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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY submit confidential business is derived from CPSC staff’s briefing COMMISSION information, trade secret information, or package for the NPR and from CPSC other sensitive or protected information staff’s supplemental memorandum to 16 CFR Part 1422 that you do not want to be available to the Commission, which are available on RIN 3041–AC78 the public. If furnished at all, such CPSC’s Web site at information should be submitted in http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/ [Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087] writing. Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefing Docket: For access to the docket to Packages/2014/SafetyStandardfor Safety Standard for Recreational Off- read background documents or RecreationalOff-HighwayVehicles- Highway Vehicles (ROVs) comments received, go to: http:// ProposedRule.pdf and http://www.cpsc. AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety www.regulations.gov, and insert the gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/ Commission. docket number CPSC–2009–0087, into CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/ ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the SupplementalInformation-ROVs.pdf. prompts. II. The Product SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Submit comments related to the Safety Commission has determined Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) aspects A. Products Covered preliminarily that there may be an of the proposed rule to the Office of ROVs are motorized vehicles designed unreasonable risk of injury and death Information and Regulatory Affairs, for off-highway use with the following associated with recreational off-highway Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC or features: Four or more pneumatic tires vehicles (ROVs). To address these risks, by email: _ designed for off-highway use; bench or the Commission proposes a rule that OIRA [email protected] or fax: bucket seats for two or more occupants; includes: lateral stability and vehicle 202–395–6881. In addition, comments automotive-type controls for steering, handling requirements that specify a that are sent to OMB also should be throttle, and braking; and a maximum minimum level of rollover resistance for submitted electronically at http:// vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per ROVs and require that ROVs exhibit www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. hour (mph). ROVs are also equipped sublimit understeer characteristics; CPSC–2009–0087. with rollover protective structures occupant retention requirements that FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (ROPS), seat belts, and other restraints would limit the maximum speed of an Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, (such as doors, nets, and shoulder ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour Directorate for Engineering Sciences, barriers) for the protection of occupants. (mph), unless the seat belts of both the Consumer Product Safety Commission, ROVs and All-Terrain Vehicles driver and front passengers, if any, are 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; (ATVs) are similar in that both are fastened, and would require ROVs to telephone: 301–987–2225; email: motorized vehicles designed for off- have a passive means, such as a barrier [email protected]. highway use, and both are used for or structure, to limit further the ejection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: utility and recreational purposes. of a belted occupant in the event of a However, ROVs differ significantly from rollover; and information requirements. I. Background ATVs in vehicle design. ROVs have a DATES: Submit comments by February 2, The U.S. Consumer Product Safety steering wheel instead of a handle bar 2015. Commission (Commission or CPSC) is for steering; foot pedals instead of hand ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, proposing a standard for recreational levers for throttle and brake control; and identified by Docket No. CPSC–2009– off-highway vehicles (ROVs).1 ROVs are bench or bucket seats rather than 0087, by any of the following methods: motorized vehicles that combine off- straddle seating for the occupant(s). Electronic Submissions: Submit road capability with utility and Most importantly, ROVs only require electronic comments to the Federal recreational use. Reports of ROV-related steering wheel input from the driver to eRulemaking Portal at: http:// fatalities and injuries prompted the steer the vehicle, and the motion of the www.regulations.gov. Follow the Commission to publish an advance occupants has little or no effect on instructions for submitting comments. notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) vehicle control or stability. In contrast, The Commission does not accept in October 2009 to consider whether ATVs require riders to steer with their comments submitted by electronic mail there may be unreasonable risks of hands and to maneuver their body front (email), except through injury and death associated with ROVs. to back and side to side to augment the www.regulations.gov. The Commission (74 FR 55495 (October 28, 2009)). The ATV’s pitch and lateral stability. encourages you to submit electronic ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding Early ROV models emphasized the comments by using the Federal under the Consumer Product Safety Act utility aspects of the vehicles, but the eRulemaking Portal, as described above. (CPSA). The Commission received 116 recreational aspects of the vehicles have Written Submissions: Submit written comments in response to the ANPR. The become very popular. Currently, there submissions by mail/hand delivery/ Commission is now issuing a notice of are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and courier to: Office of the Secretary, proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would recreational. Models emphasizing utility Consumer Product Safety Commission, establish requirements for lateral have larger cargo beds, higher cargo Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, stability, vehicle handling, and capacities, and lower top speeds. Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) occupant protection performance, as Models emphasizing recreation have 504–7923. well as information requirements. The smaller cargo beds, lower cargo Instructions: All submissions received information discussed in this preamble capacities, and higher top speeds. Both must include the agency name and utility and recreational ROVs with docket number for this notice. All 1 The Commission voted (3–2) to publish this maximum speed greater than 30 mph comments received may be posted notice in the Federal Register. Chairman Elliot F. are covered by the scope of this NPR. without change, including any personal Kaye and Commissioners Robert S. Adler and Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve publication B. Similar or Substitute Products identifiers, contact information, or other of the proposed rule. Commissioners Ann Marie personal information provided, to: Buerkle and Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against There are several types of off-road http://www.regulations.gov. Do not publication of the proposed rule. vehicles that have some characteristics

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68965

that are similar to those of ROVs and 335 reported fatalities and 506 reported B. Hazard Characteristics may be considered substitutes for some injuries related to these incidents. To After CPSC staff determined that a purposes. analyze hazard patterns related to ROVs, reported incident resulting in at least Low-Speed Utility vehicles (UTVs)— a multidisciplinary team of CPSC staff one death or injury was ROV-related, a Although ROVs can be considered to be reviewed incident reports that CPSC multidisciplinary team reviewed all the a type of utility vehicle, their maximum received by December 31, 2011 documents associated with the incident. speeds of greater than 30 mph concerning incidents that occurred The multidisciplinary team was made distinguish them from low-speed utility between January 1, 2003 and December up of a human factors engineer, an vehicles, which have maximum speeds 31, 2011. CPSC received 428 reports of economist, a health scientist, and a of 25 mph or less. Like ROVs, low-speed ROV-related incidents that occurred statistician. As part of the review utility vehicles have steering wheels between January 1, 2003 and December process, each member of the review and bucket or bench seating capable of 31, 2011, from the Injury and Potential team considered every incident and carrying two or more riders. All utility Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth coded victim characteristics, the vehicles have both work and Investigation (INDP) databases. characteristics of the vehicle involved, recreational uses. However, low-speed ROV-related incidents can involve the environment, and the events of the utility vehicles might not be good more than one injury or fatality because incident.2 Below, we discuss the key substitutes for ROVs in recreational uses the incidents often involve both a driver hazard characteristics that the review where speeds higher than 30 mph are and passengers. There were a total of identified. important. 826 victims involved in the 428 1. Rollover All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)—Unlike incidents. Of the 428 ROV-related ROVs, ATVs make use of handlebars for incidents, there were a total of 231 Of the 428 reported ROV-related steering and hand controls for operating reported fatalities and 388 reported incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved the throttle and brakes. The seats on injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries rollover of the vehicle, more than half ATVs are intended to be straddled, (19 percent) could be classified as of which occurred while the vehicle was unlike the bucket or bench seats on severe; that is, based on the information in a turn (52 percent). Of the 224 fatal ROVs. Some ATVs are intended for available, the victim has lasting incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved work or utility applications, as well as repercussions from the injuries received rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of those for recreational uses; others are in the incident. The remaining 207 incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat intended primarily for recreational victims were either not injured or their terrain. The slope of the terrain is purposes. ATVs are usually narrower injury information was not known. unknown in 39 fatal incidents. than ROVs. This means that ATVs can A total of 826 victims were involved navigate some trails or terrain that some Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 in the 428 reported incidents, including ROVs might not be able to navigate. incidents involved drivers under 16 231 fatalities and 388 injuries. Of the Unlike ROVs, ATVs are rider years of age (18 percent); 227 involved 231 reported fatalities, 150 (65 percent) interactive. When riding an ATV, the drivers 16 years of age or older (53 died in an incident involving lateral driver must shift his or her weight from percent); and 125 involved drivers of rollover of the ROV. Of the 388 injured side to side while turning, or forward or unknown age (29 percent). Of the 227 victims, 75 (19 percent) were classified backward when ascending or incidents involving adult drivers, 86 (38 as being severely injured; 67 of these descending a hill or crossing an percent) are known to have involved the victims (89 percent) were injured in obstacle. Most ATVs are designed for driver consuming at least one alcoholic incidents that involved lateral rollover one rider (the driver). On ATVs that are beverage before the incident; 52 (23 of the ROV. designed for more than one rider, the percent) did not involve alcohol; and 89 2. Occupant Ejection and Seat Belt Use passenger sits behind the driver and not (39 percent) have an unknown alcohol beside the driver as on ROVs. status of the driver. From the 428 ROV-related incidents Go-Karts—Go-karts (sometimes called Of the 619 victims who were injured reviewed by CPSC, 817 victims were ‘‘off-road buggies’’) are another type of or killed, most (66 percent) were in a reported to be in or on the ROV during recreational vehicle that has some front seat of the ROV, either as a driver the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were similarities to ROVs. Go-karts are or passenger, when the incidents known to have been injured or killed. usually intended solely for recreational occurred. The remaining victims were Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 purposes. Some go-karts with smaller in the rear of the ROV or in an victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were engines are intended to be driven by unspecified location of the ROV. not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident. children 12 and younger. Some go-karts In many of the ROV-related incidents Of the 610 fatally and nonfatally are intended to be driven primarily on resulting in at least one death, the injured victims who were in or on the prepared surfaces. These go-karts would Commission was able to obtain more ROV, 433 (71 percent) were partially or not be substitutes for ROVs. Other go- detailed information on the events fully ejected from the ROV; and 269 (62 karts have larger engines, full surrounding the incident through an In- percent) of these victims were struck by suspensions, can reach maximum Depth Investigation (IDI). Of the 428 speeds in excess of 30 mph, and can be ROV-related incidents, 224 involved at used on more surfaces. These go-karts 2 The data collected for the Commission’s study least one death. This includes 218 are based on information reported to the could be close substitutes for ROVs in incidents resulting in one fatality, five Commission through various sources. The reports some recreational applications. incidents resulting in two fatalities, and are not a complete set of all incidents that have one incident resulting in three fatalities, occurred, nor do they constitute a statistical sample III. Risk of Injury representing all ROV-related incidents with at least for a total of 231 fatalities. Of the 224 one death or injury resulting. Additionally, A. Incident Data fatal incidents, 145 (65 percent) reporting is ongoing for ROV-related incidents that As of April 5, 2013, CPSC staff is occurred on an unpaved surface; 38 (17 occurred in the specified time frame. The percent) occurred on a paved surface; Commission is expecting additional reports and aware of 550 reported ROV-related information on ROV-related incidents that resulted incidents that occurred between January and 41 (18 percent) occurred on in a death or injury and that occurred in the given 1, 2003 and April 5, 2013; there were unknown terrain. time frame.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

a part of the vehicle, such as the roll usually assigned to an ATV product D. Yamaha Rhino Repair Program cage or side of the ROV, after ejection. category (NEISS product codes 3286— Seat belt use is known for 374 of the 610 3287) or to the utility vehicle (UTV) CPSC staff began investigating ROVs victims; of these, 282 (75 percent) were category (NEISS product code 5044). A following reports of serious injuries and not wearing a seat belt. total of 2,018 injuries that were related fatalities associated with the Yamaha Of the 225 fatal victims who were in to ATVs or UTVs were recorded in Rhino. In March 2009, CPSC staff or on the ROV at the time of the NEISS between January 1, 2010 and negotiated a repair program on the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected August 31, 2010. The Commission Yamaha Rhino 450, 660, and 700 model partially or fully from the vehicle, and attempted follow-up interviews with ROVs to address stability and handling 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part each victim (or a relative of the victim) issues with the vehicles.4 CPSC staff of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt to gather more information about the investigated more than 50 incidents, use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected incidents and the vehicles involved. including 46 driver and passenger victims; of these, 141 (91 percent) were CPSC determined whether the vehicle deaths related to the Yamaha Rhino. not wearing a seat belt. involved was an ROV based on the The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to C. NEISS Data make and model of the vehicle reported design changes through a repair in the interviews. If the make and model program that would increase the To estimate the number of nonfatal of the vehicle was not reported, staff did vehicle’s lateral stability and change the injuries associated with ROVs that were not count the case as involving an ROV. vehicle’s handling characteristic from treated in a hospital emergency A total of 688 surveys were oversteer to understeer. The repair department, CPSC undertook a special completed, resulting in a 33 percent consisted of the following: (1) Addition study to identify cases that involved response rate for this survey. Of the 688 of 50-mm spacers on the vehicle’s rear ROVs that were reported through the completed surveys, 16 were identified wheels to increase the track width, and National Electronic Injury Surveillance as involving an ROV based on the make (2) the removal of the rear stabilizer bar System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to and model of the vehicle involved. It is to effect understeer characteristics. August 31, 2010.3 NEISS does not contain a separate possible that more cases involved an CPSC staff reviewed reports of ROV- category or product code for ROVs. ROV, but it was not possible to identify related incidents reported to the CPSC Injuries associated with ROVs are them due to lack of information on the between January 1, 2003 and May 31, vehicle make and model. 2012, involving Yamaha Rhino model 3 NEISS is a stratified national probability sample The estimated number of emergency vehicles. (The data are only those of hospital emergency departments that allows the department-treated ROV-related injuries reported to CPSC staff and are not Commission to make national estimates of product- occurring in the United States between representative of all incidents.) The related injuries. The sample consists of about 100 January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that have number of incidents that occurred by at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year quarters of a year are shown below in service. Consumer product-related injuries treated 2010, the estimated number of Figure 1. in emergency departments of the NEISS-member emergency department-treated, ROV- hospitals are coded from the medical record. As related injuries is 3,000, with a 4 such, information about the injury is extracted, but CPSC Release #09–172, March 31, 2009, Yamaha specifics about the product and its use are often not corresponding 95 percent confidence Motor Corp. Offers Free Repair for 450, 660, and available. interval of 1,100 to 4,900. 700 Model Rhino Vehicles.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68967

After the repair program was initiated that lateral stability and vehicle Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the in March 2009, the number of reported handling have the most effect on procedure the Commission must follow incidents involving a Yamaha Rhino rollovers during a turn on level terrain to issue a consumer product safety ROV decreased noticeably. because the rollover is caused primarily standard under section 7. In accordance CPSC staff also analyzed the 242 by lateral acceleration generated by with section 9, the Commission may Yamaha Rhino-related incidents friction during the turn. Staff’s review of commence rulemaking by issuing an reported to CPSC and identified 46 rollover incidents during a turn on level ANPR; as noted previously, the incidents in which a Yamaha Rhino ground indicates that repaired Rhino Commission issued an ANPR on ROVs vehicle rolled over during a turn on flat vehicles are less likely than unrepaired in October 2009. Section 9 authorizes or gentle terrain. Staff identified forty- vehicles to roll over. CPSC believes this the Commission to issue an NPR one of the 46 incidents as involving an is further evidence that increasing including the proposed rule and a unrepaired Rhino vehicle. In lateral stability and correcting oversteer preliminary regulatory analysis in comparison, staff identified only two of to understeer contributed to the accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA and request comments regarding the 46 incidents in which a repaired decrease in Yamaha Rhino incidents. Rhino vehicle rolled during a turn, and the risk of injury identified by the each of these incidents occurred on IV. Statutory Authority Commission, the regulatory alternatives terrain with a 5 to 10 degree slope. being considered, and other possible Among these 41 reported incidents, ROVs are ‘‘consumer products’’ that alternatives for addressing the risk. Id. there were no incidents involving can be regulated by the Commission 2058(c). Next, the Commission will repaired Rhinos rolling over on flat under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 consider the comments received in terrain during a turn. U.S.C. 2052(a). Section 7 of the CPSA response to the proposed rule and The Commission believes the authorizes the Commission to decide whether to issue a final rule decrease in Rhino-related incidents after promulgate a mandatory consumer along with a final regulatory analysis. the repair program was initiated can be product safety standard that sets forth Id. 2058(c)–(f). The Commission also attributed to the vehicle modifications certain performance requirements for a will provide an opportunity for made by the repair program. consumer product or that sets forth interested persons to make oral Specifically, correction of oversteer and certain requirements that a product be presentations of the data, views, or improved lateral stability can reduce marked or accompanied by clear and arguments, in accordance with section rollover incidents by reducing the risk adequate warnings or instructions. A 9(d)(2) of the CPSA. Id. 2058(d)(2). of sudden and unexpected increases in performance, warning, or instruction According to section 9(f)(1) of the lateral acceleration during a turn, and standard must be reasonably necessary CPSA, before promulgating a consumer increasing the amount of force required to prevent or reduce an unreasonable product safety rule, the Commission to roll the vehicle over. CPSC believes risk or injury. Id. must consider, and make appropriate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.000 68968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

findings to be included in the rule, roll over because more lateral force is B. Lateral Stability concerning the following issues: (1) The necessary to cause rollover than an ROV 1. Definitions degree and nature of the risk of injury with lower lateral stability. ROVs that the rule is designed to eliminate or exhibiting understeer during a turn are Following are definitions of basic reduce; (2) the approximate number of less likely to rollover because steering terms used in this section. consumer products subject to the rule; control is stable and the potential for the • Lateral acceleration: acceleration (3) the need of the public for the driver to lose control is low. that generates the force that pushes the products subject to the rule and the The Commission believes that when vehicle sideways. During a turn, lateral probable effect the rule will have on rollovers do occur, improving occupant acceleration is generated by friction utility, cost, or availability of such protection performance (by increasing between the tires and surface. Lateral products; and (4) the means to achieve seat belt use) will mitigate injury acceleration is expressed as a multiple the objective of the rule while severity. CPSC’s analysis of ROV of free-fall gravity (g). minimizing adverse effects on incidents indicates that 91 percent of • Two-wheel lift: point at which the competition, manufacturing, and fatally ejected victims were not wearing inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off commercial practices. Id. 2058(f)(1). a seat belt at the time of the incident. According to section 9(f)(3) of the the ground, or when the uphill wheels Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the with better shoulder retention Commission must find that the rule is table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a performance, will significantly reduce rollover event. We use the term ‘‘two- ‘‘reasonably necessary to eliminate or injuries and deaths associated with an reduce an unreasonable risk of injury wheel lift’’ interchangeably with ‘‘tip- ROV rollover event. up.’’ associated with such product’’ and that To address these hazards, the issuing the rule is in the public interest. • Threshold lateral acceleration: Commission is proposing requirements minimum lateral acceleration of the Id. 2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). In addition, if a for: voluntary standard addressing the risk vehicle at two-wheel lift. • A minimum level of rollover of injury has been adopted and • Untripped rollover: rollover that resistance of the ROV when tested using implemented, the Commission must occurs during a turn due solely to the the J-turn test procedure; find that: (1) The voluntary standard is • lateral acceleration generated by friction not likely to eliminate or adequately A hang tag providing information between the tires and the road surface. reduce the risk of injury, or that (2) about the vehicle’s rollover resistance • on a progressive scale; Tripped rollover: rollover that substantial compliance with the occurs when the vehicle slides and • Understeer performance of the ROV voluntary standard is unlikely. Id. strikes an object that provides a pivot when tested using the constant radius 2058(f)(3(D). The Commission also must point for the vehicle to roll over. find that expected benefits of the rule test procedure; bear a reasonable relationship to its • Limited maximum speed of the 2. Static Measures to Evaluate ROV costs and that the rule imposes the least ROV when tested with occupied front Lateral Stability seat belts unbuckled; and burdensome requirements that would CPSC and SEA evaluated the static • A minimum level of passive adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id. measurements of the static stability shoulder protection when using a probe 2058(f)(3)(E)&(F). factor (SSF) and tilt table ratio (TTR) to Other provisions of the CPSA also test. compare lateral stability of a group of 10 authorize this rulemaking. Section 27(e) ROVS. provides the Commission with authority VI. CPSC Technical Analysis and Basis for Proposed Requirements to issue a rule requiring consumer a. Static Stability Factor (SSF) product manufacturers to provide the A. Overview of Technical Work Commission with such performance and SSF approximates the lateral technical data related to performance In February 2010, the Commission acceleration in units of gravitational and safety as may be required to carry contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to acceleration (g) at which rollover begins out the CPSA and to give such conduct an in-depth study of vehicle in a simplified vehicle that is assumed performance and technical data to dynamic performance and static rollover to be a rigid body without suspension prospective and first purchasers. Id. measures for ROVs. SEA evaluated a movement or tire deflections. NHTSA 2076(e). This provision bolsters the sample of 10 ROVs that represented the uses rollover risk as determined by Commission’s authority under section 7 recreational and utility oriented ROVs dynamic test results and SSF values to to require provision of safety-related available in the U.S. market that year. evaluate passenger vehicle rollover information, such as hang tags. SEA tested and measured several resistance for the New Car Assessment characteristics and features that relate to Program (NCAP).6 SSF relates the track V. Overview of Proposed Requirements the rollover performance of the vehicles width of the vehicle to the height of the Based on incident data, vehicle and to the vehicle’s handling vehicle center of gravity (CG), as shown testing, and experience with the characteristics. in Figure 2. Loading condition is Yamaha Rhino repair program, the In 2011, SEA designed and built a roll important because CG height and track Commission believes that improving simulator to measure and analyze width vary, depending on the vehicle lateral stability (by increasing rollover occupant response during quarter-turn load condition. Mathematically, the resistance) and improving vehicle roll events of a wide range of machines, relationship is track width (T) divided handling (by correcting oversteer to including ROVs. The Commission by two times the CG height (H), or understeer) are the most effective contracted with SEA to conduct SSF=T/2H. Higher values for SSF approaches to reducing the occurrence occupant protection performance indicate higher lateral stability, and of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with evaluations of seven ROVs with lower SSF values indicate lower lateral higher lateral stability are less likely to differing occupant protection designs.5 stability.

5 SEA’s reports are available on CPSC’s Web site 6 NHTSA, 68 FR 59250, ‘‘Consumer Information; at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/ New Car Assessment Program; Rollover Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/. Resistance,’’ (Oct. 14, 2003).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68969

SEA measured track width and CG TABLE 1—SSF VALUES—Continued platform angle at two-wheel lift is the height values for the sample group of 10 Tilt Table Angle (TTA). The ROVs. SEA used their Vehicle Inertia Vehicle rank SSF trigonometric tangent of the TTA is the Measurement Facility (VIMF), which (SSF) Tilt Table Ratio (TTR). TTA and TTR incorporates the results of five different are used to evaluate the stability of the tests to determine the CG height. SEA B ...... 0.932 D ...... 0.942 vehicle. Larger TTA and TTR generally has demonstrated that VIMF CG height J ...... 0.962 correspond to better lateral stability, measurements are repeatable within E ...... 0.965 except these measures do not account ± 7 0.5 percent of the measured values. C ...... 0.991 for dynamic tire deflections or dynamic Using the CG height and track width G ...... 1.031 suspension compliances. Tilt testing is measurement, SEA calculated SSF I ...... 1.045 a quick and simple static test that does values for several different load conditions. (See Table 1). not require sophisticated b. Tilt Table Ratio (TTR) instrumentation. Tilt testing is used as a rollover metric in the voluntary TABLE 1—SSF VALUES SEA conducted tilt table tests on the ROV sample group. In this test, the standards created by the Recreational Vehicle rank vehicles in various loaded conditions Off-Highway Vehicle Association (SSF) SSF were placed on a rigid platform, and the (ROHVA) and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). TTA and F ...... 0.881 angle of platform tilt was increased (see A ...... 0.887 Figure 3) until both upper wheels of the TTR values measured by SEA are shown H ...... 0.918 vehicle lifted off the platform. The in Table 2.8

7 Heydinger, Gary J., et al, The Design of a Vehicle 8 ROHVA developed ANSI/ROHVA 1 for Inertia Measurement Facility, SAE 950309, 1995. recreation-oriented ROVs and OPEI developed ANSI/OPEI B71.0 for utility-oriented ROVs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.001 EP19NO14.002 68970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 2—TTA AND TTR VALUES rollover resistance. Specifically, the J- during a J-turn test, and the lateral turn test is objective because a acceleration at rollover threshold can be Vehicle TTA Vehicle programmable steering machine turns measured. Thus, the J-turn test is the rank rank TTR the steering wheel during the test, and most appropriate method to measure the (TTA) (deg.) (TTR) the test results show that the vehicle rollover resistance of ROVs because A ...... 33.0 A ...... 0.650 speed, lateral acceleration, and roll ROVs exhibit untripped rollover during B ...... 33.6 B ...... 0.664 angle data observed during J-turn tests the test. D ...... 33.7 D ...... 0.667 were highly repeatable.9 However, J-turn tests are conducted by driving I ...... 35.4 I ...... 0.712 NHTSA determined that although the J- the test vehicle in a straight path, H ...... 35.9 H ...... 0.724 turn test is the most objective and releasing (dropping) the throttle, and J ...... 36.1 J ...... 0.730 repeatable method for vehicles with low rapidly turning the steering wheel to a F ...... 36.4 F ...... 0.739 specified angle once the vehicle slows E ...... 38.1 E ...... 0.784 rollover resistance, the J-turn test is C ...... 38.8 C ...... 0.803 unable to measure the high rollover to a specified speed. The steering wheel G ...... 39.0 G ...... 0.810 resistance of most passenger angle and vehicle speed are selected to automobiles.10 On pavement where a produce two-wheel lift of the vehicle. Because ROVs are designed with long high-friction surface creates high lateral Outriggers, which are beams that extend suspension travel and soft tires for off- accelerations, vehicles with high to either side of a vehicle, allow the road performance, staff was concerned rollover resistance (such as passenger vehicle to roll but prevent full rollover. that SSF and TTR would not accurately automobiles) will lose tire traction and The sequence of events in the test characterize the dynamic lateral slide in a severe turn rather than roll procedure is shown in Figure 4. SEA stability of the vehicle. Therefore, over. The threshold lateral acceleration conducted drop-throttle J-turn tests to CPSC’s contractor, SEA, conducted cannot be measured because rollover measure the minimum lateral dynamic J-turn tests to determine does not occur. In contrast, vehicles accelerations necessary to cause two- whether SSF or TTR measurement with low rollover resistance exhibit wheel lift (shown in Step 3 of Figure 4) corresponded with actual dynamic untripped rollover on a pavement for each vehicle. Side loading of the measures for lateral stability. vehicle occurs naturally as a result of 9 Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A the lateral acceleration that is created in 3. Dynamic Test To Measure ROV Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test the J-turn and this lateral acceleration Lateral Stability—the J-Turn Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, can be measured and recorded. The Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light In 2001, NHTSA evaluated the J-turn Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 lateral acceleration produced in the turn test (also called drop-throttle J-turn 513. is directly proportional to the side testing and step-steer testing) as a 10 Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A loading force acting to overturn the method to measure rollover resistance of Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test vehicle according to the equation F = Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, automobiles. NHTSA found the J-turn (m)(Ay), where F is force, m is the mass Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light test to be the most objective and Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 of the vehicle, and Ay is lateral repeatable method for vehicles with low 513. acceleration.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68971

SEA conducted the J-turn testing at 30 the steering angle until two-wheel lift have a higher rollover resistance or are mph. A programmable steering was achieved. When SEA determined more stable than ROVs with lower controller input the desired steering the steering angle that produced a two- threshold lateral accelerations. Each of angles at a steering rate of 500 degrees wheel lift, SEA conducted the test run the 10 ROVs tested in the study by SEA per second for all vehicles. The chosen for that vehicle load condition. For each exhibited untripped rollover in the J- steering rate of 500 degrees per second test run, SEA recorded the speed, turn tests at steering wheel angles is high enough to approximate a step steering angle, roll rate, and acceleration ranging from 93.8 to 205 degrees and input, but still within the capabilities of in three directions (longitudinal, lateral, lateral accelerations ranging from 0.625 a driver. (A step input is one that and vertical). SEA processed and to 0.785 g. Table 3 shows the vehicles happens instantly and requires no time plotted the data to determine the arranged in ascending order for to complete. For steering input, time is minimum lateral acceleration required threshold lateral acceleration (A ) at tip required to complete the desired for two-wheel lift of the vehicle. y steering angle, so a steering step input The J-turn test is a direct measure of up, SSF, TTA, and TTR. Table 3 is approximated by a high angular rate the minimum or threshold lateral illustrates the lack of correlation of the of steering input.) SEA conducted acceleration required to initiate a static metrics (SSF, TTA, or TTR) with preliminary tests by starting with a rollover event, or tip-up of the test the direct dynamic measure of threshold relatively low steering angle of 80 to 90 vehicle when turning. ROVs that exhibit lateral acceleration (Ay) at tip up. degrees and incrementally increasing higher threshold lateral acceleration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.003 68972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

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 Vehi- cle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.

SEA also conducted J-turn tests on to account fully for the dynamic tire vehicle, the vehicle continues on a four ROVs to measure the repeatability deflections and suspension compliance straighter path than intended (see Figure of the lateral acceleration measurements exhibited by the ROVs during a J-turn 5). and found the tests to be very maneuver. Therefore, the Commission • Oversteer: Path of vehicle during a repeatable.11 The results of the believes that the lateral acceleration turn in which the vehicle steers more repeatability tests indicate the standard threshold at rollover is the most into a turn than the steering wheel angle deviation for sets of 10 test runs appropriate metric to use when input by the driver. If the driver does (conducted in opposite directions and measuring and comparing rollover not correct for the oversteer path of the left/right turn directions) ranged from resistance for ROVs. vehicle, the vehicle spirals into the turn 0.002 g to 0.013 g. more than intended (see Figure 5). C. Vehicle Handling Comparison of the SSF, TTR, and Ay • Sub-limit understeer or sub-limit values for each ROV indicate that there 1. Basic Terms oversteer: Steering condition that occurs is a lack of correspondence between the while the tires have traction on the static metrics (SSF and TTR) and the • Understeer: Path of vehicle during a driving surface. direct measurement of threshold lateral turn in which the vehicle steers less into • Limit understeer or limit oversteer: acceleration at rollover. Static metrics a turn than the steering wheel angle Steering condition that occurs when the cannot be used to evaluate ROV rollover input by the driver. If the driver does traction limits of the tires have been resistance because static tests are unable not correct for the understeer path of the reached and the vehicle begins to slide.

