
Therefore, the total societal cost of medically attended injuries
would be $367.5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Societal Cost of Fatal Injuries
As discussed above, there were at least 49 fatal injuries involving
ROVs in 2010. If we assign a cost of $8.4 million for each death, then
the societal costs associated with these deaths would amount to about
$411.6 million (49 deaths x $8.4 million). The estimate of $8.4 million
is the estimate of $7.4 million (in 2006 dollars) developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated to 2012 dollars and is
consistent with willingness-to-pay estimates of the value of a
statistical life (VSL). According to OMB's 2013 Draft Report to
Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations and Agency
Compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, willingness-to-pay-
estimates of the VSL generally vary from about $1.3 million to $12.2
million in 2010 dollars. In 2012 dollars, the range would be $1.3
million to 13.0 million.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ The estimate of the VSL developed by the EPA is explained
EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis, Appendix B:
Mortality Risk Valuation Estimates (Environmental Protection Agency,
2014) and is available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/
vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf. The OMB's 2013 Draft
Report to Congress is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf. Both reports were accessed on
August 6, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Societal Cost of Injuries per ROV in Use
Based on the previous discussion, the total estimated societal
costs of deaths and injuries associated with ROVs were $737.8 million
in 2010 (expressed in 2012 dollars). The estimate does not include the
costs associated with any property damage, such as property damage to
the ROVs involved or other property, such as another vehicle or object
that might have been involved in an incident.
Given the earlier estimate that about 570,000 ROVs were in use at
the end of 2010, the estimated societal costs of deaths and medically
attended injuries was about $1,294 per ROV in use ($737.8 million /
570,000) in 2010. However, because the typical ROV is expected to be in
use for 15 to 20 years, the expected societal cost of fatalities or
deaths per ROV over the vehicle's useful life is the present value of
the annual societal costs summed over the ROV's expected useful life.
CPSC has not estimated the operability rates of ROVs as they age.
However, CPSC has estimated the operability rates for ATVs as they age,
based on the results of exposure surveys.\77\ ROVs and ATVs are similar
vehicles in that they are both off-road recreational vehicles generally
produced by the same manufacturers. If ROVs have the same operability
rates as they age as ATVs, the present value of the societal cost of
injuries over the expected useful life of an ROV (at a 3 percent
discount rate) is $17,784.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, Division of Hazard
Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, Associate Executive Director, Directorate
for Epidemiology, ``2001 ATV Operability Rate Analysis,'' U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda MD (19 August 2003).
\78\ The choice of discount rate is consistent with research
suggesting that a real rate of 3 percent is an appropriate discount
rate for interventions involving public health (see Gold, Marthe R,
Joanna E. Siegel, Louise B. Russell and Milton C. Weinstein, 1996,
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, New York: Oxford
University Press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69002]]
D. Requirements of the Proposed Rule: Costs and Benefits
The proposed rule would establish a mandatory safety standard for
ROVs. The requirements of the proposed rule can be divided into two
general categories: (1) Lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements, and (2) occupant-retention requirements. Following is a
discussion of the costs and benefits that are expected to be associated
with the requirements of the proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we
use 2010 as the base year for this analysis because it is the only year
for which we have estimates of both fatal and nonfatal injuries
associated with ROVs. However, where quantified, the costs and benefits
are expressed in 2012 dollars.
In general, the cost estimates were developed in consultation with
the Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES staff). Estimates are
based on ES staff's interactions with manufacturers and knowledge
related to ROV design and manufacturing process as well as direct
experience with testing ROVs and similar products. In many cases, we
relied on ES staff's expert judgment. Consequently, we note that these
estimates are preliminary and welcome comments on their accuracy and
the assumptions underlying their constructions. We are especially
interested in data that would help us to refine our estimates to more
accurately reflect the expected costs of the draft proposed rule as
well as any alternative estimates that interested parties can provide.
1. Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements
The lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements of the
proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a minimum level of
rollover resistance and that ROVs exhibit sub-limit understeer
characteristics. The dynamic lateral stability requirement would set a
minimum value for the lateral acceleration at roll-over of 0.70 g (unit
of standard gravity), as determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn
test. The greater the lateral acceleration value, the greater the
resistance of the ROV is to tipping or rolling over. The understeer
requirement would mandate that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics
in the sublimit range of the turn circle test described in the proposed
rule.
The proposed rule would also require manufacturers to place a
hangtag on all new vehicles that provides the lateral acceleration at
rollover value for the model and provides information to the consumer
about how to interpret this value. The intent of the hangtag is to
provide the potential consumer with information about the rollover
propensity of the model to aid in the comparison of ROV models before
purchase. The content and format of the hangtag are described in
Section IX.C.2.
The proposed rule describes the test procedures required to measure
the dynamic rollover resistance and the understeering performance of
the ROV, including the requirements for the test surface, the loading
of test vehicles, and the instrumentation required for conducting the
tests and for data-acquisition during the tests. The test for rollover
resistance would use a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. This test uses
a programmable steering controller to turn the test vehicle traveling
at 30 mph at prescribed steering angles and rates to determine the
minimum steering angle at which two-wheel lift is observed. The data
collected during these tests are analyzed to compute and verify the
lateral acceleration at rollover for the vehicle.
The test for vehicle handling or understeer performance involves
driving the vehicle around a 100-foot radius circle at increasing
speeds, with the driver making every effort to maintain compliance of
the vehicle path relative to the circle. Data collected during the
tests are analyzed to determine whether the vehicle understeers through
the required range. The proposed rule would require that all ROVs
exhibit understeer for values of ground plane lateral acceleration from
0.10 to 0.50 g.
a. Cost of Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements
All manufacturers would have to conduct the tests prescribed in the
proposed rule to determine whether their models meet the requirements
and to obtain the information on dynamic lateral stability that must be
reported to consumers on the hangtag. If any model fails to meet one or
both of the requirements, the manufacturer would have to make
adjustments or modifications to the design of the model. After the
model has been modified, the manufacturer would have to conduct tests
on the modified models to check that the model meets the requirements.
There is substantial overlap in the conditions under which the
tests for dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling must be
performed. The test surfaces are the same, and the vehicle condition,
loading, and instrumentation required for both tests are virtually the
same. The one difference is that the test for dynamic lateral stability
also requires that the test vehicle be equipped with a programmable
steering controller. Because there is substantial overlap in the
conditions under which the tests must be conducted, manufacturers
likely will conduct both sets of tests on the same day. This would save
manufacturers the cost of loading and instrumenting the test vehicle
twice and renting a test facility for more than one day.
We estimate that the cost of conducting the dynamic lateral
stability tests and the vehicle handling tests will be about $24,000
per model.\79\ This includes the cost of conducting both sets of tests,
measuring the center of gravity of the test vehicle, which is required
for the dynamic lateral stability test, transporting the test vehicle
to and from the test site, outfitting the test vehicles with the needed
equipment and instruments, and the cost of renting the test facility.
This estimate also assumes that both tests are being conducted on the
same day and that the manufacturer only needs to rent the test facility
for one day and pay for loading and instrumenting the test vehicles
once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ This estimate is based on the rates that CPSC has most
recently paid a contractor for conducting these tests. For example,
see contract CPSC-D-11-0003, which provides the following costs
estimates: $3,000 for static measurement to determine center of
gravity location, $19,000 to perform dynamic test, and $2,000 to
ship vehicles. This amounts to approximately $24,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the model meets the requirements of both tests, the manufacturer
would have no additional costs associated with these requirements. The
tests would not have to be conducted again, unless the manufacturer
makes changes to the model that could affect the vehicle's performance
in these tests.
If the model does not meet the requirements of one or both of the
tests, the manufacturer will incur costs to adjust the vehicle's
design. Engineers specializing in the design of utility and
recreational vehicles are likely to have a good understanding of
vehicle characteristics that influence vehicle stability and handling.
Therefore, these engineers should be able to modify easily the design
of a vehicle to meet the stability and handling requirements. The
Yamaha Rhino repair program demonstrated that an ROV that did not meet
the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements was
successfully modified to meet the requirements by increasing the track
width and reducing the rear suspension stiffness (by removing the sway
bar) of the ROV. Based on experience with automotive
[[Page 69003]]
manufacturing, ES staff believes that less than 1 or 2 person-months
would be required to modify an ROV model that did not comply with the
requirements. A high estimate would be that a manufacturer might
require as many as 4 person-months (or about 700 hours) to modify.
Assuming an hourly rate of $61.75, which is the estimated total hourly
compensation for management, professional, and related workers, the
cost to modify the design of an ROV model to meet the stability and
handling requirements, using the high estimate, would be about $43,000.
The Commission believes that most modifications that might be
required to meet the lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements will have minimal, if any, impact on the production or
manufacturing costs because the assembly of an ROV already includes
installation of a wheel axle and installing a longer wheel axle or
wheel spacer would not change the current assembly procedure; likewise,
the assembly of an ROV already includes installation of sway bars and
shock absorbers and installing different variations of these suspension
components would not affect the current assembly procedure.
Once an ROV model has been modified to comply with the
requirements, the manufacturer will have to retest the vehicle to check
that the model does comply with the requirements. Both the dynamic
stability and vehicle handling tests will have to be conducted on the
redesigned model, even if the original model failed only one of the
tests. This is because the design changes could have impacted the ROVs
ability to comply with either requirement. Therefore, the full cost of
the proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements could
range from a low of about $24,000 for a model that already met the
requirements, up to $91,000, for a scenario in which the model was
tested, the manufacturer required 4 person-months to modify the
vehicle, and the vehicle was retested to check that the modified
vehicle complied with the requirements.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ If the ROV already met the lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements, the low estimate of $24,000 could overstate
the incremental cost of meeting the requirements if the manufacturer
was already performing the tests prescribed in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the plausible range for the cost of the lateral stability
and vehicle handling requirement is $24,000 to $91,000 per model, the
Commission believes that the average cost per model will be toward the
low end of this range because CPSC tested 10 ROVs that represented the
recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in 2010, and found
that four out of 10 ROVs met the lateral stability requirement and five
out of 10 ROVs met the vehicle handling requirements. As discussed
previously, for models that already meet the requirements, the
manufacturer will incur no additional costs other than the cost of the
testing. Based upon CPSC examination of models that do not meet the
requirements, CPSC believes in most cases the manufacturers should be
able to bring the model into compliance with the requirements by making
simple changes to the track width, or to the suspension of the vehicle.
These are relatively modest modifications that probably can be
accomplished in less time than the high estimate of 4 months. However,
the Commission welcomes comments on our underlying rationale for the
estimates as well as the estimates themselves.
It is frequently useful to compare the benefits and costs of a rule
on a per-unit basis. Based on 2011 sales data, the average unit sales
price per ROV model was about 1,800.\81\ ROVs are a relatively new
product and the average number of years a ROV model will be produced
before being redesigned is uncertain. It is often observed that
automobile models are redesigned every 4 to 6 years. If a ROV model is
produced for about 5 years before being redesigned, then the cost of
testing the model for compliance with the dynamic lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirements, and, if necessary, modifying the design
of the vehicle to comply with the requirements and retesting the
vehicle would apply to about 9,000 units. (The Commission welcomes
comments on this assumption.) Therefore, the average per-unit cost of
the proposed dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements would be about $3 per unit ($24,000 / 9,000), if the model
already complies with the requirements. Using the high estimate of the
time that it could take to modify a model that fails or one or both of
the tests, the per-unit cost would be about $10 per unit ($91,000 /
9,000).\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ In 2011, the average number of units sold per model was
about 1,800. Depending on the particular model, the units sold
ranged from less than 10 for some models, to more than 10,000 for
others (based on an analysis by CPSC staff of a database obtained
from Power Products Marketing of Eden Prairie, MN).
\82\ These per-unit cost estimates are an attempt to estimate
the average per-unit costs across all ROV models. The actual per-
unit cost for any ROV model would depend upon the sales volume for
that model. If the sales were substantially more than 1,800 units
annually, then the per-unit cost would be substantially lower than
the estimate above. If sales were substantially less than 1,800
units annually, then the per-unit cost of the proposed requirements
would be substantially higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule requires that the manufacturer attach a hangtag
on each new ROV that provides the ROV's lateral acceleration at
rollover value, which can be used by the consumer to compare the
rollover resistance of different ROVs. We estimate that the cost of the
hangtag, including the designing and printing of the hangtag, and
attaching the hang tag to the vehicle, will be less than $0.25 per
vehicle. Our estimates are based on the following assumptions: (1) The
cost of printing the hang tag and the wire for attaching the hang tag
is about 8 cents per vehicle, (2) placing the hang tag on each vehicle
will require about 20 seconds at an hourly rate of $26.11 \83\ and (3)
designing and laying out the hang tag for each model will require about
30 minutes at an hourly rate of $61.75.\84\ The estimate of 30 minutes
for the hang tag design reflects that the proposed rule provides a
sample of the required hang tag and guidance regarding the layout of
the hang tag for manufacturers to follow. Also, if the manufacturer has
multiple models, the same template could be used across models; the
manufacturer would simply need to change the lateral acceleration
number and model identification. In light of these considerations, CPSC
believes that 30 minutes per model represents a reasonable estimate of
the effort involved, but we welcome comments on this estimate,
especially comments that will assist us in refining the estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 (Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation (ECEC), total compensation for production,
transportation, and material moving for all workers in private
industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on January
9, 2014. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ece0c_09112012.pdf
\84\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 (Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation (ECEC), total compensation for all
management, professional, and related for all workers in private
industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on January
9, 2014. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09112012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to several ROV manufacturers, some ROV users ``might
prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway environment.'' This assertion
appeared in a public comment on the ANPR for ROVs (Docket No. CPSC-
2009-0087), submitted jointly on behalf of Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier
Recreational Products, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., and Yamaha Motor
Corporation, USA. To the extent that the requirements in the proposed
rule would reduce the ability of these users to reach limit
[[Page 69004]]
oversteer intentionally, the proposed rule could have some adverse
impact on the utility or enjoyment that these users receive from ROVs.
These impacts would probably be limited to a small number of
recreational users who enjoy activities or stunts that involve power
oversteering or limit oversteer.
Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer cannot
be quantified, the Commission expects that the impact will be low. Any
impact would be limited to those consumers who wish to engage
intentionally in activities involving the loss of traction or power
oversteer. The practice of power oversteer, such as the speed at which
a user takes a turn, results from driver choice. The proposed rule
would not prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all
conditions; nor would the rule prevent consumers from engaging in these
activities. At most, the proposed rule might make reaching limit
oversteer in an ROV to be somewhat more difficult for users to achieve.
b. Benefits of the Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements
The benefit of the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling
or understeer requirements would be the reduction of injuries and
deaths attributable to these requirements. The intent of the dynamic
lateral stability requirement is to reduce rollover incidents that
involve ROVs. A CPSC analysis of 428 ROV incidents showed that at least
68 percent involved the vehicle rolling sideways. More than half of the
overturning incidents (or 35 percent of the total incidents) occurred
during a turn. There were other incidents (24 percent of the total
incidents) in which the vehicle rolled sideways, but it is not known
whether the incident occurred during a turn.\85\ The dynamic lateral
stability requirement is intended to ensure that all ROVs on the market
have at least a minimum level of resistance to rollover during turns,
as determined by the test in the proposed rule. Additionally, by
requiring through the use of hang tags that consumers be informed of
the rollover resistance of ROV models, the proposed rule would make it
easier for consumers to compare the rollover resistance of ROV models
before making a purchase. Manufacturers might be encouraged to develop
ROV models with greater resistance to rollover if consumers show a
clear preference for ROVs with the higher values for lateral
acceleration threshold at rollover when they purchase new ROVs. As a
similar example, in 2001, NHTSA began including rollover resistance
information in its new car assessment program (NCAP).\86\ NHTSA
believed that consumer information on the rollover risk of passenger
cars would influence consumers to purchase vehicles with a lower
rollover risk and inspire manufacturers to produce vehicles with a
lower rollover risk.\87\ A subsequent study of static stability factor
(SSF) trends in automobiles found that SSF values increased for all
vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, which tended to have the worst
SSF values in the earlier years.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Sarah Garland, Ph.D., Analysis of Reported Incidents
Involving Deaths or Injuries Associated with Recreational Off-
Highway Vehicles (ROVs), U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Bethesda, MD (May 2012).
\86\ 65 FR 34988 (June 1, 2000).
\87\ Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor
of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved
from http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The understeer requirement is intended to reduce the likelihood of
a driver losing control of an ROV during a turn, which can lead to the
vehicle rollover, striking another vehicle, or striking a fixed object.
Oversteer is an undesirable trait because it is a directionally
unstable steering response that leads to dynamic instability and loss
of control. For this reason, automobiles are designed to exhibit
understeer characteristics up to the traction limits of the tires. Sub-
limit oversteer is also undesirable for off-highway vehicles due to the
numerous trip hazards that exist in the off-highway environment and can
cause the vehicles to roll over.
Although the Commission believes that the dynamic lateral stability
and vehicle handling requirements will reduce the number of deaths and
injuries involving ROVs, it is not possible to quantify this benefit
because we do not have sufficient data to estimate the injury rates of
models that already meet the requirements and models that do not meet
the requirements. Thus, we cannot estimate the potential effectiveness
of the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements in
preventing injuries. However, these requirements are intended to reduce
the risk of an ROV rolling sideways when making a turn. Because the
estimated societal cost of deaths and injuries associated with ROVs is
$17,784 over the useful life of an ROV, and because at least 35 percent
of the injuries occurred when an ROV rolled sideways when making a
turn, these requirements would address approximately $6,224 in societal
costs per ROV ($17,784 x .35). Consequently, given that the estimated
cost of the lateral stability and handling requirements is less than
$10 per ROV, the requirements would have to prevent less than about 0.2
percent of these incidents ($10 / $6,224) for the benefits of the
requirements to exceed the costs.
2. Occupant Retention Requirements
The occupant retention requirements of the proposed rule are
intended to keep the occupant within the vehicle or within the rollover
protective structure (ROPs). First, each ROV would be required to have
a means to restrict occupant egress and excursion in the shoulder/hip
zone, as defined by the proposed rule. This requirement could be met by
a fixed barrier or structure on the ROV or by a barrier or structure
that can be put into place by the occupant using one hand in one
operation, such as a door. Second, the proposed rule would require that
the speed of an ROV be limited to a maximum of 15 mph, unless the seat
belts for both the driver and any front seat passengers are fastened.