2. Staff’s Technical Work J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended handling properties of passenger cars a. Constant Radius Test Practice, Steady-State Directional and light trucks. ROVs obey the same Control Test Procedures for Passenger principles of motion as automobiles SAE International (formerly Society of Cars and Light Trucks, establishes test because ROVs and automobiles share Automotive Engineers) standard, SAE procedures to measure the vehicle key characteristics, such as pneumatic

11 Heydinger, G. (2013). Repeatability of J-Turn Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/ and-Recreation/ATVs/SEAReporttoCPSC Testing of Four Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Sports- RepeatabilityTestingSeptember%202013.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68973

tires, a steering wheel, and spring- experiences two-wheel lift or cannot be increases. ‘‘Oversteer’’ is defined as the damper suspension that contribute to maintained on the path of the circle. condition when the average steering the dynamic response of the vehicle.12 The test vehicles were driven in the wheel input required to maintain the Thus, the test procedures to measure the clockwise and counterclockwise circular path decreases as the vehicle vehicle handling properties of passenger directions. For a constant radius test, speed increases because the vehicle is cars and light trucks are also applicable ‘‘understeer’’ is defined as the condition turning more than intended. to ROVs. when the steering wheel angle required SEA used the constant radius test to maintain the circular path increases SEA tested 10 ROVs; five of those method, described in SAE J266, to as the vehicle speed increases because vehicles (A, D, F, I, and J) exhibited sub- evaluate the sample ROVs’ handling the vehicle is turning less than limit transitions to oversteer when characteristics. The test consists of intended. ‘‘Neutral steer’’ is defined as tested on asphalt (see Figure 6). The five driving each vehicle on a 100 ft. radius the condition when the steering wheel remaining vehicles (B, C, E, G, and H) circular path from very low speeds, up angle required to maintain the circular exhibited a sub-limit understeer to the speed where the vehicle path is unchanged as the vehicle speed condition for the full range of the test.

b. Slowly Increasing Steer (SIS) Test per second until the ROV reaches a the same model vehicle as Vehicle A, SAE J266, Surface Vehicle speed limiting condition or tip-up. A but Vehicle H is a later model year, Recommended Practice, Steady-State programmable steering controller (PSC) where the sub-limit oversteer has been Directional Control Test Procedures for was used to increase the steering angle corrected to understeer. Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, also at a constant rate of 5 degrees per Plots from the ROV SIS tests in Figure establishes test procedures for the second. During the test, instrumentation 7 illustrate a sudden increase in lateral for speed, steering angle, lateral Constant Speed Variable Steer Angle acceleration that is found only in acceleration, roll angle, and yaw rate Test. SEA calls this test the ‘‘constant vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. speed slowly increasing steer (SIS) test.’’ were recorded. SEA conducted SIS tests on the sample of 10 ROVs. The sudden increase in lateral During the SIS test, the ROV driver acceleration is exponential and maintains a constant speed of 30 mph, Figure 7 shows SIS test data plotted represents a dynamically unstable and the vehicle’s steering wheel angle is of lateral acceleration versus time for slowly increased at a rate of 5 degrees Vehicle A and Vehicle H. Vehicle H is

12 See Tab A of the CPSC staff’s briefing package.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.005 68974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

condition.13 This condition is as a passenger car) to spin out of low lateral stability (such as an ROV) to undesirable because it can cause a control, or it can cause a vehicle with roll over suddenly. vehicle with high lateral stability (such

When Vehicle A reached its SEA test results indicate that ROVs oversteer and its turn radius becomes dynamically unstable condition, the that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also smaller. Vehicle A becomes lateral acceleration suddenly increased exhibited a sudden increase in lateral dynamically unstable, its lateral from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 acceleration that caused the vehicle to acceleration increases exponentially, g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle roll over. An ROV that exhibits this and the vehicle rolls over suddenly. In rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle sudden increase in lateral acceleration contrast, Vehicle H continues to travel prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) is directionally unstable and 300 more feet in the turn before the In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a uncontrollable.15 vehicle reaches its threshold lateral point where the lateral acceleration Plots of the vehicle path during SIS acceleration and rolls over. A driver in increases exponentially because the tests illustrate further how an Vehicle H has more margin (in time and condition does not develop in oversteering ROV (Vehicle A) will roll 14 distance) to correct the steering to understeering vehicles. The increase over earlier in a turn than an prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle in Vehicle H’s lateral acceleration understeering ROV (Vehicle H), when A because Vehicle H remains in remains linear, and the lateral the vehicles are operated at the same understeer during the turn, while acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 speed and steering rate (see Figure 8). g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in Vehicle A and Vehicle H follow the Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and 5.5 seconds. same path until Vehicle A begins to becomes dynamically unstable.

13 (Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 15 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. Control and Stability. SAE 570044. 204–205.) 204–205; Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of 14 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Vehicle Design Parameters on Characteristic Speed Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers. and Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68975

The Commission believes that tests contribute to ROV rollover on level event. ROVs are equipped with a ROPS, conducted by SEA provide strong ground, and especially on pavement. seat belts, and other restraints for the evidence that sub-limit oversteer in protection of occupants (see Figure 9). D. Occupant Protection ROVs is an unstable condition that can Occupants who remain in the ROV and lead to a rollover incident, especially 1. Overview and Basic Terms surrounded by the ROPS, an area known given the low rollover resistance of as the protective zone, are generally ROVs. All ROVs that exhibited sub-limit The open compartment configuration protected from being crushed by the oversteer reached a dynamically of ROVs is intentional and allows for vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover. unstable condition during a turn where easy ingress and egress, but the Seat belts are the primary restraint for the increase in lateral acceleration configuration also increases the keeping occupants within the protective suddenly became exponential. The likelihood of complete or partial zone of the ROPS. CPSC believes this condition can ejection of the occupants in a rollover

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.007 68976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

NHTSA evaluates the occupant (73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt its members and its review of ROV protection performance of passenger at the time of the incident. incident data provided by the CPSC, vehicles with tests that simulate vehicle Of the 610 fatal and nonfatal victims ROHVA concludes that the vast majority collisions and tests that simulate vehicle who were in or on the ROV at the time of hazard patterns associated with ROV rollover.16 The NHTSA tests use of the incident, 433 (71 percent) were rollover would be eliminated through anthropometric test devices (ATDs), or ejected partially or fully from the ROV, proper seat belt use alone.’’ 18 crash test dummies, to evaluate and 269 (62 percent) of these victims a. Literature Review (Automotive) occupant excursion and injury severity were struck by a part of the vehicle, during the simulation tests. The such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, CPSC staff reviewed the substantial occupant movement during these tests after ejection. Seat belt use is also body of literature on seat belt use in is called occupant kinematics. Occupant known for 374 of the 610 victims; of automobiles. (See Tab I of staff’s briefing kinematics is defined as the occupant’s these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing package.) Although seat belts are one of motion during a crash event, including a seat belt. the most effective strategies for avoiding the relative motion between various Of the 225 fatal victims who were in death and injury in motor vehicle body parts. Occupant kinematics is an or on the ROV at the time of the crashes, seat belts are only effective if important element of dynamic tests incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected they are used. because forces act on an occupant from partially or fully from the vehicle, and Strategies for increasing seat belt use many different directions during a 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part in passenger vehicles date to January 1, collision or rollover. of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt 1972, when NHTSA required all new There are no standardized tests to use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected cars to be equipped with passive evaluate the occupant protection victim; of these, 141 (91 percent) were restraints or with a seat belt reminder performance of ROVs. However, a test to not wearing a seat belt. system that used a visual flashing light and audible buzzer that activated evaluate occupant protection A total of 826 victims were involved continuously for one minute if the performance in ROVs should be based in the 428 ROV-related incidents vehicle was placed in gear with on simulations of real vehicle rollover. reviewed the Commission’s occupied front seat belts not belted. In In a rollover event, the vehicle multidisciplinary team. Of these 1973, NHTSA required that all new cars experiences lateral acceleration and victims, 353 (43 percent) were known to be equipped with an ignition interlock lateral roll. A valid simulation of an be driving the ROV, and 203 (24 that allowed the vehicle to start only if ROV rollover will reproduce the lateral percent) were known to be a passenger the driver was belted. The ignition acceleration and the roll rate in the front seat of the ROV. Of the 231 interlock was meant to be an interim experienced by an ROV during a real reported fatalities, 141 (61 percent) were rollover event. measure until passive airbag technology the driver of the ROV, and 49 (21 matured, but public opposition to the 2. Seat belts percent) were the right front passenger technology led Congress to rescind the in an ROV. a. Seat Belt Use in Incidents legislation and to prohibit NHTSA from ROHVA also performed an analysis of From the 428 ROV-related incidents requiring either ignition interlocks or hazard and risk issues associated with continuous audible warnings that last reviewed by the Commission, 817 ROV-related incidents and determined victims were reported to be in or on the more than 8 seconds. NHTSA then that lack of seat belt use is the top revised the Federal Motor Vehicle ROV at the time of the incident, and 610 17 incident factor. ROHVA has stated: Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require a (75 percent) were known to have been ‘‘Based on the engineering judgment of injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known 18 Yager, T. (2011) Letter to Caroleene Paul. 18 for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 17 Heiden, E. (2009). Summary of Recreational Apr. 2011. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) Hazard Analysis. Association (ROHVA) written response to CPSC 16 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (1971) Memorandum from E. Heiden to P. Vitrano. Docket staff’s ballot on proposed American National 49 CFR 571.208. No. CPSC–2009–0087. Regulations.gov. Standard ANSI/ROHVA 1–201X.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68977

seat belt reminder with warning light concluded that principles for an optimal systems made it more difficult for the and audible buzzer that lasts 4 seconds safety belt reminder system include the driver to depress the gas pedal when the to 8 seconds when front seat belts are following: vehicle exceeded 20–25 mph if the not fastened at the time of ignition. This 1. The full-time safety belt user driver’s seat belt was not buckled. Study standard still applies today (15 U.S.C. should not notice the system. participants were more receptive to the 1410 (b)). 2. It should be more difficult to cheat latter system, which was a consistent Work by NHTSA indicates seat belt on the system than to use the safety belt. and forceful motivator to buckle the seat users can be separated loosely into three 3. Permanent disconnection of the belt without affecting the general categories: Full-time users, part-time system should be difficult. operation of the vehicle.25 users, and nonusers. Part-time users and 4. The system should be reliable and ROVs. In 2010, Bombardier nonusers give different reasons for not have a long life. Recreation Products (BRP) introduced wearing seat belts. Part-time seat belt 5. Crash and injury risk should not be the Can-Am Commander 1000 ROV users consistently cite forgetfulness and increased as a result of the system. with a seat belt speed limiter system perceived low risk, such as driving short 6. System design should be based on that restricts the vehicle speed to 9 mph distances or on familiar roads, as what is known about the effectiveness if the driver’s seat belt is not buckled. reasons for not using seat belts.19 and acceptability of system types and CPSC staff performed dynamic tests to One approach to increasing vehicle elements. verify that the vehicle’s speed was occupant seat belt use is to provide in- 7. System design should be limited when the driver’s seat belt was vehicle reminders to encourage compatible with the manufacturer’s not buckled. On level ground, the occupants to fasten their seat belts. intended purpose/goals for the system. vehicle’s speed was limited to 6 to 9 However, possible systems vary NHTSA conducted a study of mph when the driver was unbelted, considerably in design, intrusiveness, enhanced seatbelt reminder (ESBR) depending on the ignition key and and, most importantly, effectiveness. effectiveness that compared results of transmission mode selected. Observational studies of cars controlled experiments with field In 2013, BRP introduced the Can-Am equipped with the original NHTSA- observations of actual seat belt use. Maverick vehicle as a sport-oriented required seat belt reminders found no Among the findings of the ESBR ROV that also includes a seat belt speed significant difference in seat belt use effectiveness report are: (1) Systems limiter system. CPSC staff did not test among vehicles equipped with the with only visual reminders are not the Maverick vehicle because a sample continuous one minute visual-audio effective; (2) ESBR systems, in general, vehicle was not available for testing. system and vehicles not equipped with promote greater seat belt use by 3 to 4 In 2014, Polaris Industries (Polaris) the reminder system.20 After NHTSA percentage points; (3) more annoying announced that model year 2015 Ranger adopted the less stringent 4-second to 8- systems are more effective, but that and RZR ROVs will include a seatbelt second visual and audio reminder creates the challenge of designing an system that limits the speed of the system requirements, NHTSA effective system that is acceptable; (4) vehicle to 15 mph if the seatbelt is not conducted observational and phone potential gains in seat belt use not only engaged. (Retrieved at: http://www. interview studies and concluded that come from simply reminding users, but weeklytimesnow.com.au/machine/ the less intrusive reminder system was also from motivating users, such as sidebyside-vehicles-soon-to-get-safety- also not effective in increasing seat belt equating seat belt use with elimination improvements/story-fnkerd6b- use.21 of an annoyance; and (5) the positive 1227023275396.) The Commission has A national research project by the effects of ESBRs on belt use were more not tested these vehicles because they University of Michigan Transportation pronounced for the low belt-use are not yet available on the market. Research Institute endeavored to propensity groups.23 promote safety belt use in the United d. User Acceptance of Innovative States by developing an effective in- c. Innovative Technologies Technologies in ROVs vehicle safety belt reminder system.22 Automobiles. Researchers developed Studies of seat belt reminder systems The project authors performed literature more innovative in-vehicle technology, on automobiles are an appropriate reviews and conducted surveys and beyond visual and audible warnings, to foundation for ROV analysis because focus groups to design an optimal safety study the effectiveness of systems that ROVs are typically driven by licensed belt reminder system. The authors hindered a vehicle function if the drivers and the seating environment is driver’s seat belt was not buckled. One similar to an automobile. Staff decided 19 Block, 1998; Bradbard et al., 1998; Harrison system allowed drivers to start the to obtain data on ROV users’ experience and Senserrick, 2000; Bentley et al., 2003; Boyle vehicle but delayed the driver’s ability and acceptance of seat belt reminders to and Vanderwolf, 2003; Eby et al., 2005; Boyle and Lampkin, 2008. to place the vehicle in gear if the seat validate the analysis. 24 20 Robertson, L. S. and Haddon, W. (1974). The belt was not buckled. Follow-up CPSC staff was not aware of any Buzzer-Light Reminder System and Safety Belt Use. studies that provide data on the American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 64, No. 8, 23 Lerner, N., Singer, J., Huey, R., Jenness, J. effectiveness of seat belt reminder pp. 814–815.; Robertson, L. S. (1975). Safety Belt (2007). Acceptability and Potential Effectiveness of systems on ROVs or user acceptance of Use in Automobiles with Starter-Interlock and Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder System Features. such technologies. Therefore, the CPSC Buzzer-Light Reminder Systems. American Journal (DOT HS 810 848). Washington, DC: National of Public Health, Vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 1319–1325. Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. contracted Westat, Inc. (Westat), to 21 Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B. M. (1976). Department of Transportation. Freedman, M., conduct focus groups with ROV users to Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning Lerner, N., Zador, P., Singer, J., and Levi, S. (2009). explore their opinions of seat belt Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat Belt speed-limitation systems on ROVs. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal U.S. Department of Transportation. Reminder Systems. (DOT HS 811 097). Washington, Phase 1 of the effort involved 22 Eby, D. W., Molnar, L. J., Kostyniuk, L. P., and DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Shope, J. T. (2005). Developing an Effective and Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 25 Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and Acceptable Safety Belt Reminder System. 19th 24 Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., Reagan, I., Reagan, I. (2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase International Technical Conference on the Sifrit, K., Compton, R., & Tenenbaum, J. (2010). Seat Belt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June Increasing Seat Belt Use in Service Vehicle Drivers 811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway 6–9, 2005. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot....01/esv/ with a Gearshift Delay. Journal of Applied Behavior Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of esv19/05-0171-O.pdf. Analysis, 43, 369–380. Transportation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

conducting focus groups of ROV users additional rationale for determining a simulated rollover. In comparison, the and asking questions about ROV use threshold speed for a seat belt speed torso of a belted ATD remained in the and user opinions of the Can-Am speed- limitation technology that balances ROV during a simulated rollover. The limitation system that were shown in a users acceptance (as high a speed as tests demonstrated that use of a seat belt video to the participants. Results from possible) with safe operation of the ROV prevented full ejection of the ATD’s Phase 1 were used to develop the without seat belt use (as low a speed as torso. protocol for Phase 2. Phase 2 of the possible). b. Pilot Study 2 effort conducts focus groups of ROV 3. CPSC’s Technical Work users who provide feedback after In a follow-up pilot study, ASE used driving and interacting with an ROV To explore occupant protection a deceleration platform sled rather than equipped with a speed-limitation performance testing for a product for a HYGE TM accelerator sled to impart the system. which no standard test protocol exists, lateral acceleration to the test vehicle. Results of Phase 1 of the Westat study CPSC staff contracted Active Safety The deceleration sled is more accurate indicate that participants: Engineering (ASE) to conduct two than the HYGETM sled in re-creating • Admit to being part-time seat belt exploratory pilot studies to evaluate the lower energy rollovers associated users; potential test methods. After completion with ROVs. • cite familiarity and low-risk of the pilot studies, CPSC staff An unbelted ATD ejected fully from perception as reasons for not wearing contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to the vehicle during tests conducted at the seat belts; conduct occupant protection rollover threshold of the ROV. In • value easy ROV ingress and egress performance evaluation tests, based on comparison, a belted ATD partially over seat belt use; a more advanced test device designed • generally travel around 5 mph by SEA.26 ejected from the vehicle during tests conducted at the same lateral when driving on their own property, a. Pilot Study 1 and overall, drive 15 to 30 mph for acceleration. These exploratory tests TM typical use; ASE used a HYGE accelerator sled with belted and unbelted occupants • had a mixed reaction to the speed- to conduct dynamic rollover indicate the importance of using seat limitation technology at 10 mph; simulations on sample ROVs, occupied belts to prevent full ejection of the • were more accepting of the speed- by a Hybrid III 50th percentile male occupant during a rollover event. limitation technology if the speed was anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The TM c. SEA Roll Simulator raised to 15 mph or if the system was HYGE system causes a stationary tied to a key control. vehicle, resting on the test sled, to roll SEA designed and built a roll Phase 2 of the Westat study is over by imparting a short-duration simulator to measure and analyze ongoing, and a report of the results is lateral acceleration to the test sled. The occupant response during quarter-turn expected by December 2014. The results torso of an unbelted ATD ejected roll events of a wide range of machines, will provide data on ROV users’ partially from the ROV during a including ROVs. The SEA roll simulator acceptance of a seat belt speed produces lateral accelerations using a 26 The ASE and SEA reports are available on deceleration sled and produces roll rates limitation technology with a threshold CPSC’s Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/ speed of 10 mph, 15 mph, and 20 mph. Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/ using a motor to rotate the test sled (see CPSC believes the results will provide Technical-Reports/. Figure 10).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68979

SEA validated the roll simulator as an kinematics on the SEA rollover protection features retain the occupant accurate simulation of ROV rollover and simulator accurately represent real- inside the protective zone of the ROPS occupant kinematics by comparing roll world events because SEA validated the during a roll simulation (see Figure 11). rates, lateral accelerations, and ATD sled kinematics against full-vehicle, Head displacement plots above the ejections that were created by the real-world rollover events. ROPS Plane indicate the occupant’s simulator with actual values measured SEA simulated tripped and untripped head stayed inside the ROPS zone, and during autonomous rollover. Results rollovers of seven sample ROVs using plots below the ROPS Plane indicate show that the roll simulator accurately belted and unbelted ATD occupants. that the occupant’s head moved outside re-creates the conditions of an ROV Plots of the head excursion data indicate the ROPS zone. rollover. CPSC believes that the vehicle how well the vehicle’s occupant

The SEA roll simulator test results tested allowed a belted occupant’s head during a quarter-turn rollover indicate that five of the seven ROVs to eject outside the ROPS of the vehicle simulation. The occupant protection

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.009 EP19NO14.010 68980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

performance of belted occupants varied containment when used in conjunction deformation of the barrier. Under the from vehicle to vehicle, depending on with a seat belt. second option, a performance-based seat belt design, passive hip and Although the SEA roll simulator is the method specifies a tilt table test with a shoulder coverage, whether the rollover most advanced test equipment viewed vehicle occupied by a belted test was tripped or untripped, and ROPS by the Commission, to date, and the test dummy. When the vehicle is tilted to 45 dimensions and geometry. results provide clear evidence of degrees on the tilt table, the ejection of CPSC staff analysis of the SEA roll occupant head excursion, not enough the dummy must not exceed 5 inches simulator test results indicates that test data have been generated to base beyond the vehicle width. vehicles with the best occupant dynamic occupant protection Results of CPSC tests indicate that protection performance restricted performance test requirements on a only four of 10 vehicles passed the movement of the occupant with device like the roll simulator. Therefore, construction-based test requirements, combinations of quick-locking seat the Commission is using the roll and eight of 10 vehicles passed the belts, passive coverage in the hip and simulator test results to focus on performance-based test requirements.28 shoulder areas of the occupant, and occupant protection requirements that CPSC analysis identified a primary large ROPS zones around the occupant’s maximize occupant retention through weakness with the performance-based head. Rollover tests indicate that a seat seat belt use with passive shoulder tilt table tests. The performance-based belt is effective at preventing full restraint. test criteria measure the torso excursion occupant ejection, but in some cases outside the vehicle width, not the d. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Occupant where the seat belt does not lock excursion outside the protective zone of Protection Tests quickly, partial occupant ejection still the ROPS. An occupant must remain occurs. However, when a seat belt is CPSC staff tested 10 sample ROVs to inside the envelope of the ROPS to be used in conjunction with a passive the occupant retention system (ORS) protected; therefore, the requirement shoulder barrier restraint, testing zone requirements specified in ANSI/ allows an inherently unsafe condition indicates that the occupant remains ROHVA 1–2011. Requirements are where the occupant moves outside the within the protective zone of the specified for Zone 1—Leg/Foot, Zone protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS. vehicle’s ROPS during quarter-turn 2—Shoulder/Hip, Zone 3—Arm/Hand, CPSC measured the difference rollover events. and Zone 4—Head/Neck. CPSC focused between the outermost point of the ROV The SEA roll simulator test results on the requirements for Zone 2 because and the outermost point on the ROPS also indicate that unbelted occupants occupant ejection occurs in this zone.27 near the occupant’s head (see Figure are partially or fully ejected from all ANSI/ROHVA Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip 12). On one vehicle, the vehicle’s vehicles, regardless of the presence of requirements allow the vehicle to pass maximum width was 6.75 inches other passive restraints, such as hip one of two different test methods to outside the maximum ROPS width near restraints or shoulder restraints. meet that zone’s requirement. Under the the occupant’s head. Because the Although passive shoulder barriers may first option, a construction-based requirement is based on a 5-inch not provide substantial benefit for method defines an area near the limitation beyond the vehicle width, the occupant protection in unbelted occupant’s side that must be covered by occupant’s torso could be 11.75 inches rollovers, the roll simulator test results a passive barrier. The test involves (6.75 inches plus 5 inches) outside of indicate that shoulder restraints applying a 163-lbf. load at a point in the the vehicle ROPS and still meet the significantly improved occupant defined test area without failure or performance-based requirement.

27 See Tab H of the briefing package. 28 See Tab H of the briefing package.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.011 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68981

CPSC also compared the occupant • Participating in public meetings efforts multipurpose off-highway utility head excursion relative to the torso with ROHVA and OPEI to discuss vehicles (MOHUVs) that meet the ANSI/ excursion during the tilt table tests. Due development of the voluntary standard OPEI B71.9–12 standard requirements. to occupant rotation during the tests, the and to discuss static and dynamic tests We address this request in the response maximum head displacement exceeded performed by contractors on behalf of to comments section of this preamble the torso displacement by up to 3 CPSC staff; (Section VIII). inches. The discrepancy between head • Sharing all CPSC contractor reports and torso displacement and between the with test results of static and dynamic B. Voluntary Standards Provisions vehicle width and ROPS’ width can tests performed on ROVs by making all Related to the Proposed Rule result in occupant head ejection that is reports available on the CPSC Web site; • In this section, we summarize the 14.75 inches (11.75 inches plus 3 Requesting copies of test reports on inches) outside the protective zone of dynamic tests performed on ROVs by provisions of the voluntary standards ROHVA for CPSC staff to review; that are related to the specific the ROPS and still meet the • performance-based requirement. Demonstrating dynamic test requirements the Commission is procedures and data collection to proposing and we assess the adequacy VII. Relevant Existing Standards ROHVA and OPEI at a public meeting of these voluntary standard provisions. A. Background at an outdoor test facility in East Liberty, OH; and 1. Lateral Stability Two different organizations • Submitting suggested changes and ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/ developed separate voluntary standards additions to the ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 for ROVs. The Recreational Off-Highway voluntary standard to improve lateral OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions Vehicle Association (ROHVA) stability, vehicle handling, and to address static lateral stability and developed ANSI/ROHVA 1, American occupant protection (OPEI was copied). differing provisions to address dynamic National Standard for Recreational Off- ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 was published lateral stability: Highway Vehicles, and the Outdoor in July 2011, without addressing CPSC Voluntary Standard Requirement: Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) staff’s concerns. CPSC staff requested, ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.2 developed ANSI/OPEI B71.9, American but has not received reports or test Stability Coefficient (Kst) and ANSI/ National Standard for Multipurpose Off- results of static or dynamic tests OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 8.6 Stability Highway Utility Vehicles. conducted by contractors on behalf of Coefficient (Kst) specify a stability ROHVA member companies include: ROHVA. coefficient, Kst, which is calculated from Arctic Cat, BRP, Honda, John Deere, ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 was the vehicle’s center of gravity location Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha. Work published in March 2012, without and track-width dimensions. The value on ANSI/ROHVA 1 started in 2008, and addressing CPSC staff’s concerns. of K for a vehicle at curb weight work completed with the publication of On August 29, 2013, CPSC staff sent st ANSI/ROHVA 1–2010. The standard a letter to ROHVA with suggested (without occupants) is required to be no was immediately opened for revision, modifications to the voluntary standard less than 1.0. and a revised standard, ANSI/ROHVA requirements to address staff’s concerns. Adequacy: The Commission believes 1–2011, was published in July 2011. CPSC staff sent a courtesy copy of the the stability coefficient requirement OPEI member companies include: August 29, 2013 recommendation letter does not adequately address lateral Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and to OPEI. On November 27, 2013, stability in ROVs because static tests are Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was ROHVA responded that ROHVA plans unable to account fully for the dynamic started in 2008, and work was to adopt less stringent versions of CPSC tire deflections and suspension completed with the publication of staff’s suggested requirements to compliance exhibited by ROVs in a ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 in March 2012. improve the lateral stability and dynamic maneuver. For practical Both voluntary standards address occupant protection performance of purposes, Kst and SSF values provide design, configuration, and performance ROVs. On March 13, 2014, ROHVA sent the same information for ROVs because aspects of ROVs, including CPSC staff the Canvass Draft of the difference in front and rear track requirements for accelerator and brake proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1– widths are averaged in the SSF controls; service and parking brake/ 2011. Staff responded to the Canvass calculation. Table 4 shows the results of parking mechanism performance; lateral Draft on May 23, 2014, and summarized SSF measurements made by SEA for and pitch stability; lighting; tires; why staff believes ROHVA’s proposed driver-plus-passenger load condition. A handholds; occupant protection; labels; requirements will not reduce the and owner’s manuals. number of deaths and injuries from comparison of how the vehicles would CPSC staff participated in the canvass ROVs. The discussion below also rank if the SSF (or Kst) were used process used to develop consensus for provides that explanation. On instead of the threshold lateral ANSI/ROHVA 1 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9. September 24, 2014, ANSI approved the acceleration at rollover (Ay) illustrates From June 2009 to the present, CPSC proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1– how poorly a stability coefficient staff has engaged actively with ROHVA 2011, which is identical to the Canvass correlates to the actual rollover and OPEI through actions that include Draft. ROHVA has advised that the resistance of the vehicle. The stability the following: revised standard will soon be published coefficient does not account for • Sending correspondence to ROHVA as ANSI/ROHVA 1–2014. In addition, dynamic effects of tire compliance, and OPEI with comments on voluntary CPSC staff met with representatives suspension compliance, or vehicle standard ballots that outlined CPSC from ROHVA and OPEI on October 23, handling, which are important factors in staff’s concerns that the voluntary 2014. Following is a link to the video of the vehicle’s lateral stability. standard requirements for lateral this meeting: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/ stability are too low, that requirements Newsroom/Multimedia/?vid=70952. for vehicle handling are lacking, and On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a that requirements for occupant letter to CPSC staff requesting that the protection are not robust; CPSC exclude from CPSC’s rulemaking

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4—VEHICLE ASCENDING RANK address lateral stability in ROVs because The CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA ORDER Ay VS. SSF static tests are unable to account fully and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement [Operator plus passenger load] for the dynamic tire deflections and does not detect inadequate rollover suspension compliance exhibited by resistance. The TTA requirement in the Vehicle Vehicle ROVs in a dynamic maneuver. Table 5 voluntary standard does not correlate to Ay shows the results of tilt table rank (g) rank SSF the actual rollover resistance of ROVs, (Ay) (SSF) measurements made by SEA for driver- allows a vehicle that was part of repair plus-passenger load condition. A D ...... 0.625 F ...... 0.881 program to pass the test without having comparison of how the vehicles would undergone the repair, and provides no B ...... 0.655 A ...... 0.887 rank if the TTA were used instead of the A ...... 0.670 H ...... 0.918 incentive for manufacturers to improve direct measurement of threshold lateral J ...... 0.670 B ...... 0.932 the lateral stability of ROVs. The CPSC I ...... 0.675 D ...... 0.942 acceleration at rollover (Ay) illustrates how poorly the TTA corresponds to the believes the threshold lateral F ...... 0.690 J ...... 0.962 acceleration at rollover is a direct E ...... 0.700 E ...... 0.965 actual rollover resistance of the vehicle. H ...... 0.705 C ...... 0.991 The tilt table test does not account for measure of rollover resistance, and its C ...... 0.740 G ...... 1.031 dynamic effects of tire compliance, use would eliminate the need for a tilt G ...... 0.785 I ...... 1.045 suspension compliance, or vehicle table test requirement. Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle handling, which are important factors in Voluntary Standard Requirement: Characteristics Measurements of Recreational the vehicle’s lateral stability. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.3 Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic Vehicle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/ passed the minimum 30 degree TTA PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf. stability test based on a constant steer requirement specified by ANSI/ROHVA angle test performed on pavement. The Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested 1–2011. The ROV with the lowest standard describes the method for rollover resistance, as directly measured pass the Kst minimum of 1.0 for an driving the vehicle around a 25-foot by threshold lateral acceleration at unoccupied vehicle, as specified by radius circle and slowly increasing the ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI rollover (Vehicle D, Ay = 0.625 g, TTA speed until 0.6 g of lateral acceleration B71.9–12. The K value of an ROV with = 33.7 degrees), exceeds the voluntary st is achieved; or 0.6 g lateral acceleration no occupants is of limited value because standard TTA requirement by 3.7 an ROV in use has at least one occupant. degrees, or 12 percent above the 30 cannot be achieved because the vehicle The Commission believes the ANSI/ degree minimum. The ROV that was experiences two-wheel lift of the inside ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI stability part of a repair program to increase its wheels, or the vehicle speed is limited coefficient requirement is a requirement roll resistance, Vehicle A, exceeds the and will not increase with further that all ROVs can pass, does not reflect TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 throttle input. The vehicle passes the the actual use of ROVs, does not percent above the 30 degree minimum. dynamic test if at least eight out of 10 promote improvement in lateral test runs do not result in two-wheel lift. stability, and does not correspond to the TABLE 5—VEHICLE ASCENDING RANK Adequacy: The CPSC does not believe actual rollover resistance of ROVs. The ORDER AYVS. TTA the ANSI/ROHVA requirement Commission believes that the threshold [Operator plus passenger load] accurately characterizes the lateral lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct stability of an ROV because it does not measure for rollover resistance, and its Vehicle Vehicle measure the threshold lateral rank Ay rank TTA use would eliminate the need for a (g) (deg.) acceleration at rollover. The (Ay) (TTA) stability coefficient requirement. Commission is not aware of any Voluntary Standard Requirement: D ...... 0.625 A ...... 33.0 standards, recognized test protocols, or ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.1 Tilt B ...... 0.655 B ...... 33.6 real-world significance that supports Table Test and ANSI/OPEI Section 8.7 A ...... 0.670 D ...... 33.7 using a constant steer angle test to Tilt Table Stability specify tilt table tests J ...... 0.670 I ...... 35.4 in the driver-plus-passenger load I ...... 0.675 H ...... 35.9 assess dynamic lateral stability. condition and the gross vehicle weight F ...... 0.690 J ...... 36.1 CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct rating (GVWR) load condition. The E ...... 0.700 F ...... 36.4 constant steer angle testing, as specified minimum tilt table angle (TTA) H ...... 0.705 E ...... 38.1 by the ROHVA standard, on vehicles A, C ...... 0.740 C ...... 38.8 29 requirement for an ROV with a driver- G ...... 0.785 G ...... 39.0 F, and J of the ROV study. Table 6 plus-passenger load condition is 30 shows the results of the tests. degrees, and the minimum TTA for Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Char- acteristics Measurements of Recreational Off- GVWR load condition is 24 degrees. Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Ve- Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt hicle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/ table requirement does not adequately PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CONSTANT STEER ANGLE TEST FOR 25 FT. RADIUS PATH

Turn direction Vehicle (CW = clockwise Test end condition/limit response ROHVA Test CCW = counter-clockwise) pass/fail outcome

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.**

29 Heydinger, G. J. (2011) Results from Proposed A, F, and J. Retrieved from: http://www.cpsc.gov/ Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVA ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers—Vehicles Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/ andOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68983

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CONSTANT STEER ANGLE TEST FOR 25 FT. RADIUS PATH—Continued

Turn direction Vehicle (CW = clockwise Test end condition/limit response ROHVA Test CCW = counter-clockwise) pass/fail outcome

Vehicle J ...... Right (CW) ...... Two-wheel lift ...... Fail. Left (CCW) ...... Maximum Speed/Spinout ...... Pass. * 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/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamic Maneuvers.pdf.

The Commission is concerned that tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability ROVs with low lateral stability can pass Based on CPSC’s testing and review, the requirement and ROV lateral stability ROHVA’s dynamic stability requirement Commission does not believe the ANSI/ because the 180-degree steering wheel because the small turn radius limits the ROHVA dynamic stability requirement input does not correspond to a turning ROV’s speed and prevents generation of is a true measure of rollover resistance, radius. For example, an ROV with a low the lateral accelerations necessary to and the CPSC does not believe the steering ratio will make a sharper turn assess rollover resistance (as shown by requirement will improve the lateral at 180 degrees of steering wheel input the results for Vehicle F). The stability of ROVs. than an ROV with a high steering ratio. Commission is also concerned that the Voluntary Standard Requirement: (The steering ratio relates the amount effects of oversteer can allow an ROV to ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 8.8 that the steering wheel is turned to the pass the test because maximum speed is Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic amount that the wheels of the vehicle reached by vehicle spinout (as shown by stability test based on a 20 mph J-turn turns. A higher steering ratio means the the results for Vehicle J). maneuver performed on pavement. At a driver turns the steering wheel more to NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test steering input of 180 degrees in the right get the vehicle wheels to turn, and a protocol as a method to measure the and left directions, the vehicle shall not lower steering ratio means the driver rollover resistance of automobiles.30 exhibit two-wheel lift. turns the steering wheel less to get the NHTSA determined that the J-turn test Adequacy: The Commission does not vehicle wheels to turn.) In the proposed is the most objective and repeatable believe the ANSI/OPEI requirement ANSI/ROHVA J-turn test, a vehicle with method for vehicles with low rollover accurately characterizes the lateral a larger steering ratio will make a wider resistance. Vehicles with low rollover stability of an ROV because the ANSI/ turn and generate less lateral resistance exhibit untripped rollover on OPEI requirement does not measure the acceleration than a vehicle with a pavement during a J-turn test and the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. smaller steering ratio. lateral acceleration at the rollover The Commission is not aware of any The steering ratio is set by the ROV threshold can be measured. Lateral standards or recognized test protocols manufacturer and varies depending on acceleration is the accepted measure by that support using a J-turn maneuver make and model. SEA measured the vehicle engineers for assessing lateral with 180 degrees of steering wheel input steering ratios of the 10 sample ROVs stability or rollover resistance.31 This to assess dynamic lateral stability of an that were tested (see Figure 13). If the value is commonly used by engineers to ROV. dynamic lateral stability requirement is compare rollover resistance from one OPEI’s use of the J-turn maneuver defined by a steering wheel angle input, vehicle to another. The ANSI/ROHVA does not measure the lateral a manufacturer could increase the test protocol does not measure the acceleration at two-wheel lift that steering ratio of a vehicle to meet the lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift, produces ROV rollover. There is no requirement rather than improve the and the parameters of the test appear correspondence between the proposed vehicle’s stability.

30 Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light 31 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, 513. 309–319.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct OPEI standard, on vehicles A, F, and J J-turn testing, as specified by the ANSI/ (see Table 7).

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF J-TURN TEST RESULTS [20 mph with 180 degrees steering wheel angle input]

OPEI 20 mph test Vehicle Turn direction Speed required for 2-wheel pass/fail 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/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamic Maneuvers.pdf.

CPSC is concerned that ROVs with resistance.32 Vehicles with low rollover does not believe the ANSI/OPEI low lateral stability can pass OPEI’s resistance exhibit untripped rollover on dynamic stability requirement is a true dynamic stability requirement because pavement during a J-turn test and the measure of rollover resistance, and the an ROV that was part of a repair lateral acceleration at the rollover CPSC does not believe the requirement program (Vehicle A) to increase its roll threshold can be measured. Lateral will improve the lateral stability of resistance passed the ANSI/OPEI acceleration is the accepted measure by ROVs. stability test. When the ANSI/OPEI J- vehicle engineers for assessing lateral 33 2. Vehicle Handling turn maneuver was conducted just one stability or rollover resistance. This mile above the requirement at 21 mph, value is commonly used by engineers to ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/ compare rollover resistance from one Vehicle A failed. Similarly, when the OPEI B71.9 both lack provisions to vehicle to another. The ANSI/OPEI test maneuver was conducted at 22 mph, address vehicle handling: protocol does not measure the lateral Voluntary Standard Requirement: Vehicle F and Vehicle J failed. These acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the results indicate that the parameters of ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 ANSI/OPEI parameters of the test appear tuned to B71.9–2012 do not specify a vehicle the test protocol allow most ROVs to allow most vehicles to pass. Based on pass. handling requirement. CPSC’s testing and review, the CPSC Adequacy: CPSC’s testing and review NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test indicate that a requirement for sub-limit 32 protocol as a method to measure Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A understeer is necessary to reduce ROV rollover resistance of automobiles and Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, rollovers that may be produced by sub- determined that the J-turn test is the Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light limit oversteer in ROVs. Tests most objective and repeatable method Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 conducted by SEA show that ROVs in for vehicles with low rollover 513. 33 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle sub-limit oversteer transition to a Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. condition where the lateral acceleration 309–319. increases suddenly and exponentially.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68985

The CPSC believes this condition can stability of understeering ROVs and the acceleration is exponential and lead to untripped ROV rollovers or smaller burden of steering correction it represents a dynamically unstable cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer places on the average driver who is condition. This condition is undesirable and experience tripped rollover. familiar with driving a passenger because it can cause a vehicle with low ROVs that understeer in sub-limit vehicle that operates in sub-limit lateral stability (such as an ROV) to roll conditions do not exhibit a sudden understeer. over suddenly. increase in lateral acceleration. SIS tests conducted by SEA that In Figure 14, Vehicle A is an ROV that Therefore, the CPSC concludes that illustrate the sudden increase in lateral transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the ROVs should be required to operate in acceleration that is found only in same model ROV, but a later model year understeer at sub-limit conditions based vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. in which the oversteer has been on the associated inherent dynamic The sudden increase in lateral corrected to understeer.

When Vehicle A reached its Adequacy: The CPSC believes the described above, the Commission dynamically unstable condition, the requirement for an 8-second reminder believes that many ROV deaths and lateral acceleration suddenly increased light is not adequate to increase injuries can be eliminated if occupants in less than 1 second, and the vehicle meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs are wearing seat belts. rolled over. In contrast, Vehicle H never because the system is not intrusive Automotive researchers have reaches a dynamically unstable enough to motivate drivers and developed technology that motivates condition because the condition does passengers to wear their seat belts. drivers to buckle seat belts by making it not develop in understeering vehicles. Results from past studies on automotive more difficult to drive faster than 20–25 The increase in Vehicle H’s lateral seat belt reminders conclude that visual mph if the driver’s seat belt is not acceleration remains linear, and Vehicle reminders are ineffective. Numerous buckled.34 This concept shows promise H rolls over more than 5 seconds later studies also conclude that reminder in increasing seat belt use because the than Vehicle A. systems must be intrusive enough to technology was acceptable to users and motivate users to buckle their seat belts. 3. Occupant Protection was 100 percent effective in motivating The more intrusive reminders are more drivers to buckle their seat belts. One ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011and ANSI/OPEI effective at changing user behavior, as ROV manufacturer has also introduced B71.9 include similar provisions to long as the reminder is not so intrusive a technology that limits the vehicle address occupant retention during a that users bypass the system. speed if the driver’s seat belt is not rollover event. The Commission’s analysis of ROV- buckled. ROVs with the speed- Voluntary Standard Requirement: related incidents indicates that 91 limitation technology have been in the ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 11.2 Seat percent of fatal victims, and 73 percent market since 2010. Belt Reminder and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– of all victims (fatal and nonfatal), were 2012 Section 5.1.3.2 Seat Belt Reminder not wearing a seat belt at the time of the 34 Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and System specify that ROVs shall be incident. Without seat belt use, Reagan, I. (2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase equipped with a seat belt reminder occupants experience partial to full Seat Belt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS system that activates a continuous or ejection from the ROV, and many 811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of flashing warning light visible to the occupants are struck by the ROV after Transportation. Hilton, Bryan W. (2012). The Effect operator for at least 8 seconds after the ejection. Based on review of ROV of Innovative Technology on Seatbelt Use. Masters vehicle is started. incident data and CPSC’s testing Theses. Paper 103.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.013 68986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

Given the low seat belt use rate in occupant and therefore does not ensure Voluntary Standard Activities ROV-related incidents, as well as the adequate coverage. 1. Comment: Comments from the substantial potential reduction in Voluntary Standard Requirement: Companies, ROHVA, and several injuries and deaths if seat belt use were ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 5.1.4 individuals state that the CPSC should higher, the CPSC believes that the Occupant Side Retention Devices work with ROHVA to develop a requirement for seat belt reminders specifies ROVs shall be equipped with consensus voluntary standard for ROVs. should be more stringent and should occupant side retention devices that Response: As described in detail in incorporate the most recent advances in reduce the probability of entrapment of the previous section of this preamble, technology developed in the automotive a properly belted occupant’s head, CPSC staff has been engaged actively and ROV market. upper torso, and limbs between the with ROHVA since 2009, to express Voluntary Standard Requirement: vehicle and the terrain, in the event of staff’s concerns about the voluntary ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 11.3 ORS a lateral rollover. Physical barriers or standard and to provide specific Zones specifies construction and design features of the vehicle may be recommendations for the voluntary performance requirements for four used to comply with the requirement, standard and supply ROHVA with zones that cover the leg/foot, shoulder/ but no performance tests are specified to CPSC’s test results and data supporting hip, arm/hand, and head/neck areas of determine compliance with the the staff’s recommendations. an occupant. (Occupant retention requirement. CPSC believes the history of system (ORS) is defined in ANSI/ Adequacy: The Commission believes engagement with ROHVA, as detailed ROHVA 1–2011 as a system, including the occupant side retention above, shows that CPSC staff has tried three-point seat belts, for retaining the requirements are not adequate because to work with ROHVA to improve the occupant(s) of a vehicle to reduce the they lack performance requirements to voluntary standard requirements to probability of injury in the event of an gauge occupant protection performance. address low lateral stability, lack of accident.) The construction Performance requirements, based on vehicle handling requirements, and requirements specify a force application occupant protection performance tests inadequate occupant protection test to set minimum guidelines for the of ROV rollovers, are needed to ensure requirements. The Commission does not design of doors, nets, and other barriers that occupants remain within the believe deferring to ROHVA will that are intended to keep occupants protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS address those areas of concern because, within the protection zone of the ROPS. during a rollover event. although ROHVA has made changes to The performance requirements use a tilt VIII. Response to Comments the voluntary standard, the table and a Hybrid III 50th percentile requirements still do not improve the male anthropomorphic test device In this section, we describe and lateral stability of ROVs, do not (ATD) to determine occupant excursion respond to comments to the ANPR for eliminate sub-limit oversteer handling, when the vehicle is tilted 45 degrees ROVs. We present a summary of each of and do not improve occupant protection laterally. the commenter’s topics, followed by the in a rollover event. Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt Commission’s response. The 2. Comment: Comments from the table performance requirements for Commission received 116 comments. Committee and ROHVA state that the Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip are not adequate The comments can be viewed on: Commission should defer to the current to ensure that occupants remain within www.regulations.gov, by searching voluntary standards for ROVs. Several the protective zone of the vehicle’s under the docket number of the ANPR, comments state that the current ROPS during a rollover event. The tilt CPSC–2009–0087. Letters with multiple voluntary standards are adequate. table test method measures the torso and detailed comments were submitted Response: In the previous section of ejection outside the vehicle width, not by the following: this preamble, we explain in detail why the ejection outside the protective zone D Joint comments submitted on behalf the requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1– of the ROPS. The CPSC’s test results of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier 2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 do not indicate the tilt table test allows Recreational Products Inc., Polaris adequately address the risk of injury unacceptable occupant head excursion Industries Inc., and Yamaha Motor and death associated with ROVs. We beyond the protective zone of the Corporation, U.S.A. (Companies); summarize that explanation below. vehicle ROPS. The Commission also D Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI); Lateral Stability. The Commission believes the tilt table test method is not D The OPEI/ANSI B 71.9 Committee believes the static stability requirements an accurate simulation of an ROV (Committee); and and the dynamic lateral stability rollover event because the test method D ROHVA. requirements specified in both does not reproduce the lateral The respondents were ROV voluntary standards do not measure the acceleration and roll experienced by the manufacturers and their associations, vehicle’s resistance to rollover. Static vehicle, and by extension, the consultants to ROV manufacturers, and and dynamic tests conducted by SEA on occupants, during a rollover. more than 110 consumers. Eighteen a sample of ROVs available in the U.S. CPSC staff also believes the commenters supported developing market indicate that the tests specified construction-based test method for Zone regulatory standards for ROVs. The in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and the ANSI/ 2 is inadequate because the specified other commenters opposed rulemaking OPEI B71.9 will not promote point of application (a single point) and action. The commenters raised issues in improvement in the rollover resistance 3-inch diameter test probe do not five areas: of ROVs. accurately represent contact between an Vehicle Handling. In addition, ANSI/ • Voluntary standard activities, occupant and the vehicle during a • ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– rollover event. Specifying a single point Static stability metrics, 2012 do not have requirements for • does not ensure adequate coverage Vehicle handling, vehicle handling. The Commission because a vehicle with a passive barrier • Occupant protection, and believes that a requirement for sub-limit at only that point would pass the test. • Consumer behavior. understeer is necessary to reduce ROV Similarly, a 3 inch diameter probe does The comment topics are separated by rollovers that may be produced by sub- not represent the upper arm of an category. limit oversteer in ROVs. Tests

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68987

conducted by SEA show that ROVs in ‘‘MOHUVs,’’ as defined by ANSI/ (light trucks and sport utility vehicles) sub-limit oversteer transition to a OPEI B71.9–2012, are vehicles with four that consumers demand. Instead, by condition where the lateral acceleration or more wheels, a steering wheel, non- January 2001, NHTSA concluded that increases suddenly and exponentially. straddle seating, and maximum speed consumer information on the rollover The Commission believes this runaway between 25 and 50 mph. Therefore, the risk of passenger cars would influence increase in lateral acceleration can lead Commission believes that an MOHUV consumers to purchase vehicles with a to untripped ROV rollovers or cause that exceeds 30 mph is an ROV that is lower rollover risk and inspire ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and subject to the scope of the proposed manufacturers to produce vehicles with experience tripped rollover. rulemaking. The differences cited by a lower rollover risk.36 NHTSA found Occupant Protection. ANSI/ROHVA OPEI between work-utility vehicles and consistently that given a single-vehicle 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9—2012 recreational vehicles, e.g., the cargo crash, the SSF is a good statistical require only an 8-second reminder light capacity or the powertrain of a vehicle, predictor of the likelihood that the to motivate users to buckle seat belts. do not exclude these ROVs from the vehicle will roll over.37 The number of This requirement is similar to the hazard of rollover and occupant single-vehicle crashes was used as an Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ejection. index of exposure to rollover because (FMVSS) seat belt reminder this method eliminates the additional Static Stability Metrics requirements for automobiles. complexity of multi-vehicle impacts and Manufacturers in the automotive 1. Comment: Comments from CEI because about 82 percent of light industry have long since exceeded such state that the Static Stability Factor vehicle rollovers occur in single-vehicle minimal seat belt reminder (SSF), defined as T/2H, is not an crashes. NHTSA decided to use the SSF requirements because numerous studies appropriate metric for stability because to indicate the risk of rollover in single- have proven that the FMVSS there is no correlation between SSF vehicle crashes and to incorporate the requirements, and indeed visual-only values and ROV rollovers. new rating into NHTSA’s New Car reminders, are not effective.35 Response: The Commission agrees Assessment Program (NCAP). Based on Lastly, the occupant protection that the SSF is not an appropriate metric NHTSA’s statistical analysis of single- requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 for ROV lateral stability because CPSC vehicle crash data and vehicle SSF and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 are not staff compared the actual lateral value, the NCAP provides a 5-star rating based on valid occupant protection acceleration at rollover threshold of system. One star represents a 40 percent performance tests that simulate several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn or higher risk of rollover in a single conditions of vehicle rollover. ANSI/ test, and found that static measures vehicle crash; two stars represent a risk OPEI B71.9–2012 does not include any (whether Kst, SSF, or TTA) are not of rollover between 30 percent and 40 performance requirements for occupant accurate predictors of the vehicle’s percent; three stars represent a risk of protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 rollover resistance. The static tests are rollover between 20 percent and 29 includes performance requirements unable to account fully for the dynamic percent; four stars represent a risk of based on static tilt tests that allow tire deflections and suspension rollover between 10 percent and 19 unacceptable occupant head ejection compliance exhibited by ROVs. The percent; and five stars represent a risk beyond the protective zone of the Commission believes that the threshold of rollover of less than 10 percent. vehicle ROPS. lateral acceleration at rollover (Ay) is A subsequent study of SSF trends in 3. Comment: On February 21, 2014, the most appropriate metric to use automobiles found that SSF values OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff because it is a direct measure of the increased for all vehicles after 2001, requesting that the CPSC exclude vehicle’s resistance to rollover. particularly SUVs, and SUVs tended to multipurpose off-highway utility 2. Comment: Comments from the have the worst SSF values in the earlier vehicles (MOHUVs) from CPSC’s Companies and the Committee state that years. NHTSA’s intention that rulemaking efforts. OPEI states that NHTSA decided not to implement a manufacturers improve the lateral there are key differences between work- minimum SSF standard for on-road stability of passenger vehicles was utility vehicles and recreational vehicles because it would have forced achieved through the NCAP rating, a vehicles. The differences include: the radical redesign of the rating based predominantly on the SSF Maximum vehicle speed, engine and characteristics of many, and in some value of the vehicle. powertrain design, cargo box cases, all vehicles of certain classes, Based on dynamic stability tests configuration and capacity, towing which would have raised issues of conducted by SEA and improvements in provisions, and vehicle usage. public acceptance and possibly even the the Yamaha Rhino after the repair Response: The Commission’s elimination of certain classes of program was initiated, the Commission proposed requirements for lateral vehicles. believes that setting a minimum rollover stability, vehicle handling, and Response: Contrary to the comment’s resistance value for ROVs can improve occupant protection are intended to implication that setting a minimum the lateral stability of the current market reduce deaths and injuries caused by lateral stability (in this case SSF) is of ROVs, without forcing radical designs ROV rollover and occupant ejection. detrimental to vehicle design, and that or elimination of any models. The ROVs are motorized vehicles that are NHTSA abandoned the use of SSF, Commission also believes continued designed for off-highway use and have NHTSA concluded that there is a causal increase in ROV lateral stability can be four or more tires, steering wheel, non- relationship between SSF and rollover, achieved by making the value of each straddle seating, accelerator and brake and NHTSA has incorporated the SSF in model vehicle’s threshold lateral pedals, ROPS, restraint system, and its New Car Assessment Program maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 (NCAP) rating of vehicles. In June 1994, 36 Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static mph. NHTSA terminated rulemaking to Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and establish a minimum standard for Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www. 35 Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B.M. (1976). rollover resistance because it would be nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/ index.html. Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning difficult to develop a minimum stability Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: 37 Rollover Prevention Docket No. NHTSA–2000– National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, standard that would not disqualify 6859 RIN 2127–AC64. Retrieved from http://www. U.S. Department of Transportation. whole classes of passenger vehicles nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/rollover/Chapt05.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

acceleration at rollover available to effects of tire compliance, suspension achieve. CPSC staff compared the actual consumers. Publication of an ROV compliance, and vehicle handling, lateral acceleration at rollover threshold model’s rollover resistance value on a which are important factors in the of several ROVs, as measured by the J- hang tag will allow consumers to make vehicle’s lateral stability. turn test, and found that the static informed purchasing decisions Direct dynamic measurement of the measures (whether it is Kst, or SSF, or regarding the comparative lateral vehicle’s resistance to rollover is TTA) are not accurate predictors of the stability of ROVs. In addition, possible with ROVs. Therefore, the vehicle’s actual lateral stability due to publication of rollover resistance will Commission believes that J-turn testing the extreme compliance in the vehicle’s provide a competitive incentive for to determine the threshold lateral suspension and tires. Therefore, the manufacturers to improve the rollover acceleration at rollover should be used Commission believes that neither the resistance of their ROVs. as the standard requirement to Kst, nor the SSF is an accurate measure 3. Comment: Comments from the determine lateral stability. of an ROV’s lateral stability. Rather, the Companies and the Committee state that 5. Comment: Comments from the vehicle’s actual lateral acceleration at Kst is the more appropriate stability Companies state that the ANSI/ROHVA rollover threshold is the appropriate factor than SSF because it accounts for 1, American National Standard for measure of the vehicle’s lateral stability. differences in the rear and track width, Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, as well as differences in the fore and aft lateral stability requirement of Kst = 1 Vehicle Handling location of the vehicle’s center of and TTA = 30 degrees is adequate and 1. Comment: Comments from CEI and gravity. should be adopted by CPSC. the Companies state that measurements Response: Kst is a three-dimensional Response: SEA tested 10 of understeer/oversteer made on calculation of the two-dimensional SSF, representative ROV samples to the tilt pavement are not applicable to non- and when the front and rear track table requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1– pavement surfaces. ROVs are intended widths are equal, Kst equals SSF. For 2011. All of the ROVs tested pass the for off-highway use and any pavement practical purposes, Kst and SSF provide minimum 30-degree TTA, which use is product misuse, they assert. the same information on ROVs. indicates that the tilt table requirement Response: Both the ANSI/ROHVA and Occupant-loaded values of Kst and SSF is a status quo test. Vehicle D, the ANSI/OPEI standards specify dynamic are informative to the design process of vehicle with the lowest rollover testing on a paved surface. This ROVs; however, Kst and SSF values do resistance (Ay = 0.625 g, TTA = 33.7 indicates that ROHVA and OPEI agree not account for all the dynamic factors degrees), exceeds the TTA requirement that testing of ROVs on pavement is that affect actual rollover resistance. by 3.7 degrees, or 12 percent above the appropriate because pavement has a Therefore, they do not represent the best 30-degree minimum requirement. uniform high-friction surface. Tests stability metric for ROVs. Vehicle A, the ROV that was part of a conducted on pavement show how the The Commission compared the actual repair program to increase its roll vehicle responds at lateral accelerations lateral acceleration at rollover threshold resistance, exceeds the TTA that range from low lateral accelerations of several ROVs, as measured by the J- requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 (associated with low friction surfaces turn test, and found that the static percent above the 30-degree minimum. like sand) up to the highest lateral measures (whether Kst, SSF, or TTA) are CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and acceleration that can be generated by not accurate predictors of the vehicle’s ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement is a friction at the vehicle’s tires. This actual lateral stability. Direct dynamic requirement that all ROVs can pass and provides a complete picture of how the measurement of the vehicle’s resistance will not promote improvement among vehicle handles on all level surfaces. to rollover is possible with ROVs. vehicles that have lower rollover The amount of friction at the tires, and Therefore, the Commission believes that resistance. The TTA requirement in the thus, the lateral accelerations generated, J-turn testing to determine the threshold voluntary standard does not correlate to varies on non-paved surfaces. However, lateral acceleration at rollover should be the actual rollover resistance of ROVs; the vehicle’s handling at each lateral used as the standard requirement to the requirement allows the Yamaha acceleration does not change when the determine lateral stability. Rhino to pass the test without having driving surface changes. 4. Comment: Comments from CEI and undergone the repair; and the 2. Comment: Comments from CEI the Companies state that tilt table angle requirement provides no incentive for state that CEI has performed various or tilt table ratio should be used as a manufacturers to improve the lateral tests and analyses on ROVs that measure of lateral stability. stability of ROVs. The Commission demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit Response: As stated above, the staff believes that the threshold lateral oversteer are not unstable. compared the actual lateral acceleration acceleration at rollover value is a direct Response: The Commission disagrees at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measure for rollover resistance, and its with the statement that ROVs that measured by the J-turn test, and found use would eliminate the need for tilt exhibit oversteer are stable. Vehicles that the static measures (whether it is Kst table testing as a requirement. that exhibit sub-limit oversteer have a or SSF or TTA) are not accurate 6. Comment: Comments from the unique and undesirable characteristic, predictors of the vehicle’s actual lateral Companies, the Committee, and several marked by a sudden increase in lateral stability. individuals state that the SSF values acceleration during a turn. This The Commission believes that the tilt recommended by CPSC staff for ROVs dynamic instability is called critical table requirement in ANSI/ROHVA 1– would make the vehicles unusable for speed and is described by Thomas D. 2011 does not adequately address lateral off-road use and would eliminate this Gillespie in the Fundamentals of stability in ROVs. A comparison of how class of vehicle. Vehicle Dynamics as the speed ‘‘above the vehicles would rank if the TTA were Response: Based on the testing and which the vehicle will be unstable.’’ 38 used instead of the direct measurement data discussed in this preamble, CPSC Gillespie further explains that an of lateral acceleration at rollover (A staff no longer recommends using the y) oversteer vehicle ‘‘becomes illustrates how poorly the TTA SSF value as a measure of an ROV’s correlates to the actual rollover rollover resistance. The SSF value of a 38 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle resistance of the vehicle. The tilt table vehicle represents the best theoretical Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. test does not account for dynamic lateral stability that the vehicle can 204–205.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68989

directionally unstable at and above the SEA shows that oversteering ROVs can exhibit sub-limit oversteer (see Figure critical speed’’ because the lateral exhibit a sudden increase in lateral 15). Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions acceleration gain approaches infinity. acceleration resulting in a roll over. to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same CEI states that their tests demonstrate Plots from SIS tests illustrate this model ROV, but a later model year in that ROVs that exhibit oversteer are not sudden increase in lateral acceleration, which the oversteer has been corrected unstable. However, testing performed by which is found only in vehicles that to understeer.

When Vehicle A reached its SEA provide strong evidence that sub- Specifically, vehicles in oversteer will dynamically unstable condition, the limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable generally follow the path and allow lateral acceleration suddenly increased condition that can lead to a rollover directional control of the vehicle. High from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 incident, especially given the low rear tire slip angles and tire longitudinal g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rollover resistance of ROVs. slip are needed for traction on off- rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle 3. Comment: Comments from CEI and highway surfaces, such as loose soil. prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) the Companies state that all vehicles, Response: The Commission is not In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a whether they understeer or oversteer, aware of any studies that define ‘‘path- dynamically unstable condition because can be driven to limit conditions and following capability’’ and its relation to the condition does not develop in can spin or plough. Any vehicle can the sub-limit understeer or oversteer understeering vehicles. The increase in exhibit ‘‘limit oversteer’’ through design of the vehicle. Of the 10 sample Vehicle H’s lateral acceleration remains manipulation by the driver. ROVs tested by SEA, five vehicles linear, and the lateral acceleration Response: The Commission does not exhibited a desirable sub-limit increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same dispute that operator input and road understeer condition. The Commission difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 conditions can affect limit oversteer or is not aware of any reports of the seconds. A driver in Vehicle H has more understeer in a vehicle. The vehicle steering of sub-limit understeering margin to correct the steering to prevent handling requirements proposed by the vehicles causing loss of control or rollover than a driver in Vehicle A Commission specify that vehicles preventing the driver from navigating because Vehicle H remains in exhibit sub-limit understeer. The off-road terrain. understeer during the turn, while Commission believes that sub-limit A significant body of research has Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and oversteer is an unstable condition that been developed over many years becomes dynamically unstable. can lead to a rollover incident. Ten regarding the science of vehicle SEA test results indicate that ROVs sample ROVs were tested by SEA; five dynamic handling and control. The that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also of the 10 vehicles exhibited a desirable Commission has reviewed technical exhibited a sudden increase in lateral sub-limit understeer condition, and five papers regarding vehicle handling acceleration that caused the vehicle to exhibited a transition to undesirable research and finds no agreement with roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sub-limit oversteer condition. CPSC’s the statement that ‘‘a vehicle in an sudden increase in lateral acceleration evaluation indicates that ROVs can be oversteer condition will generally is directionally unstable and designed to understeer with minimal follow the path and allow directional uncontrollable.39 Tests conducted by cost and without diminishing the utility control of the vehicle to be maintained or recreational value of this class of longer.’’ In fact, the Commission’s 39 Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of Vehicle vehicle. research finds universal characterization Design Parameters on Characteristic Speed and Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957). Research 4. Comment: Comments from the of sub-limit oversteer as directionally in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control and Companies state that oversteer is unstable, highly undesirable, and Stability. SAE 570044. desirable for path-following capability. dynamically unstable at or above the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.014 68990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

critical speed.40 The Commission’s sometimes, if not most often, preferable Increasing seat belt use is the most review of 80 years of automotive to limit understeer. productive and effective way to reduce research did not find support for the Response: ROVs that exhibit sub-limit ROV-related injuries and deaths because suggestion that sub-limit oversteer understeering are currently in the U.S. seat belt use is so low among those provides superior precision in handling market in substantial numbers. The injured in ROV incidents. A major and control. Commission is not aware of any reports challenge is clearly how to get Likewise, limit oversteer is described of the steering of sub-limit occupants to use the seat belt properly. by the Companies as the result of the understeering vehicles causing loss of Response: The Commission agrees driver ‘‘operating the vehicle in a turn control or preventing the driver from that the use of seat belts is important in at a speed beyond what is safe and navigating off-road terrain. The CPSC is restraining occupants in the event of a reasonable for that turn or applying not aware of any reports of sub-limit rollover or other accident. Results of the excessive power in a turn.’’ A vehicle in understeering vehicles that exhibit the Commission’s testing of belted and limit oversteer is essentially sliding unintended consequences described by unbelted occupants in simulated ROV rollover events indicate that seat belt with the rear of the vehicle rotating the Companies. The Commission believes that sub- use is required to retain occupants about the yaw axis. A vehicle in a slide limit oversteer is an unstable condition within the vehicle. Without seat belt is susceptible to a tripped rollover. that can lead to a rollover incident. use, occupants experience partial to full ROVs have low rollover resistance and Based on the Yamaha Rhino repair ejection from the vehicle. This scenario are at high risk of a violent, tripped program and the SEA test results has been identified as an injury hazard rollover. Autonomous vehicle testing by indicating that half of the sample ROVs in the CPSC’s review of ROV-related SEA has duplicated these limit oversteer tested already exhibit sub-limit incidents. Of those incidents that conditions and found that tripped understeer, the CPSC believes that ROVs involved occupant ejection, many rollovers can create in excess of 2 g to can be designed to understeer with occupants suffered crushing injuries 3 g of instantaneous lateral acceleration, minimum cost and without diminishing caused by the vehicle. which produces a violent rollover event. the utility or recreational value of this After reviewing the literature CPSC’s evaluation indicates that class of vehicle. regarding automotive seat belts, the eliminating sub-limit oversteer will 6. Comment: Comments from CEI, the Commission believes that an 8-second reduce unintentional transitions to limit Companies, and the Committee state reminder light, as required in ANSI/ oversteer. that no correlation can be shown ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– The Commission does not agree that between understeer/oversteer and ROV 2012, is not adequate to increase producing power oversteer by spinning crashes or rollovers. meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs the rear wheels is a necessity for Response: From a design and because the system is not intrusive negotiating low-friction, off-highway engineering perspective, the physics of enough to motivate drivers and surfaces. Drifting or power oversteering vehicle rollover inherently support the passengers to wear their seat belts. is a risky practice that presents tripped fact that increasing a vehicle’s resistance Results from past studies on automotive rollover hazards and does not improve to rollover will make the vehicle more seat belt reminders conclude that visual the vehicle’s controllability. However, stable. In addition, eliminating a vehicle reminders are ineffective. Numerous the practice of power oversteering is the characteristic that exhibits a sudden studies conclude further that effective result of driver choices that are not increase in lateral acceleration during a reminder systems have to be intrusive under the control of the manufacturer or turn will reduce the risk of rollover. The enough to motivate users to buckle their the CPSC, and will not be significantly constant radius tests and SIS tests seat belts. The more intrusive reminders affected by the elimination of sub-limit conducted by SEA provide strong are more effective at changing user oversteer. evidence that sub-limit oversteer is an behavior, as long as the reminder is not 5. Comment: Comments from the unstable condition that can lead to a so intrusive that users bypass the Companies state that requiring ROVs to rollover incident. system. exhibit understeer characteristics could Of the 428 ROV-related incidents Based on literature and results from create unintended and adverse risk, reviewed by the CPSC, 291 (68 percent) the Westat study, the Commission such as gross loss of mobility. These involved lateral rollover of the vehicle, believes that a seat belt speed limiting commenters assert that CPSC would be and more than half of these (52 percent) system that restricts the maximum trading one set of purported safety occurred while the vehicle was turning. speed of the vehicle to 15 mph, if the issues for another, equally challenging Of the 147 fatal incidents that involved driver seat and any occupied front seats set of safety issues, and running against rollover, 26 (18 percent) occurred on a are not buckled, is the most effective 100 years of experience in off-highway paved surface. A vehicle exhibiting method to increase meaningfully seat vehicle design and driving practice, oversteer is most susceptible to rollover belt use rates in ROVs. The system is which suggests that for off-highway in a turn where the undesirable sudden transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph conditions, limit oversteer is at least increase in lateral acceleration can and below, and the system consistently cause rollover to occur quickly, motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph. 40 Olley, M. (1934). Independent Wheel especially on paved surfaces, where an Suspension—Its Whys and Wherefores. SAE ROV can exhibit an untripped rollover. 2. Comment: Comments from CEI 340080.; Stonex, K. A. (1941). Car Control Factors The Commission believes that state that four-point and five-point seat and Their Measurement. SAE 410092.; Segel, L. improving the rollover resistance and belts are not appropriate for ROVs. In (1957). Research in the Fundamentals of vehicle steering characteristics of ROVs contrast, several individual comments Automobile Control and Stability. SAE 570044.; Bergman, W. (1965). The Basic Nature of Vehicle is a practical strategy for reducing the state that five-point seat belts should be Understeer—Oversteer. SAE 650085.; Bundorf, R. T. occurrence of ROV rollover events. required on ROVs. and Leffert, R. L. (1976). The Cornering Compliance Response: The Commission identified Concept for Description of Vehicle Directional Occupant Protection lack of seat belt use as an injury hazard Control Properties. SAE 760713.; and Milliken, 1. Comment: Comments from CEI, the in the CPSC’s review of ROV-related William F., Jr., et al. (1976). The Static Directional Stability and Control of the Automobile. SAE Companies, and the Committee state incidents. The majority of safety 760712. that seat belt use is critically important. restraints in the ROV incidents were