The purpose of these requirements is to prevent deaths and injuries,
especially incidents involving full or partial ejection of the rider
from the vehicle.
a. Costs of Occupant Retention Requirements
i. Means To Restrict Occupant Egress or Excursion
Most ROVs already have some occupant protection barriers or
structures. In some cases, these structures might already meet the
requirements of the proposed rule. In other cases, they could be
modified or repositioned to meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
A simple barrier that would meet the requirements of the proposed rule
could be fabricated out of a length of metal tubing that is bent and
bolted or welded to the ROPs or other suitable structure of the vehicle
in the shoulder/hip zone of the vehicle, as defined in the proposed
rule. ES staff believes that any additional metal tubing required to
form such a barrier could be obtained for a cost of about $2 per
barrier. ES also believes that the additional time that would be
required to bolt or weld the barrier to the vehicle would be less than
1 minute. Assuming an hourly labor cost of $26.11, the labor time
required would be less than $0.50. ES staff also believes that it would
take manufacturers only a few hours to determine how an existing ROV
model would need to be modified to comply with the requirement and to
make the necessary drawings to implement the change. When spread over
the
[[Page 69005]]
production of the model, this cost would only amount to a few cents per
vehicle. Therefore, the estimated cost is expected to be less than $3
per barrier.
Based on a cost of less than $3 per barrier, the cost per vehicle
would be less than $6 for ROVs that do not have rear seats and $12 for
ROVs with rear seats. One exposure study found that about 20 percent of
ROVs had a seating capacity of 4 or more, which indicates that these
ROVs have rear seats. Therefore, if all ROV models required
modification to meet the standard, the weighted average cost per ROV
would be about $7 ($6 x 0.8 + $12 x 0.2). However, CPSC tested 10 ROVs
that represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available
in 2010, and found that four out 10 ROVs had a passive shoulder barrier
that passed a probe test specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. Therefore,
this estimate of the average cost is high because there would be no
additional cost for models that already meet the proposed requirement.
We welcome comments on these costs and the assumptions underlying their
constructions. We are especially interested in data that would help us
to refine our estimates to more accurately reflect the expected costs
of this proposed requirement as well as any alternative estimates that
interested parties can provide.
ii. Requirement To Limit Speed If the Driver's Seat Belt Is Not
Fastened
The requirement that the speed of the vehicle be limited if the
driver's seat belt is unfastened does not mandate any specific
technology. Therefore, manufacturers would have some flexibility in
implementing this requirement. Nevertheless, based on staff's
examination of and experience with speed-limiting technology, including
examination of current ROV models with this feature, most systems to
meet this requirement will probably include the following components:
1. A seat belt use sensor in the seat belt latch, which detects
when the seat belt is fastened;
2. a means to limit the speed of the vehicle when the seat belt is
not fastened;
3. a means to provide a visual signal to the driver of the vehicle
when the speed of the vehicle is limited because the seat belt is not
fastened;
4. wiring or other means for the sensor in the seat belt latch to
send signals to the vehicle components used to limit the speed of the
vehicle and provide feedback to the driver.
Before implementing any changes to their vehicles to meet the
requirement, manufacturers would have to analyze their options for
meeting the requirement. This process would include developing
prototypes of system designs, testing the prototypes, and refining the
design of the systems based on this testing. Once the manufacturer has
settled upon a system for meeting the requirement, the system will have
to be incorporated into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. This
will involve producing the engineering specifications and drawings of
the system, parts, assemblies, and subassemblies that are required.
Manufacturers will need to obtain the needed parts from their suppliers
and incorporate the steps needed to install the system on the vehicles
in the assembly line.
ES staff believes that it will take about nine person-months per
ROV model to design, test, implement, and begin manufacturing vehicles
that meet the requirements. The total compensation for management,
professional, and related occupations as of 2012, is about $61.75 per
hour.\88\ Therefore, if designing and implementing a system to meet the
requirement entails about nine person months (or 1,560 hours), the cost
to the company would be about $100,000 per ROV model.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 (Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation (ECEC), total compensation for all
management, professional, and related for all workers in private
industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on January
9, 2014. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09112012.pdf.
\89\ The estimate has been rounded to the nearest $10,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers would be expected to perform certification tests,
following the procedure described in the proposed rule, at least once
for each model the manufacturer produces, to ensure that the model, as
manufactured, meets the rule's requirements. Additionally,
manufacturers would be expected to perform the certification testing
again if they make any changes to the design or components used in a
vehicle that could impact the ROV's compliance with this requirement.
We estimate that the cost of this testing would be about $4,000 per
model. This estimate assumes that the testing will require three
professional employees 4 hours to conduct the testing at $61.75 per
hour, per person. Additionally, the rental of the test facility will
cost $1,000; rental of the radar gun will cost $400; and transportation
to the test facility will cost $1,400, and that the test vehicle can be
sold after the testing is completed.
In addition to the cost of developing and implementing the system,
manufacturers will incur costs to acquire any parts required for the
system and to install the parts on the vehicles. We estimate the cost
of adding a seat belt-use sensor to detect when the seat belt is
fastened to be about $7 per seat belt. This estimate is based on
figures used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) in its preliminary economic assessment of an advanced air bag
rule.\90\ This is a widely used technology; virtually all passenger
cars have such sensors in their driver side seat belt latches to signal
the seat belt reminder system in the car. The sensors and seat belt
latches that would be expected to be used to meet this requirement in
ROVs are virtually the same as the sensors used in passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ NHTSA estimated the cost of a seat belt use sensor to be $2
to $5 in 1997 dollars. The cost has been adjusted to 2012 dollars
using the CPI Inflation Calculator at: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more than one method manufacturers could use to limit the
maximum speed of the vehicle when the driver's seat belt is unfastened.
One method would be to use a device, such as a solenoid, that limits
mechanically the throttle opening. Based on observed retail prices for
solenoid valves used in automotive applications, the cost to
manufacturers of such a solenoid should be no more than about $25 per
vehicle. One retailer had 24 different solenoids available at retail
prices ranging from about $24 to $102. We expect that a manufacturer
would be able to obtain similar solenoids for substantially less than
the retail price. Thus, using the low end of the observed retail prices
suggests that manufacturers would probably be able to acquire
acceptable solenoids for about $25 each.
Manufacturers of ROVs equipped with electronic throttle control
(ETC or ``throttle by wire'') would have at least one other option for
limiting the maximum speed of the vehicle. Instead of using a
mechanical means to limit the throttle opening, the engine control unit
(ECU) of the vehicle, which controls the throttle, could be
reprogrammed or ``mapped'' in a way that would limit the speed of the
vehicle if the seat belt was not fastened. If the ECU can be used to
limit the maximum speed of the ROV, the only cost would be the cost of
reprogramming or mapping the ECU, which would be completed in the
implementation stage of development, discussed previously. There would
be no additional manufacturing costs involved.
There would be at least two options for providing a visual signal
to the driver that the speed of the vehicle is limited because seat
belts are not
[[Page 69006]]
fastened. One option would be to use an LCD display. Most ROV models
already have an LCD display in the dashboard that could be used for
this purpose. If an LCD display is present, the only cost would be the
cost of the programming required for the display to show this message.
This cost would be included in the estimated cost of the research and
development, and there would be no additional manufacturing cost.
Another option for providing a visual signal to the driver that the
speed of the vehicle is limited would be to use a lighted message or
icon on the dashboard or control panel of the vehicle. Both voluntary
standards already require a ``lighted seat belt reminder.'' To comply
with this proposed requirement, the current visual reminder would have
to be modified. For example, the wording or icons of the reminder would
change, and the reminder would probably require a somewhat larger area
on the dashboard or control panel. There could be some additional cost
for an extra bulb or lamp to illuminate the larger area or icon. Based
on its experience, ES staff believes that the cost of an additional
bulb or lamp would be about $1 or less per vehicle.
There will be some labor costs involved in installing the
components needed to meet this requirement, including installing and
connecting the wires. We expect that the components would be installed
at the stage of assembly that would minimize the amount of labor
required. If the amount of additional labor per vehicle was about 5
minutes, and assuming a total labor compensation rate of $26.11 an
hour,\91\ the labor cost is estimated to amount to approximately $2 per
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 (Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation (ECEC), total compensation for production,
transportation, and material moving for all workers in private
industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on January
9, 2014. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09112012.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the certification testing discussed previously, most
manufacturers would be expected to conduct some quality assurance
testing on vehicles as the vehicles come off the assembly line.
Virtually all manufacturers already perform some quality control or
quality assurance tests on their vehicles. The tests are intended to
ensure, among other things, that the vehicle starts properly, that the
throttle and brakes function properly, and that any lights function
properly. Testing of the system limiting the maximum speed when the
driver's seat belt is not fastened would likely be incorporated into
this testing to ensure that the system is working as intended. These
tests could simply involve running the vehicle once with the seat belt
unfastened to determine whether speed was limited and running the
vehicle again with the seat belt fastened to determine whether the
maximum speed was no longer limited. If this testing added an
additional 10 minutes to the amount of time it takes to test each
vehicle, the cost would be about $4 per vehicle, assuming a total
hourly compensation rate of $26.11.
The manufacturing costs that would be associated with meeting the
seat belt reminder and speed limitation requirement of the proposed
rule are summarized in Table 8. These costs include the cost of one
seat belt-use sensor, the throttle or engine control, the visual
feedback to the driver, and about 5 minutes of labor time and about 10
minutes for testing.
Table 8--Estimated Manufacturing Costs of Requirement, per ROV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat Belt-Use Sensor................... $7.
Throttle or Engine Control............. $0 to $25.
Visual Signal to Driver................ $1.
Labor.................................. $2.
Quality Control Testing................ $4.
--------------------------------
Total................................ $14 to $39.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, we estimate the upfront research, design,
and implementation costs to be about $100,000 per model, and the
certification testing costs are estimated to be about $4,000 per model.
Assuming, as before, that the average annual sales per model are 1,800
units, and assuming that the typical model is produced for 5 years,
then the research, design, and certification testing costs would
average about $12 per vehicle. The average cost for models produced at
lower volumes would be higher, and the average cost for models produced
at higher-than-average volumes would be lower. Given the average cost
of the design and development and the costs of the parts and
manufacturing, we estimate that this requirement would cost between $26
($14 + $12) and $51 ($39 + 12) per vehicle.
Unquantifiable Costs to Users--The requirement could impose some
unquantifiable costs on certain users who would prefer not to use seat
belts. The cost to these users would be the time required to buckle and
unbuckle their seat belts and any disutility cost, such as discomfort
caused by wearing the seat belt. We cannot quantify these costs because
we do not know how many ROV users choose not to wear their seat belts.
Nor do we have the ability to quantify any discomfort or disutility
that ROV users would experience from wearing seat belts. However, the
proposed rule does not require that the seat belts be fastened, unless
the vehicle is traveling 15 mph or faster. This requirement should
serve to mitigate these costs because many people who would be
inconvenienced or discomforted by the requirement, such as people using
the vehicle for work or utility purposes, or people who must get on and
off the vehicle frequently, are likely to be traveling at lower speeds.
iii. Requirement To Limit Speed If Seat Belts for Front Passengers Are
Not Fastened
The proposed rule would also require that the speed of the ROV be
limited to no more than 15 mph if the seat belt of any front passenger,
who is seated in a location intended by the manufacturer as a seat, is
not fastened. Based on conversations with ES staff, designing a system
that also limits the speed of the vehicle if the seat belt of a
passenger is not fastened would require only minor adjustments to the
system limiting the speed if the driver's seat belt is not fastened.
The speed-limiting system uses sensor switches (seat belt latch sensors
and/or occupant presence sensors) to determine if seat belts are in
use, and the speed-limiting system controls the vehicle's speed based
on whether the switch is activated or not. ES staff believes adding
requirements for front passenger seat belt use will not add significant
time to the research and design effort for a speed-limitation system
because the system would only have to incorporate additional switches
to the side of the system that determines whether vehicle speed should
be limited.
However, incorporating the front passenger seats into the
requirement would require additional switches or sensors. A seat belt-
use sensor like the one used on the driver's side seat belt latch,
would be required for each passenger seat belt. The cost of a seat
belt-use sensor was estimated to be about $7. Additionally, there would
likely be a sensor switch in each front passenger seat to detect the
presence of a passenger. This switch could be similar to the seat
switches in riding lawn mowers that shut off the engine if a rider is
not detected. Similarly, in a ROV, if the presence of a passenger is
not detected, the switch would not include the passenger seat belt
sensor in circuit for determining whether the speed of the ROV should
be limited. We
[[Page 69007]]
estimate that the cost of this switch is $13 per seat, based on the
retail price of a replacement switch for the seat switch in a riding
lawn mower.
There will be labor costs involved in installing the components
needed to meet this requirement. The components would probably be
installed at the stage of assembly that would minimize the amount of
labor required and would probably not require more than about 5
minutes. Additionally, manufacturers will need to conduct tests of the
system to ensure that the system functions as required. These tests
could take an additional 5 minutes per vehicle. Assuming a total labor
compensation rate of $26.11 an hour,\92\ the labor cost would probably
amount to about $4 per vehicle. Therefore, the full cost of meeting
this requirement would be about $24 per passenger seat ($7 for seat
belt latch sensor + $13 for seat switch + $4 for labor). Therefore, the
quantifiable cost of extending the seat belt/speed limitation
requirement to include the front passenger seat belts would be $24 for
ROVs with only two seating positions in the front, (i.e., the driver
and right front passenger) and $48 for ROVs that have three seating
positions in the front. According to a survey by Heiden Associates,
about 9 percent of ROVs were reported to have a seating capacity of
three.\93\ Therefore, the average cost of extending the seat belt/speed
limitation requirement per ROV would be $26 ($24 + 0.09 x $24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 (Employer Costs
for Employee Compensation (ECEC), total compensation for production,
transportation, and material moving for all workers in private
industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed on January
9, 2014. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_09112012.pdf.
\93\ Heiden Associates et al. provided results from a 2009 ROV
Survey, which is included in Appendix 2 of Docket No. CPSC--2009-
0087).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional cost that is unquantifiable but should be considered
nevertheless, is the impact that the failure of a component of the
system could have on consumers. The more components that a system has,
or the more complicated that a system is, the more likely it is that
there will be a failure of a component somewhere in the system. A
system that limits the speed of an ROV if a front passenger's seat belt
is unbuckled would consist of more components and the system would be
more complicated than a system that only limited the speed of the
vehicle if the driver's seat belt is unfastened. Failure in one or more
of the components would impose some costs on the consumer, and this
failure could possibly affect consumer acceptance of the requirement.
For example, if the sensor in a passenger's seat belt failed to detect
that the seat belt was latched, the speed of the vehicle could be
limited, even though the seat belts were fastened. The consumer would
incur the costs of repairing the vehicle and the loss in utility
because the speed was limited until the repairs were made.
b. Benefits of the Occupant Retention Requirements
The benefit of the occupant-retention requirement is the reduction
in the societal cost of fatal and nonfatal injuries that could be
attributable to the requirements. In passenger cars, NHTSA assumes that
a belted driver has a 45 percent reduction in the risk of death.\94\
Research confirms the validity of that estimate.\95\ The effectiveness
of seat belts in reducing the number or severity of nonfatal injuries
is less certain than in the cases resulting in deaths. Nevertheless,
there is evidence that the use of seat belts is associated with a
reduction in injury severity. A study by Robert Rutledge and others
found statistically significant decreases in the severity of injuries
in belted patients versus unbelted patients admitted to trauma center
hospitals in North Carolina for variables such as the trauma scores,
the Glasgow coma scale, days on a ventilator, days in an intensive care
unit, days in a hospital, and hospital charges.\96\ This study found,
for example, that the mean stay in the hospital for belted patients was
about 20 percent shorter than for unbelted patients: 10.5 days for
belted patients as opposed to 13.2 days for unbelted patients. The
hospital charges for belted patients were 31 percent less than the
charges incurred by unbelted patients: $10,500 versus $15,250.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Charles J. Kahane, ``Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts for
Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and Light Trucks: Updated and Expanded
Estimates Based on 1986-99 FARS Data,'' U.S. Department of
Transportation, Report No. DOT HS 809 199, (December 2000).
\95\ ``Analysis of Reported Incidents Involving Deaths or
Injuries Associated with Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs),''
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD (May 2012).
\96\ Robert Rutledge, Allen Lalor, Dale Oller, et al., ``The
Cost of Not Wearing Seat Belts: A Comparison of Outcome in 3396
Patients,'' Annals of Surgery, Vol. 217, No. 2, 122-127 (1993).
\97\ Note that the Rutledge study looked only at the difference
in the severity of cases involving belted, as opposed to unbelted
victims. It did not estimate the number of injuries that were
actually prevented. It should also be noted that the Rutledge study
focused only on patients that were hospitalized for at least one
day. It might not be as applicable to patients who were treated and
released without being admitted to a hospital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this analysis, we assume that the effectiveness estimate that
NHTSA uses for seat belts in automobiles is a reasonable approximation
of the effectiveness of seat belts at reducing fatalities in ROVs.
However, according to Kahane (2000), the effectiveness of seat belts
was significantly higher in accidents involving rollover and other
incidents where the potential for ejection was high.\98\ A significant
portion of the fatal and nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs are
associated with rollovers, which suggests that a higher effectiveness
estimate could be warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ In these incidents, the researchers found the effectiveness
of seat belts was 74 percent in passenger cars and 80 percent in
light trucks. Incidents involving overturning of the vehicle or the
ejection of the victim are associated with a larger proportion of
the fatal injuries involving ROVs. At least 65 percent of the
fatalities were in incidents where the vehicle rolled sideways and
at least 70 percent of those injured or killed were either fully or
partially ejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work by Rutledge, et al., showed that mean hospital stays were
about 20 percent less and hospital charges were 31 percent less for
belted patients. This work provides some evidence that seat belts can
reduce some components of the societal costs of nonfatal injuries by 20
to 31 percent. In this analysis we use the low end of this range, 20
percent, and assume that it applies to all components of the societal
costs associated with nonfatal ROV injuries, including work losses and
pain and suffering. The assumed 20 percent reduction in societal costs
could come about because some injuries were prevented entirely or
because the severity of some injuries was reduced.
These assumptions are justified because the seat belts used in ROVs
are the same type of seat belts used in automobiles. Additionally, the
requirement that ROVs have a passive means to restrict the egress or
excursion of an occupant in the event of a rollover would ensure that
there would be some passive features on ROVs that will help to retain
occupants within the protective structure of the ROV just as there are
in automobiles. We welcome comment on the accuracy of these estimates
and underlying assumptions and will consider alternative estimates or
assumptions that commenters wish to provide.
A separate estimate of the benefit of the requirement for a passive
means to restrict occupant egress or excursion is not calculated. The
primary benefit of this requirement is to ensure that ROVs have passive
features that are more effective at retaining occupants within the
protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a rollover. Therefore,
the passive means to restrict occupant egress or excursion acts
synergistically with the seat belt requirements to keep occupants
within the protective zone of
[[Page 69008]]
the vehicle or ROPS, and in addition, provides justification for
applying to the proposed rule for ROVs estimates from studies on the
effectiveness of seat belts in automobiles.
i. Benefit of Limiting Speed If Driver's Seat Belt Is Not Fastened
As noted previously, the benefit of the occupant-retention
requirements would be the reduction in the societal costs of fatal and
nonfatal injuries that would be expected. The incremental benefit of
applying the requirement to limit the speed of the vehicle if the
driver's seat belt is not fastened is discussed below. The incremental
benefit of applying the same requirement to the front passengers is
discussed separately.
Potential Reduction in Fatal Injuries
Table 9 shows the 231 fatality cases that CPSC has reviewed
according to the seating location of the victim and whether the victim
was wearing a seat belt. Ignoring the cases in which the location of
the victim or the seat belt use by the victim is unknown (and thereby,
erring on the side of underestimating the benefits), the data show that
about 40 percent (92 / 231) of the deaths happened to drivers who were
not wearing seat belts. If the pattern of deaths in 2010 is presumed to
match the overall pattern of the deaths reviewed by CPSC, then about 20
of the reported 49 deaths associated with ROVs in 2010 \99\ would have
been to drivers who did not have their seat belts fastened. (The actual
pattern of deaths in any given year will likely be higher or lower than
the overall or average pattern. In this analysis, we imposed the
overall pattern to the reported fatalities in 2010, so that the results
would be more representative of all reported ROV fatalities.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The collection of fatalities associated with ROVs in 2010
was ongoing at the time this analysis was conducted. The actual
number of deaths associated with ROVs in 2010 could be higher.
Table 9--ROV Fatalities by Victim Location and Seat Belt Use
[2003 through 2011]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt use
---------------------------------------------------
Location Unknown or
Yes No N/A Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver...................................................... 16 92 33 141
Right Front Passenger....................................... 10 33 6 49
Middle Front Passenger...................................... 0 6 0 6
Rear Passenger.............................................. 0 3 1 4
Unknown Location............................................ 1 6 5 12
Cargo Area.................................................. 1 8 1 10
Bystander or Other.......................................... 0 3 6 9
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 28 150 53 231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology.
The requirement limiting the maximum speed would apply only to
incidents involving unbelted drivers that occurred at speeds of greater
than 15 mph. Of the ROV incidents that the Commission has reviewed, the
speed of the vehicle was reported for only 89 of the 428 incidents.
Therefore, estimates based on this data need to be used cautiously.
Nevertheless, for victims who are known to have been injured and for
which both their the seat belt use and the speed of the vehicle are
known, about 73 percent of the unbelted victims were traveling at
speeds greater than 15 mph. (Victims who were involved in an ROV
incident but were not injured, or whose injury status is not known,
were not included in this analysis.) Consequently, if we assume that 73
percent of the fatalities occurred to unbelted drivers who were
traveling at speeds greater than 15 mph, then about 15 (20 x 0.73) of
the fatalities in 2010 would have been addressed, although not
necessarily prevented, by the proposed requirement.
As discussed previously, in passenger cars, NHTSA assumes that a
belted driver has a 45 percent reduction in the risk of death. If seat
belts have the same effectiveness in reducing the risk of death in
ROVs, the seat belt/speed limitation requirement would have reduced the
number of fatal injuries to drivers of ROVs by about 7 (15 x 0.45) in
2010, if all ROVs in use at the time had met this requirement.\100\
This represents an annual risk reduction of 0.0000123 deaths per ROV in
use (7 / 570,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Alternatively, the drivers could opt to leave their seat
belts unfastened and accept the lower speed. Because the risk of
having an accident is probably directly related to the speed of the
vehicle, this option would also be expected to reduce the number of
fatal injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously, in this analysis, we assume a value of
$8.4 million for each fatality averted. However, in this analysis, we
assume that each fatal injury prevented by the use of seat belts still
resulted in a serious, but nonfatal, injury. The average societal cost
of a hospitalized injury involving all ATVs and UTVs in 2010 was about
$350,000 in 2012 dollars. (Based on the ICM estimates of the cost of a
hospitalized injury using NEISS Product Codes 3285, 3286, 3287, and
5044.) Subtracting this from the assumed societal cost of $8.4 million
per death results in a societal cost reduction of $8.05 million per
death averted. Thus, a reduction in societal costs of fatal injuries of
about $99 per ROV in use (0.0000123 x $8.05 million) per year could be
attributable to the seat belt/speed limitation requirement.
Potential Reduction in Societal Cost of Nonfatal Injuries
As discussed previously, for this analysis, we assumed that the
seat belt/speed limitation requirement will reduce the societal cost of
nonfatal ROV injuries by 20 percent. The assumed 20 percent reduction
in societal costs could result because some injuries were prevented
entirely, or because the severity of some injuries was reduced. The
CPSC has investigated several hundred nonfatal injuries associated with
ROVs. Table 10 summarizes the nonfatal injuries according to seating
location and seat belt use. (Cases in which the occupant was not
injured, or cases in which it is unknown whether the occupant was
injured, were not included in this analysis.) Again, ignoring the cases
in which the location of the victim or the seat belt use by the victim
is unknown (and thereby, erring
[[Page 69009]]
on the side of underestimating the benefits), the data indicate that
about 12 percent (46 / 388) of the nonfatal injuries happened to
drivers who were not wearing seat belts. This suggests that 1,332
(11,100 x 0.12) of the approximately 11,100 medically attended injuries
in 2010 would have involved unbelted drivers. Assuming, as with the
fatal injuries, that 73 percent were traveling at a speed greater than
15 mph at the time of incident, 972 (1,332 x 0.73) of the injuries in
2010 could have been addressed by the proposed seat belt/speed
limitation requirement. These 972 injuries in 2010 represent an injury
rate of about 0.00170526 (972 / 570,000) per ROV in use.
Table 10--Nonfatal ROV Injuries by Victim Location and Seat Belt Use
[2003 to 2011]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belt use
---------------------------------------------------
Location of victim Unknown or
Yes No N/A Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Driver...................................................... 23 46 51 120
Right Front Passenger....................................... 28 35 9 72
Middle Front Passenger...................................... 0 14 1 15
Rear Passenger.............................................. 2 3 0 5
Unknown Location............................................ 8 21 128 157
Cargo Area.................................................. 3 13 0 16
Bystander................................................... 0 0 3 3
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 64 132 192 388
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology.
Based on estimates from the CPSC's ICM, the average societal cost
of the injuries addressed is estimated to be $29,383. Applying this
cost estimate to the estimated injuries per ROV that could be addressed
by the standard results in an annual societal cost of about $50 per ROV
in use (0.00170526 x $29,383). If wearing seat belts could have reduced
this cost by 20 percent (by reducing either the number or severity of
injuries), the societal benefit, in terms of the reduced costs
associated with nonfatal injuries, would be about $10 per ROV in use.
Total Benefit Over the Useful Life of an ROV
The total benefit of the seat belt/speed limitation requirement per
ROV would be the present value of the expected annual benefit per ROV
in use, summed over the vehicle's expected useful life. Above, using
2010 as the base year, we estimated that the annual benefit per ROV was
about $99 in terms of reduced deaths and $10 in terms of reduced
nonfatal injuries, for a total of $109 per ROV. Assuming that ROVs have
the same operability rates as ATVs, the present value of the estimated
benefit over the useful life of an ROV would be approximately $1,498
per vehicle, at a 3 percent discount rate.
The cost of the requirement to limit the speed of the vehicle if
the driver's seat belt is not fastened was estimated to be between $26
and $51 per vehicle. Additionally, the cost of the requirement for a
means to restrict occupant egress and excursion via a passive method
was estimated to be about $7 per vehicle. Therefore, the total cost
would be between $33 and $58 per vehicle. The benefit of the
requirement, estimated to be about $1,498 per vehicle, is substantially
greater than the estimated cost of the requirement.
ii. Benefit of Limiting Speed If a Front Passenger's Seat Belt Is Not
Fastened
The potential incremental benefit of limiting the speed of an ROV
if a front passenger's seat belt is not fastened can be calculated
following the same procedure used to calculate the benefits of a
requirement limiting the maximum speed when the driver's seat belt is
not fastened. From the data presented in Table 9 (and ignoring the
cases in which the seating location of the victim or the seat belt use
is unknown), there were 33 victims seated in the right front passenger
position, and six who were seated in the middle front passenger
position were not using a seatbelt. However, some of the victims listed
as a middle front seat passenger were not seated in places intended to
be a seat. In some cases, the victim might have been seated on a
console; in other cases, the victim might have been sharing the right
front passenger seat and not a separate seat. Based on the information
available about the incidents, we believe that only three of the six
victims reported to be ``middle front passengers,'' were actually in
positions intended by the manufacturer to be middle seats. Therefore,
about 16 percent (36 / 231) of the fatal injuries involved front seat
passengers who were not wearing seat belts.
Applying this estimate to the fatalities in 2010 suggests that
about 8 of the 49 fatalities happened to front passengers who were not
wearing seat belts. Assuming that about 73 percent of the incidents
involved vehicles traveling faster than 15 mph, about 6 of the
fatalities would have been addressed, but not necessarily prevented, by
the requirement. Assuming that seat belts reduce the risk of fatal
injuries by 45 percent, about 3 fatalities might have been averted.
This represents a risk reduction of 0.00000526 deaths per ROV in use (3
/ 570,000). Assuming a societal benefit of $8.05 million for each death
averted results in an estimated annual benefit of about $42 per ROV in
use ($8.05 million x 0.00000526) in reduced fatal injuries.
Similarly, the data show that 35 of the victims who suffered
nonfatal injuries were seated in the right front passenger location,
and 14 were seated in the middle front position. However, we believe
that only 8 of the 14 were actually seated in a position intended by
the manufacturer to be a seat. Therefore, 43 of the 388 victims (or
about 11 percent of the total) with nonfatal injuries were front
passengers who were not wearing seat belts. This suggests that 1,221 of
the estimated 11,100 medically attended injuries in 2010 involved
unbelted front passengers. Using the assumption that 73 percent of
these incidents occurred at speeds greater than 15 mph, then about 891
of the injuries might have been addressed by the requirement, or about
0.00156315 injuries per ROV in use (891 / 570,000). Assuming that the
average cost of a nonfatal injury involving ROVs is $29383, the
estimated societal cost of these injuries is about $46 per ROV in use.
If wearing seat belts could have
[[Page 69010]]
reduced the societal cost of the nonfatal injuries by 20 percent, then
the benefits of the requirement would have been about $9 per ROV in
use, per year.
Combining the benefits of the reduction in the societal cost of
deaths ($42 per ROV in use) and the societal cost of injuries ($9 per
ROV in use) yields an estimated benefit of $51 per ROV in use. Assuming
that ROVs have the same operability rates as ATVs over time, and
assuming a discount rate of 3 percent, the estimated benefit would be
$701 over the expected useful life of an ROV. This is greater than the
expected cost of this potential requirement of $26 per vehicle.
iii. Impact of Any Correlation in Seat Belt Use Between Driver and
Passengers
The analysis above used a simplifying assumption that the use of
seat belts by the passenger is independent of the use of seat belts by
the driver. Therefore, we assumed that limiting the maximum speed of
the ROV if the driver's seat belt was not fastened would have no impact
on the seat belt use by any passenger. However, there is some evidence
that the use of seat belts by passengers is correlated with the seat
belt use of the driver. In the incidents examined by the Commission, of
the 121 right front passengers with known seat belt usage, the driver
and right passenger had the same seat belt use status most of the time
(about 82 percent). In other words, most of the time, the driver's and
right passenger's seat belts were either both fastened or both
unfastened. This suggests that if the drivers were required to fasten
his or her seat belt, at least some of the passengers would also fasten
their seat belts.
The implication that a correlation exists between seat belt use by
drivers and by passengers indicates that the benefits of requiring the
driver's seat belt to be fastened were underestimated and the benefits
of extending the requirement to include the right front passenger are
over estimated. For example, if 80 percent of the passengers who would
not normally wear their seat belts were to wear their seat belts
because the driver was required to wear his or her seat belt (for the
ROV to exceed 15 mph), then 80 percent of the benefit, or $561 ($701 x
0.80) attributed above to extending the speed limitation requirement to
the front passengers would be attributed rightfully to the requirement
that the driver's seat belt be fastened; and only 20 percent, or $140
($701 x 0.20) would be attributable to the requirement that the front
passengers' seat belts be fastened. In this example, the $140 in
benefits attributed to extending the speed limitation requirement to
include the front passenger's seat belts would still exceed the
quantifiable cost of doing so, which was estimated to be $26.
E. Summary of the Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule
As described previously, manufacturers would incur costs of
$128,000 to $195,000 per model to test ROV models for compliance with
the requirements of the proposed rule and to research, develop, and
implement any needed changes to the models so that they would comply
with the requirements. These costs would be incurred before the model
is brought to market. To express these costs on a per-unit basis, we
assumed that, on average, 1,800 units of a model were produced annually
and that a typical model is produced for 5 years. These costs are
summarized in Table 11.
Table 11--Summary of Certification Testing and Research and Development Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Cost per model Cost per unit*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling .............................
Requirements:
Compliance Testing................... $24,000............................... $3
Redesign of Noncomplying Models...... $43,000............................... $5
Retesting of Redesigned Models....... $24,000............................... $3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs for Lateral Stability $24,000 to $91,000.................... $3 to $10
and Vehicle Handling.
======================================================================
Occupant Retention Requirements: .............................
Research, Design, Implementation..... $100,000.............................. $11
Certification Testing................ $4,000................................ <$1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total R&D and Testing Costs for $104,000.............................. $12
Seat Belt Requirement.
======================================================================
Total Certification Testing $128,000 to $195,000.................. $14 to $22
and Research and Development
Costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Per-unit costs are rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The sums might not equal the totals due to rounding.
In addition to the testing, research, and development costs
described above, manufacturers will incur some additional manufacturing
costs for extra parts or labor required to manufacture ROVs that meet
the requirements for the proposed rule. These costs are summarized in
Table 12. As for the vehicle handling requirements, some modifications
to vehicles that do not comply might increase manufacturing costs;
other modifications could decrease manufacturing costs. Therefore, we
have assumed, on average, that there will not be any additional
manufacturing costs required to meet the vehicle handling requirements.
However, most manufacturers will incur additional manufacturing costs
to meet the occupant-retention requirements. These costs are expected
to average between $47 and $72 per vehicle. Adding the estimated
upfront testing, research, development, and implementation costs per
unit from Table 11 brings the total cost of the proposed rule to an
estimated $61 to $94 per vehicle.
[[Page 69011]]
Table 12--Summary of Per-Unit Costs and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Value per unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing Costs:
Lateral Stability and Vehicle $0
Handling Requirements.
Passive Occupant Retention $7
Requirement.
Seat Belt/Speed Limitation $14 to $39
Requirement--Driver Seats.
Seat Belt/Speed Limitation $26
Requirement--Front Passenger
Seats.
----------------------------------
Total Manufacturing Costs.... $47 to $72
Certification Testing and Research $14 to $22
and Development Costs (from Table 4).
----------------------------------
Total Quantifiable Cost.......... $61 to $94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral Stability and Vehicle (not quantifiable)
Handling Requirements.
Occupant Retention Requirements...... $2,199
----------------------------------
Total Quantifiable Benefits...... $2,199
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Quantifiable Benefits............ $2,105 to $2,138
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were able to estimate benefits for the occupant retention
requirement. Applying this requirement to just the driver's seat belt
would result in benefits of about $1,498 per unit. Applying the seat
belt/speed limitation requirement to the front passenger seat belts
could result in an additional benefit of $701 per unit. Therefore, the
quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule would be $2,199 per unit.
The benefit associated with the vehicle handling and lateral stability
requirement could not be quantified. Therefore, the benefits of the
proposed rule could exceed the $2,199 estimated above.
The fact that the potential benefits of the lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirements could not be quantified should not be
interpreted to mean that they are low or insignificant. This only means
that we have not developed the data necessary to quantify these
benefits. The purpose of the occupant retention requirements is to
reduce the severity of injuries, but this requirement is not expected
to reduce the risk of an incident occurring. The lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirement, on the other hand, is intended to reduce
the risk of an incident occurring that involves an ROV, and therefore,
prevent injuries from happening in the first place. At this time,
however, we do not have a basis for estimating what would be the
effectiveness of the lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements.
Notably, to the extent that the lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements are effective in reducing the number of
incidents, the incremental benefit of the occupant retention
requirements also would be reduced. Additionally, if the lateral
stability and vehicle handling requirements can reduce the number of
accidents involving ROVs, there would be fewer resulting injuries whose
severity would be reduced by the occupant retention requirements.
However, the resulting decrease in the incremental benefit of the seat
belt/speed limitation requirement would be less than the benefit
attributable to the lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements. Again, this is largely because the benefit of preventing
an injury from occurring in the first place is greater than the benefit
of reducing the severity of harm of the injury.
Although some assumptions used in this analysis would serve to
reduce the estimated benefit of the draft proposed rule (e.g., ignoring
incidents in which the use of seat belts was unknown), the analysis
also assumes that all drivers and front seat passengers would opt to
fasten their seat belts if the speed of the vehicle was limited; and
the analysis also would assume that no driver or passenger would
attempt to defeat the system, which could be accomplished simply by
passing the belt behind the rider, or passing the belt behind the seat
before latching the belt. To the extent that consumers attempt to
defeat the seat belt/speed limitation system, the benefits are
overestimated.
The estimated costs and benefits of the rule on an annual basis can
be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per-unit
by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were
sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total
quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $22.0
million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The
total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million
($2,199 x 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88
percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and
about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have
resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries.