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68991

three-point restraints, and to some (38 percent) and on a gentle incline in category in NEISS. At a minimum, extent, two-point seat belts. Although 18 incidents (12 percent). Of the 224 ROVs can be thought of as a subset of four-point seat belts might be superior fatal ROV incidents, the vehicle speed is UTVs and/or ATVs, and cannot be to three-point seat belts in retaining unknown in 164 incidents (73 percent); identified on a consistent basis through occupants in a vehicle, three-point seat 32 incidents (14 percent) occurred at the NEISS case records because NEISS belts have been shown to be effective in speeds of 20 miles per hour (mph) or requires knowledge of the make/model reducing the risk of death and serious less; and 28 incidents (13 percent) of the vehicle (which is not coded in the injury in automotive applications. The occurred at speeds more than 20 mph. NEISS for any product). Occasionally, Commission believes that it is unlikely (Vehicle speeds were reported (i.e., not the NEISS narrative contains make/ that users who already do not use three- measured by instrumentation); so these model identification, but this cannot be point seat belts will use the more speeds can be used qualitatively only used to identify ROVs accurately and cumbersome four-point and five-point and not as accurate values of speed at consistently. seat belts. which incidents occurred.) Of the 224 CPSC conducted a special study in A more robust seat belt reminder fatal ROV incidents, the age of the 2010, in which all cases coded as ATVs system than the current voluntary driver was less than 16 years old in 61 or UTVs were selected for telephone standard requirement for a visual incidents (27 percent). Of the 231 interviews to gather information about reminder light is necessary to motivate fatalities, 77 victims (33 percent) were the product involved. Sixteen of the 668 users to wear their seat belts because children less than 16 years of age. completed surveys had responses that automotive studies of seat belt A review of the incident data shows identified the vehicle as an ROV. Staff’s reminders indicate that visual no indication that the majority of analysis shows that many ROVs are reminders do not increase seat belt use. rollover incidents are caused by drivers coded as ATVs; many UTVs are also Dynamic rollover tests of ROVs indicate who ‘‘purposely push the vehicle to and coded as ATVs; and identification of that a three-point seat belt, in beyond its limits by engaging in stunts, ROVs and UTVs is difficult because the conjunction with a passive shoulder racing, and intentional use of extreme NEISS narratives often do not include restraint, is effective in restraining an environments.’’ An analysis of the enough information to identify the occupant inside the protective zone of reported ROV incidents indicates that product. The miscoding rate for UTVs the vehicle’s ROPS during a quarter-turn many of the details of the circumstances and ROVs is high, and most likely, the rollover. of the event, such as vehicle speed or miscoding is due to consumer-reported 3. Comment: Comments from CEI terrain slope, are not known. In cases in information in the emergency state that occupant protection which details of the event are known, department. requirements should be based on roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral The CPSC added the UTV product meaningful tests. rollover incidents occurred on flat or code 5044 to the NEISS in 2005. In the Response: The Commission agrees gentle slope terrain; and 14 percent years 2005 to 2008 (the years cited in that ROV occupant protection occurred at speeds below 20 miles per the joint comment document), the UTV performance evaluations should be hour. Twenty-seven percent of the product code had mostly out-of-scope based on actual ROV rollovers or drivers in fatal rollover incidents are records, with a large number of utility simulations of real-world rollovers. children under 16 years of age; and 33 trailers and similar records. After these Occupant protection performance percent of all ROV-related fatalities are out-of-scope records are removed, the requirements for ROVs in the voluntary children under 16 years of age. only viable estimate is obtained by standard developed by ROHVA (ANSI/ 2. Comment: Comments from the aggregating the cases across 2005 to ROHVA 1–2011) and the voluntary Companies state that the CPSC failed to 2008, to get an estimated 1,300 standard developed by OPEI (ANSI/ use data from the NEISS in its analysis emergency department-treated injuries OPEI B71.9–2012) are not supported by of ROV hazards. The comments suggest related to UTVs (see Tab K, Table 1). data from rollover tests. further that analysis of the NEISS data This estimate is considerably less than The SEA roll simulator is the most on utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) the estimate reported by Heiden in the accurate simulation of an ROV rollover indicate that UTVs, and therefore, joint comment. This estimate also does event because it has been validated by ROVs, have a low hospitalization rate. not include the UTV-related injuries measurements taken during actual ROV Response: The joint comment’s that were miscoded as ATVs in the ATV rollovers. Rollover tests indicate that a conclusions based on the commenters’ product codes. seat belt, used in conjunction with a analyses of the NEISS UTV data are not As the years have passed and the UTV passive shoulder barrier, is effective at technically sound because the NEISS product code is being used more as restraining occupants within the results do not specifically identify intended, a completely different picture protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS ROVs. NEISS has a product code for is seen for UTVs. From 2009 to 2012, during quarter-turn rollover events. UTVs and several product codes for there are an estimated 6,200 emergency ATVs, but there is no separate product department-treated, UTV-related ROV Incident Analysis code for ROVs. ATVs have a straddle injuries (which can be attributed to an 1. Comment: Comments from CEI seat for the operator and handlebars for increase in the number of UTV-related state that ROV rollover incidents are steering. UTVs have bucket or bench injuries, a larger portion of injuries caused by a small minority of drivers seats for the operator/passengers, a being identified in NEISS as UTVs, or a who intentionally drive at the limits of steering wheel for steering, and UTVs combination of all of these and other the vehicle and the driver’s abilities, may or may not have a ROPS. ROVs are factors not identified). Of these and intentionally drive in extreme a subset of UTVs and are distinguished estimated 6,200 injuries, only 80.2 environments. by having a ROPS, seat belts, and a percent are treated and released. The Response: Of the 224 reported ROV maximum speed above 30 mph. proportion of treated and released incidents that involved at least one However, many official entities, news injuries for UTVs is significantly below fatality, 147 incidents involved lateral media, and consumers refer to ROVs as the proportion of treated and released rollover of the vehicle. Of the 147 lateral ATVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are for all consumer products (92.0 percent rollover fatalities, it is reported that the usually assigned to either an ATV of estimated consumer product-related, ROV was on flat terrain in 56 incidents product category or to the UTV product emergency department-treated injuries

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

were treated and released from 2009 to at an excessive speed? When is a turn enough to motivate users to buckle their 2012). This illustrates a hazard of more too sharp? When is a maneuver seat belts. The more intrusive reminders severe injuries associated with UTVs. dangerous?). The Commission’s are more effective at changing user In conclusion, data are insufficient to approach to analyzing the 428 incidents behavior, as long as the reminder is not support the argument that UTV injuries summarized in the reports available in so intrusive that users bypass the are not as severe as those associated the NPR briefing package is to consider system. with other products. As more data have the sequence of events, the vehicle, the The Commission believes that a seat become available in recent years, it driver, any passenger, and environment belt speed-limiting system that restricts appears that about 80 percent of the characteristics across all incidents. All the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 injuries associated with UTVs have been definitions are set and used consistently mph if the driver seat and any occupied treated and released as compared to by the multidisciplinary review team to front seats are not buckled is the most about 92 percent of the injuries understand the hazard patterns and effective method to increase associated with all consumer products. incident characteristics across all 3. Comment: The Companies meaningfully seat belt use rates in incidents, not to set responsibility in ROVs. The system is transparent to provided their own analysis of ROV- one place or another. users at speeds of 15 mph and below, related reports that were used in the 4. Comment: Comments from CEI and the system consistently motivates CPSC’s ANPR analysis. In particular, the state that the CPSC should begin to Companies criticize Commission staff’s address human factors that pertain to occupants to buckle their seat belts to analysis because asserting that staff’s risk-taking behavior of the small achieve speeds above 15 mph. analysis did not include factors related minority of ROV users who operate the IX. Description of the Proposed Rule to incident conditions and user vehicles at their limits without crash- behavior. worthiness concerns. In particular, CEI A. Scope, Purpose, and Compliance Response: Commission staff’s analysis proposes that the CPSC focus primarily Dates—§ 1422.1 of incidents for the ANPR was a on changing consumer behavior to The proposed standard would apply preliminary review of reported wearing seat belts, wearing helmets, and to ‘‘recreational off-highway vehicles’’ incidents to understand the overall refraining from driving ROVs (ROVs), as defined, which would limit hazard patterns. For the NPR, irresponsibly. Commission staff conducted an Response: The Commission agrees the scope to vehicles with a maximum extensive, multidisciplinary review of that human factors and behavior affect speed greater than 30 mph. The 428 reported ROV-related incidents the risk of death and injury for ROV proposed standard would include resulting in at least one death or injury. users. However, the CPSC believes that requirements relating to lateral The results of this study are establishing minimum requirements for acceleration, vehicle handling, and summarized in two reports in the NPR ROVs can also reduce the hazards occupant protection. The requirements briefing package, along with analyses of associated with ROVs. As explained in are intended to reduce or eliminate an victim characteristics, hazard patterns, this preamble, the ANSI/ROHVA unreasonable risk of injury associated environmental characteristics, and make voluntary standard does not adequately with ROVs. The proposed standard and model characteristics. (The addresses the risk of injury and death would specifically exclude ‘‘golf cars,’’ approach taken in the comments from associated with lateral rollovers of ROVs ‘‘all-terrain vehicles,’’ ‘‘fun karts,’’ ‘‘go the Companies, to remove reports from because the standards do not have karts,’’ and ‘‘light utility vehicles,’’ as the analysis because there is unknown robust lateral stability requirements, do defined by the relevant voluntary information, is not the Commission’s not have vehicle handling requirement standards. The Commission proposes approach in analyzing ROV-related to ensure understeer, and do not have two compliance dates: ROVs would be incidents.) Unknowns from all reports robust occupant restraint requirements required to comply with the lateral are included with the knowns to ensure to protect occupants from vehicle stability and vehicle handling that the full picture is seen because rollover. requirements (§§ 1422.3 and 1422.4) 180 every report will have at least one piece An analysis of the reported ROV days after publication of the final rule of unknown information, and every incidents indicates that many of the in the Federal Register. ROVs would be report will have at least one piece of details of an event, such as vehicle required to comply with the occupant known information. The unknowns are speed or terrain slope, are not known. protection requirements (§ 1422.5) 12 reported in all tables, if unknowns were Where details of the event are known, months after publication of the final recorded for the variables used. roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral rule in the Federal Register. The The analysis of IDIs summarized in rollover incidents occurred on flat or Commission recognizes that some ROV the comments from the Companies does gentle slope terrain, and 14 percent manufacturers will need to redesign and not define ‘‘excessive speed,’’ occurred at speeds below 20 miles per test new prototype vehicles to meet the ‘‘dangerous maneuver,’’ or ‘‘sharp turn.’’ hour. Twenty-seven percent of the occupant protection requirements. This In fact, in other places in the comments, drivers in fatal rollover incidents are design and test process is similar to the the companies mention: ‘‘There is also children under 16 years of age; and 33 process that manufacturers use when no evidence suggesting that speed is an percent of all ROV-related fatalities are introducing new model year vehicles. important factor in preventing children under 16 years of age. There is As described more fully in Section X, accidents.’’ The companies also state: no indication that the majority of staff estimates that it will take ‘‘Tight steering turn capability is an rollover incidents are caused by drivers approximately 9 person-months per important feature in certain ROVs, who intentionally drive under extreme ROV model to design, test, implement, particularly those for trail use, because conditions. and begin manufacturing vehicles to of the need to respond quickly to avoid Regarding seat belt use, results from meet the occupant protection obstacles and trail-edge drop-offs, and past studies on automotive seat belt performance requirements. Therefore, otherwise navigate in these off-highway reminders conclude that visual seat belt the Commission believes that 12 months terrains’’ Thus, there is ambiguity in reminders are ineffective. Numerous is a reasonable time period for what the definitions could mean in the studies further conclude that effective manufacturers to comply with all of analysis of the IDIs (When is the vehicle reminder systems have to be intrusive new mandatory requirements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68993

B. Definitions—§ 1422.2 ROV rollover resistance because static in content, form, and sequence as The proposed standard would provide tests are unable to account fully for the specified in the proposed rule. that the definitions in section 3 of the dynamic tire deflections and suspension The Commission proposes the compliance exhibited by ROVs during a following ROV hangtag requirements: Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. • 2051) apply. In addition, the proposed J-turn maneuver. The Commission also Content. Every ROV shall be offered standard would include the following verified that the J-turn test is objective for sale with a hangtag that graphically definitions: and repeatable for ROVs by conducting illustrates and textually states the lateral • ‘‘Recreational off-highway numerous J-turn tests on several ROVs. acceleration threshold at rollover for vehicle’’—a motorized vehicle designed As explained above, testing that ROV model. The hangtag shall be for off-highway use with the following conducted by CPSC staff and SEA attached to the ROV and may be features: Four or more wheels with supports the proposed requirement that removed only by the first purchaser. • pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating ROVs demonstrate a minimum Size. Every hangtag shall be at least for two or more occupants; automotive- threshold lateral acceleration at rollover 15.24 cm (6 inches) wide by 10.16 cm type controls for steering, throttle, and of 0.70 g or greater in a J-turn. Results (4 inches) tall. • braking; rollover protective structures of J-turn tests performed on a sample of Attachment. Every hangtag shall be (ROPS); occupant restraint; and 10 ROVs available in the U.S. market attached to the ROV and be conspicuous maximum speed capability greater than indicate that six of the 10 ROVs tested to a person sitting in the driver’s seat; 30 mph. measured threshold lateral accelerations and the hangtag shall be removable only • ‘‘two-wheel lift’’—point at which below 0.70 g (values ranged from 0.625 with deliberate effort. • the inside wheels of a turning vehicle g to 0.690 g). The Commission believes Format. The hang tag shall provide lift off the ground, or when the uphill that minor changes to vehicle all of the elements shown in the wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off suspension and/or track width spacing, example hangtag (see Figure 16). the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor similar to the changes in the Yamaha b. Rationale to a rollover event. We use the term Rhino repair program, can increase the ‘‘two-wheel lift’’ interchangeably with threshold lateral acceleration of these Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes ‘‘tip-up.’’ vehicles to 0.70 g or greater. The the Commission to require, by rule, that • ‘‘threshold lateral acceleration’’— Yamaha repair program improved the manufacturers of consumer products minimum lateral acceleration of the rollover resistance of the Yamaha Rhino provide to the Commission performance vehicle at two-wheel lift. from 0.670 g (unrepaired Yamaha and technical data related to Rhino) to 0.705 g (repaired Yamaha performance and safety as may be C. Requirements for Dynamic Lateral required to carry out the purposes of the Stability—§ 1422.3 Rhino). Based on CPSC’s evaluation of ROV CPSA, and to give notification of such 1. Proposed Performance Requirement testing and the decrease in injuries and performance and technical data at the time of original purchase to prospective a. Description of Requirement deaths associated with Yamaha Rhino vehicles after the repair program was purchasers and to the first purchaser of The proposed rule would require that implemented, the Commission believes the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e)). Section all ROVs meet a minimum requirement that improving the rollover resistance of 2 of the CPSA provides that one purpose for lateral stability. The dynamic lateral all ROVs can reduce injuries and deaths of the CPSA is to ‘‘assist consumers in stability requirement would set a associated with ROV rollover events. evaluating the comparative safety of minimum value for the lateral consumer products.’’ 15 U.S.C. acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g, as 2. Proposed Requirements for Hang Tag 2051(b)(2). determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J- a. Description of Requirement Other federal government agencies turn test. The 30 mph drop-throttle J- currently require on-product labels with turn test uses a programmable steering The Commission is proposing a information to help consumers in controller to turn the test vehicle requirement that ROV manufacturers making purchasing decisions. For traveling at 30 mph at prescribed provide technical information for example, NHTSA requires automobiles steering angles and rates to determine consumers on a hangtag at the point of to come with comparative information the minimum steering angle at which purchase. on vehicles regarding rollover two-wheel lift is observed. These are the As discussed previously, the resistance. 49 CFR 575.105. NHTSA conditions and procedures that were Commission is proposing a requirement believes that consumer information on used in testing with SEA. Under the that ROVs meet a minimum lateral the rollover risk of passenger cars would proposed requirements, the data acceleration of 0.70 g at rollover, as influence consumers to purchase collected during these tests are analyzed identified by J-turn testing. The vehicles with a lower rollover risk and to compute and verify the lateral Commission proposes requiring a inspire manufacturers to produce acceleration at rollover for the vehicle. hangtag on each ROV that would state vehicles with a lower rollover risk.41 A The greater the lateral acceleration the actual measured lateral acceleration subsequent study of SSF trends in value, the greater is the resistance of the at rollover (as identified by the J-turn automobiles found that SSF values ROV to tip or roll over. testing) of each ROV model. The increased for all vehicles after 2001, Commission believes that the hang tag b. Rationale particularly SUVs, which tended to will allow consumers to make informed have the worst SSF values in the earlier The J-turn test is the most appropriate decisions on the comparative lateral years.42 method to measure the rollover stability of ROVs when making a resistance of ROVs because the J-turn purchase and will provide a competitive 41 Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static test has been evaluated by NHTSA as incentive for manufacturers to improve Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and the most objective and repeatable the rollover resistance of ROVs. Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www. method for vehicles with low rollover The proposed rule specifies the nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/ index.html. resistance. As discussed previously, content and format for the hang tag, and 42 Walz, M.C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability static metrics, such as SSF and TTR, includes an example hang tag. Under Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. cannot be used to evaluate accurately the proposal, the hang tag must conform Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

EnergyGuide labels, required on most vehicles in terms of resistance to requires ATVs to be sold with a hangtag appliances, are another example of rollover. Requiring that ROV lateral that is to be removed only by the federally-mandated labels to assist acceleration test results be stated on a purchaser and requires ATV hangtags to consumers in making purchase hangtag may motivate manufacturers to be 6-inches tall x 4-inches wide. decisions. 16 CFR part 305. Detailed increase the performance of their ROV Because ROV manufacturers are likely operating cost and energy consumption to achieve a higher reportable lateral to be familiar with the hangtag information on these labels allows acceleration, similar to incentives requirements for ATVs, the Commission consumers to compare competing created as a result of NHTSA’s NCAP is proposing the same size requirements models and identify higher efficiency program. for ROV hang tags. products. The EnergyGuide label design The proposed hangtag is based, in was developed based on extensive part, on the point-of-purchase hangtag The hang tag graph draws its format consumer research and following a two- requirements for ATVs. ATVs must have from well-recognized principles in year rulemaking process. hangtags that include general warning effective warnings. When presenting Like NHTSA rollover resistance information regarding operation and graphical information, it is important to information and EnergyGuide labels, the operator and passenger requirements, as include labels so that the data can be proposed ROV hang tags are intended to well as behavior that is warned against. understood. Graphs should have a provide important information to Most ROV manufacturers are also unique title, and the axes should be consumers at the time of purchase. manufacturers of ATVs. Accordingly, fully labeled with the units of Providing the value of each ROV model ROV manufacturers are likely to be measurement. Graphs should also be vehicle’s threshold lateral acceleration familiar with the hangtag requirements distinguished from the text, by adding to consumers will assist consumers with for ATVs. The ANSI/SVIA 1–2010 white space, or enclosing the graphs in evaluating the comparative safety of the voluntary standard that applies to ATVs a box.43

DOT HS 809868. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa. gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/ 43 Markel, M. (2001). Technical Communication. index.html. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.015 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68995

(1) The ROV icon helps identify the visually how a specific model compares relevant literature, the CPSC believes product. The icon is presented at a to the minimal value. that this condition can lead to untripped slight angle to help consumers readily (6) Scale starts at 0.65 g to allow a ROV rollovers or may cause ROVs to identify the label as addressing ROV shaded bar for those ROVs meeting only slide into limit oversteer and experience rollover characteristics. Research has the minimally acceptable lateral tripped rollover. Ensuring sub-limit shown that pictorial symbols and icons acceleration value. understeer eliminates the potential for make warnings more noticeable and D. Vehicle Handling—§ 1422.4 sudden and exponential increase in easier to detect than warnings without lateral acceleration that can cause ROV such symbols and icons.45 1. Description of Requirement rollovers. (2) Graph label, ‘‘Better,’’ indicates The proposed rule would require that The decrease in Rhino-related that the higher the value (as shading all ROVs meet a vehicle handling incidents after the repair program was increases to the right), the higher the requirement, which requires that ROVs initiated and the low number of vehicle ROV’s resistance to rolling over during exhibit understeer characteristics. The rollover incidents associated with a turn on a flat surface. understeer requirement would mandate repaired Rhino vehicles are evidence (3) The Manufacturer, Model, Model that ROVs exhibit understeer that increasing the lateral stability of an number, Model year help the consumer characteristics in the sublimit range of ROV and correcting oversteer identify the exact ROV described by the the turn circle test. The test for vehicle characteristics to understeer reduces the label. Likewise, the EnergyGuide label handling or understeer performance occurrence of ROV rollover on level provides information on the involves driving the vehicle around a terrain. In particular, the Commission manufacturer, model, and size of the 100-foot radius circle at increasing believes the elimination of runaway product so that consumers can identify speeds, with the driver making every lateral acceleration associated with exactly what appliance the label effort to maintain compliance of the oversteer contributed to a decrease in describes.46 The Commission is vehicle path relative to the circle. SEA Rhino-related rollover incidents. proposing a similar identification of the testing was based on a 100-foot radius As mentioned previously, ROVs can ROV model on the hangtag so that circle. Data collected during these tests be designed to understeer in sub-limit consumers can compare values among are analyzed to determine whether the operation with minimum cost and different model ROVs. vehicle understeers through the without diminishing the utility or (4) Textual information. Technical required range. The proposed rule recreational value of this class of communication that includes graphs would require that all ROVs exhibit vehicle. Half of the vehicles CPSC tested should also include text to paraphrase understeer for values of ground plane already exhibit sub-limit understeer the importance of the graphic and lateral acceleration from 0.10 to 0.50 g. condition for the full range of the test, explain how to interpret the information and this includes both utility and 2. Rationale presented.47 Additionally, including a recreational model ROVs. The CPSC believes that the constant graphic before introducing text may E. Occupant Retention System— radius test is the most appropriate serve as a valuable reference for § 1422.5 consumers, by maintaining attention method to measure an ROV’s steering and encouraging further reading.48 The gradient because SAE J266, Surface The proposed rule includes two textual informational in the hangtag Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady- requirements that are intended to keep provides consumers with more State Directional Control Test the occupant within the vehicle or the definition of the values given in the Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light ROPs. First, each ROV would be graph. Trucks, establishes the constant radius required to have a means to restrict (5) Linear scale, and anchor showing test as a method to measure understeer/ occupant egress and excursion in the minimally acceptable value on the scale. oversteer in passenger cars. The test shoulder/hip zone defined by the Currently, the EnergyGuide label uses a procedures are also applicable to ROVs proposed rule. This requirement could linear scale with the lowest and highest because ROVs are similar to cars, have be met by a fixed barrier structure or operating costs for similar models so four steerable wheels and a suspension structure on the ROV or by a barrier or that consumers can compare products; system, and thus, ROVs obey the same structure that can be put into place by the yearly operating cost for the specific principles of motion as automobiles. the occupant using one hand in one model is identified on the linear scale.49 The Commission believes that the operation, such as a door. Second, the The Commission is proposing a linear appropriate lateral acceleration range to proposed rule would require that the scale format for the ROV hangtag, as measure steering gradient is from 0.10 g speed of an ROV be limited to a well. The text identifies the minimally to 0.50 g because SEA test results maximum of 15 mph, unless the seat accepted lateral acceleration at rollover indicate that spurious data occur at the belts for both the driver and any front as being 0.7 g. When providing this on beginning and end of a constant radius seat passengers are fastened. The the scale, people are able to determine test conducted up to vehicle rollover. purpose of these requirements is to Data collected in the range of 0.10 g to prevent deaths and injury incidents, 44 Hang tag not shown to scale. 0.50 g of lateral acceleration provide the especially incidents that involve full or 45 Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., and Laughery, K. most accurate plots of the vehicle’s partial ejection of the rider from the (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. steering characteristic.50 vehicle. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. Tests conducted by SEA show that 1. Speed Limitation 46 Guide to EnergyGuide label retrieved at http:// ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping- a condition where the lateral a. Requirement home-appliances-use-energyguide-label. 47 Markel, M. 2001. acceleration increases suddenly and The Commission proposes a 48 Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer exponentially. Based on testing and performance requirement that limits the product instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. maximum speed that an ROV can attain Consumer Product Safety Commission. 50 Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics 49 FTC. Retrieved from: https://www.consumer. Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway to 15 mph or less when tested with ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliances- Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Page unbuckled front seat belts during the use-energyguide-label. Files/96037/rov.pdf. Page 18. maximum speed test. Section 5 of ANSI/

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

ROHVA 1–2011, ‘‘Maximum Speed,’’ seat belt was not buckled. The system acceptable speed for unbelted ROV establishes test protocols to measure did not interfere with the operation of drivers. maximum speed on level ground. the vehicle below the threshold speed, Additionally, the principles of Because ROV manufacturers are already and drivers were willing to buckle their physics support this conclusion. The familiar with these test procedures and seat belts to access unhindered speed fundamental relationship between the proposed test would add elements to capability of the vehicle. speed and lateral acceleration is: a test procedure manufacturers already The Commission also believes that A = V2/R where A = lateral acceleration conduct to meet the voluntary standard, speed-limitation technology will be V = velocity the CPSC believes that the maximum accepted by ROV users because the R = radius of turn speed test from ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 is technology is already included on the The minimum proposed lateral the most appropriate method to measure BRP Can-Am Commander and Can-Am acceleration threshold at rollover for the limited speed of an ROV. Maverick model ROVs, and the ROVs is 0.70 g, and the typical turn manufacturer with the largest ROV radius of an ROV is 16 feet.51 Therefore, b. Rationale market share, Polaris, announced that it without any additional effects of tire i. Importance of Seat Belts will introduce the technology on model friction, the speed at which rollover As discussed in section V of this year 2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs. would occur during a turn on level preamble, results of the CPSC’s The Commission’s literature review ground is 13 mph. (The CPSC exploratory testing of belted and concludes that intrusive reminders are recognizes that on a slope, the lateral unbelted occupants in simulated ROV effective at changing user behavior, as acceleration due to gravity can cause rollover events indicate that seat belt long as the reminder is not so intrusive ROV rollover at speeds below 15 mph. use is required to retain occupants that users bypass the system. Limitation However, the CPSC believes that it is within the vehicle. This conclusion of vehicle speed is the intrusive appropriate to use level ground as a corresponds with the incident data for reminder for ROV users to buckle their baseline.) In reality, friction at the tires ROV rollovers, in which 91 percent of seat belt; therefore, the Commission would increase the speed at which the fatal victims who were partially or believes that the threshold speed for a rollover occurs to above 13 mph. fully ejected from the vehicle were not seat belt speed-limitation system should iv. User Acceptance of 15 mph wearing seat belts. Of the incidents that be as high as possible to gain user involved occupant ejection, many acceptance (and reduce bypass of the Based on CPSC’s study and the occupants were injured when struck by system), but low enough to allow experience of some ROVs that have the vehicle after ejection. The relatively safe operation of the vehicle. speed limitations, the Commission believes that ROV users are likely to Commission believes that many of the iii. Choice of 15 MPH ROV occupant ejection deaths and accept a 15 mph threshold speed injuries can be eliminated if occupants The Commission believes 15 mph is limitation. The following reasons the appropriate speed threshold for a support this conclusion: wear seat belts. • Studies have shown that automobile seat belt speed-limitation system. Based Results of Westat’s Phase 1 focus seat belt reminders do not increase seat on information about ROVs and vehicles group study of ROV users indicate that belt use, unless the reminders are similar to ROVs, the Commission ROV users value easy ingress and egress aggressive enough to motivate users to concludes that ROVs can be operated from an ROV and generally drive buckle seat belts without alienating the relatively safely at 15 mph. For around 15 mph to 30 mph during user into bypassing or rejecting the example: typical use of the ROV. Users had mixed system. Based on the Commission’s • ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1–2004, reactions to a speed threshold of 10 mph testing and literature review and the low American National Standard for Golf and were more accepting of a speed- seat belt use rates in ROV-related Carts—Safety and Performance limitation technology if the threshold Specifications, specifies the maximum speed was 15 mph. incidents, the Commission believes that • a seat belt speed limiting system that speed for golf carts at 15 mph. This There are many situations in which restricts the maximum speed of the standard establishes 15 mph as the an ROV is used at slow speeds, such as vehicle to 15 mph if any occupied front maximum acceptable speed for unbelted mowing or plowing, carrying tools to seats are not buckled, is the most drivers and passengers (golf carts do not jobsites, and checking property. The effective method to increase seat belt have seat belts or ROPS) in vehicles that Commission believes that a speed- use rates in ROVs. are often driven in off-road conditions. limitation threshold of 15 mph allows • SAE J2258, Surface Vehicle the most latitude for ROV users to ii. Likely Acceptance of Speed- Standard for Light Utility Vehicles, perform utility tasks where seat belt use Limitation Technology specifies a speed of 15 mph as is often undesired. • The Commission believes that in- acceptable for a vehicle, with a lateral The Commission believes that ROV vehicle technology that limits the speed stability of at least 25 degrees on a tilt user acceptance of a seat belt speed- of the ROV if the front occupied seats table test, without seat belts or ROPS. limitation system will be higher at 15 are not buckled will be accepted by This standard also establishes 15 mph mph than the speed threshold of 9 mph ROV users because the technology does as the maximum acceptable speed for on the Commander ROV. Although BRP not interfere with the operation of the unbelted drivers and passengers in continues to sell the Can-Am ROV below the threshold speed, and vehicles that are driven in off-road Commander and Can-Am Maverick users will be motivated to wear seat conditions. ROVs with speed limitations set at belts if they wish to exceed the • Polaris Ranger and RZR model year around 10 mph, focus group responses threshold speed. This conclusion is 2015 ROVs will be equipped with a seat indicate that many ROV users believe based on automotive studies that show belt speed limiter that limits the vehicle that 10 mph is too low a speed limit to drivers accepted a system that reduced speed to 15 mph if the driver’s seat belt 51 Turn radius values retrieved at: http://www.atv. vehicle function (i.e., requiring more is not buckled. The decision by the com/features/choosing-a-work-vehicle-atv-vs-utv- effort to depress the accelerator pedal) largest manufacturer of ROVs 2120.html and http://www.utvunderground.com/ after a threshold speed, if the driver’s establishes 15 mph as the maximum 2014-kawasaki-teryx-4-le-6346.html.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68997