About $47 million of the reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal
injuries would have been due to a reduction in pain and suffering.
F. Alternatives
The Commission considered several alternatives to the requirements
in the proposed rule. The alternatives considered included: (1) Not
issuing a mandatory rule, but instead, relying on voluntary standards;
(2) including the dynamic lateral stability requirement or the
understeer requirement, but not both; (3) requiring a more intrusive
audible or visual seatbelt reminder, instead of limiting the speed of
the vehicle if the seatbelt is not fastened; (4) extending the
seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to include rear seats; (5)
requiring an ignition interlock if the seatbelts are not fastened
instead of limiting the maximum speed; and (6) limiting the maximum
speed to 10 mph, instead of 15 mph, if the seatbelts are not fastened.
Each of these alternatives is discussed below. The discussion includes
the reasons that the Commission did not include the alternative in the
proposed rule as well as qualitative discussion of costs and benefits
where possible.
[[Page 69012]]
1. No Mandatory Standard/Rely on Voluntary Standard
If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most manufacturers
would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that apply to
ROVs. However, neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs
understeer, as required by the proposed rule. According to ES staff,
drivers are more likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer,
which can lead to the vehicle rolling over or causing other types of
accidents.
Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to set
standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 uses a turn-
circle test for dynamic lateral stability that is more similar to the
test in the proposed rule (for whether the vehicle understeers) than it
is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic stability
requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 uses a J-turn test, like the
proposed rule, but measures different variables during the test and
uses a different acceptance criterion. However, ES staff does not
believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been
validated properly to be deemed capable of providing useful information
about the dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary
standards would find some vehicles to be acceptable, even though their
lateral acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the
acceptance criterion in the proposed rule.
Both voluntary standards require manufacturers to include a lighted
seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on for at
least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the driver's
seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the market already
include this feature; and therefore, relying only on the voluntary
standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over current
levels of use.
The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the
occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle if a rollover
occurs, including two options for restraining the occupants in the
shoulder/hip area. However, testing performed by CPSC identified
weaknesses in the performance-based tilt table test option that allows
unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the
vehicle ROPs. CPSC testing indicated that a passive shoulder barrier
could reduce the head excursion of a belted occupant during quarter-
turn rollover events. The Commission believes that this can be
accomplished by a requirement for a passive barrier, based on the
dimensions of the upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, at a
defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder, as contained in the
proposed rule.
In summary, not mandating a standard would not impose any
additional costs on manufacturers, but neither would it result in any
additional benefits in terms of reduced deaths and injuries. Therefore,
not issuing a mandatory standard was not proposed by the Commission.
2. Removing Either the Lateral Stability Requirement or the Handling
Requirement
The CPSC considered including a requirement for either dynamic
stability or vehicle handling, but not both. However, the Commission
believes that both of these characteristics need to be addressed.
According to ES staff, a vehicle that meets both the dynamic stability
requirement and the understeer requirement should be safer than a
vehicle that meets only one of the requirements. Moreover, the cost of
meeting just one requirement is not substantially lower than the cost
of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a vehicle for
compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability requirement and the
vehicle handling/understeer requirement was estimated to be about
$24,000. However, the cost of testing for compliance with just the
dynamic stability requirement would be about $20,000, or only about 17
percent less than the cost of testing for compliance with both
requirements. This is because the cost of renting and transporting the
vehicle to the test site, instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, and
making some initial static measurements are virtually the same for both
requirements and would only have to be done once, if the tests for both
requirements were conducted on the same day. Moreover, changes in the
vehicle design that affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could
also impact the handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the
proposed rule includes a dynamic stability requirement and a vehicle
handling requirement.
3. Require Intrusive Seatbelt Reminder in Lieu of the Speed Limitation
Requirements
Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation requirements in the proposed
rule, the Commission considered a requirement for ROVs to have loud or
intrusive seatbelt reminders. Currently, most ROVs meet the voluntary
standards that require an 8-second visual seatbelt reminder. Some more
intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars. For example, the
Ford ``BeltMinder'' system resumes warning the driver after about 65
seconds if his or her seatbelt is not fastened and the car is traveling
at more than 3 mph. The system flashes a warning light and sounds a
chime for 6 seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 minutes so long as the
car is operating and the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Honda
developed a similar system in which the warning could last for longer
than 9 minutes if the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. Studies of
both systems found that a statistically significant increase in the use
of seatbelts of 5 percent (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 percent (from
84 to 90 percent), respectively.\101\ However, these more intrusive
seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to be as effective as the
seatbelt speed limitation requirement in the proposed rule. The
Commission believes that the requirement will cause most drivers and
passengers who wish to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seatbelts.
Research supports this position. One experiment used a haptic feedback
system to increase the force the driver needed to exert to depress the
gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 mph if the seatbelt was not
fastened. The system did not prevent the driver from exceeding 25 mph,
but it increased the amount of force required to depress the gas pedal
to maintain a speed greater than 25 mph. In this experiment all seven
participants chose to fasten their seatbelts.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Caroleene Paul, ``Proposal for Seatbelt Speed Limiter On
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs),'' CPSC Memorandum (2013).
\102\ Ron Van Houten, Bryan Hilton, Richard Schulman, and Ian
Reagan, ``Using Haptic Feedback to Increase Seatbelt Use of Service
Vehicle Drivers,'' U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT
HS 811 434 (January 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The more intrusive seatbelt reminder systems used on some passenger
cars have been more limited in their effectiveness. The Honda system,
for example, reduced the number of unbelted drivers by about 38
percent; the Ford system reduced the number of unbelted drivers by only
17 percent.\103\ Additionally, ROVs are open vehicles and the ambient
noise is likely higher than in the enclosed passenger compartment of a
car. It is likely that some ROV drivers would not hear the warning and
be motivated to fasten their seatbelts unless the warning was
substantially louder than the systems used in passenger cars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ The Honda system increased seatbelt use from 84 percent to
90 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted drivers was
reduced by about 38 percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 percent. The
Ford system increased seatbelt use from 71 percent to 76 percent.
Therefore, the percentage of unbelted drivers was reduced by about
17 percent, or 5 percent divided by 29 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69013]]
The cost to manufacturers of some forms of more intrusive seat belt
reminders could be less than the cost of the speed limitation
requirement in the draft proposed rule. However, the cost of the seat
belt/speed limitation requirement was estimated to be less than $72 per
ROV.\104\ If the experience with the Honda and Ford systems discussed
above are relevant to ROVs, the benefits of a more intrusive seat belt
reminder system could be less than 38 percent of the benefits estimated
for the requirement in the draft proposed rule or less than $835 per
ROV. Therefore, even if the cost of a more intrusive seat belt reminder
system was close to $0, the net benefits would be less than the seat
belt/speed limitation requirement in the draft proposed rule, which
were estimated to be at least $2,105. Therefore, the alternative of a
more intrusive seat belt reminder was not included in the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ This estimate is based on manufacturing cost estimates of
$39 to apply the requirement to the driver's seat and $26 to apply
the requirement to the front passenger's seat, plus $12 for
research, development and certification testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Extending the Seatbelt/Speed Limitation Requirement To Include Rear
Seats
The Commission considered extending the seatbelt/speed limitation
requirement to include the rear passenger seats, when present.
According to one exposure survey, about 20 percent of the respondents
reported that their ROVs had a seating capacity of at least four
occupants, which indicates that the ROV had rear passenger seating
locations.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Heiden Associates, Results from the 2008 ROV Exposure
Survey (APPENDIX 2 to Joint Comments of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier
Recreational Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Yamaha
Motor Corporation, U.S.A regarding CPSC Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking-Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles: Docket
No. CPSC--2009-0087), Alexandria Virginia (December 4, 2009).) This
suggests that there were about 114,000 ROVs with rear passenger
seats in 2010 (0.2 x 570,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cost of extending this requirement to include the rear
passenger seats would be expected to be the same per seat as extending
the requirement to include the right-front and middle-front passengers,
or $24 per seat. Therefore, the cost of this requirement would be $48
to $72 per ROV, depending upon whether the ROV had two or three rear
seating locations.
Three of the 231 fatalities (or 1.3 percent) involved a person in a
rear seat who did not have their seatbelt fastened. Using the same
assumptions used to calculate the benefits of the seatbelt/speed
limitation for passengers in the front seats (i.e., that 73 percent
occurred at speeds of 15 mph or greater and seatbelts would reduce the
risk of death by 45 percent), extending the requirement to include the
rear seats could have potentially reduced the number of fatalities in
2010 by 0.2 or about one death every 5 years, all other things equal.
Therefore, extending the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to the
rear passenger seats could reduce the annual risk of fatal injury by
0.00000175 (0.2 / 114,000) per ROV in use. Assuming a societal benefit
of $8.05 million per death averted results in an estimated annual
benefit of about $14 per ROV in use ($8.05 million x 0.00000175) in
terms of reduced fatal injuries.
Three of the 388 nonfatal injuries (or 0.8 percent) involved
passengers in rear seats who did not have their seatbelts fastened.
This suggests that about 89 of the estimated 11,100 medically attended
injuries in 2010 may have happened to unbelted rear passengers. Again,
assuming that 73 percent of these occurred at speeds of 15 mph or
faster, about 65 medically attended injuries might have been addressed
by the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement if applied to the rear
seating locations. This represents a risk of a nonfatal, medically
attended injury of 0.0005702 (65 / 114,000) per ROV in use per year.
The societal cost of this risk is $17, assuming an average nonfatal,
medically attended injury cost of $29,383. If seatbelts could reduce
the cost of these injuries by 20 percent, by reducing the number of
injuries in their severity, the value of the reduction would be $3 per
ROV in use per year.
Combining the benefit of $14 for the reduction in fatal injuries
and $3 for the reduced cost of nonfatal, medically attended injuries
yields a combined benefit of $17 per ROV in use per year. The present
value of this estimated benefit over the expected useful life of a ROV
is $234. This is greater than the quantifiable cost of $48 to $72.
However, these estimates of the costs and benefits are probably
oversimplified the costs may have been understated and the benefits
overstated. The Commission is hesitant to recommend this alternative
for the several reasons.
First, as discussed earlier, a system that includes all passenger
seats would comprise more parts than a system that included only the
front passenger seats. A failure in only one of the parts could result
in significant cost to the users for repairs, lost time and utility of
the vehicle while it is being repaired, or the inability of the vehicle
to reach its potential speed. These failures could occur because a
faulty seat belt latch sensor does not detect or signal that a seatbelt
is latched or because a faulty seat switch incorrectly registers the
presence of a passenger when a passenger is not present. This cost
cannot be quantified. However, if such failures are possible, the costs
of extending the seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to include the
rear seats would be higher than the $48 to $72 estimated above.
Second, as discussed previously, there is some correlation between
the seatbelt use of the driver and other passengers on the ROV. If the
driver and front passengers fasten their seatbelts, there is reason to
believe that some rear passengers will also fasten their seatbelts. If
so, the benefits of including the rear seat passengers could be
overestimated above. Moreover, even if there was no correlation,
including only the driver and front seat passengers would still achieve
about 98 percent of the total potential benefits from the seatbelt/
speed limitation requirement.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ The potential net benefit of the seatbelt/speed limitation
requirement resulting from its application to the driver and front
passengers was estimated to be $2,199 per ROV. The potential net
benefit resulting from its application to the rear seats was
estimated to be $234 per ROV with rear seats. However, only about 20
percent of ROVs were assumed to have rear seats. Therefore, the
weighted benefit over all ROVs of extending the seatbelt/speed
limitation requirement to include the rear seats would be about $47
per ROV ($234 x 0.2). The potential weighted benefit would be
$2,246, of which about 2 percent ($47 / $2,246) would be
attributable to extending the requirement to the rear seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Requiring an Ignition Interlock Instead of Limiting the Maximum
Speed
The Commission considered whether an ignition interlock requirement
that did not allow the vehicle to be started unless the driver's
seatbelt was buckled would be appropriate for ROVs. However, the
history of ignition interlock systems to encourage seatbelt use on
passenger cars suggests that consumer resistance to an ignition
interlock system could be strong. In 1973, NHTSA proposed requiring an
interlock system on passenger cars. However, public opposition to the
proposed requirement led Congress to prohibit NHTSA from requiring an
ignition interlock system.\107\ For this reason, the Commission is not
proposing this alternative. Instead, the proposed rule would allow
people to use ROVs at low speeds without requiring seat belts to be
fastened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Caroleene Paul, ``Proposal for Seatbelt Speed Limiter on
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs),'' CPSC Memorandum (2013).
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda MD (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69014]]
6. Limiting the Maximum Speed to 10 mph if the Driver's Seatbelt Is Not
Fastened
The Commission considered limiting the maximum speed of the ROV to
10 mph if the driver's seatbelt was not fastened, instead of 15 mph, as
in the proposed rule. In making this determination, we weigh some
potentially quantifiable factors against some unquantifiable factors.
The expected benefits of limiting the maximum speed to 10 mph are
higher than the expected benefits of limiting the maximum speed to 15
mph. Based on the injuries reported to CPSC for which the speed was
reported and the seatbelt use was known, about 15 percent of the people
injured in ROV accidents who were not wearing seatbelts were traveling
between 10 and 15 mph. Therefore, decreasing the maximum allowed speed
of an ROV to 10 mph if the driver's or right front passenger's seatbelt
is not fastened could increase the expected benefits of the requirement
by up to 21 percent (0.15 / 0.73). There would be no difference between
the two alternatives in terms of the quantified costs.
Although the quantified benefits would be increased and the
quantified costs would not be affected by this alternative, the
Commission believes that the unquantifiable costs would be higher if
the maximum speed allowed was set at 10 mph instead of 15 mph.
Commission staff believes this could have a negative impact on consumer
acceptance of the requirement. The unquantifiable costs include: The
time, inconvenience, and discomfort to some users who would prefer not
to wear seatbelts. These users could include: People using the ROVs for
work or utility purposes, who might have to get on and off the ROV
frequently, and who are likely to be traveling at lower rates of speed,
but who occasionally could exceed 10 mph. Some of these users could be
motivated to defeat the requirement (and this could be done easily),
which could reduce the benefits of the proposed rule. Allowing ROVs to
reach speeds of up to 15 mph without requiring the seatbelt to be
fastened would mitigate some of the inconvenience or discomfort of the
requirement to these users, and correspondingly, consumers would have
less motivation to attempt to defeat the requirement.
ROV manufacturers would have the option of setting the maximum
speed that their models could reach without requiring the seatbelts to
be fastened--so long as the maximum speed was no greater than 15 miles
per hour. Therefore, manufacturers could set a maximum speed of less
than 15 mph if they believed this was in their interest to do so. One
ROV manufacturer has introduced ROV models that will not exceed 9.3 mph
(15 km/hr.) unless the driver's seatbelt is fastened.
G. Conclusion
We estimate the quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule to be
about $2,199 per ROV, and we estimate the quantifiable costs to be
about $61 to $94 per ROV. Therefore, the benefits would exceed the
costs by a substantial margin. However, the only benefits that could be
quantified would be the benefits associated with the seat belt/speed
limitation requirement. The lateral stability and vehicle handling
requirements would also be expected to reduce deaths and injuries and
so result in additional benefits, but these were not quantifiable.
There could be some unquantifiable costs associated with the rule.
Some consumers might find the requirement to fasten their seat belts
before the vehicle can exceed 15 mph to be inconvenient or
uncomfortable. The 15 mph threshold as opposed to a 10 mph threshold
was selected for the requirement to limit the number of consumers who
would be inconvenienced by the requirement and might be motivated to
defeat the system. Some consumers might prefer an ROV that oversteers
under more conditions than the proposed rule would allow. However, the
number of consumers who have a strong preference for oversteering
vehicles is probably low.
Several alternatives to requirements in the proposed rule were
considered, including relying on voluntary standards or requiring more
intrusive seat belt reminders (as opposed to the speed limitation
requirement). However, the Commission determined that the benefits of
the requirements in the proposed rule would probably exceed their
costs, considering both the quantifiable and unquantifiable costs and
benefits.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In this
document, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth:
A title for the collection of information;
a summary of the collection of information;
a brief description of the need for the information and
the proposed use of the information;
a description of the likely respondents and proposed
frequency of response to the collection of information;
an estimate of the burden that shall result from the
collection of information; and
notice that comments may be submitted to the OMB.
Title: Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
(ROVs).
Number of Respondents: We have identified 20 manufacturers of ROVs.
Number of Models: We estimate that there are about 130 different
models of ROVs, or an average of 6.5 models per manufacturer. This
estimate counts as a single model, all models of a manufacturer that do
not appear to differ from each other in terms of performance, such as
engine size, width, number of seats, weight, horsepower, capacity, and
wheel size. In other words, if the models differed only in terms of
accessory packages, or in the case of foreign manufacturers, differed
only in the names of the domestic distributors, then they were counted
as the same model.
Number of Reports per Year: Manufacturers will have to place a hang
tag on each ROV sold. In 2013, about 234,000 ROVs were sold, or about
1,800 units per model. This would be a reasonable estimate of the
number of responses per year. On average, each manufacturer would have
about 11,700 responses per year.
Burden Estimates per Model: The reporting burden of this
requirement can be divided into two parts. The first is designing the
hang tag for each model. The second is printing and physically
attaching the hang tag to the ROV. These are discussed in more detail
below.
Designing the Hang tag: We estimate that it will take about 30
minutes to design the hang tag for each model. The first year the rule
is in effect, manufacturers will have to design the hang tag for each
of their models. However, the same model might be in production for
more than one year. If ROV models have a production life of about 5
years before being redesigned, then the same hang tag might be useable
for more than 1 year. Therefore, in year 1, on average, the burden on
each manufacturer will be about 3.25 hours to design the hang tag (0.5
hours per model x 6.5 models). In subsequent years, the burden on each
manufacturer will be about 0.65 hours assuming that manufacturers will
have to redesign the hang tag only when they redesign the
[[Page 69015]]
ROV and that ROVs are redesigned, on average, about every 5 years.
Assuming this work will be performed by a professional employee, the
cost per manufacturer will be $206 the first year and $41 in each
subsequent year.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ This estimate is based on the total compensation for
management, professional, and related workers in private, goods
producing industries, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(March 2014), available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/. Please note, in
the draft regulatory analysis, we are using 2010 as the base year
with all values expressed in 2012 dollars. Therefore, these
estimates might be slightly higher than estimated in the regulatory
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printing and Placing the Hang tag on Each Vehicle: Based on
estimates for printing obtained at: http://www.uprinting.com and
estimates for the ties obtained from http://blanksusa.com, we estimate
that the cost of the printed hang tag and wire for attaching the hang
tag to the ROV will be about $0.08. Therefore, the total cost of
materials for the average manufacturer with 6.5 models, producing 1,800
units of each model, would be about $936 per year ($0.08 x 6.5 models x
1,800 units).