be acceptable, and therefore, these users F. Prohibited Stockpiling—§ 1422.6 level of rollover resistance for ROVs and will bypass the system. The 15 mph The proposed rule contains anti- requires that ROVs exhibit sublimit threshold is 50 percent higher than a 10 stockpiling provisions to prohibit understeer characteristics, and (2) mph threshold, and staff believes that excessive production or importation of occupant retention requirements that the difference in the speed threshold noncomplying ROVs during the period would limit the maximum speed of an will increase user acceptance of the between the final rule’s publication and ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour system. Polaris’s decision to include its effective date. Anti-stockpiling (mph), unless the seat belts of both the seat belt speed limiters with a 15 mph provisions typically exist to prevent the driver and front passengers, if any, are threshold speed in model year 2015 production or importation of significant fastened; and in addition, would require Ranger and RZR ROVs supports the numbers—significantly beyond typical ROVs to have a passive means, such as Commission’s belief that user rates—of noncomplying products that a barrier or structure, to limit further the acceptance of a speed-limitation system can be sold after the effective date of a ejection of a belted occupant in the will be higher at 15 mph than 10 mph. safety standard, which could present an event of a rollover. Following is a preliminary regulatory 2. Shoulder Probe Test unreasonable risk of injury to consumers. In order to balance the analysis of the proposed rule, including a. Requirement protection of consumers and the burden a description of the potential costs and to manufacturers and importers of potential benefits. Each element of the CPSC is proposing a performance compliance with the effective date of a proposed rule is discussed separately. requirement that ROVs pass a probe test rule, a production limit is typically set For some elements, the benefits and at a defined area near the ROV at some minimal percentage above a costs cannot be quantified in monetary occupants’ shoulder. The probe test is single year’s production rate as selected terms. Where this is the case, the the most appropriate method to measure by the manufacturer or importer. This potential costs and benefits are the occupant protection performance in allows the manufacturer or importer to described and discussed conceptually. the shoulder area of the ROV because select the date most conductive to B. Market Information various forms of the probe test are compliance, even if production or already used in the voluntary standard importation occurs at an unusually 1. Manufacturers and Market Shares for ROVs and ATVs to determine robust pace during the selected period. The number of manufacturers occupant protection performance. The prohibited stockpiling provision marketing ROVs in the United States The test applies a probe with a force herein limits the production or has increased substantially in recent of 163 lbs., to a defined area of the importation of noncomplying products years. The first utility vehicle that vehicle’s ROPS near the ROV occupants’ to 10% of the amount produced or exceeded 30 mph, thus putting the shoulder. The vertical and forward imported in any 365-day period utility vehicle in the ROV category, was locations for the point of application of designated, at the option of each introduced in the late 1990s. No other the probe are based upon manufacturer or importer, beginning on manufacturer offered an ROV until anthropometric data. The probe or after October 1, 2009, and ending on 2003. In 2013, there were 20 dimensions are based on the upper arm or before the date of promulgation of the manufacturers known to CPSC to be of a 5th percentile adult female, and the rule. supplying ROVs to the U.S. market. One manufacturer accounted for about 60 dimensions of a 5th percentile adult G. Findings—§ 1422.7 female represent the smallest size percent of the ROVs sold in the United occupant that may be driving or riding In accordance with the requirements States in 2013. Another seven an ROV. The 163 lb. force application of the CPSA, we are proposing to make manufacturers, including one based in represents a 50th percentile adult male the findings stated in section 9 of the China, accounted for about 36 percent of occupant pushing against the barrier CPSA. The proposed findings are the ROVs sold in the same year. None during a rollover event. The probe is discussed in section XVI of this of these seven manufacturers accounted applied for 10 seconds and the vehicle preamble. for more than 10 percent of the market. structure must absorb the force without X. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis The rest of the market was divided bending more than 1 inch. among about 12 other manufacturers, The Commission is proposing to issue most of which were based in China or b. Rationale a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the Taiwan.52 Commission staff’s analysis CPSA. The CPSA requires that the attempted to exclude vehicles that had After exploring several methods to Commission prepare a preliminary test occupant protection performance of mostly industrial or commercial regulatory analysis and that the applications and were not likely to be ROVs during a rollover event, CPSC preliminary regulatory analysis be purchased by consumers. The believes the SEA roll simulator is the published with the text of the proposed Commission has identified more than most accurate simulation of a rollover rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The following 150 individual ROV models from among because the roll simulator is able to discussion is extracted from staff’s these manufacturers. However, this reproduce the lateral acceleration and memorandum, ‘‘Draft Proposed Rule count includes some models that appear roll rate experienced by ROVs in Establishing Safety Standard for to be very similar to other models rollover events. SEA conducted Recreational Off-Road Vehicles: produced by the same manufacturer but simulations of tripped and untripped Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.’’ sold through different distributors in the rollovers on ROVs with belted and United States. unbelted ATD occupants. CPSC’s A. Introduction About 92 percent of ROVs sold in in analysis of SEA’s test results indicate The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule the United States are manufactured in that the best occupant retention for ROVs. This rulemaking proceeding North America. About 7 percent of the performance results, where occupants was initiated by an ANPR published in ROVs sold in the United States are remain within the protective zone of the the Federal Register on October 28, vehicle’s ROPS, occurred when a seat 2009. The proposed rule includes: (1) 52 Market share is based upon Commission belt is used in conjunction with a Lateral stability and vehicle handling analysis of sales data provided by Power Products passive shoulder barrier restraint. requirements that specify a minimum Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 68998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

manufactured in China (by nine approximately $13,100, with a range of 3. Sales and Number in Use different manufacturers). Less than 1 about $3,600 to $20,100. The average Sales of ROVs have increased percent of ROVs are produced in other MSRP for the eight largest substantially since their introduction. In countries other than the United States or manufacturers (in terms of market share) 53 1998, only one firm manufactured China. was about $13,300. The average MSRP ROVs, and fewer than 2,000 units were Seven recreational vehicle of ROVs sold by the smaller, mostly sold. By 2003, when a second major manufacturers, which together account Chinese manufacturers was about manufacturer entered the market, almost for more than 90 percent of the ROV $7,900.54 20,000 ROVs were sold. The only dip in market, established ROHVA. The stated sales occurred around 2008, which purpose of ROHVA is ‘‘to promote the The retail prices of ROVs tend to be coincided with the worst period of the safe and responsible use of recreational somewhat higher than the retail prices credit crisis and a recession that also off-highway vehicles (ROVs) of other recreational and utility started about the same time. In 2013, an manufactured or distributed in North vehicles. The MSRPs of ROVs are about estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by America.’’ ROHVA is accredited by the 10 percent higher, on average, than the 20 different manufacturers.58 The chart American National Standards Institute MSRPs of low-speed utility vehicles. A below shows ROV sales from 1998 (ANSI) to develop voluntary standards comparison of MSRPs for the major through 2013. for ROVs. ROHVA members have manufacturers of ATVs and ROVs The number of ROVs available for use developed a voluntary standard (ANSI/ indicates that ROVs are priced about 10 has also increased substantially. ROHVA 1–2011) that sets some percent to 35 percent higher than ATVs Because ROVs are a relatively new mechanical and performance 55 offered by the same manufacturer. product, we do not have specific requirements for ROVs. Some ROV Another source indicates that the price information on the expected useful life manufacturers that emphasize the utility of one ROV or other utility vehicle is of ROVs. However, using the same applications of their vehicles have about two-thirds the price of two operability rates that CPSC uses for worked with the Outdoor Power 56 ATVs. Go-karts usually retail for ATVs, we estimate that there were about Equipment Institute (OPEI) to develop between $2,500 and $8,000.57 570,000 ROVs available for use in another ANSI voluntary standard that is 2010.59 By the end of 2013, there were applicable to ROVs (ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 54 MSRPs for ROVs were reported by Power an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. 2012). This voluntary standard also sets Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2014). (See Figure 17). mechanical and performance 55 This information is based upon a Commission requirements for ROVs. The analysis of data provided by Power Products 58 This information is based upon a Commission Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN, (2014), and an requirements of both voluntary analysis of sales data provided by Power Products examination of the suggested retail prices on several standards are similar, but not identical. Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN. manufacturers’ Internet sites. 59 CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, 56 2. Retail Prices ‘‘2009 Utility Vehicle Review,’’ Southern Division of Hazard Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, Sporting Journal, October 2008, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. The average manufacturer’s suggested Associate Executive Director, Directorate for 58–70, accessed through: http://web.ebscohost.com Epidemiology, ‘‘2001 ATV Operability Rate retail price (MSRP) of ROVs in 2013 was on March 17. 2011. Analysis,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety 57 Tom Behrens, ‘‘Kart Racing: Fast times out on Commission, Bethesda Maryland (19 August 2003). 53 This information is based upon a Commission the prairie,’’ The Houston Chronicle, November 27, ‘‘Operability rate’’ refers to the probability that an analysis of sales data provided by Power Products 2008, p. 4. (accessed from http://www.chron.com on ATV will remain in operation each year after the Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2012). January 17, 2014). initial year of production.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68999

Most ROVs are sold through retail intended for children under the age of for ATVs. However, some of the more dealers. Generally, dealers that offer 16 years.62 narrow ROVs are capable of negotiating ROVs also offer other products, such as One factor that could account for part many ATV trails.64 motorcycles, scooters, ATVs, and of the decline in ATV sales is that after Of the several types of vehicles that similar vehicles. ROVs are also sold many years of increasing sales, the could be substitutes for ROVs, go-karts through dealers that carry farm market may be saturated. Consequently, appear to be the smallest market equipment or commercial turf a greater proportion of future sales will segment. After increasing sales for management supplies. likely be replacement vehicles or several years, go-kart sales peaked at While sales of ROVs have increased vehicles sold due to population growth. about 109,000 vehicles in 2004. Sales of Another factor could be the increase in go-karts have since declined over the last several years, sales of sales of ROVs. Some riders find that significantly. In 2013, fewer than 20,000 competing vehicles have leveled off, or ROVs offer a more comfortable or easier units were sold. However, many of these declined. Low-speed utility vehicles ride, and ROVs are more likely to appeal are aimed at young riders or intended have been on the market since the early to people who prefer the bench or for use on tracks or other prepared 1980s. Their sales increased from about bucket seating on ROVs over the surfaces and would not be reasonable 50,000 vehicles in 1998, to about straddle seating of ATVs. It is also easier substitutes for ROVs for some 150,000 vehicles in 2007. In 2011, to carry passengers on ROVs. Most purposes.65 The decline in go-kart sales however, sales fell to about 110,000 ATVs are not intended to carry may be due to the influx of inexpensive vehicles. A substantial portion of these passengers, and the side-by-side seating ATVs imported from China, which may sales were for commercial applications 60 offered by ROVs appears to be preferred have led some consumers to purchase rather than consumer applications. over the tandem seating on the few an ATV rather than a go-kart.66 After several years of rapid growth, ATVs intended to carry passengers.63 A C. Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries U.S. sales of ATVs peaked in 2006, disadvantage of an ROV compared to an Associated With ROVs when more than 1.1 million ATVs were ATV is that many ROVs are too wide to sold.61 Sales have declined substantially travel on some trail systems intended The intent of the proposed rule is to since then. In 2012, less than 320,000 reduce the risk of injury and death ATVs were sold, including those 62 Estimates of ATV sales are based on associated with incidents involving intended for adults, as well as those information provided by the Specialty Vehicle ROVs. Therefore, any benefits of the Manufacturers Association and on confidential data proposed rule could be measured as a purchased from Power Products Marketing of 60 This information is based upon a Commission Minneapolis, MN. 64 analysis of information provided by Power Products 63 ‘‘UTV Sales Flatten Out in 2008,’’ Dealer News, Chris Vogtman, ‘‘Ranger shifts into recreation Marketing of Eden Prairie, MN. August 2009, p. 40(4). ‘‘2009 Kawasaki Teryx 750 mode,’’ Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 61 Mathew Camp, ‘‘Nontraditional Quad Sales Hit FI 4x4 Sport RUV Test Ride Review,’’ article posted 46(2). 465,000,’’ Dealer News, April 28, 2008. Available at: on: http://www.atvriders.com, accessed 20 August 65 ‘‘U.S. Go-Kart Market in Serious Decline,’’ http://www.dealernews.com/dealernews/article/ 2009 and Tom Kaiser, ‘‘Slowing sales: It’s now a Dealer News, October, 2009, p. 38. nontraditional-quad-sales-hit-465000?page=0,0, trend,’’ Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 66 (‘‘Karts Feel the Chinese Crunch,’’ Dealer News, accessed June 19, 2013. 44(1). November 2007, p. 44(2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.016 69000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

reduction in the societal costs of injuries of 1,100 to 4,900) involving ROVs in ROV deaths that occurred from January and deaths associated with ROVs. This 2010 that were initially treated in 1, 2003 to April 5, 2013. There were no section discusses the societal costs of hospital emergency departments.68 reported deaths in 2003, when relatively injuries and deaths. NEISS injury estimates are limited to few ROVs were in use. As of April 5, injuries initially treated in hospital 2013, there had been 76 deaths reported 1. ROV Injuries emergency departments. NEISS does not to CPSC that occurred in 2012.71 a. Nonfatal Injuries provide estimates of the number of medically attended injuries that were 2. Societal Cost of Injuries and Deaths To estimate the number of nonfatal Associated With ROVs injuries associated with ROVs that were treated in other settings, such as treated in hospital emergency physicians’ offices, ambulatory care a. Societal Cost of Nonfatal Injuries departments, CPSC undertook a special centers, or injury victims who bypassed The CPSC’s ICM provides study to identify cases that involved the emergency departments and were comprehensive estimates of the societal ROVs that were reported through the directly admitted to a hospital. costs of nonfatal injuries. The ICM is National Electronic Injury Surveillance However, the Injury Cost Model (ICM), fully integrated with NEISS and System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to developed by CPSC for estimating the provides estimates of the societal costs August 31, 2010. NEISS is a stratified societal cost of injuries, uses empirical of injuries reported through NEISS. The national probability sample of hospital relationships between cases initially major aggregated components of the emergency departments that allows the treated in hospital emergency ICM include: Medical costs; work Commission to make national estimates departments and cases initially treated losses; and the intangible costs of product-related injuries. The sample in other medical settings to estimate the associated with lost quality of life or consists of about 100 of the number of medically attended injuries pain and suffering.72 that were treated outside of a hospital Medical costs include three categories approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that 69 have at least six beds and provide 24- emergency department. According to of expenditure: (1) Medical and hospital hour emergency service.67 ICM estimates, based on the 16 NEISS costs associated with treating the injury NEISS does not contain a separate cases that were identified in the 2010 victim during the initial recovery period product code for ROVs. Injuries study, injuries treated in hospital and in the long run, the costs associated associated with ROVs are usually emergency departments accounted for with corrective surgery, the treatment of assigned to either an ATV product code about 27 percent of all medically treated chronic injuries, and rehabilitation (NEISS product codes 3286–3287) or to injuries involving ROVs. Using this services; (2) ancillary costs, such as the utility vehicle category (NEISS percentage, the estimate of 3,000 costs for prescriptions, medical product code 5044). Therefore, the emergency department-treated injuries equipment, and ambulance transport; Commission reviewed all NEISS cases involving ROVs suggests that there were and (3) costs of health insurance claims that were coded as involving an ATV or about 11,100 medically treated injuries processing. Cost estimates for these a UTV that occurred during the first 8 involving ROVs in 2010 (i.e., 3,000 expenditure categories were derived injuries initially treated in emergency months of 2010 and attempted follow- from a number of national and state departments and 8,100 other medically up interviews with each victim (or a databases, including the National attended injuries) or 194 medically relative of the victim) to gather more Healthcare Cost and Utilization attended injuries per 10,000 ROVs in information about the incidents and the Project—National Inpatient Sample and use (11,100 ÷ 570,000 × 10,000).70 vehicles involved. The Commission the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, determined whether the vehicle b. Fatal Injuries both sponsored by the Agency for involved was an ROV based on the Healthcare Research and Quality. In addition to the nonfatal injuries, Work loss estimates, based on make and model of the vehicle reported there are fatal injuries involving ROVs in the interviews. If the make and model information from the National Health each year. As of April 5, 2013, the Interview Survey and the U.S. Bureau of of the vehicle was not reported, the case Commission had identified 49 fatalities was not counted as an ROV. Out of Labor Statistics, as well as a number of involving ROVs that occurred in 2010, published wage studies, include: (1) The 2,018 NEISS cases involving an ATV or or about 0.9 deaths per 10,000 ROVs in UTV during the study period, a total of ÷ × forgone earnings of parents and visitors, use ((49 570,000) 10,000). The actual including lost wage work and 668 interviews were completed for a number of deaths in 2010 could be response rate of about 33 percent. household work, (2) imputed long term higher because reporting is ongoing for work losses of the victim that would be Sixteen of the completed interviews 2010. Overall, CPSC has counted 335 associated with permanent impairment, were determined to involve an ROV. To and (3) employer productivity losses, estimate the number of ROV-related 68 Sarah Garland, Directorate for Hazard Analysis, such as the costs incurred when injuries initially treated in an ‘‘NEISS Injury Estimates for Recreational Off- employers spend time juggling emergency department in 2010, the Highway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (September 2011). schedules or training replacement NEISS weights were adjusted to account 69 For a more complete discussion of the Injury workers. The earnings estimates were for both non-response and the fact that Cost Model see Ted R. Miller, et al., The Consumer updated most recently with weekly the survey only covered incidents that Product Safety Commission’s Revised Injury Cost earnings data from the Current occurred during the first 8 months of the Model, (December 2000). Available at: http://www. year. Variances were calculated based cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF. http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100304/ 71 Memorandum from Sarah Garland, Division of on the adjusted weights. Based on this costmodept2.PDF. Hazard Analysis, ‘‘Additional ROV-related work, the Directorate for Epidemiology 70 Using the ICM estimates for all cases involving incidents reported from January 1, 2012 through estimated that there were about 3,000 ATVs and UTVs, injuries that were initially treated April 5, 2013,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety injuries (95 percent confidence interval in a hospital emergency department accounted for Commission, Bethesda, MD (8 April 2013). about 35 percent of all medically-attended injuries. 72 A detailed description of the cost components, If this estimated ratio, which is based on a larger and the general methodology and data sources used 67 Schroeder T, Ault K. The NEISS Sample sample, but that includes vehicles that are not to develop the CPSC’s Injury Cost Model, can be (Design and Implementation): 1999 to Present. ROVs, was used instead of the ratio based strictly found in Miller et al. (2000), available at http:// Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety on the 16 known ROV NEISS cases in 2010, the www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF Commission; 2001. Available at: http://www.cpsc. estimated number of medically-attended injuries and http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100304/ gov/neiss/2001d011-6b6.pdf. would be 8,600. costmodept2.PDF.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69001

Population Survey conducted by the injuries associated with ROVs. Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits Bureau of the Census in conjunction According to ICM, the average societal and Costs of Federal Regulations and with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. cost of a medically attended injury Agency Compliance with the Unfunded Intangible, or non-economic, costs of associated with ROVs in 2010 was Mandates Reform Act, willingness-to- injury reflect the physical and $29,383 in 2012 dollars. Based on this pay-estimates of the VSL generally vary emotional trauma of injury as well as estimate, the total societal costs of the from about $1.3 million to $12.2 million the mental anguish of victims and medically attended injuries involving in 2010 dollars. In 2012 dollars, the caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult ROVs in 2010 was about $326.2 million range would be $1.3 million to 13.0 to quantify because they do not in 2012 dollars (11,100 injuries × million.76 represent products or resources traded $29,383). About 75 percent of the cost c. Societal Cost of Injuries per ROV in in the marketplace. Nevertheless, they was related to the pain and suffering. Use typically represent the largest About 9 percent of the cost was related component of injury cost and need to be to medical treatment, and about 16 Based on the previous discussion, the accounted for in any benefit-cost percent was related to work and total estimated societal costs of deaths analysis involving health outcomes.73 productivity losses victim, caregivers, and injuries associated with ROVs were The Injury Cost Model develops a visitors, and employers. Less than 1 $737.8 million in 2010 (expressed in monetary estimate of these intangible percent of the cost was associated with 2012 dollars). The estimate does not costs from jury awards for pain and the costs of the legal and liability include the costs associated with any suffering. While these awards can vary system. property damage, such as property widely on a case-by-case basis, studies These cost estimates are based on a damage to the ROVs involved or other have shown them to be systematically small sample of only 16 NEISS cases. property, such as another vehicle or related to a number of factors, including This sample is too small to reflect the object that might have been involved in economic losses, the type and severity full range of injury patterns (i.e., the an incident. of injury, and the age of the victim.74 different combinations of injury Given the earlier estimate that about Estimates for the Injury Cost Model diagnoses, body parts, and injury 570,000 ROVs were in use at the end of were derived from a regression analysis dispositions) and rider characteristics 2010, the estimated societal costs of of about 2,000 jury awards in nonfatal (i.e., age and sex) associated with ROV deaths and medically attended injuries product liability cases involving injuries. In fact, because the 16 NEISS was about $1,294 per ROV in use consumer products compiled by Jury cases did not include any case in which ($737.8 million ÷ 570,000) in 2010. Verdicts Research, Inc. the victim required admission to a However, because the typical ROV is In addition to estimating the costs of hospital, the cost estimates are probably expected to be in use for 15 to 20 years, injuries treated in U.S. hospital low. Nevertheless, this estimate will be the expected societal cost of fatalities or emergency departments and reported used in this analysis with the deaths per ROV over the vehicle’s useful through NEISS, the Injury Cost Model knowledge that the estimate’s use life is the present value of the annual uses empirical relationships between probably leads to an underestimate of societal costs summed over the ROV’s emergency department injuries and the societal costs associated with ROVs expected useful life. CPSC has not those treated in other settings (e.g., and underestimates of the potential estimated the operability rates of ROVs physicians’ offices, clinics, ambulatory benefits of the proposed rule intended as they age. However, CPSC has surgery centers, and direct hospital to reduce the risk of injury associated estimated the operability rates for ATVs admissions) to estimate the number, with ROVs.75 as they age, based on the results of types, and costs of injuries treated exposure surveys.77 ROVs and ATVs are b. Societal Cost of Fatal Injuries outside of hospital emergency similar vehicles in that they are both off- departments. Thus, the ICM allows us to As discussed above, there were at road recreational vehicles generally expand on NEISS by combining (1) the least 49 fatal injuries involving ROVs in produced by the same manufacturers. If number and costs of emergency 2010. If we assign a cost of $8.4 million ROVs have the same operability rates as department injuries with (2) the number for each death, then the societal costs they age as ATVs, the present value of and costs of medically attended injuries associated with these deaths would the societal cost of injuries over the treated in other settings to estimate the amount to about $411.6 million (49 expected useful life of an ROV (at a 3 total number of medically attended deaths × $8.4 million). The estimate of percent discount rate) is $17,784.78 injuries and their costs across all $8.4 million is the estimate of $7.4 treatment levels. million (in 2006 dollars) developed by 76 The estimate of the VSL developed by the EPA In this analysis, we use injury data the U.S. Environmental Protection is explained EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing from 2010, as a baseline from which to Agency (EPA) updated to 2012 dollars Economic Analysis, Appendix B: Mortality Risk Valuation Estimates (Environmental Protection estimate the societal cost of injuries and is consistent with willingness-to- Agency, 2014) and is available at http://yosemite. associated with ROVs. We use the year pay estimates of the value of a statistical epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/ 2010 because 2010 is the year for which life (VSL). According to OMB’s 2013 $file/EE-0568-50.pdf. The OMB’s 2013 Draft Report to Congress is available at: http://www.whitehouse. we have the most comprehensive _ _ 75 gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013 cb/draft estimates of both fatal and nonfatal An alternative method for estimating the injury _ _ _ costs would be to assume that the patterns of injury 2013 cost benefit report.pdf. Both reports were associated with ROVs are similar to the injury accessed on August 6, 2014. 73 Rice, D.P. & MacKenzie, E.J. (1989). Cost of patterns associated with all ATVs and UTVs. 77 CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, injury in the United States: A report to Congress, According to ICM estimates for all ATVs and UTVs Division of Hazard Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, Institute for Health and Aging. San Francisco, CA: (NEISS Product Codes 3285–3287 and 5044), Associate Executive Director, Directorate for University of California and The Johns Hopkins injuries treated in hospital emergency departments Epidemiology, ‘‘2001 ATV Operability Rate University. accounted for about 35 percent of the medically Analysis,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety 74 Viscusi, W.K. (1988). Pain and suffering in attended injuries. This would suggest that the Commission, Bethesda MD (19 August 2003). product liability cases: Systematic compensation or number of medically attended injuries involving an 78 The choice of discount rate is consistent with capricious awards? Int. Rev. Law Econ. 8, 203–220 ROV was about 8,600. The average cost of a research suggesting that a real rate of 3 percent is and Rodgers, G.B. (1993). Estimating jury medically attended injury involving an ATV or an appropriate discount rate for interventions compensation for pain and suffering in product UTV was $42,737. Therefore, the total societal cost involving public health (see Gold, Marthe R, Joanna liability cases involving nonfatal personal injury. J. of medically attended injuries would be $367.5 E. Siegel, Louise B. Russell and Milton C. For. Econ. 6(3), 251–262. million. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

D. Requirements of the Proposed Rule: model and provides information to the same. The one difference is that the test Costs and Benefits consumer about how to interpret this for dynamic lateral stability also The proposed rule would establish a value. The intent of the hangtag is to requires that the test vehicle be mandatory safety standard for ROVs. provide the potential consumer with equipped with a programmable steering The requirements of the proposed rule information about the rollover controller. Because there is substantial can be divided into two general propensity of the model to aid in the overlap in the conditions under which categories: (1) Lateral stability and comparison of ROV models before the tests must be conducted, vehicle handling requirements, and (2) purchase. The content and format of the manufacturers likely will conduct both occupant-retention requirements. hangtag are described in Section IX.C.2. sets of tests on the same day. This Following is a discussion of the costs The proposed rule describes the test would save manufacturers the cost of and benefits that are expected to be procedures required to measure the loading and instrumenting the test associated with the requirements of the dynamic rollover resistance and the vehicle twice and renting a test facility proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we understeering performance of the ROV, for more than one day. use 2010 as the base year for this including the requirements for the test We estimate that the cost of analysis because it is the only year for surface, the loading of test vehicles, and conducting the dynamic lateral stability which we have estimates of both fatal the instrumentation required for tests and the vehicle handling tests will 79 and nonfatal injuries associated with conducting the tests and for data- be about $24,000 per model. This ROVs. However, where quantified, the acquisition during the tests. The test for includes the cost of conducting both costs and benefits are expressed in 2012 rollover resistance would use a 30 mph sets of tests, measuring the center of dollars. drop-throttle J-turn test. This test uses a gravity of the test vehicle, which is In general, the cost estimates were programmable steering controller to turn required for the dynamic lateral stability developed in consultation with the the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at test, transporting the test vehicle to and Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES prescribed steering angles and rates to from the test site, outfitting the test staff). Estimates are based on ES staff’s determine the minimum steering angle vehicles with the needed equipment interactions with manufacturers and at which two-wheel lift is observed. The and instruments, and the cost of renting knowledge related to ROV design and data collected during these tests are the test facility. This estimate also manufacturing process as well as direct analyzed to compute and verify the assumes that both tests are being experience with testing ROVs and lateral acceleration at rollover for the conducted on the same day and that the similar products. In many cases, we vehicle. manufacturer only needs to rent the test relied on ES staff’s expert judgment. The test for vehicle handling or facility for one day and pay for loading Consequently, we note that these understeer performance involves and instrumenting the test vehicles estimates are preliminary and welcome driving the vehicle around a 100-foot once. comments on their accuracy and the radius circle at increasing speeds, with If the model meets the requirements assumptions underlying their the driver making every effort to of both tests, the manufacturer would constructions. We are especially maintain compliance of the vehicle path have no additional costs associated with interested in data that would help us to relative to the circle. Data collected these requirements. The tests would not refine our estimates to more accurately during the tests are analyzed to have to be conducted again, unless the reflect the expected costs of the draft determine whether the vehicle manufacturer makes changes to the proposed rule as well as any alternative understeers through the required range. model that could affect the vehicle’s estimates that interested parties can The proposed rule would require that performance in these tests. provide. all ROVs exhibit understeer for values of If the model does not meet the ground plane lateral acceleration from requirements of one or both of the tests, 1. Lateral Stability and Vehicle 0.10 to 0.50 g. the manufacturer will incur costs to Handling Requirements a. Cost of Lateral Stability and Vehicle adjust the vehicle’s design. Engineers The lateral stability and vehicle Handling Requirements specializing in the design of utility and handling requirements of the proposed recreational vehicles are likely to have rule would require that all ROVs meet All manufacturers would have to a good understanding of vehicle a minimum level of rollover resistance conduct the tests prescribed in the characteristics that influence vehicle and that ROVs exhibit sub-limit proposed rule to determine whether stability and handling. Therefore, these understeer characteristics. The dynamic their models meet the requirements and engineers should be able to modify lateral stability requirement would set a to obtain the information on dynamic easily the design of a vehicle to meet the minimum value for the lateral lateral stability that must be reported to stability and handling requirements. acceleration at roll-over of 0.70 g (unit consumers on the hangtag. If any model The Yamaha Rhino repair program of standard gravity), as determined by a fails to meet one or both of the demonstrated that an ROV that did not 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. The requirements, the manufacturer would meet the lateral stability and vehicle greater the lateral acceleration value, the have to make adjustments or handling requirements was successfully greater the resistance of the ROV is to modifications to the design of the modified to meet the requirements by tipping or rolling over. The understeer model. After the model has been increasing the track width and reducing requirement would mandate that ROVs modified, the manufacturer would have the rear suspension stiffness (by exhibit understeer characteristics in the to conduct tests on the modified models removing the sway bar) of the ROV. sublimit range of the turn circle test to check that the model meets the Based on experience with automotive described in the proposed rule. requirements. The proposed rule would also require There is substantial overlap in the 79 This estimate is based on the rates that CPSC manufacturers to place a hangtag on all conditions under which the tests for has most recently paid a contractor for conducting new vehicles that provides the lateral dynamic lateral stability and vehicle these tests. For example, see contract CPSC–D–11– handling must be performed. The test 0003, which provides the following costs estimates: acceleration at rollover value for the $3,000 for static measurement to determine center surfaces are the same, and the vehicle of gravity location, $19,000 to perform dynamic Weinstein, 1996, Cost-Effectiveness in Health and condition, loading, and instrumentation test, and $2,000 to ship vehicles. This amounts to Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press). required for both tests are virtually the approximately $24,000.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69003