We estimate that it will take about 20 seconds to attach a hang tag
to each vehicle. Assuming an annual production of 1,800 units of each
model, on average, this comes to 10 hours per model or an average of 65
hours per manufacturer or respondent, assuming an average of 6.5 models
per manufacturer. Assuming a total compensation of $26.12 per hour, the
cost would be $261 per model or $1,698 per manufacturer, assuming an
average of 6.5 models per manufacturer.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Estimate is based on the total compensation for
production, transportation, and material-moving workers, private,
goods-producing industries, as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (March 2014), available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden of the Hang tag Requirement: The total burden of the
hang tag requirement the first year will consist of the following
components:
Designing the Hang tags: 65 hours (0.5 hours x 130 models).
Assuming a total compensation rate of $63.36 per hour (professional and
related workers), the cost would be $4,118.
Placing the Hang tags on the Vehicles: 1,300 hours (234,000
vehicles x 20 seconds). Assuming a total compensation rate of 26.12 per
hour (production, transportation, and material moving workers), the
total cost is $33,956.
Total Compensation Cost: The total compensation cost for this
requirement would be $38,074 in the first year. In subsequent years,
the burden of designing the hang tag is estimated to be about one-fifth
the burden in the initial year, or 13 hours, assuming that each ROV
model either undergoes a significant design change or is replaced by a
different model every 5 years. Therefore, the compensation cost of
designing the hang tag in subsequent years would be about $824 ($4,118/
5). The total compensation cost in subsequent years would be $34,780.
Total Material Cost: The cost of the printed hang tags and ties for
attaching the hang tag to the vehicles is estimated to be about 8 cents
each. Therefore, the total material cost would be $18,720 ($0.08 x
234,000 units).
Total Cost of Hang tag Requirement: Based on the above estimates,
the total cost of the hang tag requirement in the initial year is
estimated to be about $56,794. In subsequent years, the total cost
would be slightly less, about $53,500.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of
this rule to the OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to
submit comments regarding information collection by December 19, 2014,
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice).
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), we invite comments on:
Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the CPSC's functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques,
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and
the estimated burden hours associated with label
modification, including any alternative estimates.
XII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section provides an analysis of the impact on small businesses
of a proposed rule that would establish a mandatory safety standard for
ROVs. Whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed rule,
section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612)
requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that the rule would have on
small businesses and other entities. An IRFA is not required if the
head of an agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must contain:
(1) A description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) an identification to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the
proposed rule.
An IRFA must also contain a description of any significant
alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the
applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Alternatives could
include: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements that take into account the resources available to small
businesses; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements for small entities; (3) use of
performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part of the rule thereof, for small
entities.
A. Reason for Agency Action
ROVs were first introduced in the late 1990s. Sales of ROVs
increased substantially over the next 15 years. The number of deaths
associated with ROVs has substantially increased over the same period,
from no reported deaths in 2003, to at least 76 reported deaths in
2012. As explained in this preamble, some ROVs on the market have
hazardous characteristics that could be addressed through a mandatory
safety standard.
B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule
The Commission proposes this rule to reduce the risk of death and
injury associated with the use of ROVs. The rule is promulgated under
the authority
[[Page 69016]]
of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
The proposed rule would apply to all manufacturers and importers of
ROVs. Under criteria set by the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA), manufacturers of ROVs are considered small businesses if they
have fewer than 500 employees. We have identified one ROV manufacturer
with fewer than 500 employees.
Importers of ROVs could be wholesalers or retailers. Under the
criteria set by the SBA, wholesalers of ROVs and other motor vehicles
or powersport vehicles are considered small businesses if they have
fewer than 100 employees; and retail dealers that import ROVs and other
motor or powersport vehicle dealers are considered small if their
annual sales volume is less than $30 million. We are aware of about 20
firms in 2013 that import ROVs from foreign suppliers that would be
considered small businesses.\110\ (There may be other small firms that
manufacture or import ROVs of which we are not aware.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ The Commission made these determinations using information
from Dun & Bradstreet, Reference USAGov, company Web sites, and
regional business publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record Keeping Requirements of Proposed
Rule
The proposed rule would establish a mandatory safety standard
consisting of several performance requirements for ROVs sold in the
United States. The proposed rule would also establish test procedures
through which compliance with the performance requirements would be
determined. The proposed rule includes: (1) Lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirements that specify a minimum level of rollover
resistance for ROVs and a requirement that ROVs exhibit sub-limit
understeer characteristics; and (2) occupant retention requirements
that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more than 15 miles
per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of the driver and front
passengers are fastened, and would require ROVs to have a passive
means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit the ejection of a
belted occupant in the event of a rollover.
Manufacturers would be required to test their ROV models to check
that the models comply with the requirements of the proposed rule, and
if necessary, modify their ROV models to comply. The costs of these
requirements are discussed more fully in the preliminary regulatory
analysis. Based on that analysis, we expect that the test for lateral
stability and the test for vehicle handling will be conducted at the
same time, and we estimate that the cost of this combined testing would
be about $24,000 per model. In many cases, we expect that this testing
will be performed by a third party engineering consulting or testing
firm. If an ROV model must be modified to comply with the requirement
and then retested, we estimate that the cost to manufacturers could
reach $91,000 per model, including the cost of the initial testing, the
cost of modifying design of the model, and the cost of retesting the
model after the model has been modified. We estimate that the cost of
implementing the occupant retention requirements will be about $104,000
per model. This includes the cost to research, develop, implement, and
test a system that will limit the speed of the ROV when the seat belts
are not fastened, as well as an occupant protection barrier or
structure. Therefore, the total cost of certification testing and
research and design could range from about $128,000 to $195,000. (Costs
are expressed in 2012 dollars.)
In addition to the upfront testing and research and development
costs, there will be some ongoing manufacturing costs associated with
the proposed rule. These manufacturing costs include the cost of the
parts required to meet any of the requirements of the proposed rule,
such as seat belt use sensors and the necessary wiring and the cost of
installing these parts on the vehicles during assembly. As estimated in
the preliminary regulatory analysis, the ongoing manufacturing costs
would be $47 to $72 per vehicle.
The proposed rule includes a requirement that manufacturers report
the lateral acceleration at rollover value of an ROV model to potential
consumers through the use of a hang tag attached to the ROV.
Manufacturers would obtain the rollover resistance value when they
conduct the lateral stability and vehicle handling tests to determine
compliance with both requirements. The required format of the hangtag
is described in the proposed rule. We estimate that it will cost
manufacturers less than $0.25 per vehicle to print the hangtags with
the rollover resistance values and to attach the hangtags to the
vehicles.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
In accordance with Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA), manufacturers would have to issue a general conformity
certificate (GCC) for each ROV model, certifying that the model
complies with the proposed rule. According to Section 14 of CPSA, GCCs
must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing
program; and GCCs must be provided to all distributors or retailers of
the product. The manufacturer would have to comply with 16 CFR part
1110 concerning the content of the GCC, retention of the associated
records, and any other applicable requirement.
F. Potential Impact on Small Entities
One purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to evaluate
the impact of a regulatory action and determine whether the impact is
economically significant. Although the SBA allows considerable
flexibility in determining ``economically significant,'' CPSC staff
typically uses one percent of gross revenue as the threshold for
determining ``economic significance.'' When we cannot demonstrate that
the impact is lower than one percent of gross revenue, we prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ The one percent of gross revenue threshold is cited as
example criteria by the SBA and is commonly used by agencies in
determining economic significance (see U.S. Small Business
Administration, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for Government Agencies:
How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Implementing
the President's Small Business Agenda and Executive Order 13272. May
2012, pp. 18-20. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Impact on Small Manufacturers
The sole, small ROV manufacturer may need to devote some resources
to bringing its ROV models into compliance with the proposed rule. This
is a relatively new manufacturer of ROVs and other utility vehicles. We
do not have information on the extent to which the models offered by
this manufacturer would meet the requirements of the proposed rule or
the extent to which this particular manufacturer would be impacted by
the proposed rule.
2. Impact on Small Importers
CPSC is aware of about 20 firms that import ROVs from foreign
suppliers that would be considered small businesses. As explained more
fully below, a small importer could be adversely impacted by the
proposed rule if its foreign supplier does not provide testing reports
or a GCC and the small importer must conduct the testing in support of
a GCC. Additionally, a small importer could experience a significant
impact if the foreign supplier withdraws from the U.S. market rather
than conduct the necessary testing or modify the ROVs to comply with
the proposed rule. If sales
[[Page 69017]]
of ROVs are a substantial source of the importer's business, and the
importer cannot find an alternative supplier of ROVs, the impact could
be significant. However, we do not expect a widespread exodus of
foreign manufacturers from the U.S. market. The U.S. market for ROVs
has been growing rapidly in recent years, and at least some foreign
manufacturers will likely want to continue taking advantage of these
business opportunities by maintaining a U.S. presence. In addition,
most of these importers also import products other than ROVs, such as
scooters, motorcycles, and other powersport equipment. Therefore, ROVs
are not their sole source of revenue. Importers may be able to reduce
any impact on their revenue by increasing imports and sales of these
other products.
Small importers will be responsible for issuing a GCC certifying
that their ROVs comply with the proposed rule if the rule becomes
final. However, importers may issue GCCs based upon certifications
provided by or testing performed by their suppliers. The impact on
small importers should not be significant if their suppliers provide
the certificates of conformity or testing reports on which the
importers may rely to issue their own GCCs.
If a small importer's supplier does not provide the GCC or testing
reports, then the importer would have to test each model for
conformity. Importers would likely contract with an engineering
consulting or testing firm to conduct the certification tests. As
discussed in the regulatory analysis, the certification testing could
cost more than $28,000 per model ($24,000 for the lateral stability and
vehicle handling requirements and $4,000 for the seat belt/speed
limitation requirement). This would exceed 1 percent of the revenue for
about one-half of the small importers, assuming that they continue to
import the same mix of products as in the pre-regulatory environment.
G. Conclusion
We do not know how many, if any, foreign suppliers might exit the
market rather than comply with the proposed rule. Nor do we know the
number of foreign suppliers that may not be willing to provide small
importers with testing reports or GCCs. A small importer could
experience a significant impact if the importer has to conduct testing
in support of a GCC. We expect that most importers, however, will rely
upon certifications or testing performed by their suppliers. Thus,
although uncertainty exists, the proposed rule will not likely have a
significant direct impact on a substantial number of small firms.
H. Alternatives for Reducing the Adverse Impact on Small Businesses
The Commission welcomes comments on this IRFA. Small businesses
that believe they will be affected by the proposed rule are especially
encouraged to submit comments. The comments should be specific and
describe the potential impact, magnitude, and alternatives that could
reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.
Several alternatives to the proposed rule were considered, some of
which could reduce the potential impact on some small firms. These
include: (1) Not issuing a mandatory standard; (2) dropping the lateral
stability requirement or the vehicle handling requirement; (3)
requiring a more intrusive seat belt reminder instead of the speed
limitation requirement; and (4) requiring an ignition interlock if a
seat belt is not fastened, instead of limiting the maximum speed. For
the reasons discussed below, the CPSC did not include these
alternatives in the proposed rule.
1. Not Issuing a Mandatory Standard
If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most manufacturers
would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that apply to ROVs
and there would be no impact on the small manufacturer or small
importers. However, neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs
understeer, as required by the proposed rule. According to ES staff,
drivers are more likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer,
which can lead to the vehicle rolling over or to other types of
accidents. Additionally, although both voluntary standards have
requirements for dynamic lateral stability or rollover resistance, ES
staff does not believe that the test procedures in these standards have
been properly validated as being capable of providing useful
information about the dynamic stability of the vehicle.
The voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a
lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on
for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the
driver's seat belt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the
market already include this feature; and therefore, relying only on the
voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seat belt use over
its current level. Moreover, the preliminary regulatory analysis showed
that the projected benefits of the seat belt/speed limitation
requirement would be substantially greater than the costs.
Finally, the Commission believes that the occupant retention
barrier in the current ROVs could be improved at a modest cost per ROV.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that relying on compliance
with voluntary standards is not satisfactory and is adopting the
requirements in the proposed rule.
2. Dropping the Lateral Stability Requirement or the Understeer
Requirement
The Commission considered including a performance requirement for
either lateral stability or vehicle handling, but not both. As
mentioned previously, the vehicle handling requirement is designed to
allow ROVs to understeer. However, the Commission believes that both of
these characteristics need to be addressed. According to ES staff, a
vehicle that meets both the lateral stability requirement and the
understeer requirement should be safer than a vehicle that meets only
one of the requirements. Moreover, the cost of meeting just one
requirement is not substantially lower than the cost of meeting both
requirements. The cost of testing a vehicle for compliance with both
the dynamic lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements was
estimated to be about $24,000. The cost of testing for compliance with
the lateral stability requirement would be about $20,000, and the cost
of testing for compliance with just the vehicle handling requirement
would be about $17,000. Moreover, changes in the vehicle design that
affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could also impact the
handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the proposed rule includes
both the lateral stability and understeer requirements in the proposed
rule.
3. Require ROVs To Have Loud or Intrusive Seat Belt Reminders in Lieu
of the Speed Limitation Requirements
Instead of seat belt/speed limitation requirements in the proposed
rule, the Commission considered requiring ROVs to have loud or
intrusive seat belt reminders. Most ROVs currently have a seat belt
reminder in the form of a warning light that comes on for about 8
seconds. Most do not include any audible warning. As discussed in the
preliminary regulatory analysis, staff considered requiring a more
intrusive seat belt reminder, such as a loud audible warning that would
sound for a minute or more. Manufacturers would incur some costs to
comply with a requirement for a more intrusive seat belt reminder. For
example, the seat belt
[[Page 69018]]
use sensors (estimated to cost about $7 per seat) and sensor switches
(estimated to cost about $13 per seat) would still be required.
However, the research and development costs to design and implement a
more intrusive seat belt reminder system would probably be less than
the estimated cost to develop a system that limited the maximum speed
of the vehicle.
Some intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars and have
been found to be effective in increasing seat belt use. One system
reduced the number of unbelted drivers by 17 percent and another by
about 38 percent.\112\ However, a more intrusive seat belt warning
system is unlikely to be as effective as the seat belt/speed limitation
requirement in the proposed rule. ROVs are open vehicles and the
ambient noise is likely higher than in the enclosed passenger
compartment of a car. It is likely that some ROV drivers would not hear
the warning and be motivated to fasten their seat belts, unless the
warning was substantially louder than the systems used in passenger
cars. The Commission believes that the requirement will cause most
drivers and passengers who want to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seat
belts. Moreover, the analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis
showed that the societal benefits of the seat belt/speed limitation
requirement in the proposed rule would exceed the costs by a
substantial margin. Because CPSC does not believe that a more intrusive
seat belt reminder would be effective in a ROV, and because Commission
staff believes that the seat belt/speed limitation requirement would
result in substantial net benefits, this alternative was not included
in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Memorandum from Caroleene Paul, ``Proposal for Seat Belt
Speed Limiter on Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs),'' U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 8 December 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Requiring an Ignition Interlock Instead of Limiting the Maximum
Speed
CPSC considered whether an ignition interlock requirement that did
not allow the vehicle to be started unless the driver's seat belt was
buckled would be appropriate for ROVs. However, the history of ignition
interlock systems as a way to encourage seat belt use on passenger cars
suggests that consumer resistance to an ignition interlock system that
prevents starting the vehicle could be strong. For this reason, CPSC
rejects this alternative, and instead, proposes a rule that allows
people to use ROVs at low speeds without having to fasten their seat
belts. However, manufacturers who believe that the cost of an ignition
interlock system will be substantially lower than a system that limits
the maximum speed of the vehicle, and who do not believe that consumer
rejection of an ignition interlock system will be a problem, can use an
ignition interlock system to comply with the seat belt speed limitation
requirement.
XIII. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to
prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact
statement. If our rule has ``little or no potential for affecting the
human environment,'' the rule will be categorically exempted from this
requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The proposed rule falls within the
categorical exemption.
XIV. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption)
As required by Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC
states the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, as follows:
The regulation for ROVs is proposed under authority of the CPSA. 15
U.S.C. 2051-2089). Section 26 of the CPSA provides that ``whenever a
consumer product safety standard under this Act is in effect and
applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no
State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority
either to establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety
standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements as the
performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction,
packaging or labeling of such product which are designed to deal with
the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product, unless
such requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal
Standard''. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Upon application to the Commission, a
state or local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if
the state or local standard: (1) Provides a higher degree of protection
from the risk of injury or illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) does
not unduly burden interstate commerce. In addition, the federal
government, or a state or local government, may establish and continue
in effect a non-identical requirement that provides a higher degree of
protection than the CPSA requirement for the hazardous substance for
the federal, state or local government's use. 15 U.S.C. 2075(b).
Thus, with the exceptions noted above, the ROV requirements
proposed in today's Federal Register would preempt non-identical state
or local requirements for ROVs designed to protect against the same
risk of injury if the rule is issued in final.
XV. Certification
Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products
subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a
similar rule, ban, standard or regulation under any other act enforced
by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable
CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule on ROVs
would subject ROVs to this certification requirement.
XVI. Effective Date
The CPSA requires that consumer product safety rules take effect
not later than 180 days from their promulgation unless the Commission
finds there is good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The
Commission proposes that this rule would take effect 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register and would have
two compliance dates. ROVs would be required to comply with the lateral
stability and vehicle handling requirements (Sec. Sec. 1411.3 and
1422.4) 180 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register. ROVs would be required to comply with the occupant protection
requirements (Sec. 1422.5) 12 months after publication of a final rule
in the Federal Register. The requirements would apply to all ROVs
manufactured or imported on or after the applicable date.
CPSC believes ROV models that do not comply with the lateral
stability and vehicle handling requirements can be modified, with
changes to track width and suspension, in less than 4 person-months (a
high estimate) and can be tested for compliance in one day. Therefore,
CPSC believes 180 days is a reasonable time period for manufacturers to
modify vehicles if necessary, conduct necessary tests, and analyze test
results to ensure compliance with the lateral stability and vehicle
handling requirements.
The Commission is proposing the longer compliance date for the
occupant protection requirements because we understand that some
manufacturers will need to redesign and test new prototype vehicles to
meet these requirements. This design and test process is similar to the
process that manufacturers use when introducing new model year
vehicles. We also estimate that it will take approximately 9 person-
months per ROV model to design, test, implement, and begin
manufacturing vehicles to meet the occupant protection performance
[[Page 69019]]
requirements. Therefore, staff believes that 12 months from publication
of a final rule would be sufficient time for ROVs to comply with all of
the proposed requirements.
XVII. Proposed Findings
The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when
issuing a consumer product safety standard. Specifically, the CPSA
requires that the Commission consider and make findings about the
degree and nature of the risk of injury; the number of consumer
products subject to the rule; the need of the public for the rule and
the probable effect on utility, cost, and availability of the product;
and other means to achieve the objective of the rule, while minimizing
the impact on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices. The
CPSA also requires that the rule must be reasonably necessary to
eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the
product and issuing the rule must be in the public interest. 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3).
In addition, the Commission must find that: (1) If an applicable
voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented, that compliance
with the voluntary standard is not likely to reduce adequately the risk
of injury, or compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to
be substantial; (2) that benefits expected from the regulation bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs; and (3) that the regulation
imposes the least burdensome requirement that would prevent or
adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id. These findings are discussed
below.
Degree and nature of the risk of injury. CPSC received 428 reports
of ROV-related incidents from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident
(IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases that occurred
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, and were received by
December 31, 2011. There were a total of 826 victims involved in the
428 incidents. Among the 428 ROV-related incidents, there were a total
of 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of
the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be classified as severe; that is,
the victim has lasting repercussions from the injuries received in the
incident, based on the information available. The remaining 207 victims
were either not injured or their injury information was not known. Of
the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 involved drivers under 16 years of
age (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 years of age or older (53
percent); and 125 involved drivers of unknown age (29 percent).
Using data reported through NEISS from January 1, 2010 to August
31, 2010, the Commission conducted a special study to identify cases
that involved ROVs that were reported through NEISS. Based on
information obtained through the special study, the estimated number of
emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries occurring in the
United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 2,200
injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated number of
emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries is 3,000, with a
corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.
Number of consumer products subject to the rule. Sales of ROVs have
increased substantially since their introduction. In 1998, only one
firm manufactured ROVs, and fewer than 2,000 units were sold. By 2003,
when a second major manufacturer entered the market, almost 20,000 ROVs
were sold. The only dip in sales occurred around 2008, which coincided
with the worst of the credit crisis and a recession that also started
about the same time. In 2013, an estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by
about 20 different manufacturers.
The number of ROVs available for use has also increased
substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not
have any specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs.
However, using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we
estimate that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010.
By the end of 2013, there were an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use.
The need of the public for ROVs and the effects of the rule on
their utility, cost, and availability.
Currently there are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and
recreational. Early ROV models emphasized the utility aspects of the
vehicles, but the recreational aspects of the vehicles have become very
popular.
Regarding the effects of the rule on ROVs utility, according to
comments on the ANPR provided by several ROV manufacturers, some ROV
users ``might prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway environment.''
To the extent that the requirements in the proposed rule would reduce
the ability of these users to reach limit oversteer intentionally, the
proposed rule could have some adverse impact on the utility or
enjoyment that these users receive from ROVs. These impacts would
probably be limited to a small number of recreational users who enjoy
activities or stunts that involve power oversteering or limit
oversteer.
Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer cannot
be quantified, the Commission expects that the impact will be low. Any
impact would be limited to consumers who wish to engage intentionally
in activities involving the loss of traction or power oversteer. The
practice of power oversteer, such as the speed at which a user takes a
turn, is the result of driver choice. The proposed rule would not
prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all conditions; nor
would the proposed rule prevent consumers from engaging in these
activities. At most, the proposed rule might make it somewhat more
difficult for users to reach limit oversteer in an ROV.
The seat belt speed limiter requirement could have an effect on
utility and impose some unquantifiable costs on some users who would
prefer not to use seat belts. The cost to these users would be the time
required to buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and any disutility
cost, such as discomfort caused by wearing the seat belt. We cannot
quantify these costs because we do not know how many ROV users choose
not to wear their seat belts; nor do we have the ability to quantify
any discomfort or disutility that they would experience from wearing
seat belts. However, the proposed rule does not require that the seat
belts be fastened unless the vehicle is traveling faster than 15 mph.
This should serve to mitigate these costs because many people who would
be inconvenienced or discomforted by the requirement, such as people
using the vehicle for work or utility purposes, or who must frequently
get on and off the vehicle, are likely to be traveling at lower speeds.
The effect of the rule on cost and availability of ROVs is expected
to be minimal. The average manufacturer's suggested retail prices
(MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with
a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The Commission estimates the per-
unit cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. Because this per-unit
cost resulting from the rule is a very small percentage of the overall
retail price of an ROV, it is unlikely that the rule would have much of
an effect on the cost or availability of ROVs.
Other means to achieve the objective of the rule, while minimizing
the impact on competition and manufacturing. The Commission does not
believe the rule will have adverse impact on competition. The
preliminary regulatory analysis estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of
the rule to be $61 to $94. The average manufacturer's suggested retail
prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by
[[Page 69020]]
units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about $3,600 to
$20,100. The per-unit cost resulting from the rule is a very small
percentage of the overall retail price of an ROV. With such a
relatively low impact, it is unlikely that ROV companies would withdraw
from the market or that the number of ROV models will be affected.
Therefore, the preliminary regulatory analysis supports a finding that
the proposed rule is unlikely to have an impact on competition.
The Commission believes that some, but not all, ROV models already
meet the rule's requirement that the speed of the vehicle be limited if
the driver's seat belt is not fastened. Before implementing any changes
to their vehicles to meet the requirement, manufacturers whose ROVs do
not meet the seatbelt speed limiter requirement would have to analyze
their options for meeting the requirement. This process would include
developing prototypes of system designs, testing the prototypes, and
refining the design of the systems based on this testing. Once the
manufacturer has settled on a system for meeting the requirement, the
system will have to be incorporated into the manufacturing process of
the vehicle. This will involve producing the engineering specifications
and drawings of the system, parts, assemblies, and subassemblies that
are required. Manufacturers will need to obtain the needed parts from
their suppliers and incorporate the steps needed to install the system
on the vehicles in the assembly line. The Commission believes that
manufacturers should be able to complete activities related to meeting
the lateral stability and handling requirements within 180 days after
publication of the final rule and activities related to meeting the
occupant protection requirements within 12 months after publication of
the final rule. The Commission's proposed effective date of 12 months
for the occupant protection requirements may reduce the impact of the
proposed requirements on manufacturing.
Unreasonable risk. CPSC received 428 reports of ROV-related
incidents from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and In-
Depth Investigation (INDP) databases that occurred between January 1,
2003 and December 31, 2011, and were received by December 31, 2011.
There were a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents. Among
the 428 ROV-related incidents, there were a total of 231 reported
fatalities and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries
(19 percent) could be classified as severe; that is, the victim has
lasting repercussions from the injuries received in the incident based
on the information available.
The estimated cost and benefits of the rule on an annual basis can
be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per unit
by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were
sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total
quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $225.0
million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The
total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million
($2,199 x 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88
percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and
about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have
resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries.
The reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries, which amounts
to about $47 million, would represent a reduction in pain and
suffering. The Commission concludes preliminarily that ROVs pose an
unreasonable risk of injury and finds that the proposed rule is
reasonably necessary to reduce that unreasonable risk of injury.
Public interest. This proposed rule is intended to address
identified aspects of ROVs, ROV design, and ROV use, which are believed
to contribute to ROV deaths and injuries, with a goal of reducing such
incidents. The CPSC believes that adherence to the requirements of the
proposed rule will reduce ROV deaths and injuries in the future; thus
the rule is in the public interest. Specifically, the Commission
believes that improving lateral stability (by increasing rollover
resistance) and improving vehicle handling (by correcting oversteer to
understeer) are the most effective approaches to reducing the
occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with higher lateral
stability are less likely to roll over because more lateral force is
necessary to cause rollover. ROVs exhibiting understeer during a turn
are also less likely to roll over because lateral acceleration
decreases as the path of the ROV makes a wider turn, and the vehicle is
more stable if a sudden change in direction occurs.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that when rollovers do occur,
improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use)
will mitigate injury severity. CPSC analysis of ROV incidents indicates
that 91 percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt
at the time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction
with better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce
injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.
In summary, the Commission finds preliminarily that promulgating
the proposed rule is in the public interest.
Voluntary standards. The Commission is aware of two voluntary
standards that are applicable to ROVs, ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National
Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, and ANSI/B71.9,
American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility
Vehicles. As described previously in detail in the preamble, the
Commission believes that the current voluntary standard requirements do
not adequately reduce the risk of injury or death associated with ROVs.
Neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs understeer, as required
by the proposed rule. Based on testing and experience with the Yamaha
Rhino repair program, the Commission believes that drivers are more
likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer, which can lead to
the vehicle rolling over or to other types of accidents.
Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to set
standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 uses a turn-
circle test for dynamic lateral stability. That is more similar to the
test in the proposed rule for determining whether the vehicle
understeers, than it is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The
dynamic stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 uses a J-turn
test, like the proposed rule, but measures different variables during
the test and uses a different acceptance criterion. The Commission does
not believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been
validated properly as being capable of providing useful information
about the dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary
standards would find some vehicles acceptable, even though their
lateral acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the
acceptance criterion in the proposed rule.
Both voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a
lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and that
remains on for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless
the driver's seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the
market already include this feature, and therefore, relying only on the
voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over
its current level.
The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the
occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a
rollover, including two options for restraining the occupants in the
shoulder/hip area. However, testing
[[Page 69021]]
performed by CPSC identified weaknesses in the performance-based tilt
table test option that allows unacceptable occupant head ejection
beyond the protective zone of the vehicle Rollover Protective Structure
(ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a passive shoulder barrier could
reduce the head excursion of a belted occupant during quarter-turn
rollover events. The Commission believes that this can be accomplished
by a requirement for a passive barrier based on the dimensions of the
upper arm of a 5th percentile adult female, at a defined area near the
ROV occupants' shoulder, as contained in the proposed rule.
Relationship of benefits to costs. The estimated costs and benefits
of the rule on an annual basis can be calculated by multiplying the
estimated benefits and costs per unit, by the number of ROVs sold in a
given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule had
been in effect that year, the total quantifiable cost would have been
between $14.3 million and $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied by
234,000 units, respectively). The total quantifiable benefits would
have been at least $515 million ($2,199 x 234,000).
On a per-unit basis, we estimate the total cost of the proposed
rule to be $61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total quantifiable
benefits of the proposed rule to be $2,199 per unit. This results in
net quantifiable benefits of $2,105 to $2,138 per unit. Quantifiable
benefits of the proposed rule could exceed the estimated $1,329 per
unit because the benefit associated with the vehicle handling and
lateral stability requirement could not be quantified.
Based on this analysis, the Commission finds preliminarily that the
benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to the
anticipated costs of the rule.
Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered less-
burdensome alternatives to the proposed rule on ROVs, but we concluded
that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce the risk of
injury:
(1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but instead relying upon
voluntary standards. If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most
manufacturers would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that
apply to ROVs. As discussed previously, the Commission does not believe
either voluntary standard adequately addresses the risk of injury and
death associated with ROVs.
(2) Including the dynamic lateral stability requirement or the
understeer requirement, but not both. The Commission believes that both
of these characteristics need to be addressed. A vehicle that meets
both the dynamic stability requirement and the understeer requirement
should be safer than a vehicle that meets only one of the requirements.
Moreover, the cost of meeting just one requirement is not substantially
lower than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a
vehicle for compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability and
vehicle handling/understeer requirement was estimated to be about
$24,000. However, the cost of testing for compliance with just the
dynamic stability requirement would be about $20,000, or only about 17
percent less than the cost of testing for compliance with both
requirements. This is because the cost of renting and transporting the
vehicle to the test site, instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, and
making some initial static measurements are virtually the same for both
requirements and would only have to be done once if the tests for both
requirements were conducted on the same day. Moreover, changes in the
vehicle design that affect the lateral stability of the vehicle could
also impact the handling of the vehicle. For these reasons, the
proposed rule includes both a dynamic stability and vehicle handling
requirement.
(3) Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation requirements in the
proposed rule, the Commission considered a requirement for ROVs to have
loud or intrusive seatbelt reminders. Currently, most ROVs meet the
voluntary standards that require an 8-second visual seatbelt reminder.
Some more intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars. For
example, the Ford ``BeltMinder'' system resumes warning the driver
after about 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not fastened and the
car is traveling at more than 3 mph. The system flashes a warning light
and sounds a chime for 6 seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 minutes
as long as the car is operating and the driver's seatbelt is not
fastened. Honda developed a similar system in which the warning could
last for longer than 9 minutes if the driver's seatbelt is not
fastened. Studies of both systems found that a statistically
significant increase in the use seatbelts of 5 percent (from 71 to 76
percent) and 6 percent (from 84 to 90 percent), respectively.
However, these more intrusive seatbelt warning systems are unlikely
to be as effective as the seatbelt speed limitation requirement in the
proposed rule. The Commission believes that the seatbelt speed
limitation requirement will cause most drivers and passengers who
desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seatbelts. Research supports
this position. One experiment used a haptic feedback system to increase
the force the driver needed to exert to depress the gas pedal when the
vehicle exceeded 25 mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. The system
did not prevent the driver from exceeding 25 mph, but the system
increased the amount of force required to depress the gas pedal to
maintain a speed greater than 25 mph. In this experiment, all seven
participants chose to fasten their seatbelts. A follow-up study on the
haptic feedback study focused on 20 young drivers ranging in age from
18 to 21, and a feedback force set at 20 mph instead of 25 mph. The
study results showed that the mean seat belt use increased from 54.7
percent to 99.7 percent, and the few instances in which seat belts were
not worn were on trips of 2 minutes long or less. Most significantly,
participants rated the system as very acceptable and agreeable (9 out
of a 10-point scale).
The more intrusive seatbelt reminder systems used on some passenger
cars have been more limited in their effectiveness. The Honda system,
for example, reduced the number of unbelted drivers by about 38
percent; the Ford system reduced the number of unbelted drivers by only
17 percent. (The Honda system increased seatbelt use from 84 percent to
90 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted drivers was reduced
by about 38 percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 percent. The Ford
system increased seatbelt use from 71 percent to 76 percent. Therefore,
the percentage of unbelted drivers was reduced by about 17 percent, or
5 percent divided by 29 percent.) Additionally, ROVs are open vehicles
and the ambient noise is likely higher than in the enclosed passenger
compartment of a car. It is likely that some ROV drivers would not hear
the warning, and therefore, they would be motivated to fasten their
seatbelts, unless the warning was substantially louder than the systems
used in passenger cars. Therefore, the Commission believes that the
loud or intrusive seat belt reminders would not be as effective as the
seat belt speed limiter requirement.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds preliminarily
that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that prevents or
adequately reduces the risk of injury for which promulgation of the
rule is proposed.
XVIII. Request for Comments
We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect
of the proposed rule. In particular, the Commission invites comments
regarding the estimates used in the
[[Page 69022]]
preliminary regulatory analysis and the assumptions underlying these
estimates. The Commission is especially interested in data that would
help the Commission to refine its estimates to more accurately reflect
the expected costs of the proposed rule as well as any alternate
estimates that interested parties can provide. The Commission is also
interested in comments addressing whether the proposed compliance dates
of 180 days after the publication of the final rule to meet the lateral
stability and vehicle handling requirements and 12 months after the
publication of the final rule to meet the occupant protection
requirements are appropriate. The Commission also seeks comments on the
following:
Additional key issues related to seatbelts for ROVs,
including: available technology to prevent any hazards from the
application of a passenger seatbelt requirement (such as sudden speed
reductions if a passenger unbuckles); whether CPSC should extend the
phase-in period for the seat-belt requirement; and any other relevant
information related to the proposed seatbelt requirements.
Whether CPSC should allow the use of doors or other
mechanisms capable of meeting specified loading criteria to meet the
shoulder restraint requirement.
Whether there are further consistent and repeatable
testing requirements that should be added to the proposed rule that
would capture off-road conditions drivers experience in ROVs. If so,
set forth the specifics of such further requirements.
Whether CPSC should establish separate requirements for
utility vehicles, including: definitions, scope, additional standards,
and/or exemptions that would be suitable for requirements specific to
utility vehicles.
The Commission seeks comment, data testing parameters and testing
results concerning:
Oversteer and understeer, dynamically unstable handling,
and minimal path-following capabilities; and
Whether there is a need for supplemental criteria in
addition to specific lateral stability acceleration limits to avoid
potential unintended consequences of a single criterion.
The public is invited to submit additional information about any other
issues that stakeholders find relevant. Comments should be submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice.
XIV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes
requirements for lateral stability, vehicle handing, and occupant
protection to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with
ROVs.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1422
Consumer protection, Imports, Information, Labeling, Recreation and
Recreation areas, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
0
1. Add part 1422 to read as follows:
PART 1422--SAFETY STANDARD FOR RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES
Sec.
1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance dates.
1422.2 Definitions.
1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral stability.
1422.4 Requirements for vehicle handling.
1422.5 Requirements for occupant protection performance.
1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling.
1422.7 Findings.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076.
Sec. 1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance dates.
(a) This part 1422, a consumer product safety standard, establishes
requirements for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs), as defined
in Sec. 1422.2(a). The standard includes requirements for dynamic
lateral, vehicle handling, and occupant protection. These requirements
are intended to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury and death
associated with ROVs.
(b) This standard does not apply to the following vehicles, as
defined by the relevant voluntary standards:
(1) Golf carts
(2) All-terrain vehicles
(3) Fun karts
(4) Go karts
(5) Light utility vehicles
(c) Any ROV manufactured or imported on or after [date that is 180
days after publication of a final rule] shall comply with the lateral
stability requirements stated in Sec. 1422.3 and the vehicle handling
requirements stated in Sec. 1422.4. Any ROV manufactured or imported
on or after [date that is 12 months after publication of final rule]
shall comply with the occupant protection requirements stated in Sec.