manufacturing, ES staff believes that represented the recreational and utility The proposed rule requires that the less than 1 or 2 person-months would be oriented ROVs available in 2010, and manufacturer attach a hangtag on each required to modify an ROV model that found that four out of 10 ROVs met the new ROV that provides the ROV’s did not comply with the requirements. lateral stability requirement and five out lateral acceleration at rollover value, A high estimate would be that a of 10 ROVs met the vehicle handling which can be used by the consumer to manufacturer might require as many as requirements. As discussed previously, compare the rollover resistance of 4 person-months (or about 700 hours) to for models that already meet the different ROVs. We estimate that the modify. Assuming an hourly rate of requirements, the manufacturer will cost of the hangtag, including the $61.75, which is the estimated total incur no additional costs other than the designing and printing of the hangtag, hourly compensation for management, cost of the testing. Based upon CPSC and attaching the hang tag to the professional, and related workers, the examination of models that do not meet vehicle, will be less than $0.25 per cost to modify the design of an ROV the requirements, CPSC believes in most vehicle. Our estimates are based on the model to meet the stability and handling cases the manufacturers should be able following assumptions: (1) The cost of requirements, using the high estimate, to bring the model into compliance with printing the hang tag and the wire for would be about $43,000. the requirements by making simple attaching the hang tag is about 8 cents The Commission believes that most changes to the track width, or to the per vehicle, (2) placing the hang tag on modifications that might be required to suspension of the vehicle. These are each vehicle will require about 20 meet the lateral stability and vehicle relatively modest modifications that seconds at an hourly rate of $26.11 83 handling requirements will have probably can be accomplished in less and (3) designing and laying out the minimal, if any, impact on the time than the high estimate of 4 months. hang tag for each model will require production or manufacturing costs However, the Commission welcomes about 30 minutes at an hourly rate of because the assembly of an ROV already comments on our underlying rationale $61.75.84 The estimate of 30 minutes for includes installation of a wheel axle and for the estimates as well as the estimates the hang tag design reflects that the installing a longer wheel axle or wheel themselves. proposed rule provides a sample of the spacer would not change the current It is frequently useful to compare the required hang tag and guidance assembly procedure; likewise, the benefits and costs of a rule on a per-unit regarding the layout of the hang tag for assembly of an ROV already includes basis. Based on 2011 sales data, the manufacturers to follow. Also, if the installation of sway bars and shock average unit sales price per ROV model manufacturer has multiple models, the absorbers and installing different was about 1,800.81 ROVs are a relatively same template could be used across variations of these suspension new product and the average number of models; the manufacturer would simply components would not affect the years a ROV model will be produced need to change the lateral acceleration current assembly procedure. before being redesigned is uncertain. It number and model identification. In Once an ROV model has been is often observed that automobile light of these considerations, CPSC modified to comply with the models are redesigned every 4 to 6 believes that 30 minutes per model requirements, the manufacturer will years. If a ROV model is produced for represents a reasonable estimate of the have to retest the vehicle to check that about 5 years before being redesigned, effort involved, but we welcome the model does comply with the then the cost of testing the model for comments on this estimate, especially requirements. Both the dynamic compliance with the dynamic lateral comments that will assist us in refining stability and vehicle handling tests will stability and vehicle handling the estimate. have to be conducted on the redesigned requirements, and, if necessary, According to several ROV model, even if the original model failed modifying the design of the vehicle to manufacturers, some ROV users ‘‘might only one of the tests. This is because the comply with the requirements and prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway design changes could have impacted the retesting the vehicle would apply to environment.’’ This assertion appeared ROVs ability to comply with either about 9,000 units. (The Commission in a public comment on the ANPR for requirement. Therefore, the full cost of welcomes comments on this ROVs (Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087), the proposed lateral stability and assumption.) Therefore, the average per- submitted jointly on behalf of Arctic vehicle handling requirements could unit cost of the proposed dynamic Cat, Inc., Bombardier Recreational range from a low of about $24,000 for lateral stability and vehicle handling Products, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., a model that already met the requirements would be about $3 per and Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA. requirements, up to $91,000, for a unit ($24,000 ÷ 9,000), if the model To the extent that the requirements in scenario in which the model was tested, already complies with the requirements. the proposed rule would reduce the the manufacturer required 4 person- Using the high estimate of the time that ability of these users to reach limit months to modify the vehicle, and the it could take to modify a model that fails vehicle was retested to check that the or one or both of the tests, the per-unit sales were substantially less than 1,800 units modified vehicle complied with the annually, then the per-unit cost of the proposed 80 cost would be about $10 per unit requirements would be substantially higher. requirements. 82 ($91,000 ÷ 9,000). 83 Although the plausible range for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 cost of the lateral stability and vehicle (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 81 In 2011, the average number of units sold per (ECEC), total compensation for production, handling requirement is $24,000 to model was about 1,800. Depending on the transportation, and material moving for all workers $91,000 per model, the Commission particular model, the units sold ranged from less in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of believes that the average cost per model than 10 for some models, to more than 10,000 for Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: _ will be toward the low end of this range others (based on an analysis by CPSC staff of a http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ece0c database obtained from Power Products Marketing 09112012.pdf because CPSC tested 10 ROVs that of Eden Prairie, MN). 84 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 82 These per-unit cost estimates are an attempt to (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 80 If the ROV already met the lateral stability and estimate the average per-unit costs across all ROV (ECEC), total compensation for all management, vehicle handling requirements, the low estimate of models. The actual per-unit cost for any ROV model professional, and related for all workers in private $24,000 could overstate the incremental cost of would depend upon the sales volume for that industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. meeting the requirements if the manufacturer was model. If the sales were substantially more than Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: http:// already performing the tests prescribed in the 1,800 units annually, then the per-unit cost would www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_ proposed rule. be substantially lower than the estimate above. If 09112012.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

oversteer intentionally, the proposed ROVs with the higher values for lateral given that the estimated cost of the rule could have some adverse impact on acceleration threshold at rollover when lateral stability and handling the utility or enjoyment that these users they purchase new ROVs. As a similar requirements is less than $10 per ROV, receive from ROVs. These impacts example, in 2001, NHTSA began the requirements would have to prevent would probably be limited to a small including rollover resistance less than about 0.2 percent of these number of recreational users who enjoy information in its new car assessment incidents ($10 ÷ $6,224) for the benefits activities or stunts that involve power program (NCAP).86 NHTSA believed of the requirements to exceed the costs. oversteering or limit oversteer. that consumer information on the Although the impact on consumers rollover risk of passenger cars would 2. Occupant Retention Requirements who prefer limit oversteer cannot be influence consumers to purchase The occupant retention requirements quantified, the Commission expects that vehicles with a lower rollover risk and of the proposed rule are intended to the impact will be low. Any impact inspire manufacturers to produce keep the occupant within the vehicle or would be limited to those consumers vehicles with a lower rollover risk.87 A within the rollover protective structure who wish to engage intentionally in subsequent study of static stability (ROPs). First, each ROV would be activities involving the loss of traction factor (SSF) trends in automobiles found required to have a means to restrict or power oversteer. The practice of that SSF values increased for all occupant egress and excursion in the power oversteer, such as the speed at vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, shoulder/hip zone, as defined by the which a user takes a turn, results from which tended to have the worst SSF proposed rule. This requirement could driver choice. The proposed rule would values in the earlier years.87 be met by a fixed barrier or structure on not prevent ROVs from reaching limit The understeer requirement is the ROV or by a barrier or structure that oversteer under all conditions; nor intended to reduce the likelihood of a can be put into place by the occupant would the rule prevent consumers from driver losing control of an ROV during using one hand in one operation, such engaging in these activities. At most, the a turn, which can lead to the vehicle as a door. Second, the proposed rule proposed rule might make reaching rollover, striking another vehicle, or would require that the speed of an ROV limit oversteer in an ROV to be striking a fixed object. Oversteer is an be limited to a maximum of 15 mph, somewhat more difficult for users to undesirable trait because it is a unless the seat belts for both the driver achieve. directionally unstable steering response and any front seat passengers are that leads to dynamic instability and b. Benefits of the Lateral Stability and fastened. The purpose of these loss of control. For this reason, Vehicle Handling Requirements requirements is to prevent deaths and automobiles are designed to exhibit injuries, especially incidents involving The benefit of the dynamic lateral understeer characteristics up to the full or partial ejection of the rider from stability and vehicle handling or traction limits of the tires. Sub-limit the vehicle. understeer requirements would be the oversteer is also undesirable for off- reduction of injuries and deaths highway vehicles due to the numerous a. Costs of Occupant Retention attributable to these requirements. The trip hazards that exist in the off- Requirements intent of the dynamic lateral stability highway environment and can cause the i. Means To Restrict Occupant Egress or requirement is to reduce rollover vehicles to roll over. Excursion incidents that involve ROVs. A CPSC Although the Commission believes analysis of 428 ROV incidents showed that the dynamic lateral stability and Most ROVs already have some that at least 68 percent involved the vehicle handling requirements will occupant protection barriers or vehicle rolling sideways. More than half reduce the number of deaths and structures. In some cases, these of the overturning incidents (or 35 injuries involving ROVs, it is not structures might already meet the percent of the total incidents) occurred possible to quantify this benefit because requirements of the proposed rule. In during a turn. There were other we do not have sufficient data to other cases, they could be modified or incidents (24 percent of the total estimate the injury rates of models that repositioned to meet the requirements of incidents) in which the vehicle rolled already meet the requirements and the proposed rule. A simple barrier that sideways, but it is not known whether models that do not meet the would meet the requirements of the the incident occurred during a turn.85 requirements. Thus, we cannot estimate proposed rule could be fabricated out of The dynamic lateral stability the potential effectiveness of the a length of metal tubing that is bent and requirement is intended to ensure that dynamic lateral stability and vehicle bolted or welded to the ROPs or other all ROVs on the market have at least a handling requirements in preventing suitable structure of the vehicle in the minimum level of resistance to rollover injuries. However, these requirements shoulder/hip zone of the vehicle, as during turns, as determined by the test are intended to reduce the risk of an defined in the proposed rule. ES staff in the proposed rule. Additionally, by ROV rolling sideways when making a believes that any additional metal requiring through the use of hang tags turn. Because the estimated societal cost tubing required to form such a barrier that consumers be informed of the of deaths and injuries associated with could be obtained for a cost of about $2 rollover resistance of ROV models, the ROVs is $17,784 over the useful life of per barrier. ES also believes that the proposed rule would make it easier for an ROV, and because at least 35 percent additional time that would be required consumers to compare the rollover of the injuries occurred when an ROV to bolt or weld the barrier to the vehicle resistance of ROV models before making rolled sideways when making a turn, would be less than 1 minute. Assuming a purchase. Manufacturers might be these requirements would address an hourly labor cost of $26.11, the labor encouraged to develop ROV models approximately $6,224 in societal costs time required would be less than $0.50. with greater resistance to rollover if per ROV ($17,784 × .35). Consequently, ES staff also believes that it would take consumers show a clear preference for manufacturers only a few hours to 86 65 FR 34988 (June 1, 2000). determine how an existing ROV model 85 Sarah Garland, Ph.D., Analysis of Reported 87 Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static would need to be modified to comply Incidents Involving Deaths or Injuries Associated Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and with the requirement and to make the with Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs), Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/ necessary drawings to implement the Bethesda, MD (May 2012). index.html. change. When spread over the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69005

production of the model, this cost their options for meeting the acquire any parts required for the would only amount to a few cents per requirement. This process would system and to install the parts on the vehicle. Therefore, the estimated cost is include developing prototypes of system vehicles. We estimate the cost of adding expected to be less than $3 per barrier. designs, testing the prototypes, and a seat belt-use sensor to detect when the Based on a cost of less than $3 per refining the design of the systems based seat belt is fastened to be about $7 per barrier, the cost per vehicle would be on this testing. Once the manufacturer seat belt. This estimate is based on less than $6 for ROVs that do not have has settled upon a system for meeting figures used by the National Highway rear seats and $12 for ROVs with rear the requirement, the system will have to Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) seats. One exposure study found that be incorporated into the manufacturing in its preliminary economic assessment about 20 percent of ROVs had a seating process of the vehicle. This will involve of an advanced air bag rule.90 This is a capacity of 4 or more, which indicates producing the engineering widely used technology; virtually all that these ROVs have rear seats. specifications and drawings of the passenger cars have such sensors in Therefore, if all ROV models required system, parts, assemblies, and their driver side seat belt latches to modification to meet the standard, the subassemblies that are required. signal the seat belt reminder system in weighted average cost per ROV would Manufacturers will need to obtain the the car. The sensors and seat belt latches be about $7 ($6 × 0.8 + $12 × 0.2). needed parts from their suppliers and that would be expected to be used to However, CPSC tested 10 ROVs that incorporate the steps needed to install meet this requirement in ROVs are represented the recreational and utility the system on the vehicles in the virtually the same as the sensors used in oriented ROVs available in 2010, and assembly line. passenger cars. found that four out 10 ROVs had a ES staff believes that it will take about There is more than one method passive shoulder barrier that passed a nine person-months per ROV model to manufacturers could use to limit the probe test specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1– design, test, implement, and begin maximum speed of the vehicle when the 2011. Therefore, this estimate of the manufacturing vehicles that meet the driver’s seat belt is unfastened. One average cost is high because there would requirements. The total compensation method would be to use a device, such be no additional cost for models that for management, professional, and as a solenoid, that limits mechanically already meet the proposed requirement. related occupations as of 2012, is about the throttle opening. Based on observed We welcome comments on these costs $61.75 per hour.88 Therefore, if retail prices for solenoid valves used in and the assumptions underlying their designing and implementing a system to automotive applications, the cost to constructions. We are especially meet the requirement entails about nine manufacturers of such a solenoid should interested in data that would help us to person months (or 1,560 hours), the cost be no more than about $25 per vehicle. refine our estimates to more accurately to the company would be about One retailer had 24 different solenoids reflect the expected costs of this $100,000 per ROV model.89 available at retail prices ranging from proposed requirement as well as any Manufacturers would be expected to about $24 to $102. We expect that a alternative estimates that interested perform certification tests, following the manufacturer would be able to obtain parties can provide. procedure described in the proposed similar solenoids for substantially less rule, at least once for each model the than the retail price. Thus, using the ii. Requirement To Limit Speed If the low end of the observed retail prices Driver’s Seat Belt Is Not Fastened manufacturer produces, to ensure that the model, as manufactured, meets the suggests that manufacturers would The requirement that the speed of the rule’s requirements. Additionally, probably be able to acquire acceptable solenoids for about $25 each. vehicle be limited if the driver’s seat manufacturers would be expected to Manufacturers of ROVs equipped belt is unfastened does not mandate any perform the certification testing again if specific technology. Therefore, with electronic throttle control (ETC or they make any changes to the design or ‘‘throttle by wire’’) would have at least manufacturers would have some components used in a vehicle that could flexibility in implementing this one other option for limiting the impact the ROV’s compliance with this maximum speed of the vehicle. Instead requirement. Nevertheless, based on requirement. We estimate that the cost staff’s examination of and experience of using a mechanical means to limit the of this testing would be about $4,000 throttle opening, the engine control unit with speed-limiting technology, per model. This estimate assumes that including examination of current ROV (ECU) of the vehicle, which controls the the testing will require three throttle, could be reprogrammed or models with this feature, most systems professional employees 4 hours to to meet this requirement will probably ‘‘mapped’’ in a way that would limit the conduct the testing at $61.75 per hour, speed of the vehicle if the seat belt was include the following components: per person. Additionally, the rental of 1. A seat belt use sensor in the seat not fastened. If the ECU can be used to the test facility will cost $1,000; rental belt latch, which detects when the seat limit the maximum speed of the ROV, of the radar gun will cost $400; and belt is fastened; the only cost would be the cost of 2. a means to limit the speed of the transportation to the test facility will reprogramming or mapping the ECU, vehicle when the seat belt is not cost $1,400, and that the test vehicle can which would be completed in the fastened; be sold after the testing is completed. implementation stage of development, 3. a means to provide a visual signal In addition to the cost of developing discussed previously. There would be to the driver of the vehicle when the and implementing the system, no additional manufacturing costs speed of the vehicle is limited because manufacturers will incur costs to involved. the seat belt is not fastened; There would be at least two options 88 4. wiring or other means for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 for providing a visual signal to the (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation sensor in the seat belt latch to send (ECEC), total compensation for all management, driver that the speed of the vehicle is signals to the vehicle components used professional, and related for all workers in private limited because seat belts are not to limit the speed of the vehicle and industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. provide feedback to the driver. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: http:// 90 NHTSA estimated the cost of a seat belt use www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_ Before implementing any changes to sensor to be $2 to $5 in 1997 dollars. The cost has 09112012.pdf. been adjusted to 2012 dollars using the CPI their vehicles to meet the requirement, 89 The estimate has been rounded to the nearest Inflation Calculator at: http://www.bls.gov/data/ manufacturers would have to analyze $10,000. inflation_calculator.htm.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

fastened. One option would be to use an into this testing to ensure that the many ROV users choose not to wear LCD display. Most ROV models already system is working as intended. These their seat belts. Nor do we have the have an LCD display in the dashboard tests could simply involve running the ability to quantify any discomfort or that could be used for this purpose. If vehicle once with the seat belt disutility that ROV users would an LCD display is present, the only cost unfastened to determine whether speed experience from wearing seat belts. would be the cost of the programming was limited and running the vehicle However, the proposed rule does not required for the display to show this again with the seat belt fastened to require that the seat belts be fastened, message. This cost would be included in determine whether the maximum speed unless the vehicle is traveling 15 mph the estimated cost of the research and was no longer limited. If this testing or faster. This requirement should serve development, and there would be no added an additional 10 minutes to the to mitigate these costs because many additional manufacturing cost. amount of time it takes to test each people who would be inconvenienced Another option for providing a visual vehicle, the cost would be about $4 per or discomforted by the requirement, signal to the driver that the speed of the vehicle, assuming a total hourly such as people using the vehicle for vehicle is limited would be to use a compensation rate of $26.11. work or utility purposes, or people who lighted message or icon on the The manufacturing costs that would must get on and off the vehicle dashboard or control panel of the be associated with meeting the seat belt frequently, are likely to be traveling at vehicle. Both voluntary standards reminder and speed limitation lower speeds. already require a ‘‘lighted seat belt requirement of the proposed rule are iii. Requirement To Limit Speed If Seat reminder.’’ To comply with this summarized in Table 8. These costs Belts for Front Passengers Are Not proposed requirement, the current include the cost of one seat belt-use Fastened visual reminder would have to be sensor, the throttle or engine control, modified. For example, the wording or the visual feedback to the driver, and The proposed rule would also require icons of the reminder would change, about 5 minutes of labor time and about that the speed of the ROV be limited to and the reminder would probably 10 minutes for testing. no more than 15 mph if the seat belt of require a somewhat larger area on the any front passenger, who is seated in a dashboard or control panel. There could TABLE 8—ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING location intended by the manufacturer be some additional cost for an extra bulb COSTS OF REQUIREMENT, PER ROV as a seat, is not fastened. Based on or lamp to illuminate the larger area or conversations with ES staff, designing a icon. Based on its experience, ES staff Component Cost system that also limits the speed of the believes that the cost of an additional vehicle if the seat belt of a passenger is Seat Belt-Use Sensor ...... $7. not fastened would require only minor bulb or lamp would be about $1 or less Throttle or Engine Control $0 to $25. per vehicle. adjustments to the system limiting the Visual Signal to Driver ...... $1. speed if the driver’s seat belt is not There will be some labor costs Labor ...... $2. involved in installing the components Quality Control Testing ...... $4. fastened. The speed-limiting system needed to meet this requirement, uses sensor switches (seat belt latch including installing and connecting the Total ...... $14 to $39. sensors and/or occupant presence wires. We expect that the components sensors) to determine if seat belts are in would be installed at the stage of As discussed previously, we estimate use, and the speed-limiting system assembly that would minimize the the upfront research, design, and controls the vehicle’s speed based on amount of labor required. If the amount implementation costs to be about whether the switch is activated or not. of additional labor per vehicle was $100,000 per model, and the ES staff believes adding requirements about 5 minutes, and assuming a total certification testing costs are estimated for front passenger seat belt use will not labor compensation rate of $26.11 an to be about $4,000 per model. add significant time to the research and hour,91 the labor cost is estimated to Assuming, as before, that the average design effort for a speed-limitation amount to approximately $2 per vehicle. annual sales per model are 1,800 units, system because the system would only In addition to the certification testing and assuming that the typical model is have to incorporate additional switches discussed previously, most produced for 5 years, then the research, to the side of the system that determines manufacturers would be expected to design, and certification testing costs whether vehicle speed should be conduct some quality assurance testing would average about $12 per vehicle. limited. on vehicles as the vehicles come off the The average cost for models produced at However, incorporating the front assembly line. Virtually all lower volumes would be higher, and the passenger seats into the requirement manufacturers already perform some average cost for models produced at would require additional switches or quality control or quality assurance tests higher-than-average volumes would be sensors. A seat belt-use sensor like the on their vehicles. The tests are intended lower. Given the average cost of the one used on the driver’s side seat belt to ensure, among other things, that the design and development and the costs latch, would be required for each vehicle starts properly, that the throttle of the parts and manufacturing, we passenger seat belt. The cost of a seat and brakes function properly, and that estimate that this requirement would belt-use sensor was estimated to be any lights function properly. Testing of cost between $26 ($14 + $12) and $51 about $7. Additionally, there would the system limiting the maximum speed ($39 + 12) per vehicle. likely be a sensor switch in each front Unquantifiable Costs to Users—The when the driver’s seat belt is not passenger seat to detect the presence of requirement could impose some fastened would likely be incorporated a passenger. This switch could be unquantifiable costs on certain users similar to the seat switches in riding who would prefer not to use seat belts. 91 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 lawn mowers that shut off the engine if (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation The cost to these users would be the a rider is not detected. Similarly, in a (ECEC), total compensation for production, time required to buckle and unbuckle ROV, if the presence of a passenger is transportation, and material moving for all workers their seat belts and any disutility cost, not detected, the switch would not in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of such as discomfort caused by wearing Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: include the passenger seat belt sensor in http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_ the seat belt. We cannot quantify these circuit for determining whether the 09112012.pdf costs because we do not know how speed of the ROV should be limited. We

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69007

estimate that the cost of this switch is sensor in a passenger’s seat belt failed effectiveness of seat belts at reducing $13 per seat, based on the retail price of to detect that the seat belt was latched, fatalities in ROVs. However, according a replacement switch for the seat switch the speed of the vehicle could be to Kahane (2000), the effectiveness of in a riding lawn mower. limited, even though the seat belts were seat belts was significantly higher in There will be labor costs involved in fastened. The consumer would incur the accidents involving rollover and other installing the components needed to costs of repairing the vehicle and the incidents where the potential for meet this requirement. The components loss in utility because the speed was ejection was high.98 A significant would probably be installed at the stage limited until the repairs were made. portion of the fatal and nonfatal injuries of assembly that would minimize the associated with ROVs are associated b. Benefits of the Occupant Retention amount of labor required and would with rollovers, which suggests that a Requirements probably not require more than about 5 higher effectiveness estimate could be minutes. Additionally, manufacturers The benefit of the occupant-retention warranted. will need to conduct tests of the system requirement is the reduction in the The work by Rutledge, et al., showed to ensure that the system functions as societal cost of fatal and nonfatal that mean hospital stays were about 20 required. These tests could take an injuries that could be attributable to the percent less and hospital charges were additional 5 minutes per vehicle. requirements. In passenger cars, NHTSA 31 percent less for belted patients. This Assuming a total labor compensation assumes that a belted driver has a 45 work provides some evidence that seat rate of $26.11 an hour,92 the labor cost percent reduction in the risk of death.94 belts can reduce some components of would probably amount to about $4 per Research confirms the validity of that the societal costs of nonfatal injuries by vehicle. Therefore, the full cost of estimate.95 The effectiveness of seat 20 to 31 percent. In this analysis we use meeting this requirement would be belts in reducing the number or severity the low end of this range, 20 percent, about $24 per passenger seat ($7 for seat of nonfatal injuries is less certain than and assume that it applies to all belt latch sensor + $13 for seat switch in the cases resulting in deaths. components of the societal costs + $4 for labor). Therefore, the Nevertheless, there is evidence that the associated with nonfatal ROV injuries, quantifiable cost of extending the seat use of seat belts is associated with a including work losses and pain and belt/speed limitation requirement to reduction in injury severity. A study by suffering. The assumed 20 percent include the front passenger seat belts Robert Rutledge and others found reduction in societal costs could come would be $24 for ROVs with only two statistically significant decreases in the about because some injuries were seating positions in the front, (i.e., the severity of injuries in belted patients prevented entirely or because the driver and right front passenger) and versus unbelted patients admitted to severity of some injuries was reduced. $48 for ROVs that have three seating trauma center hospitals in North These assumptions are justified positions in the front. According to a Carolina for variables such as the because the seat belts used in ROVs are survey by Heiden Associates, about 9 trauma scores, the Glasgow coma scale, the same type of seat belts used in percent of ROVs were reported to have days on a ventilator, days in an automobiles. Additionally, the a seating capacity of three.93 Therefore, intensive care unit, days in a hospital, requirement that ROVs have a passive the average cost of extending the seat and hospital charges.96 This study means to restrict the egress or excursion belt/speed limitation requirement per found, for example, that the mean stay of an occupant in the event of a rollover ROV would be $26 ($24 + 0.09 x $24). in the hospital for belted patients was would ensure that there would be some An additional cost that is about 20 percent shorter than for passive features on ROVs that will help unquantifiable but should be considered unbelted patients: 10.5 days for belted to retain occupants within the nevertheless, is the impact that the patients as opposed to 13.2 days for protective structure of the ROV just as failure of a component of the system unbelted patients. The hospital charges there are in automobiles. We welcome could have on consumers. The more for belted patients were 31 percent less comment on the accuracy of these components that a system has, or the than the charges incurred by unbelted estimates and underlying assumptions more complicated that a system is, the patients: $10,500 versus $15,250.97 and will consider alternative estimates more likely it is that there will be a In this analysis, we assume that the or assumptions that commenters wish to failure of a component somewhere in effectiveness estimate that NHTSA uses provide. the system. A system that limits the for seat belts in automobiles is a A separate estimate of the benefit of speed of an ROV if a front passenger’s reasonable approximation of the the requirement for a passive means to seat belt is unbuckled would consist of restrict occupant egress or excursion is more components and the system would 94 Charles J. Kahane, ‘‘Fatality Reduction by not calculated. The primary benefit of be more complicated than a system that Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and this requirement is to ensure that ROVs Light Trucks: Updated and Expanded Estimates have passive features that are more only limited the speed of the vehicle if Based on 1986–99 FARS Data,’’ U.S. Department of the driver’s seat belt is unfastened. Transportation, Report No. DOT HS 809 199, effective at retaining occupants within Failure in one or more of the (December 2000). the protective zone of the vehicle in the components would impose some costs 95 ‘‘Analysis of Reported Incidents Involving event of a rollover. Therefore, the on the consumer, and this failure could Deaths or Injuries Associated with Recreational Off- passive means to restrict occupant Highway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product possibly affect consumer acceptance of Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD (May 2012). egress or excursion acts synergistically the requirement. For example, if the 96 Robert Rutledge, Allen Lalor, Dale Oller, et al., with the seat belt requirements to keep ‘‘The Cost of Not Wearing Seat Belts: A Comparison occupants within the protective zone of 92 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 of Outcome in 3396 Patients,’’ Annals of Surgery, (Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Vol. 217, No. 2, 122–127 (1993). 98 In these incidents, the researchers found the (ECEC), total compensation for production, 97 Note that the Rutledge study looked only at the effectiveness of seat belts was 74 percent in transportation, and material moving for all workers difference in the severity of cases involving belted, passenger cars and 80 percent in light trucks. in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of as opposed to unbelted victims. It did not estimate Incidents involving overturning of the vehicle or Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: the number of injuries that were actually prevented. the ejection of the victim are associated with a http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_ It should also be noted that the Rutledge study larger proportion of the fatal injuries involving 09112012.pdf. focused only on patients that were hospitalized for ROVs. At least 65 percent of the fatalities were in 93 Heiden Associates et al. provided results from at least one day. It might not be as applicable to incidents where the vehicle rolled sideways and at a 2009 ROV Survey, which is included in Appendix patients who were treated and released without least 70 percent of those injured or killed were 2 of Docket No. CPSC—2009–0087). being admitted to a hospital. either fully or partially ejected.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

the vehicle or ROPS, and in addition, The incremental benefit of applying the wearing seat belts. If the pattern of provides justification for applying to the same requirement to the front deaths in 2010 is presumed to match the proposed rule for ROVs estimates from passengers is discussed separately. overall pattern of the deaths reviewed studies on the effectiveness of seat belts Potential Reduction in Fatal Injuries by CPSC, then about 20 of the reported in automobiles. 49 deaths associated with ROVs in Table 9 shows the 231 fatality cases 2010 99 would have been to drivers who i. Benefit of Limiting Speed If Driver’s that CPSC has reviewed according to the did not have their seat belts fastened. Seat Belt Is Not Fastened seating location of the victim and (The actual pattern of deaths in any As noted previously, the benefit of the whether the victim was wearing a seat occupant-retention requirements would belt. Ignoring the cases in which the given year will likely be higher or lower be the reduction in the societal costs of location of the victim or the seat belt use than the overall or average pattern. In fatal and nonfatal injuries that would be by the victim is unknown (and thereby, this analysis, we imposed the overall expected. The incremental benefit of erring on the side of underestimating pattern to the reported fatalities in 2010, applying the requirement to limit the the benefits), the data show that about so that the results would be more speed of the vehicle if the driver’s seat 40 percent (92 ÷ 231) of the deaths representative of all reported ROV belt is not fastened is discussed below. happened to drivers who were not fatalities.)

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 driver has a 45 percent reduction in the averted. Thus, a reduction in societal maximum speed would apply only to risk of death. If seat belts have the same costs of fatal injuries of about $99 per incidents involving unbelted drivers effectiveness in reducing the risk of ROV in use (0.0000123 × $8.05 million) that occurred at speeds of greater than death in ROVs, the seat belt/speed per year could be attributable to the seat 15 mph. Of the ROV incidents that the limitation requirement would have belt/speed limitation requirement. Commission has reviewed, the speed of reduced the number of fatal injuries to Potential Reduction in Societal Cost of the vehicle was reported for only 89 of drivers of ROVs by about 7 (15 × 0.45) the 428 incidents. Therefore, estimates in 2010, if all ROVs in use at the time Nonfatal Injuries based on this data need to be used had met this requirement.100 This As discussed previously, for this cautiously. Nevertheless, for victims represents an annual risk reduction of analysis, we assumed that the seat belt/ who are known to have been injured 0.0000123 deaths per ROV in use (7 ÷ speed limitation requirement will and for which both their the seat belt 570,000). reduce the societal cost of nonfatal ROV use and the speed of the vehicle are As discussed previously, in this injuries by 20 percent. The assumed 20 known, about 73 percent of the unbelted analysis, we assume a value of $8.4 percent reduction in societal costs could victims were traveling at speeds greater million for each fatality averted. result because some injuries were than 15 mph. (Victims who were However, in this analysis, we assume prevented entirely, or because the involved in an ROV incident but were that each fatal injury prevented by the severity of some injuries was reduced. not injured, or whose injury status is not use of seat belts still resulted in a The CPSC has investigated several known, were not included in this serious, but nonfatal, injury. The hundred nonfatal injuries associated analysis.) Consequently, if we assume average societal cost of a hospitalized with ROVs. Table 10 summarizes the that 73 percent of the fatalities occurred injury involving all ATVs and UTVs in nonfatal injuries according to seating to unbelted drivers who were traveling 2010 was about $350,000 in 2012 location and seat belt use. (Cases in at speeds greater than 15 mph, then dollars. (Based on the ICM estimates of which the occupant was not injured, or about 15 (20 × 0.73) of the fatalities in the cost of a hospitalized injury using cases in which it is unknown whether 2010 would have been addressed, NEISS Product Codes 3285, 3286, 3287, the occupant was injured, were not although not necessarily prevented, by and 5044.) Subtracting this from the included in this analysis.) Again, the proposed requirement. assumed societal cost of $8.4 million ignoring the cases in which the location As discussed previously, in passenger per death results in a societal cost of the victim or the seat belt use by the cars, NHTSA assumes that a belted reduction of $8.05 million per death victim is unknown (and thereby, erring

99 The collection of fatalities associated with 100 Alternatively, the drivers could opt to leave this option would also be expected to reduce the ROVs in 2010 was ongoing at the time this analysis their seat belts unfastened and accept the lower number of fatal injuries. was conducted. The actual number of deaths speed. Because the risk of having an accident is associated with ROVs in 2010 could be higher. probably directly related to the speed of the vehicle,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69009

on the side of underestimating the approximately 11,100 medically × 0.73) of the injuries in 2010 could benefits), the data indicate that about 12 attended injuries in 2010 would have have been addressed by the proposed percent (46 ÷ 388) of the nonfatal involved unbelted drivers. Assuming, as seat belt/speed limitation requirement. injuries happened to drivers who were with the fatal injuries, that 73 percent These 972 injuries in 2010 represent an not wearing seat belts. This suggests that were traveling at a speed greater than 15 injury rate of about 0.00170526 (972 ÷ 1,332 (11,100 × 0.12) of the mph at the time of incident, 972 (1,332 570,000) 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 cost would be between $33 and $58 per who were not wearing seat belts. ICM, the average societal cost of the vehicle. The benefit of the requirement, Assuming that about 73 percent of the injuries addressed is estimated to be estimated to be about $1,498 per incidents involved vehicles traveling $29,383. Applying this cost estimate to vehicle, is substantially greater than the faster than 15 mph, about 6 of the the estimated injuries per ROV that estimated cost of the requirement. fatalities would have been addressed, could be addressed by the standard but not necessarily prevented, by the ii. Benefit of Limiting Speed If a Front results in an annual societal cost of requirement. Assuming that seat belts Passenger’s Seat Belt Is Not Fastened about $50 per ROV in use (0.00170526 reduce the risk of fatal injuries by 45 × $29,383). If wearing seat belts could The potential incremental benefit of percent, about 3 fatalities might have have reduced this cost by 20 percent (by limiting the speed of an ROV if a front been averted. This represents a risk reducing either the number or severity passenger’s seat belt is not fastened can reduction of 0.00000526 deaths per ROV of injuries), the societal benefit, in terms be calculated following the same in use (3 ÷ 570,000). Assuming a of the reduced costs associated with procedure used to calculate the benefits societal benefit of $8.05 million for each nonfatal injuries, would be about $10 of a requirement limiting the maximum death averted results in an estimated per ROV in use. speed when the driver’s seat belt is not annual benefit of about $42 per ROV in fastened. From the data presented in use ($8.05 million × 0.00000526) in Total Benefit Over the Useful Life of an Table 9 (and ignoring the cases in which reduced fatal injuries. ROV the seating location of the victim or the Similarly, the data show that 35 of the The total benefit of the seat belt/speed seat belt use is unknown), there were 33 victims who suffered nonfatal injuries limitation requirement per ROV would victims seated in the right front were seated in the right front passenger be the present value of the expected passenger position, and six who were location, and 14 were seated in the annual benefit per ROV in use, summed seated in the middle front passenger middle front position. However, we over the vehicle’s expected useful life. position were not using a seatbelt. believe that only 8 of the 14 were Above, using 2010 as the base year, we However, some of the victims listed as actually seated in a position intended by estimated that the annual benefit per a middle front seat passenger were not the manufacturer to be a seat. Therefore, ROV was about $99 in terms of reduced seated in places intended to be a seat. 43 of the 388 victims (or about 11 deaths and $10 in terms of reduced In some cases, the victim might have percent of the total) with nonfatal nonfatal injuries, for a total of $109 per been seated on a console; in other cases, injuries were front passengers who were ROV. Assuming that ROVs have the the victim might have been sharing the not wearing seat belts. This suggests that same operability rates as ATVs, the right front passenger seat and not a 1,221 of the estimated 11,100 medically present value of the estimated benefit separate seat. Based on the information attended injuries in 2010 involved over the useful life of an ROV would be available about the incidents, we believe unbelted front passengers. Using the approximately $1,498 per vehicle, at a 3 that only three of the six victims assumption that 73 percent of these percent discount rate. reported to be ‘‘middle front incidents occurred at speeds greater The cost of the requirement to limit passengers,’’ were actually in positions than 15 mph, then about 891 of the the speed of the vehicle if the driver’s intended by the manufacturer to be injuries might have been addressed by seat belt is not fastened was estimated middle seats. Therefore, about 16 the requirement, or about 0.00156315 to be between $26 and $51 per vehicle. percent (36 ÷ 231) of the fatal injuries injuries per ROV in use (891 ÷ 570,000). Additionally, the cost of the involved front seat passengers who were Assuming that the average cost of a requirement for a means to restrict not wearing seat belts. nonfatal injury involving ROVs is occupant egress and excursion via a Applying this estimate to the fatalities $29383, the estimated societal cost of passive method was estimated to be in 2010 suggests that about 8 of the 49 these injuries is about $46 per ROV in about $7 per vehicle. Therefore, the total fatalities happened to front passengers use. If wearing seat belts could have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

reduced the societal cost of the nonfatal driver. In the incidents examined by the requirement that the driver’s seat belt be injuries by 20 percent, then the benefits Commission, of the 121 right front fastened; and only 20 percent, or $140 of the requirement would have been passengers with known seat belt usage, ($701 × 0.20) would be attributable to about $9 per ROV in use, per year. the driver and right passenger had the the requirement that the front Combining the benefits of the same seat belt use status most of the passengers’ seat belts be fastened. In this reduction in the societal cost of deaths time (about 82 percent). In other words, example, the $140 in benefits attributed ($42 per ROV in use) and the societal most of the time, the driver’s and right to extending the speed limitation cost of injuries ($9 per ROV in use) passenger’s seat belts were either both requirement to include the front yields an estimated benefit of $51 per fastened or both unfastened. This passenger’s seat belts would still exceed ROV in use. Assuming that ROVs have suggests that if the drivers were required the quantifiable cost of doing so, which the same operability rates as ATVs over to fasten his or her seat belt, at least was estimated to be $26. time, and assuming a discount rate of 3 some of the passengers would also percent, the estimated benefit would be fasten their seat belts. E. Summary of the Costs and Benefits of $701 over the expected useful life of an The implication that a correlation the Proposed Rule ROV. This is greater than the expected exists between seat belt use by drivers cost of this potential requirement of $26 and by passengers indicates that the As described previously, per vehicle. benefits of requiring the driver’s seat manufacturers would incur costs of belt to be fastened were underestimated $128,000 to $195,000 per model to test iii. Impact of Any Correlation in Seat and the benefits of extending the ROV models for compliance with the Belt Use Between Driver and Passengers requirement to include the right front requirements of the proposed rule and The analysis above used a simplifying passenger are over estimated. For to research, develop, and implement assumption that the use of seat belts by example, if 80 percent of the passengers any needed changes to the models so the passenger is independent of the use who would not normally wear their seat that they would comply with the of seat belts by the driver. Therefore, we belts were to wear their seat belts requirements. These costs would be assumed that limiting the maximum because the driver was required to wear incurred before the model is brought to speed of the ROV if the driver’s seat belt his or her seat belt (for the ROV to market. To express these costs on a per- was not fastened would have no impact exceed 15 mph), then 80 percent of the unit basis, we assumed that, on average, on the seat belt use by any passenger. benefit, or $561 ($701 × 0.80) attributed 1,800 units of a model were produced However, there is some evidence that above to extending the speed limitation annually and that a typical model is the use of seat belts by passengers is requirement to the front passengers produced for 5 years. These costs are correlated with the seat belt use of the would be attributed rightfully to the 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 and Vehicle Handling ...... $24,000 to $91,000 ... $3 to $10

Occupant Retention Requirements: Research, Design, Implementation ...... $100,000 ...... $11 Certification Testing ...... $4,000 ...... <$1

Total R&D and Testing Costs for Seat Belt Requirement ...... $104,000 ...... $12

Total Certification Testing and Research and Development Costs ...... $128,000 to $195,000 $14 to $22 * 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, comply might increase manufacturing occupant-retention requirements. These and development costs described above, costs; other modifications could costs are expected to average between manufacturers will incur some decrease manufacturing costs. $47 and $72 per vehicle. Adding the additional manufacturing costs for extra Therefore, we have assumed, on estimated upfront testing, research, parts or labor required to manufacture average, that there will not be any development, and implementation costs ROVs that meet the requirements for the additional manufacturing costs required per unit from Table 11 brings the total proposed rule. These costs are to meet the vehicle handling cost of the proposed rule to an estimated summarized in Table 12. As for the requirements. However, most $61 to $94 per vehicle. vehicle handling requirements, some manufacturers will incur additional modifications to vehicles that do not manufacturing costs to meet the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69011

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF PER-UNIT COSTS AND BENEFITS

Description Value per unit

Costs

Manufacturing Costs: Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements ...... $0 Passive Occupant Retention Requirement ...... $7 Seat Belt/Speed Limitation Requirement—Driver Seats ...... $14 to $39 Seat Belt/Speed Limitation Requirement—Front Passenger Seats ...... $26

Total Manufacturing Costs ...... $47 to $72 Certification Testing and Research and Development Costs (from Table 4) ...... $14 to $22

Total Quantifiable Cost ...... $61 to $94

Benefits

Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements ...... (not quantifiable) 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 retention requirements also would be have been between $14.3 million and the occupant retention requirement. reduced. Additionally, if the lateral $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied Applying this requirement to just the stability and vehicle handling by 234,000 units, respectively). The driver’s seat belt would result in requirements can reduce the number of total quantifiable benefits would have benefits of about $1,498 per unit. accidents involving ROVs, there would been at least $515 million ($2,199 × Applying the seat belt/speed limitation be fewer resulting injuries whose 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 requirement to the front passenger seat severity would be reduced by the million (or about 88 percent) would belts could result in an additional occupant retention requirements. have resulted from the reduction in fatal benefit of $701 per unit. Therefore, the However, the resulting decrease in the injuries, and about $62 million (or about quantifiable benefits of the proposed incremental benefit of the seat belt/ 12 percent) of the benefits would have rule would be $2,199 per unit. The speed limitation requirement would be resulted from a reduction in the societal benefit associated with the vehicle less than the benefit attributable to the cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 handling and lateral stability lateral stability and vehicle handling million of the reduction in the societal requirement could not be quantified. requirements. Again, this is largely cost of nonfatal injuries would have Therefore, the benefits of the proposed because the benefit of preventing an been due to a reduction in pain and rule could exceed the $2,199 estimated injury from occurring in the first place suffering. above. is greater than the benefit of reducing F. Alternatives The fact that the potential benefits of the severity of harm of the injury. the lateral stability and vehicle handling Although some assumptions used in The Commission considered several requirements could not be quantified this analysis would serve to reduce the alternatives to the requirements in the should not be interpreted to mean that estimated benefit of the draft proposed proposed rule. The alternatives they are low or insignificant. This only rule (e.g., ignoring incidents in which considered included: (1) Not issuing a means that we have not developed the the use of seat belts was unknown), the mandatory rule, but instead, relying on data necessary to quantify these analysis also assumes that all drivers voluntary standards; (2) including the benefits. The purpose of the occupant and front seat passengers would opt to dynamic lateral stability requirement or retention requirements is to reduce the fasten their seat belts if the speed of the the understeer requirement, but not severity of injuries, but this requirement vehicle was limited; and the analysis both; (3) requiring a more intrusive is not expected to reduce the risk of an also would assume that no driver or audible or visual seatbelt reminder, incident occurring. The lateral stability passenger would attempt to defeat the instead of limiting the speed of the and vehicle handling requirement, on system, which could be accomplished vehicle if the seatbelt is not fastened; (4) the other hand, is intended to reduce simply by passing the belt behind the extending the seatbelt/speed limitation the risk of an incident occurring that rider, or passing the belt behind the seat requirement to include rear seats; (5) involves an ROV, and therefore, prevent before latching the belt. To the extent requiring an ignition interlock if the injuries from happening in the first that consumers attempt to defeat the seatbelts are not fastened instead of place. At this time, however, we do not seat belt/speed limitation system, the limiting the maximum speed; and (6) have a basis for estimating what would benefits are overestimated. limiting the maximum speed to 10 mph, be the effectiveness of the lateral The estimated costs and benefits of instead of 15 mph, if the seatbelts are stability and vehicle handling the rule on an annual basis can be not fastened. Each of these alternatives requirements. calculated by multiplying the estimated is discussed below. The discussion Notably, to the extent that the lateral benefits and costs per-unit by the includes the reasons that the stability and vehicle handling number of ROVs sold in a given year. In Commission did not include the requirements are effective in reducing 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the alternative in the proposed rule as well the number of incidents, the proposed rule had been in effect that as qualitative discussion of costs and incremental benefit of the occupant year, the total quantifiable cost would benefits where possible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

1. No Mandatory Standard/Rely on a 5th percentile adult female, at a resumes warning the driver after about Voluntary Standard defined area near the ROV occupants’ 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not If CPSC did not issue a mandatory shoulder, as contained in the proposed fastened and the car is traveling at more standard, most manufacturers would rule. than 3 mph. The system flashes a In summary, not mandating a comply with one of the two voluntary warning light and sounds a chime for 6 standard would not impose any standards that apply to ROVs. However, seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 additional costs on manufacturers, but neither voluntary standard requires that minutes so long as the car is operating neither would it result in any additional ROVs understeer, as required by the and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. benefits in terms of reduced deaths and proposed rule. According to ES staff, Honda developed a similar system in injuries. Therefore, not issuing a drivers are more likely to lose control of which the warning could last for longer mandatory standard was not proposed vehicles that oversteer, which can lead than 9 minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is by the Commission. to the vehicle rolling over or causing not fastened. Studies of both systems other types of accidents. 2. Removing Either the Lateral Stability found that a statistically significant Both voluntary standards have Requirement or the Handling increase in the use of seatbelts of 5 requirements that are intended to set Requirement percent (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 standards for dynamic lateral stability. percent (from 84 to 90 percent), The CPSC considered including a respectively.101 However, these more ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle requirement for either dynamic stability test for dynamic lateral stability that is intrusive seatbelt warning systems are or vehicle handling, but not both. unlikely to be as effective as the seatbelt more similar to the test in the proposed However, the Commission believes that rule (for whether the vehicle speed limitation requirement in the both of these characteristics need to be proposed rule. The Commission understeers) than it is to the test for addressed. According to ES staff, a believes that the requirement will cause dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic vehicle that meets both the dynamic most drivers and passengers who wish stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI stability requirement and the understeer to exceed 15 mph to fasten their B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the requirement should be safer than a seatbelts. Research supports this proposed rule, but measures different vehicle that meets only one of the position. One experiment used a haptic variables during the test and uses a requirements. Moreover, the cost of feedback system to increase the force different acceptance criterion. However, meeting just one requirement is not the driver needed to exert to depress the ES staff does not believe that the tests substantially lower than the cost of gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 procedures in either standard have been meeting both requirements. The cost of mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. validated properly to be deemed capable testing a vehicle for compliance with of providing useful information about both the dynamic lateral stability The system did not prevent the driver the dynamic stability of the vehicle. requirement and the vehicle handling/ from exceeding 25 mph, but it increased Moreover, the voluntary standards understeer requirement was estimated the amount of force required to depress would find some vehicles to be to be about $24,000. However, the cost the gas pedal to maintain a speed greater acceptable, even though their lateral of testing for compliance with just the than 25 mph. In this experiment all acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 dynamic stability requirement would be seven participants chose to fasten their 102 g, which is the acceptance criterion in about $20,000, or only about 17 percent seatbelts. the proposed rule. less than the cost of testing for The more intrusive seatbelt reminder Both voluntary standards require compliance with both requirements. systems used on some passenger cars manufacturers to include a lighted seat- This is because the cost of renting and have been more limited in their belt reminder that is visible to the driver transporting the vehicle to the test site, effectiveness. The Honda system, for and remains on for at least 8 seconds instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, example, reduced the number of after the vehicle is started, unless the and making some initial static unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; driver’s seatbelt is fastened. However, measurements are virtually the same for the Ford system reduced the number of 103 virtually all ROVs on the market already both requirements and would only have unbelted drivers by only 17 percent. include this feature; and therefore, to be done once, if the tests for both Additionally, ROVs are open vehicles relying only on the voluntary standards requirements were conducted on the and the ambient noise is likely higher would not be expected to raise seatbelt same day. Moreover, changes in the than in the enclosed passenger use over current levels of use. vehicle design that affect the lateral compartment of a car. It is likely that The voluntary standards include stability of the vehicle could also impact some ROV drivers would not hear the requirements for retaining the occupant the handling of the vehicle. For these warning and be motivated to fasten their within the protective zone of the vehicle reasons, the proposed rule includes a seatbelts unless the warning was if a rollover occurs, including two dynamic stability requirement and a substantially louder than the systems options for restraining the occupants in vehicle handling requirement. used in passenger cars. the shoulder/hip area. However, testing performed by CPSC identified 3. Require Intrusive Seatbelt Reminder 101 Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal for Seatbelt Speed weaknesses in the performance-based in Lieu of the Speed Limitation Limiter On Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles Requirements (ROVs),’’ CPSC Memorandum (2013). tilt table test option that allows 102 Ron Van Houten, Bryan Hilton, Richard unacceptable occupant head ejection Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation Schulman, and Ian Reagan, ‘‘Using Haptic Feedback beyond the protective zone of the requirements in the proposed rule, the to Increase Seatbelt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers,’’ vehicle ROPs. CPSC testing indicated Commission considered a requirement U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT HS 811 434 (January 2011). that a passive shoulder barrier could for ROVs to have loud or intrusive 103 The Honda system increased seatbelt use from reduce the head excursion of a belted seatbelt reminders. Currently, most 84 percent to 90 percent. Therefore, the percentage occupant during quarter-turn rollover ROVs meet the voluntary standards that of unbelted drivers was reduced by about 38 events. The Commission believes that require an 8-second visual seatbelt percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 percent. The Ford system increased seatbelt use from 71 percent this can be accomplished by a reminder. Some more intrusive systems to 76 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted requirement for a passive barrier, based have been used on passenger cars. For drivers was reduced by about 17 percent, or 5 on the dimensions of the upper arm of example, the Ford ‘‘BeltMinder’’ system percent divided by 29 percent.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69013

The cost to manufacturers of some at speeds of 15 mph or greater and seatbelt is latched or because a faulty forms of more intrusive seat belt seatbelts would reduce the risk of death seat switch incorrectly registers the reminders could be less than the cost of by 45 percent), extending the presence of a passenger when a the speed limitation requirement in the requirement to include the rear seats passenger is not present. This cost draft proposed rule. However, the cost could have potentially reduced the cannot be quantified. However, if such of the seat belt/speed limitation number of fatalities in 2010 by 0.2 or failures are possible, the costs of requirement was estimated to be less about one death every 5 years, all other extending the seatbelt/speed limitation than $72 per ROV.104 If the experience things equal. Therefore, extending the requirement to include the rear seats with the Honda and Ford systems seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to would be higher than the $48 to $72 discussed above are relevant to ROVs, the rear passenger seats could reduce estimated above. the benefits of a more intrusive seat belt the annual risk of fatal injury by Second, as discussed previously, reminder system could be less than 38 0.00000175 (0.2 ÷ 114,000) per ROV in there is some correlation between the percent of the benefits estimated for the use. Assuming a societal benefit of $8.05 requirement in the draft proposed rule million per death averted results in an seatbelt use of the driver and other or less than $835 per ROV. Therefore, estimated annual benefit of about $14 passengers on the ROV. If the driver and even if the cost of a more intrusive seat per ROV in use ($8.05 million × front passengers fasten their seatbelts, belt reminder system was close to $0, 0.00000175) in terms of reduced fatal there is reason to believe that some rear the net benefits would be less than the injuries. passengers will also fasten their seat belt/speed limitation requirement Three of the 388 nonfatal injuries (or seatbelts. If so, the benefits of including in the draft proposed rule, which were 0.8 percent) involved passengers in rear the rear seat passengers could be estimated to be at least $2,105. seats who did not have their seatbelts overestimated above. Moreover, even if Therefore, the alternative of a more fastened. This suggests that about 89 of there was no correlation, including only intrusive seat belt reminder was not the estimated 11,100 medically attended the driver and front seat passengers included in the proposed rule. injuries in 2010 may have happened to would still achieve about 98 percent of unbelted rear passengers. Again, the total potential benefits from the 4. Extending the Seatbelt/Speed assuming that 73 percent of these seatbelt/speed limitation Limitation Requirement To Include Rear occurred at speeds of 15 mph or faster, requirement.106 Seats about 65 medically attended injuries 5. Requiring an Ignition Interlock The Commission considered might have been addressed by the Instead of Limiting the Maximum Speed extending the seatbelt/speed limitation seatbelt/speed limitation requirement if requirement to include the rear applied to the rear seating locations. The Commission considered whether passenger seats, when present. This represents a risk of a nonfatal, an ignition interlock requirement that According to one exposure survey, medically attended injury of 0.0005702 did not allow the vehicle to be started about 20 percent of the respondents (65 ÷ 114,000) per ROV in use per year. unless the driver’s seatbelt was buckled reported that their ROVs had a seating The societal cost of this risk is $17, would be appropriate for ROVs. capacity of at least four occupants, assuming an average nonfatal, medically However, the history of ignition which indicates that the ROV had rear attended injury cost of $29,383. If interlock systems to encourage seatbelt 105 passenger seating locations. seatbelts could reduce the cost of these use on passenger cars suggests that The cost of extending this injuries by 20 percent, by reducing the consumer resistance to an ignition requirement to include the rear number of injuries in their severity, the interlock system could be strong. In passenger seats would be expected to be value of the reduction would be $3 per 1973, NHTSA proposed requiring an the same per seat as extending the ROV in use per year. interlock system on passenger cars. requirement to include the right-front Combining the benefit of $14 for the However, public opposition to the and middle-front passengers, or $24 per reduction in fatal injuries and $3 for the proposed requirement led Congress to seat. Therefore, the cost of this reduced cost of nonfatal, medically prohibit NHTSA from requiring an requirement would be $48 to $72 per attended injuries yields a combined ignition interlock system.107 For this ROV, depending upon whether the ROV benefit of $17 per ROV in use per year. reason, the Commission is not had two or three rear seating locations. The present value of this estimated Three of the 231 fatalities (or 1.3 proposing this alternative. Instead, the benefit over the expected useful life of proposed rule would allow people to percent) involved a person in a rear seat a ROV is $234. This is greater than the who did not have their seatbelt fastened. use ROVs at low speeds without quantifiable cost of $48 to $72. requiring seat belts to be fastened. Using the same assumptions used to However, these estimates of the costs calculate the benefits of the seatbelt/ and benefits are probably oversimplified speed limitation for passengers in the 106 The potential net benefit of the seatbelt/speed the costs may have been understated limitation requirement resulting from its front seats (i.e., that 73 percent occurred and the benefits overstated. The application to the driver and front passengers was Commission is hesitant to recommend estimated to be $2,199 per ROV. The potential net 104 This estimate is based on manufacturing cost this alternative for the several reasons. benefit resulting from its application to the rear estimates of $39 to apply the requirement to the First, as discussed earlier, a system seats was estimated to be $234 per ROV with rear driver’s seat and $26 to apply the requirement to seats. However, only about 20 percent of ROVs were the front passenger’s seat, plus $12 for research, that includes all passenger seats would assumed to have rear seats. Therefore, the weighted development and certification testing. comprise more parts than a system that benefit over all ROVs of extending the seatbelt/ 105 Heiden Associates, Results from the 2008 ROV included only the front passenger seats. speed limitation requirement to include the rear Exposure Survey (APPENDIX 2 to Joint Comments A failure in only one of the parts could seats would be about $47 per ROV ($234 × 0.2). The of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational potential weighted benefit would be $2,246, of Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Yamaha result in significant cost to the users for which about 2 percent ($47 ÷ $2,246) would be Motor Corporation, U.S.A regarding CPSC Advance repairs, lost time and utility of the attributable to extending the requirement to the rear Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-Standard for vehicle while it is being repaired, or the seats. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles: Docket No. inability of the vehicle to reach its 107 Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal for Seatbelt Speed CPSC—2009–0087), Alexandria Virginia (December Limiter on Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles 4, 2009).) This suggests that there were about potential speed. These failures could (ROVs),’’ CPSC Memorandum (2013). U.S. 114,000 ROVs with rear passenger seats in 2010 (0.2 occur because a faulty seat belt latch Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda × 570,000). sensor does not detect or signal that a MD (2013).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

6. Limiting the Maximum Speed to 10 Therefore, manufacturers could set a • a brief description of the need for mph if the Driver’s Seatbelt Is Not maximum speed of less than 15 mph if the information and the proposed use of Fastened they believed this was in their interest the information; • The Commission considered limiting to do so. One ROV manufacturer has a description of the likely respondents and proposed frequency of the maximum speed of the ROV to 10 introduced ROV models that will not response to the collection of mph if the driver’s seatbelt was not exceed 9.3 mph (15 km/hr.) unless the driver’s seatbelt is fastened. information; fastened, instead of 15 mph, as in the • an estimate of the burden that shall proposed rule. In making this G. Conclusion result from the collection of determination, we weigh some We estimate the quantifiable benefits information; and potentially quantifiable factors against • notice that comments may be of the proposed rule to be about $2,199 some unquantifiable factors. The submitted to the OMB. per ROV, and we estimate the expected benefits of limiting the Title: Safety Standard for Recreational quantifiable costs to be about $61 to $94 maximum speed to 10 mph are higher Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs). than the expected benefits of limiting per ROV. Therefore, the benefits would Number of Respondents: We have the maximum speed to 15 mph. Based exceed the costs by a substantial margin. identified 20 manufacturers of ROVs. on the injuries reported to CPSC for However, the only benefits that could be Number of Models: We estimate that which the speed was reported and the quantified would be the benefits there are about 130 different models of seatbelt use was known, about 15 associated with the seat belt/speed ROVs, or an average of 6.5 models per percent of the people injured in ROV limitation requirement. The lateral manufacturer. This estimate counts as a accidents who were not wearing stability and vehicle handling single model, all models of a seatbelts were traveling between 10 and requirements would also be expected to manufacturer that do not appear to 15 mph. Therefore, decreasing the reduce deaths and injuries and so result differ from each other in terms of maximum allowed speed of an ROV to in additional benefits, but these were performance, such as engine size, width, 10 mph if the driver’s or right front not quantifiable. number of seats, weight, horsepower, passenger’s seatbelt is not fastened There could be some unquantifiable capacity, and wheel size. In other could increase the expected benefits of costs associated with the rule. Some words, if the models differed only in the requirement by up to 21 percent consumers might find the requirement terms of accessory packages, or in the (0.15 ÷ 0.73). There would be no to fasten their seat belts before the case of foreign manufacturers, differed difference between the two alternatives vehicle can exceed 15 mph to be only in the names of the domestic in terms of the quantified costs. inconvenient or uncomfortable. The 15 distributors, then they were counted as Although the quantified benefits mph threshold as opposed to a 10 mph the same model. would be increased and the quantified threshold was selected for the Number of Reports per Year: costs would not be affected by this requirement to limit the number of Manufacturers will have to place a hang alternative, the Commission believes consumers who would be tag on each ROV sold. In 2013, about that the unquantifiable costs would be inconvenienced by the requirement and 234,000 ROVs were sold, or about 1,800 higher if the maximum speed allowed might be motivated to defeat the system. units per model. This would be a was set at 10 mph instead of 15 mph. Some consumers might prefer an ROV reasonable estimate of the number of Commission staff believes this could that oversteers under more conditions responses per year. On average, each have a negative impact on consumer than the proposed rule would allow. manufacturer would have about 11,700 acceptance of the requirement. The However, the number of consumers who responses per year. unquantifiable costs include: The time, have a strong preference for oversteering Burden Estimates per Model: The inconvenience, and discomfort to some vehicles is probably low. reporting burden of this requirement users who would prefer not to wear Several alternatives to requirements can be divided into two parts. The first seatbelts. These users could include: in the proposed rule were considered, is designing the hang tag for each People using the ROVs for work or including relying on voluntary model. The second is printing and utility purposes, who might have to get standards or requiring more intrusive physically attaching the hang tag to the on and off the ROV frequently, and who seat belt reminders (as opposed to the ROV. These are discussed in more detail are likely to be traveling at lower rates speed limitation requirement). However, below. of speed, but who occasionally could the Commission determined that the Designing the Hang tag: We estimate exceed 10 mph. Some of these users benefits of the requirements in the that it will take about 30 minutes to could be motivated to defeat the proposed rule would probably exceed design the hang tag for each model. The requirement (and this could be done their costs, considering both the first year the rule is in effect, easily), which could reduce the benefits quantifiable and unquantifiable costs manufacturers will have to design the of the proposed rule. Allowing ROVs to and benefits. hang tag for each of their models. reach speeds of up to 15 mph without However, the same model might be in requiring the seatbelt to be fastened XI. Paperwork Reduction Act production for more than one year. If would mitigate some of the ROV models have a production life of This proposed rule contains inconvenience or discomfort of the about 5 years before being redesigned, information collection requirements that requirement to these users, and then the same hang tag might be useable are subject to public comment and correspondingly, consumers would have for more than 1 year. Therefore, in year review by OMB under the Paperwork less motivation to attempt to defeat the 1, on average, the burden on each Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– requirement. manufacturer will be about 3.25 hours 3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 ROV manufacturers would have the to design the hang tag (0.5 hours per U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: option of setting the maximum speed model × 6.5 models). In subsequent • that their models could reach without A title for the collection of years, the burden on each manufacturer requiring the seatbelts to be fastened— information; will be about 0.65 hours assuming that so long as the maximum speed was no • a summary of the collection of manufacturers will have to redesign the greater than 15 miles per hour. information; hang tag only when they redesign the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69015

ROV and that ROVs are redesigned, on year, or 13 hours, assuming that each impact that the rule would have on average, about every 5 years. Assuming ROV model either undergoes a small businesses and other entities. An this work will be performed by a significant design change or is replaced IRFA is not required if the head of an professional employee, the cost per by a different model every 5 years. agency certifies that the proposed rule manufacturer will be $206 the first year Therefore, the compensation cost of will not have a significant economic and $41 in each subsequent year.108 designing the hang tag in subsequent impact on a substantial number of small Printing and Placing the Hang tag on years would be about $824 ($4,118/5). entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must Each Vehicle: Based on estimates for The total compensation cost in contain: printing obtained at: http:// subsequent years would be $34,780. (1) A description of why action by the www.uprinting.com and estimates for Total Material Cost: The cost of the agency is being considered; the ties obtained from http:// printed hang tags and ties for attaching (2) a succinct statement of the blanksusa.com, we estimate that the the hang tag to the vehicles is estimated objectives of, and legal basis for, the cost of the printed hang tag and wire for to be about 8 cents each. Therefore, the proposed rule; attaching the hang tag to the ROV will total material cost would be $18,720 (3) a description of and, where be about $0.08. Therefore, the total cost ($0.08 × 234,000 units). feasible, an estimate of the number of of materials for the average Total Cost of Hang tag Requirement: small entities to which the proposed manufacturer with 6.5 models, Based on the above estimates, the total rule will apply; producing 1,800 units of each model, cost of the hang tag requirement in the (4) a description of the projected would be about $936 per year ($0.08 × initial year is estimated to be about reporting, recordkeeping and other 6.5 models × 1,800 units). $56,794. In subsequent years, the total compliance requirements of the We estimate that it will take about 20 cost would be slightly less, about proposed rule, including an estimate of seconds to attach a hang tag to each $53,500. the classes of small entities which will vehicle. Assuming an annual In compliance with the Paperwork be subject to the requirement and the production of 1,800 units of each model, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. type of professional skills necessary for on average, this comes to 10 hours per 3507(d)), we have submitted the preparation of the report or record; and model or an average of 65 hours per information collection requirements of (5) an identification to the extent manufacturer or respondent, assuming this rule to the OMB for review. practicable, of all relevant Federal rules an average of 6.5 models per Interested persons are requested to which may duplicate, overlap or manufacturer. Assuming a total submit comments regarding information conflict with the proposed rule. An IRFA must also contain a compensation of $26.12 per hour, the collection by December 19, 2014, to the description of any significant cost would be $261 per model or $1,698 Office of Information and Regulatory alternatives that would accomplish the per manufacturer, assuming an average Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section stated objectives of the applicable of 6.5 models per manufacturer.109 at the beginning of this notice). statutes and that would minimize any Total Burden of the Hang tag Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), significant economic impact of the Requirement: The total burden of the we invite comments on: • proposed rule on small entities. hang tag requirement the first year will Whether the collection of Alternatives could include: (1) consist of the following components: information is necessary for the proper Establishment of differing compliance Designing the Hang tags: 65 hours (0.5 performance of the CPSC’s functions, or reporting requirements that take into hours × 130 models). Assuming a total including whether the information will account the resources available to small compensation rate of $63.36 per hour have practical utility; • businesses; (2) clarification, (professional and related workers), the the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate consolidation, or simplification of cost would be $4,118. of the burden of the proposed collection compliance and reporting requirements Placing the Hang tags on the Vehicles: of information, including the validity of for small entities; (3) use of performance 1,300 hours (234,000 vehicles × 20 the methodology and assumptions used; • ways to enhance the quality, utility, rather than design standards; and (4) an seconds). Assuming a total and clarity of the information to be exemption from coverage of the rule, or compensation rate of 26.12 per hour collected; any part of the rule thereof, for small (production, transportation, and • ways to reduce the burden of the entities. material moving workers), the total cost collection of information on is $33,956. respondents, including the use of A. Reason for Agency Action Total Compensation Cost: The total automated collection techniques, when ROVs were first introduced in the late compensation cost for this requirement appropriate, and other forms of 1990s. Sales of ROVs increased would be $38,074 in the first year. In information technology; and substantially over the next 15 years. The subsequent years, the burden of • the estimated burden hours number of deaths associated with ROVs designing the hang tag is estimated to be associated with label modification, has substantially increased over the about one-fifth the burden in the initial including any alternative estimates. same period, from no reported deaths in 2003, to at least 76 reported deaths in 108 This estimate is based on the total XII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 2012. As explained in this preamble, compensation for management, professional, and Analysis related workers in private, goods producing some ROVs on the market have industries, as reported by the Bureau of Labor This section provides an analysis of hazardous characteristics that could be Statistics (March 2014), available at http://www.bls. the impact on small businesses of a addressed through a mandatory safety gov/ncs/. Please note, in the draft regulatory proposed rule that would establish a analysis, we are using 2010 as the base year with standard. mandatory safety standard for ROVs. all values expressed in 2012 dollars. Therefore, B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the these estimates might be slightly higher than Whenever an agency is required to estimated in the regulatory analysis. publish a proposed rule, section 603 of Rule 109 Estimate is based on the total compensation the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. The Commission proposes this rule to for production, transportation, and material-moving reduce the risk of death and injury workers, private, goods-producing industries, as 601–612) requires that the agency reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (March prepare an initial regulatory flexibility associated with the use of ROVs. The 2014), available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/. analysis (IRFA) that describes the rule is promulgated under the authority