1422.5.
Sec. 1422.2 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the following definitions apply for
purposes of this part 1422.
(a) Recreational off-highway vehicle (ROV) means a motorized
vehicle designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four
or more wheels with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating for two or
more people; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and
braking; rollover protective structure (ROPS); occupant restraint; and
maximum speed capability greater than 30 mph.
(b) Two-wheel lift means the point at which the inside wheels of a
turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a
vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a
precursor to a rollover event. We use this term interchangeably with
the term ``tip-up.''
(c) Threshold lateral acceleration means the minimum lateral
acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.
Sec. 1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral stability.
(a) General. The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) requirement
for lateral stability is based on the average threshold lateral
acceleration at rollover, as determined by a 30 mph dropped throttle J-
turn test. This threshold lateral acceleration is measured parallel to
the ground plane at the center of gravity (CG) of the loaded test
vehicle and occurs at the minimum steering wheel angle required to
cause the vehicle to roll over in a 30 mph dropped throttle J-turn test
on a flat and level, high-friction surface. Rollover is achieved when
all of the wheels of the ROV that are on the inside of the turn lift
off the ground. For convenience, this condition is referred to as two-
wheel lift, regardless of the number of wheels on the ROV. Testing
shall be conducted on a randomly selected representative production
vehicle.
(b) Test surface. Tests shall be conducted on a smooth, dry,
uniform, paved surface constructed of asphalt or concrete. The surface
area used for dynamic testing shall be kept free of debris and
substances that may affect test results during vehicle testing.
(1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic testing shall have a peak
braking coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 and a sliding skid
coefficient greater than or equal to 0.80 when measured in accordance
with ASTM E 1337, Standard Test Method for Determining Longitudinal
Peak Braking Coefficient of Paved Surfaces Using Standard
[[Page 69023]]
Reference Tire, approved December 1, 2012, and ASTM E274, Standard Test
Method for Skid Resistance of Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire,
approved January 2011, respectively. The Director of the Federal
Register approves these incorporations by reference in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
(2) Slope. The test surface shall have a slope equal to or less
than 1 degree (1.7% grade).
(3) Ambient conditions. The ambient temperature shall be between 0
degrees Celsius (32 [ordm] Fahrenheit) and 38 [ordm]C (100 [ordm]F).
The maximum wind speed shall be no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s).
(c) Test conditions. (1) Vehicle condition. An ROV used for dynamic
testing shall be configured in the following manner:
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle.
The ROV shall be in standard condition. Adjustable seats shall be
located in the most rearward position.
(ii) The ROV shall be operated in two-wheel drive mode, with
selectable differential in its most-open setting. The tires shall be
the manufacturer's original-equipment tires intended for normal retail
sale to consumers. The tires shall be new when starting the tests, then
broken-in by conducting a minimum total of ten J-turns with five in the
right-turning direction and five in the left-turning direction. The J-
turns conducted for tire break-in shall be conducted at 30 mph and
steering angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift.
(iii) Springs or shocks that have adjustable spring or damping
rates shall be set to the manufacturer's recommended settings for
delivery.
(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV manufacturer's recommended
settings for normal operation for the load condition specified in
paragraph (c)(vi) of this section. If more than one pressure is
specified, the lowest value shall be used.
(v) All vehicle operating fluids shall be at the manufacturer's
recommended level, and the fuel tank shall be full to its rated
capacity.
(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such that the combined weight of the
test operator, test equipment, and ballast, if any, shall equal 430
lbs. 11 lbs. (195 kg 5 kg).
(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the equipped test vehicle shall
be no more than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0 inch in the x-axis and
y-axis directions) the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at retail and
loaded according to paragraph (c)(vi) of this section.
(2) Vehicle test equipment. (i) Safety equipment. Test vehicles
shall be equipped with outriggers on both sides of the vehicle. The
outriggers shall be designed to minimally affect the loaded vehicle's
center of gravity location, shall permit the vehicle to experience two-
wheel lift during dynamic testing, and shall be capable of preventing a
full vehicle rollover.
(ii) Steering controller. The test vehicle shall be equipped with a
programmable steering controller (PSC), capable of responding to
vehicle speed, with a minimum steering angle input rate of 500 degrees
per second, and accurate within + 0.25 degree. The steering wheel
setting for 0.0 degrees of steering angle is defined as the setting
which controls the properly aligned vehicle to travel in a straight
path on a level surface. The PSC shall be operated in absolute steering
mode, where the amount of steering used for each test shall be measured
relative to the PSC reading when the vehicle steering is at zero
degrees.
(iii) Vehicle instrumentation. The vehicle shall be instrumented to
record lateral acceleration, vertical acceleration, longitudinal
acceleration, forward speed, steering wheel angle, steering wheel angle
rate, vehicle roll angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, and yaw
angle rate. See Table 1 for instrumentation specifications. Ground
plane lateral acceleration shall be calculated by correcting the body-
fixed acceleration for roll angle. A roll motion inertia measurement
sensor that provides direct output of ground plane lateral acceleration
at the vehicle CG may also be used in lieu of manual correction to
obtain ground plane lateral acceleration. Roll angle may be calculated
from roll rate data.
Table 1--Instrumentation Specification For J-Turn and Constant Radius
Testing of ROVs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Accuracy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Speed............................. 0.10 mph
Acceleration (x, y, and z directions ).... 0.003 g
Steering Wheel Angle...................... 0.25 deg.
Steering Wheel Angle Rate................. 0.5 deg./sec.
Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Rates................ 0.10 deg./sec.
Roll Angle*............................... 0.20 deg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For constant radius testing, roll angle must be measured directly or
roll rate accuracy must be 0.01 deg./sec.
(d) Test procedure. (1) 3.3.1. Set the vehicle drive train in its
most-open setting. For example, two-wheel drive shall be used instead
of four-wheel drive, and a lockable differential, if so equipped, shall
be in its unlocked, or ``open,'' setting.
(2) Drive the vehicle in a straight path to define zero degree
(0.0) steer angle.
(3) Program the PSC to input a 90-degree turn to the right at a
minimum of 500 degrees per second as soon as the vehicle slows to 30
mph. Program the PSC to hold steering angles for a minimum of 4 seconds
before returning to zero steer angle. The steering rate when returning
to zero may be less than 500 degrees per second.
(4) Conduct a 30 mph dropped throttle J-turn.
(i) Accelerate the vehicle in a straight line to a speed greater
than 30 mph.
(ii) As the vehicle approaches the desired test location, engage
the PSC and fully release the throttle.
(iii) The PSC shall input the programmed steering angle when the
vehicle decelerates to 30 mph. Verify that the instrumentation recorded
all of the data during this J-turn event.
(5) Conduct additional J-turns, increasing the steer angle in 10-
degree increments, as required, until a two-wheel lift event is
visually observed.
(6) Conduct additional J-turns, decreasing the steering angle in 5-
degree increments to find the lowest steering angle that will produce
two-wheel lift. Additional adjustments, up or down, in 1-degree
increments may be used.
(7) Repeat the process of conducting J-turns to determine minimum
steer angle to produce two-wheel lift in left turn direction.
(8) Start the data acquisition system.
(9) Conduct J-turn test trials in the left and right directions
using the minimum steering angles determined in paragraphs (d)(6) and
(d)(7) of this section to verify that the steering angle
[[Page 69024]]
produces two-wheel lift in both directions.
(10) Conduct five J-turn test trials with two-wheel lift in the
left and right turn directions in one direction heading on the test
surface (10 total trials). On the same test track, but in the opposite
heading on the test surface, conduct five more J-turn test trials with
two-wheel lift in the left and right turn directions (10 total trials).
A minimum data set will consist of 20 total J-turn test trials with
half of the tests conducted in one direction on the test surface and
half of the tests conducted in the opposite direction. Review all data
parameters for each trial to verify that the tests were executed
correctly. Any trials that do not produce two-wheel lift should be
diagnosed for cause. If cause is identified, discard the data and
repeat the trial to replace the data. If no cause can be identified,
repeat actions stated in paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(7) of this
section to ensure that the correct steering angle has been determined.
Additional J-turn tests may be added to the minimum data set in groups
of four, with one test for each left/right turn direction and one test
for each direction heading on the test surface.
(11) Determine value of threshold lateral acceleration at rollover.
(i) Data recorded as required in paragraph (d)(10) of this section
shall be digitally low-pass filtered to 2.0 hertz, using a phaseless,
eighth-order, Butterworth filter to eliminate noise artifacts on the
data.
(ii) Plot the data for ground plane lateral acceleration corrected
to the test vehicle CG location, steering wheel angle, and roll angle
recorded for each trial conducted under paragraph (d)(10) of this
section.
(iii) Find and record the peak ground plane lateral acceleration
occurring between the time of the PSC input and the time of two-wheel
lift.
(iv) If a body-fixed acceleration sensor is used, correct the
lateral acceleration data for roll angle, using the equation:
Ay ground = Ay cos [Phi]-Az sin [Phi]
([Phi] = vehicle body roll angle)
(v) Calculate the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover value,
which is the average of the peak values for ground plane lateral
acceleration for all of the trials conducted under paragraph (d)(10) of
this section that produced two-wheel lift.
(e) Performance requirements. The minimum value for the threshold
lateral acceleration at rollover shall be 0.70 g or greater.
(f) Consumer information requirements. The manufacturer shall
provide a hang tag with every ROV that is visible to the driver and
provides the value of the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of
that model vehicle. The label must conform in content, form, and
sequence to the hang tag shown in Figure 1.
(1) Size. Every hang tag shall be at least 6 inches (152 mm) wide x
4 inches (102 mm) tall.
(2) Content. Every hang tag shall contain the following:
(i) Value of the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of that
model vehicle displayed on a progressive scale.
(ii) The statement--``Compare with other vehicles before you buy.''
(iii) The statement--``The value above is a measure of this
vehicle's resistance to rolling over on a flat surface. Vehicles with
higher numbers are more stable.''
(iv) The statement--``Other vehicles may have a higher rollover
resistance; compare before you buy.''
(v) The statement--``Rollover cannot be completely eliminated for
any vehicle.''
(vi) The statement--``Lateral acceleration is measured during a J-
turn test; minimally accepted value is 0.7 g.''
(vii) The manufacturer's name and vehicle model, e.g., XYZ
corporation, Model x, ####.
(3) Format. The hang tag shall be formatted as shown in Figure 1.
(4) Attachment. Every hang tag shall be attached to the ROV and
conspicuous to the seated driver.
[[Page 69025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.017
Sec. 1422.4 Requirements for vehicle handling.
(a) General. The ROV requirement for vehicle handling shall be
based on the vehicle's steering gradient, as measured by the constant
radius test method described in SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended
Practice J266, published January 1996. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Test surface. Tests shall be conducted on a smooth, dry,
uniform, paved surface constructed of asphalt or concrete. The surface
area used for dynamic testing shall be kept free of debris and
substances that may affect test results during vehicle testing.
(1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic testing shall have a peak
braking coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 and a sliding skid
coefficient greater than or equal to 0.80 when measured in accordance
with ASTM E 1337 and ASTM E274, respectively.
(2) Slope. The test surface shall have a slope equal to or less
than 1 degree (1.7% grade).
(3) Ambient conditions. The ambient temperature shall be between 0
degrees Celsius (32 [ordm] Fahrenheit) and 38 [ordm]C (100 [ordm]F).
The maximum wind speed shall be no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s).
(c) Test conditions.--(1) Vehicle condition. A vehicle used for
dynamic testing shall be configured in the following manner. (i) The
test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle. The ROV
shall be in standard condition. Adjustable seats shall be located in
the most rearward position.
(ii) The ROV shall be operated in two-wheel drive mode with
selectable differential in its most-open setting. The tires shall be
the manufacturer's original-equipment tires intended for normal retail
sale to consumers. The tires shall be new when starting the tests, then
broken-in by conducting a minimum total of ten J-turns with five in the
right-turning direction and five in the left-turning direction. The J-
turns conducted for tire break-in shall be conducted at 30 mph and
steering angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. Tires used for the
full test protocol to establish the threshold lateral acceleration at
rollover value for the test vehicle are acceptable for use in the
handling performance test protocol.
(iii) Springs or shocks that have adjustable spring or damping
rates shall be set to the manufacturer's recommended settings for
delivery.
(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV manufacturer's recommended
settings for normal operation for the load condition specified in
paragraph (c)(vi) of this section. If more than one pressure is
specified, the lowest value shall be used.
(v) All vehicle operational fluids shall be at the manufacturer's
recommended level and the fuel tank shall be full to its rated
capacity.
(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such that the combined weight of the
test operator, test equipment, and ballast, if any, shall equal 430
lbs. 11 lbs. (195 kg 5 kg).
(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the equipped test vehicle shall
be no more than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0
[[Page 69026]]
inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) the CG of the vehicle as it
is sold at retail and loaded according to paragraph (c)(vi) of this
section.
(2) Vehicle test equipment. Test vehicles shall be equipped with
outriggers on both sides of the vehicle. The outriggers shall be
designed to minimally affect the loaded vehicle's center of gravity
location, shall permit the vehicle to experience two-wheel lift during
dynamic testing, and shall be capable of preventing a full vehicle
rollover.
(ii) Vehicle instrumentation. The vehicle shall be instrumented to
record lateral acceleration, vertical acceleration, longitudinal
acceleration, forward speed, steering wheel angle, steering wheel angle
rate, vehicle roll angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, and yaw
angle rate. See Table 1 in Sec. 1422.3(c) for instrumentation
specifications. Ground plane lateral acceleration shall be calculated
by correcting the body-fixed acceleration for roll angle. A roll motion
inertia measurement sensor that provides direct output of ground plane
lateral acceleration at the vehicle CG may also be used in lieu of
manual correction to obtain ground plane lateral acceleration.
(d) Test Procedure. (1) Handling performance testing shall be
conducted using the constant radius test method described in SAE
Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J266. The minimum radius for
constant-radius testing shall be 100 feet. In this test method, the
instrumented and loaded vehicle is driven while centered on a 100-ft.
radius circle marked on the test surface, with the driver making every
effort to maintain the vehicle path relative to the circle. The vehicle
is operated at a variety of increasing speeds, and data are recorded
for those various speed conditions to obtain data to describe the
vehicle handling behavior across the prescribed range of ground plane
lateral accelerations. Data shall be recorded for the lateral
acceleration range from 0.0 g to 0.5 g.
(2) Start the data acquisition system.
(3) Drive the vehicle on the circular path at the lowest possible
speed. Data shall be recorded with the steering wheel position and
throttle position fixed to record the approximate Ackermann angle.
(4) Continue driving the vehicle to the next speed at which data
will be taken. The vehicle speed shall be increased and data shall be
taken until it is no longer possible for the driver to maintain
directional control of the vehicle. Test shall be repeated at least
three times so that results can be examined for repeatability and then
averaged.
(5) Data collection, method 1--discrete data points. In this data
acquisition method, the driver maintains a constant speed while
maintaining compliance with the circular path, and data points are
recorded when a stable condition of speed and steering angle is
achieved. After the desired data points are recorded for a given speed,
the driver accelerates to the next desired speed setting, maintains
constant speed and compliance with the path, and data points are
recorded for the new speed setting. This process is repeated to cover
the speed range from 0.0 mph to 28 mph, which will map the lateral
acceleration range from near 0.0 g to 0.50 g. Increments of speed shall
be 1 to 2 miles per hour, to allow for a complete definition of the
understeer gradient. Data shall be taken at the lowest speed
practicable to obtain an approximation of the vehicle's Ackermann
steering angle.
(6) Data collection, method 2--continuous data points In this data
acquisition method, the driver maintains compliance with the circular
path while slowly increasing vehicle speed; and data from the vehicle
instrumentation is recorded continuously, so long as the vehicle
remains centered on the intended radius. The rate of speed increase
shall not exceed 0.93 mph per second. Initial speed shall be as low as
is practicable, in order to obtain an approximation of the vehicle's
Ackermann steering angle. The speed range shall be 0.0 mph to 28.0 mph,
which will be sufficient to produce corrected lateral accelerations
from near 0.0 g to 0.50 g.
(7) Vehicle dimension coordinate system. The coordinate system
described in SAE Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice J670, published
in January 2008, shall be used. The Director of the Federal Register
approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM
International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a copy at the
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room
820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-
7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html.
(8) Data analysis. The lateral acceleration data shall be corrected
for roll angle using the method described in Sec. 1422.3(11)(iv). To
provide uniform and comparable data, the ground plane lateral
acceleration shall also be corrected to reflect the value at the test
vehicle's center of gravity. The data shall be digitally low-pass
filtered to 1.0 Hz, using a phase-less, eighth-order, Butterworth
filter, and plotted with ground plane lateral acceleration on the
abscissa versus hand-wheel steering angle on the ordinate. A second-
order polynomial curve fit of the data shall be constructed in the
range from 0.01 g to 0.5 g. The slope of the constructed plot
determines the understeer gradient value in the units of degrees of
hand-wheel steering angle per g of ground plane lateral acceleration
(degrees/g). Using the coordinate system specified in paragraph (d)(7)
of this section, positive values for understeer gradient are required
for values of ground plane lateral acceleration values from 0.10 g to
0.50 g.
(e) Performance requirements. Using the coordinate system specified
in section 1422.4(d)(7), values for the understeer gradient shall be
positive for values of ground plane lateral acceleration values from
0.10 g to 0.50 g. The ROV shall not exhibit negative understeer
gradients (oversteer) in the lateral acceleration range specified.
Sec. 1422.5 Requirements for occupant protection performance.
(a) General. The ROV requirement for occupant protection shall be
based on the maximum vehicle speed limitation when the seat belt of any
occupied front seat is not buckled, and on passive coverage of the
occupant shoulder area as measured by a probe test.
(b) Vehicle speed limitation. (1) Test surface. Tests shall be
conducted on a smooth, dry, uniform, paved surface constructed of
asphalt or concrete. The surface area used for dynamic testing shall be
kept free of debris and substances that may affect test results during
vehicle testing.
(i) Friction. Surface shall have a peak braking coefficient greater
than or equal to 0.90, and a sliding skid coefficient greater than or
equal to 0.80, when measured in accordance with ASTM E 1337 and ASTM
E274, respectively.
(ii) Slope. The test surface shall have a slope equal to or less
than 1 degree (1.7% grade).
(2) Test condition 1. Test conditions shall be as follows:
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle.
The
[[Page 69027]]
ROV shall have a redundant restraint system in the driver's seat.
(ii) ROV test weight shall be the vehicle curb weight plus the test
operator, only. If the test operator weighs less than 215 lbs. 11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg), then the difference in weight
shall be added to the vehicle to reflect an operator weight of 215 lbs.
11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg).
(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the pressures recommended by the
ROV manufacturer for the vehicle test weight.
(iv) The driver's seat belt shall not be buckled; however, the
driver shall be restrained by the redundant restraint system for test
safety purposes.
(3) Test condition 2. Test conditions shall be as follows:
(i) The test vehicle shall be a representative production vehicle.
in standard condition.
(ii) ROV test weight shall be the vehicle curb weight, plus the
test operator and a passenger surrogate that will activate the seat
occupancy sensor. If the test operator weighs less than 215 lbs. 11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg), then the difference in weight
shall be added to the vehicle to reflect an operator weight of 215 lbs.
11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg).
(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the pressures recommended by the
ROV manufacturer for the vehicle test weight.
(iv) The driver's seat belt shall be buckled. The front passenger's
seat belt(s) shall not be buckled.
(4) Test procedure. Measure the maximum speed capability of the ROV
under Test Condition 1, specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
and Test Condition 2, specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section
using a radar gun or equivalent method. The test operator shall
accelerate the ROV until maximum speed is reached, and shall maintain
maximum speed for at least 15 m (50 ft.). Speed measurement shall be
made when the ROV has reached a stabilized maximum speed. A maximum
speed capability test shall consist of a minimum of two measurement
test runs conducted over the same track, one each in opposite
direction. If more than two measurement runs are made, there shall be
an equal number of runs in each direction. The maximum speed capability
of the ROV shall be the arithmetic average of the measurements made.
(5) Performance requirement. The maximum speed capability of a
vehicle with an unbuckled seat belt of the driver or any occupied front
passenger seat shall be 15 mph or less.
(c) Passive coverage of shoulder area.
(1) General test conditions.
(i) Probes shall be allowed to rotate through a universal joint.
(ii) Forces shall be quasi-statically applied and held for 10
seconds.
(2) Shoulder/Hip performance requirement. The vehicle structure or
restraint system must absorb the force specified in Sec. 1422.5(c)(5)
with less than 25 mm (1 inch) of permanent deflection along the
horizontal lateral axis.
(3) Location of applied force. Locate point R on the vehicle, as
shown in Figure X of ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011, American National Standard for
Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, approved July 11, 2011. The Director
of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a
copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may inspect a
copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. All
measurements for the point shall be taken with respect to the base of
the seatback. The base of the seatback lies on the surface of the seat
cushion along the centerline of the seating position and is measured
without a simulated occupant weight on the seat. Point R is located 432
mm (17 inches) along the seat back above the base of the seatback. The
point is 152 mm (6 inches) forward of and perpendicular to the seatback
surface as shown in the figure. For an adjustable seat, Point R is
determined with the seat adjusted to the rear-most position. Point R2
applies to an adjustable seat and is located in the same manner as
Point R except that the seat is located in the forward-most position.
(4) Barriers. Remove all occupant protection barriers that require
action on the part of the consumer to be effective (i.e. remove nets).
Passive barriers that do not require any consumer action are allowed to
remain.
(5) Shoulder/Hip test method. Apply a horizontal, outward force of
725 N (163 lbf.). Apply the force through the upper arm probe shown in
Figure 2. The upper arm probe shall be oriented so that Point Q on the
probe is coincident with Point R for a vehicle with a fixed seat, or
Point Q shall be coincident with any point between R and R2 for a
vehicle with an adjustable seat. The probe's major axis shall be
parallel to the seatback angle at a point 17 inches along the seat back
above the base of the seatback.
[[Page 69028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19NO14.018
Sec. 1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling.
(a) Stockpiling. Stockpiling means manufacturing or importing a
product which is the subject of a consumer product safety rule between
the date of issuance of the rule and its effective date at a rate that
is significantly greater than the rate at which such product was
produced or imported during a base period prescribed by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
(b) Base period. The base period for ROVs is, at the option of each
manufacturer or importer, any period of 365 consecutive days beginning
on or after October 1, 2009, and ending on or before [the date of
promulgation of the rule].
(c) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of ROVs shall not
manufacture or import ROVs that do not comply with the requirements of
this part between [the date of promulgation of the rule] and [the
effective date of the rule] at a rate that exceeds 10 percent of the
rate at which this product was produced or imported during the base
period described in paragraph (b) of this section.
Sec. 1422.7 Findings.
(a) General. In order to issue a consumer product safety standard
under the Consumer Product Safety Act, the Commission must make certain
findings and include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). These
findings are discussed in this section.
(b) Degree and nature of the risk of injury. (1) CPSC received 428
reports of ROV-related incidents from the Injury and Potential Injury
Incident (IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases that
occurred between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, and were
received by December 31, 2011. There were a total of 826 victims
involved in the 428 incidents. Within the 428 ROV-related incidents,
there were a total of 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported
injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be
classified as severe, that is, the victim has lasting repercussions
from the injuries received in the incident, based on the information
available. The remaining 207 victims were either not injured or their
injury information was not known. Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76
involved drivers under 16 years of age (18 percent); 227 involved
drivers 16 years of age or older (53 percent); and 125 involved drivers
of unknown age (29 percent).
(2) Using data reported through the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010,
the Commission conducted a special study to identify cases that
involved ROVs that were reported through NEISS. (NEISS is a stratified
national probability sample of hospital emergency departments that
allows the Commission to make national estimates of product-related
injuries.) Based on information obtained through the special study, the
estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries
occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31,
2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated
number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries is 3,000,
with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.
(c) Number of consumer products subject to the rule. (1) Sales of
ROVs have increased substantially since their introduction. In 1998,
only one firm manufactured ROVs, and fewer than 2,000 units were sold.
By 2003, when a second major manufacturer entered the market, almost
20,000 ROVs were sold. The only dip in sales occurred around 2008,
which coincided with the worst of the credit crisis and recession that
also started about the same time. In 2013, an estimated 234,000 ROVs
were sold by about 20 different manufacturers. (This information is
based upon a Commission analysis of sales data provided by Power
Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN.)
(2) The number of ROVs available for use has also increased
substantially. Because ROVs are a relatively new product, we do not
have any specific information on the expected useful life of ROVs.
However, using the same operability rates that CPSC uses for ATVs, we
estimate that there were about 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010.
By the end of 2013, there were an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use.
(d) The need of the public for ROVs and the effects of the rule on
their utility, cost, and availability. (1) Currently there are two
varieties of ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early ROV models
emphasized the utility aspects of the vehicles, but the recreational
aspects of the vehicles have become very popular.
(2) In terms of the effects of the rule on ROVs utility, according
to several ROV manufacturers, some ROV users ``might prefer limit
oversteer in the off-highway environment.'' (This assertion was
contained in a public comment on
[[Page 69029]]
the ANPR for ROVs (Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087) submitted jointly on
behalf of Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc.,
Polaris Industries, Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA.) To the
extent that the requirements in the proposed rule would reduce the
ability of these users to intentionally reach limit oversteer, the
proposed rule could have some adverse impact on the utility or
enjoyment that these users receive from ROVs. These impacts would
probably be limited to a small number of recreational users who enjoy
activities or stunts that involve power oversteering or limit
oversteer.
(3) Although the impact on consumers who prefer limit oversteer
cannot be quantified, the Commission expects that it will be low. Any
impact would be limited to those consumers who wish to intentionally
engage in activities involving the loss of traction or power oversteer.
The practice of power oversteer is the result of driver choices, such
as the speed at which a user takes a turn. The proposed rule would not
prevent ROVs from reaching limit oversteer under all conditions; nor
would the rule prevent consumers from engaging in these activities. At
most, the proposed rule might make it somewhat more difficult for users
to reach limit oversteer in an ROV. Moreover, consumers who have a high
preference for vehicles that oversteer would be able to make
aftermarket modifications, such as adjustments to the suspension of the
vehicle, or using different wheels or tires to increase the potential
for oversteering.
(4) The seat belt speed limiter requirement could have a negative
effect on utility and impose some unquantifiable costs on some users
who would prefer not to use seat belts. The cost to these users would
be the time required to buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and any
disutility cost, such as discomfort caused by wearing the seat belt. We
cannot quantify these costs because we do not know how many ROV users
choose not to wear their seat belts, nor do we have the ability to
quantify any discomfort or disutility that they would experience from
wearing seat belts. However, the proposed rule does not require that
the seat belts be fastened unless the vehicle is traveling 15 mph or
faster. This should serve to mitigate these costs because many people
who would be inconvenienced or discomforted by the requirement, such as
people using the vehicle for work or utility purposes or who must
frequently get on and off the vehicle are likely to be traveling at
lower speeds.
(5) The effect of the rule on cost and availability of ROVs is
expected to be minimal. The average manufacturer's suggested retail
prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units sold, was about $13,100 in
2013, with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The preliminary
regulatory analysis estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of the rule to
be $61 to $94. Because this per-unit cost resulting from the rule is a
very small percentage of the overall retail price of a ROV, it is
unlikely that the rule would have more than a minimal effect on the
cost or availability of ROVs.
(e) Other means to achieve the objective of the rule, while
minimizing the impact on competition and manufacturing. (1) The
Commission does not believe the rule will have adverse impact on
competition. The preliminary regulatory analysis estimates the per-unit
cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. The average manufacturer's
suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units sold, was
about $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The
per-unit cost resulting from the rule is a very small percentage of the
overall retail price of a ROV and is unlikely to have any impact on
competition.
(2) The Commission believes that some but not all ROV models
already meet the rule's requirement that the speed of the vehicle be
limited if the driver's seat belt is not fastened. Before implementing
any changes to their vehicles to meet the requirement, manufacturers
whose ROVs do not meet the seatbelt speed limiter requirement would
have to analyze their options for meeting the requirement. This process
would include developing prototypes of system designs, testing the
prototypes and refining the design of the systems based on this
testing. Once the manufacturer has settled upon a system for meeting
the requirement, the system will have to be incorporated into the
manufacturing process of the vehicle. This will involve producing the
engineering specifications and drawings of the system, parts,
assemblies, and subassemblies that are required. Manufacturers will
need to obtain the needed parts from their suppliers and incorporate
the steps needed to install the system on the vehicles in the assembly
line. The Commission believes that manufacturers should be able to
complete all of these activities and be ready to produce vehicles that
meet the requirement within 12 calendar months. The Commission is
proposing a 12-month effective date for the occupant protection
requirements to minimize the burden on manufacturing.
(f) Unreasonable risk. (1) CPSC received 428 reports of ROV-related
incidents from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and In-
Depth Investigation (INDP) databases that occurred between January 1,
2003 and December 31, 2011, and were received by December 31, 2011.
There were a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents. Within
the 428 ROV-related incidents, there were a total of 231 reported
fatalities and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries
(19 percent) could be classified as severe, that is, the victim has
lasting repercussions from the injuries received in the incident, based
on the information available.
(2) The estimated cost and benefits of the rule on an annual basis
can be calculated by multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per
unit by the number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs
were sold. If the proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total
quantifiable cost would have been between $14.3 million and $22.0
million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The
total quantifiable benefits would have been at least $515 million
($2,199 x 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 million (or about 88
percent) would have resulted from the reduction in fatal injuries, and
about $62 million (or about 12 percent) of the benefits would have
resulted from a reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries.
About $47 million of the reduction in the societal cost of nonfatal
injuries would have been due to a reduction in pain and suffering. We
conclude preliminarily that ROVs pose an unreasonable risk of injury
and that the proposed rule is reasonably necessary to reduce that risk.
(g) Public interest. (1) This proposed rule is in the public
interest because it may reduce ROV-related deaths and injuries in the
future. The Commission believes that improving lateral stability (by
increasing rollover resistance) and improving vehicle handling (by
correcting oversteer to sub) are the most effective approaches to
reduce the occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with higher
lateral stability are less likely to roll over because more lateral
force is necessary to cause rollover. ROVs exhibiting understeer during
a turn are also less likely to rollover because lateral acceleration
decreases as the path of the ROV makes a wider turn, and the vehicle is
more stable if a sudden change in direction occurs.
(2) The Commission believes that, when rollovers do occur,
improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use)
will mitigate
[[Page 69030]]
injury severity. CPSC analysis of ROV incidents indicates that 91
percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt at the
time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction with
better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce
injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.
(h) Voluntary standards. (1) The Commission is aware of two
voluntary standards that are applicable to ROVs, ANSI/ROHVA 1, American
National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles and ANSI/B71.9,
American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility
Vehicles. As described in detail in the preamble, the Commission
believes that the current voluntary standard requirements not
adequately reduce the risk of injury or death associated with ROVs.
Neither voluntary standard requires that ROVs understeer, as required
by the proposed rule. According to the ES staff, drivers are more
likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer, which can lead to
the vehicle rolling over or to other types of accidents.
(2) Both voluntary standards have requirements that are intended to
set standards for dynamic lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 uses a
turn-circle test for dynamic lateral stability that is more similar to
the test in the proposed rule for whether the vehicle understeers than
it is to the test for dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic stability
requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 uses a J-turn test, like the
proposed rule, but measures different variables during the test and
uses a different acceptance criterion. However, ES staff does not
believe that the tests procedures in either standard have been properly
validated as being capable of providing useful information about the
dynamic stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary standards
would find some vehicles acceptable even though their lateral
acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance
criterion in the proposed rule.
(3) Both voluntary standards require that manufacturers include a
lighted seat-belt reminder that is visible to the driver and remains on
for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started, unless the
driver's seatbelt is fastened. However, virtually all ROVs on the
market already include this feature and, therefore, relying only on the
voluntary standards would not be expected to raise seatbelt use over
its current level.
(4) The voluntary standards include requirements for retaining the
occupant within the protective zone of the vehicle in the event of a
rollover including two options for restraining the occupants in the
shoulder/hip area. However, testing performed by CPSC identified
weaknesses in the performance-based tilt table test option that allows
unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the
vehicle Rollover Protective Structure (ROPS). CPSC testing indicated
that a passive shoulder barrier could reduce the head excursion of a
belted occupant during quarter-turn rollover events. The Commission
believes that this can be accomplished by a requirement for a passive
barrier based on the dimensions of the upper arm of a 5th percentile
adult female, at a defined area near the ROV occupants' shoulder as
contained in the proposed rule.
(i) Relationship of benefits to costs. (1) The estimated cost and
benefits of the rule on an annual basis can be calculated by
multiplying the estimated benefits and costs per unit by the number of
ROVs sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the
proposed rule had been in effect that year, the total quantifiable cost
would have been between $14.3 million and $22.0 million ($61 and $94
multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The total quantifiable
benefits would have been at least $515 million ($2,199 x 234,000).
(2) On a per unit basis, we estimate the total cost of the proposed
rule to be $61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total quantifiable
benefits of the proposed rule to be $2199 per unit. This results in net
quantifiable benefits of $2105 to $2138 per unit. Quantifiable benefits
of the proposed rule could exceed the estimated $2199 per unit because
the benefit associated with the vehicle handling and lateral stability
requirement could not be quantified.
(j) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered less
burdensome alternatives to the proposed rule regarding ROVs, but
concluded that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce the
risk of injury.
(1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but instead relying upon
voluntary standards. If CPSC did not issue a mandatory standard, most
manufacturers would comply with one of the two voluntary standards that
apply to ROVs. The Commission does not believe either voluntary
standard adequately addresses the risk of injury and death associated
with ROVs.
(2) Including the dynamic lateral stability requirement or the
understeer requirement, but not both. The Commission believes that both
of these characteristics need to be addressed. According to CPSC's
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, a vehicle that meets both the
dynamic stability requirement and the understeer requirement should be
safer than a vehicle that meets only one of the requirements. Moreover,
the cost of meeting just one requirement is not substantially lower
than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of testing a
vehicle for compliance with both the dynamic lateral stability and
vehicle handling/understeer requirement was estimated to be about
$24,000. However, the cost of testing for compliance with just the
dynamic stability requirement itself would be about $20,000, or only
about 17 percent less than the cost of testing for compliance with both
requirements together. This is because the cost of renting and
transporting the vehicle to the test site, instrumenting the vehicle
for the tests, and making some initial static measurements are
virtually the same for both requirements and would only have to be done
once if the tests for both requirements were conducted on the same day.
Moreover, changes in the vehicle design that affect the lateral
stability of the vehicle could also impact the handling of the vehicle.
For these reasons, the proposed rule includes both a dynamic stability
and vehicle handling requirement.
(3) Loud or intrusive seatbelt reminders instead of seatbelt/speed
limitation requirements. (i) Currently, most ROVs meet the voluntary
standards that require an 8-second visual seatbelt reminder. Some more
intrusive systems have been used on passenger cars. For example, one
system resumes warning the driver after about 65 seconds if his or her
seatbelt is not fastened and the car is traveling at more than 3 mph.
The system flashes a warning light and sounds a chime for 6 seconds
every 30 seconds for up to 5 minutes so long as the car is operating
and the driver's seatbelt is not fastened. A similar system is used in
which the warning could last for longer than 9 minutes if the driver's
seatbelt is not fastened. Although studies of both systems found an
increase in the use seatbelts, the systems' effectiveness was limited.
Moreover, audible warnings are not likely to be effective in ROVs. ROVs
are open vehicles and the ambient noise is higher than in the enclosed
passenger compartment of a car. ROV drivers would not hear the warning
and be motivated to fasten their seatbelts unless the warning was
substantially louder than the systems used in passenger cars.
(ii) In contrast, these more intrusive seatbelt warning systems are
unlikely to be as effective as the seatbelt speed limitation
requirement in the proposed rule. The Commission believes that the
[[Page 69031]]
requirement in the proposed rule will cause most drivers and passengers
that desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seatbelts. Research
supports this position. One experiment used a haptic feedback system to
increase the force the driver needed to exert to depress the gas pedal
when the vehicle exceeded 25 mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. The
system did not prevent the driver from exceeding 25 mph, but it
increased the amount of force required to depress the gas pedal to
maintain a speed greater than 25 mph. In this experiment all 7
participants chose to fasten their seatbelts.
Dated: October 31, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-26500 Filed 11-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P