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

of the Consumer Product Safety Act analysis, we expect that the test for model complies with the proposed rule. (CPSA). lateral stability and the test for vehicle According to Section 14 of CPSA, GCCs handling will be conducted at the same must be based on a test of each product C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will time, and we estimate that the cost of or a reasonable testing program; and Apply this combined testing would be about GCCs must be provided to all The proposed rule would apply to all $24,000 per model. In many cases, we distributors or retailers of the product. manufacturers and importers of ROVs. expect that this testing will be The manufacturer would have to Under criteria set by the U.S. Small performed by a third party engineering comply with 16 CFR part 1110 Business Administration (SBA), consulting or testing firm. If an ROV concerning the content of the GCC, manufacturers of ROVs are considered model must be modified to comply with retention of the associated records, and small businesses if they have fewer than the requirement and then retested, we any other applicable requirement. 500 employees. We have identified one estimate that the cost to manufacturers F. Potential Impact on Small Entities ROV manufacturer with fewer than 500 could reach $91,000 per model, employees. including the cost of the initial testing, One purpose of the regulatory Importers of ROVs could be the cost of modifying design of the flexibility analysis is to evaluate the wholesalers or retailers. Under the model, and the cost of retesting the impact of a regulatory action and criteria set by the SBA, wholesalers of model after the model has been determine whether the impact is ROVs and other motor vehicles or modified. We estimate that the cost of economically significant. Although the powersport vehicles are considered implementing the occupant retention SBA allows considerable flexibility in small businesses if they have fewer than requirements will be about $104,000 per determining ‘‘economically significant,’’ 100 employees; and retail dealers that model. This includes the cost to CPSC staff typically uses one percent of import ROVs and other motor or research, develop, implement, and test a gross revenue as the threshold for powersport vehicle dealers are system that will limit the speed of the determining ‘‘economic significance.’’ considered small if their annual sales ROV when the seat belts are not When we cannot demonstrate that the volume is less than $30 million. We are fastened, as well as an occupant impact is lower than one percent of aware of about 20 firms in 2013 that protection barrier or structure. gross revenue, we prepare a regulatory import ROVs from foreign suppliers that Therefore, the total cost of certification flexibility analysis.111 would be considered small testing and research and design could 1. Impact on Small Manufacturers businesses.110 (There may be other range from about $128,000 to $195,000. small firms that manufacture or import (Costs are expressed in 2012 dollars.) The sole, small ROV manufacturer ROVs of which we are not aware.) In addition to the upfront testing and may need to devote some resources to bringing its ROV models into D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record research and development costs, there compliance with the proposed rule. Keeping Requirements of Proposed Rule will be some ongoing manufacturing costs associated with the proposed rule. This is a relatively new manufacturer of The proposed rule would establish a These manufacturing costs include the ROVs and other utility vehicles. We do mandatory safety standard consisting of cost of the parts required to meet any of not have information on the extent to several performance requirements for the requirements of the proposed rule, which the models offered by this ROVs sold in the United States. The such as seat belt use sensors and the manufacturer would meet the proposed rule would also establish test necessary wiring and the cost of requirements of the proposed rule or the procedures through which compliance installing these parts on the vehicles extent to which this particular with the performance requirements during assembly. As estimated in the manufacturer would be impacted by the would be determined. The proposed preliminary regulatory analysis, the proposed rule. rule includes: (1) Lateral stability and ongoing manufacturing costs would be 2. Impact on Small Importers vehicle handling requirements that $47 to $72 per vehicle. specify a minimum level of rollover The proposed rule includes a CPSC is aware of about 20 firms that resistance for ROVs and a requirement requirement that manufacturers report import ROVs from foreign suppliers that that ROVs exhibit sub-limit understeer the lateral acceleration at rollover value would be considered small businesses. characteristics; and (2) occupant of an ROV model to potential consumers As explained more fully below, a small retention requirements that would limit through the use of a hang tag attached importer could be adversely impacted the maximum speed of an ROV to no to the ROV. Manufacturers would obtain by the proposed rule if its foreign more than 15 miles per hour (mph), the rollover resistance value when they supplier does not provide testing reports unless the seat belts of the driver and conduct the lateral stability and vehicle or a GCC and the small importer must front passengers are fastened, and handling tests to determine compliance conduct the testing in support of a GCC. would require ROVs to have a passive with both requirements. The required Additionally, a small importer could means, such as a barrier or structure, to format of the hangtag is described in the experience a significant impact if the limit the ejection of a belted occupant proposed rule. We estimate that it will foreign supplier withdraws from the in the event of a rollover. cost manufacturers less than $0.25 per U.S. market rather than conduct the Manufacturers would be required to vehicle to print the hangtags with the necessary testing or modify the ROVs to test their ROV models to check that the rollover resistance values and to attach comply with the proposed rule. If sales models comply with the requirements of the hangtags to the vehicles. the proposed rule, and if necessary, 111 The one percent of gross revenue threshold is modify their ROV models to comply. E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, cited as example criteria by the SBA and is The costs of these requirements are Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed commonly used by agencies in determining discussed more fully in the preliminary Rule economic significance (see U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for regulatory analysis. Based on that In accordance with Section 14 of the Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), Regulatory Flexibility Act and Implementing the 110 The Commission made these determinations manufacturers would have to issue a President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive using information from Dun & Bradstreet, Reference Order 13272. May 2012, pp. 18–20. http:// USAGov, company Web sites, and regional business general conformity certificate (GCC) for www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ publications. each ROV model, certifying that the rfaguide_0512_0.pdf).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69017

of ROVs are a substantial source of the impact on a substantial number of small would be substantially greater than the importer’s business, and the importer firms. costs. cannot find an alternative supplier of Finally, the Commission believes that H. Alternatives for Reducing the ROVs, the impact could be significant. the occupant retention barrier in the Adverse Impact on Small Businesses However, we do not expect a current ROVs could be improved at a widespread exodus of foreign The Commission welcomes comments modest cost per ROV. For these reasons, manufacturers from the U.S. market. on this IRFA. Small businesses that the Commission believes that relying on The U.S. market for ROVs has been believe they will be affected by the compliance with voluntary standards is growing rapidly in recent years, and at proposed rule are especially encouraged not satisfactory and is adopting the least some foreign manufacturers will to submit comments. The comments requirements in the proposed rule. should be specific and describe the likely want to continue taking advantage 2. Dropping the Lateral Stability of these business opportunities by potential impact, magnitude, and alternatives that could reduce the Requirement or the Understeer maintaining a U.S. presence. In Requirement addition, most of these importers also impact of the proposed rule on small import products other than ROVs, such businesses. The Commission considered as scooters, motorcycles, and other Several alternatives to the proposed including a performance requirement powersport equipment. Therefore, ROVs rule were considered, some of which for either lateral stability or vehicle are not their sole source of revenue. could reduce the potential impact on handling, but not both. As mentioned Importers may be able to reduce any some small firms. These include: (1) Not previously, the vehicle handling impact on their revenue by increasing issuing a mandatory standard; (2) requirement is designed to allow ROVs imports and sales of these other dropping the lateral stability to understeer. However, the products. requirement or the vehicle handling Commission believes that both of these Small importers will be responsible requirement; (3) requiring a more characteristics need to be addressed. for issuing a GCC certifying that their intrusive seat belt reminder instead of According to ES staff, a vehicle that ROVs comply with the proposed rule if the speed limitation requirement; and meets both the lateral stability the rule becomes final. However, (4) requiring an ignition interlock if a requirement and the understeer importers may issue GCCs based upon seat belt is not fastened, instead of requirement should be safer than a certifications provided by or testing limiting the maximum speed. For the vehicle that meets only one of the performed by their suppliers. The reasons discussed below, the CPSC did requirements. Moreover, the cost of impact on small importers should not be not include these alternatives in the meeting just one requirement is not significant if their suppliers provide the proposed rule. substantially lower than the cost of meeting both requirements. The cost of certificates of conformity or testing 1. Not Issuing a Mandatory Standard reports on which the importers may rely testing a vehicle for compliance with to issue their own GCCs. If CPSC did not issue a mandatory both the dynamic lateral stability and If a small importer’s supplier does not standard, most manufacturers would vehicle handling requirements was provide the GCC or testing reports, then comply with one of the two voluntary estimated to be about $24,000. The cost the importer would have to test each standards that apply to ROVs and there of testing for compliance with the lateral model for conformity. Importers would would be no impact on the small stability requirement would be about likely contract with an engineering manufacturer or small importers. $20,000, and the cost of testing for consulting or testing firm to conduct the However, neither voluntary standard compliance with just the vehicle certification tests. As discussed in the requires that ROVs understeer, as handling requirement would be about regulatory analysis, the certification required by the proposed rule. $17,000. Moreover, changes in the testing could cost more than $28,000 per According to ES staff, drivers are more vehicle design that affect the lateral model ($24,000 for the lateral stability likely to lose control of vehicles that stability of the vehicle could also impact and vehicle handling requirements and oversteer, which can lead to the vehicle the handling of the vehicle. For these $4,000 for the seat belt/speed limitation rolling over or to other types of reasons, the proposed rule includes both requirement). This would exceed 1 accidents. Additionally, although both the lateral stability and understeer percent of the revenue for about one- voluntary standards have requirements requirements in the proposed rule. half of the small importers, assuming for dynamic lateral stability or rollover 3. Require ROVs To Have Loud or that they continue to import the same resistance, ES staff does not believe that Intrusive Seat Belt Reminders in Lieu of mix of products as in the pre-regulatory the test procedures in these standards the Speed Limitation Requirements environment. have been properly validated as being capable of providing useful information Instead of seat belt/speed limitation G. Conclusion about the dynamic stability of the requirements in the proposed rule, the We do not know how many, if any, vehicle. Commission considered requiring ROVs foreign suppliers might exit the market The voluntary standards require that to have loud or intrusive seat belt rather than comply with the proposed manufacturers include a lighted seat- reminders. Most ROVs currently have a rule. Nor do we know the number of belt reminder that is visible to the driver seat belt reminder in the form of a foreign suppliers that may not be and remains on for at least 8 seconds warning light that comes on for about 8 willing to provide small importers with after the vehicle is started, unless the seconds. Most do not include any testing reports or GCCs. A small driver’s seat belt is fastened. However, audible warning. As discussed in the importer could experience a significant virtually all ROVs on the market already preliminary regulatory analysis, staff impact if the importer has to conduct include this feature; and therefore, considered requiring a more intrusive testing in support of a GCC. We expect relying only on the voluntary standards seat belt reminder, such as a loud that most importers, however, will rely would not be expected to raise seat belt audible warning that would sound for a upon certifications or testing performed use over its current level. Moreover, the minute or more. Manufacturers would by their suppliers. Thus, although preliminary regulatory analysis showed incur some costs to comply with a uncertainty exists, the proposed rule that the projected benefits of the seat requirement for a more intrusive seat will not likely have a significant direct belt/speed limitation requirement belt reminder. For example, the seat belt

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

use sensors (estimated to cost about $7 of an ignition interlock system will be requirements for ROVs designed to per seat) and sensor switches (estimated substantially lower than a system that protect against the same risk of injury if to cost about $13 per seat) would still limits the maximum speed of the the rule is issued in final. be required. However, the research and vehicle, and who do not believe that XV. Certification development costs to design and consumer rejection of an ignition implement a more intrusive seat belt interlock system will be a problem, can Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the reminder system would probably be less use an ignition interlock system to requirement that products subject to a than the estimated cost to develop a comply with the seat belt speed consumer product safety rule under the system that limited the maximum speed limitation requirement. CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard of the vehicle. or regulation under any other act Some intrusive systems have been XIII. Environmental Considerations enforced by the Commission, must be used on passenger cars and have been The Commission’s regulations address certified as complying with all found to be effective in increasing seat whether we are required to prepare an applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. belt use. One system reduced the environmental assessment or an 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule on ROVs number of unbelted drivers by 17 environmental impact statement. If our would subject ROVs to this certification percent and another by about 38 rule has ‘‘little or no potential for requirement. 112 affecting the human environment,’’ the percent. However, a more intrusive XVI. Effective Date seat belt warning system is unlikely to rule will be categorically exempted from be as effective as the seat belt/speed this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The CPSA requires that consumer limitation requirement in the proposed The proposed rule falls within the product safety rules take effect not later rule. ROVs are open vehicles and the categorical exemption. than 180 days from their promulgation ambient noise is likely higher than in unless the Commission finds there is XIV. Executive Order 12988 good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. the enclosed passenger compartment of (Preemption) a car. It is likely that some ROV drivers 2058(g)(1). The Commission proposes would not hear the warning and be As required by Executive Order 12988 that this rule would take effect 180 days motivated to fasten their seat belts, (February 5, 1996), the CPSC states the after publication of the final rule in the unless the warning was substantially preemptive effect of the proposed rule, Federal Register and would have two louder than the systems used in as follows: compliance dates. ROVs would be passenger cars. The Commission The regulation for ROVs is proposed required to comply with the lateral believes that the requirement will cause under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. stability and vehicle handling most drivers and passengers who want 2051–2089). Section 26 of the CPSA requirements (§§ 1411.3 and 1422.4) 180 to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seat provides that ‘‘whenever a consumer days after publication of a final rule in belts. Moreover, the analysis in the product safety standard under this Act the Federal Register. ROVs would be preliminary regulatory analysis showed is in effect and applies to a risk of injury required to comply with the occupant that the societal benefits of the seat belt/ associated with a consumer product, no protection requirements (§ 1422.5) 12 speed limitation requirement in the State or political subdivision of a State months after publication of a final rule proposed rule would exceed the costs shall have any authority either to in the Federal Register. The by a substantial margin. Because CPSC establish or to continue in effect any requirements would apply to all ROVs does not believe that a more intrusive provision of a safety standard or manufactured or imported on or after seat belt reminder would be effective in regulation which prescribes any the applicable date. a ROV, and because Commission staff requirements as the performance, CPSC believes ROV models that do believes that the seat belt/speed composition, contents, design, finish, not comply with the lateral stability and limitation requirement would result in construction, packaging or labeling of vehicle handling requirements can be substantial net benefits, this alternative such product which are designed to deal modified, with changes to track width was not included in the proposed rule. with the same risk of injury associated and suspension, in less than 4 person- with such consumer product, unless months (a high estimate) and can be 4. Requiring an Ignition Interlock such requirements are identical to the tested for compliance in one day. Instead of Limiting the Maximum Speed requirements of the Federal Standard’’. Therefore, CPSC believes 180 days is a CPSC considered whether an ignition 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Upon application to reasonable time period for interlock requirement that did not allow the Commission, a state or local manufacturers to modify vehicles if the vehicle to be started unless the standard may be excepted from this necessary, conduct necessary tests, and driver’s seat belt was buckled would be preemptive effect if the state or local analyze test results to ensure appropriate for ROVs. However, the standard: (1) Provides a higher degree of compliance with the lateral stability and history of ignition interlock systems as protection from the risk of injury or vehicle handling requirements. a way to encourage seat belt use on illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) The Commission is proposing the passenger cars suggests that consumer does not unduly burden interstate longer compliance date for the occupant resistance to an ignition interlock commerce. In addition, the federal protection requirements because we system that prevents starting the vehicle government, or a state or local understand that some manufacturers could be strong. For this reason, CPSC government, may establish and continue will need to redesign and test new rejects this alternative, and instead, in effect a non-identical requirement prototype vehicles to meet these proposes a rule that allows people to that provides a higher degree of requirements. This design and test use ROVs at low speeds without having protection than the CPSA requirement process is similar to the process that to fasten their seat belts. However, for the hazardous substance for the manufacturers use when introducing manufacturers who believe that the cost federal, state or local government’s use. new model year vehicles. We also 15 U.S.C. 2075(b). estimate that it will take approximately 112 Memorandum from Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal Thus, with the exceptions noted 9 person-months per ROV model to for Seat Belt Speed Limiter on Recreational Off- above, the ROV requirements proposed design, test, implement, and begin Highway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 8 December in today’s Federal Register would manufacturing vehicles to meet the 2013). preempt non-identical state or local occupant protection performance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69019

requirements. Therefore, staff believes Using data reported through NEISS Although the impact on consumers that 12 months from publication of a from January 1, 2010 to August 31, who prefer limit oversteer cannot be final rule would be sufficient time for 2010, the Commission conducted a quantified, the Commission expects that ROVs to comply with all of the special study to identify cases that the impact will be low. Any impact proposed requirements. involved ROVs that were reported would be limited to consumers who wish to engage intentionally in activities XVII. Proposed Findings through NEISS. Based on information obtained through the special study, the involving the loss of traction or power The CPSA requires the Commission to estimated number of emergency oversteer. The practice of power make certain findings when issuing a department-treated ROV-related injuries oversteer, such as the speed at which a consumer product safety standard. occurring in the United States between user takes a turn, is the result of driver Specifically, the CPSA requires that the January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is choice. The proposed rule would not Commission consider and make 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year prevent ROVs from reaching limit findings about the degree and nature of 2010, the estimated number of oversteer under all conditions; nor the risk of injury; the number of emergency department-treated ROV- would the proposed rule prevent consumer products subject to the rule; related injuries is 3,000, with a consumers from engaging in these the need of the public for the rule and corresponding 95 percent confidence activities. At most, the proposed rule the probable effect on utility, cost, and interval of 1,100 to 4,900. might make it somewhat more difficult availability of the product; and other Number of consumer products subject for users to reach limit oversteer in an means to achieve the objective of the to the rule. Sales of ROVs have ROV. rule, while minimizing the impact on increased substantially since their The seat belt speed limiter competition, manufacturing, and introduction. In 1998, only one firm requirement could have an effect on commercial practices. The CPSA also manufactured ROVs, and fewer than utility and impose some unquantifiable requires that the rule must be 2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a costs on some users who would prefer reasonably necessary to eliminate or second major manufacturer entered the not to use seat belts. The cost to these reduce an unreasonable risk of injury market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. users would be the time required to associated with the product and issuing The only dip in sales occurred around buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and the rule must be in the public interest. 2008, which coincided with the worst of any disutility cost, such as discomfort 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). caused by wearing the seat belt. We In addition, the Commission must the credit crisis and a recession that also started about the same time. In 2013, an cannot quantify these costs because we find that: (1) If an applicable voluntary do not know how many ROV users standard has been adopted and estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by about 20 different manufacturers. choose not to wear their seat belts; nor implemented, that compliance with the do we have the ability to quantify any The number of ROVs available for use voluntary standard is not likely to discomfort or disutility that they would has also increased substantially. reduce adequately the risk of injury, or experience from wearing seat belts. Because ROVs are a relatively new compliance with the voluntary standard However, the proposed rule does not product, we do not have any specific is not likely to be substantial; (2) that require that the seat belts be fastened information on the expected useful life benefits expected from the regulation unless the vehicle is traveling faster of ROVs. However, using the same bear a reasonable relationship to its than 15 mph. This should serve to operability rates that CPSC uses for costs; and (3) that the regulation mitigate these costs because many ATVs, we estimate that there were about imposes the least burdensome people who would be inconvenienced requirement that would prevent or 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. or discomforted by the requirement, adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id. By the end of 2013, there were an such as people using the vehicle for These findings are discussed below. estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. work or utility purposes, or who must Degree and nature of the risk of The need of the public for ROVs and frequently get on and off the vehicle, are injury. CPSC received 428 reports of the effects of the rule on their utility, likely to be traveling at lower speeds. ROV-related incidents from the Injury cost, and availability. The effect of the rule on cost and and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and Currently there are two varieties of availability of ROVs is expected to be In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early minimal. The average manufacturer’s that occurred between January 1, 2003 ROV models emphasized the utility suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, and December 31, 2011, and were aspects of the vehicles, but the weighted by units sold, was about received by December 31, 2011. There recreational aspects of the vehicles have $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about were a total of 826 victims involved in become very popular. $3,600 to $20,100. The Commission the 428 incidents. Among the 428 ROV- Regarding the effects of the rule on estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of related incidents, there were a total of ROVs utility, according to comments on the rule to be $61 to $94. Because this 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported the ANPR provided by several ROV per-unit cost resulting from the rule is injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries manufacturers, some ROV users ‘‘might a very small percentage of the overall (19 percent) could be classified as prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway retail price of an ROV, it is unlikely that severe; that is, the victim has lasting environment.’’ To the extent that the the rule would have much of an effect repercussions from the injuries received requirements in the proposed rule on the cost or availability of ROVs. in the incident, based on the would reduce the ability of these users Other means to achieve the objective information available. The remaining to reach limit oversteer intentionally, of the rule, while minimizing the impact 207 victims were either not injured or the proposed rule could have some on competition and manufacturing. The their injury information was not known. adverse impact on the utility or Commission does not believe the rule Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 enjoyment that these users receive from will have adverse impact on involved drivers under 16 years of age ROVs. These impacts would probably be competition. The preliminary regulatory (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 limited to a small number of analysis estimates the per-unit cost to years of age or older (53 percent); and recreational users who enjoy activities ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. The 125 involved drivers of unknown age or stunts that involve power average manufacturer’s suggested retail (29 percent). oversteering or limit oversteer. prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, injuries received in the incident based reduce injuries and deaths associated with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. on the information available. with an ROV rollover event. The per-unit cost resulting from the rule The estimated cost and benefits of the In summary, the Commission finds is a very small percentage of the overall rule on an annual basis can be preliminarily that promulgating the retail price of an ROV. With such a calculated by multiplying the estimated proposed rule is in the public interest. relatively low impact, it is unlikely that benefits and costs per unit by the Voluntary standards. The ROV companies would withdraw from number of ROVs sold in a given year. In Commission is aware of two voluntary the market or that the number of ROV 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the standards that are applicable to ROVs, models will be affected. Therefore, the proposed rule had been in effect that ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National preliminary regulatory analysis supports year, the total quantifiable cost would Standard for Recreational Off-Highway a finding that the proposed rule is have been between $14.3 million and Vehicles, and ANSI/B71.9, American unlikely to have an impact on $225.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied National Standard for Multipurpose Off- competition. by 234,000 units, respectively). The Highway Utility Vehicles. As described The Commission believes that some, total quantifiable benefits would have previously in detail in the preamble, the but not all, ROV models already meet been at least $515 million ($2,199 × Commission believes that the current the rule’s requirement that the speed of 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 voluntary standard requirements do not the vehicle be limited if the driver’s seat million (or about 88 percent) would adequately reduce the risk of injury or belt is not fastened. Before have resulted from the reduction in fatal death associated with ROVs. Neither implementing any changes to their injuries, and about $62 million (or about voluntary standard requires that ROVs vehicles to meet the requirement, 12 percent) of the benefits would have understeer, as required by the proposed manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet resulted from a reduction in the societal rule. Based on testing and experience the seatbelt speed limiter requirement cost of nonfatal injuries. The reduction with the Yamaha Rhino repair program, would have to analyze their options for in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries, the Commission believes that drivers are meeting the requirement. This process which amounts to about $47 million, more likely to lose control of vehicles that oversteer, which can lead to the would include developing prototypes of would represent a reduction in pain and vehicle rolling over or to other types of system designs, testing the prototypes, suffering. The Commission concludes accidents. and refining the design of the systems preliminarily that ROVs pose an based on this testing. Once the Both voluntary standards have unreasonable risk of injury and finds requirements that are intended to set manufacturer has settled on a system for that the proposed rule is reasonably meeting the requirement, the system standards for dynamic lateral stability. necessary to reduce that unreasonable ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle will have to be incorporated into the risk of injury. manufacturing process of the vehicle. test for dynamic lateral stability. That is Public interest. This proposed rule is This will involve producing the more similar to the test in the proposed intended to address identified aspects of engineering specifications and drawings rule for determining whether the vehicle ROVs, ROV design, and ROV use, which of the system, parts, assemblies, and understeers, than it is to the test for subassemblies that are required. are believed to contribute to ROV deaths dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic Manufacturers will need to obtain the and injuries, with a goal of reducing stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI needed parts from their suppliers and such incidents. The CPSC believes that B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the incorporate the steps needed to install adherence to the requirements of the proposed rule, but measures different the system on the vehicles in the proposed rule will reduce ROV deaths variables during the test and uses a assembly line. The Commission believes and injuries in the future; thus the rule different acceptance criterion. The that manufacturers should be able to is in the public interest. Specifically, the Commission does not believe that the complete activities related to meeting Commission believes that improving tests procedures in either standard have the lateral stability and handling lateral stability (by increasing rollover been validated properly as being requirements within 180 days after resistance) and improving vehicle capable of providing useful information publication of the final rule and handling (by correcting oversteer to about the dynamic stability of the activities related to meeting the understeer) are the most effective vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary occupant protection requirements approaches to reducing the occurrence standards would find some vehicles within 12 months after publication of of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with acceptable, even though their lateral the final rule. The Commission’s higher lateral stability are less likely to acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 proposed effective date of 12 months for roll over because more lateral force is g, which is the acceptance criterion in the occupant protection requirements necessary to cause rollover. ROVs the proposed rule. may reduce the impact of the proposed exhibiting understeer during a turn are Both voluntary standards require that requirements on manufacturing. also less likely to roll over because manufacturers include a lighted seat- Unreasonable risk. CPSC received 428 lateral acceleration decreases as the path belt reminder that is visible to the driver reports of ROV-related incidents from of the ROV makes a wider turn, and the and that remains on for at least 8 the Injury and Potential Injury Incident vehicle is more stable if a sudden seconds after the vehicle is started, (IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) change in direction occurs. unless the driver’s seatbelt is fastened. databases that occurred between January Furthermore, the Commission However, virtually all ROVs on the 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, and believes that when rollovers do occur, market already include this feature, and were received by December 31, 2011. improving occupant protection therefore, relying only on the voluntary There were a total of 826 victims performance (by increasing seat belt standards would not be expected to involved in the 428 incidents. Among use) will mitigate injury severity. CPSC raise seatbelt use over its current level. the 428 ROV-related incidents, there analysis of ROV incidents indicates that The voluntary standards include were a total of 231 reported fatalities 91 percent of fatally ejected victims requirements for retaining the occupant and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five were not wearing a seat belt at the time within the protective zone of the vehicle of the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in the event of a rollover, including two classified as severe; that is, the victim in conjunction with better shoulder options for restraining the occupants in has lasting repercussions from the retention performance, will significantly the shoulder/hip area. However, testing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69021

performed by CPSC identified Commission believes that both of these position. One experiment used a haptic weaknesses in the performance-based characteristics need to be addressed. A feedback system to increase the force tilt table test option that allows vehicle that meets both the dynamic the driver needed to exert to depress the unacceptable occupant head ejection stability requirement and the understeer gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 beyond the protective zone of the requirement should be safer than a mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. vehicle Rollover Protective Structure vehicle that meets only one of the The system did not prevent the driver (ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a requirements. Moreover, the cost of from exceeding 25 mph, but the system passive shoulder barrier could reduce meeting just one requirement is not increased the amount of force required the head excursion of a belted occupant substantially lower than the cost of to depress the gas pedal to maintain a during quarter-turn rollover events. The meeting both requirements. The cost of speed greater than 25 mph. In this Commission believes that this can be testing a vehicle for compliance with experiment, all seven participants chose accomplished by a requirement for a both the dynamic lateral stability and to fasten their seatbelts. A follow-up passive barrier based on the dimensions vehicle handling/understeer study on the haptic feedback study of the upper arm of a 5th percentile requirement was estimated to be about focused on 20 young drivers ranging in adult female, at a defined area near the $24,000. However, the cost of testing for age from 18 to 21, and a feedback force ROV occupants’ shoulder, as contained compliance with just the dynamic set at 20 mph instead of 25 mph. The in the proposed rule. stability requirement would be about study results showed that the mean seat Relationship of benefits to costs. The $20,000, or only about 17 percent less belt use increased from 54.7 percent to estimated costs and benefits of the rule than the cost of testing for compliance 99.7 percent, and the few instances in on an annual basis can be calculated by with both requirements. This is because which seat belts were not worn were on multiplying the estimated benefits and the cost of renting and transporting the trips of 2 minutes long or less. Most costs per unit, by the number of ROVs vehicle to the test site, instrumenting significantly, participants rated the sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 the vehicle for the tests, and making system as very acceptable and agreeable ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule some initial static measurements are (9 out of a 10-point scale). had been in effect that year, the total virtually the same for both requirements The more intrusive seatbelt reminder quantifiable cost would have been and would only have to be done once systems used on some passenger cars between $14.3 million and $22.0 if the tests for both requirements were have been more limited in their million ($61 and $94 multiplied by conducted on the same day. Moreover, effectiveness. The Honda system, for 234,000 units, respectively). The total changes in the vehicle design that affect example, reduced the number of quantifiable benefits would have been at the lateral stability of the vehicle could unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; least $515 million ($2,199 × 234,000). also impact the handling of the vehicle. the Ford system reduced the number of On a per-unit basis, we estimate the For these reasons, the proposed rule unbelted drivers by only 17 percent. total cost of the proposed rule to be $61 includes both a dynamic stability and (The Honda system increased seatbelt to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total vehicle handling requirement. use from 84 percent to 90 percent. quantifiable benefits of the proposed (3) Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation Therefore, the percentage of unbelted rule to be $2,199 per unit. This results requirements in the proposed rule, the drivers was reduced by about 38 in net quantifiable benefits of $2,105 to Commission considered a requirement percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 $2,138 per unit. Quantifiable benefits of for ROVs to have loud or intrusive percent. The Ford system increased the proposed rule could exceed the seatbelt reminders. Currently, most seatbelt use from 71 percent to 76 estimated $1,329 per unit because the ROVs meet the voluntary standards that percent. Therefore, the percentage of benefit associated with the vehicle require an 8-second visual seatbelt unbelted drivers was reduced by about handling and lateral stability reminder. Some more intrusive systems 17 percent, or 5 percent divided by 29 requirement could not be quantified. have been used on passenger cars. For percent.) Additionally, ROVs are open Based on this analysis, the example, the Ford ‘‘BeltMinder’’ system vehicles and the ambient noise is likely Commission finds preliminarily that the resumes warning the driver after about higher than in the enclosed passenger benefits expected from the rule bear a 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not compartment of a car. It is likely that reasonable relationship to the fastened and the car is traveling at more some ROV drivers would not hear the anticipated costs of the rule. than 3 mph. The system flashes a warning, and therefore, they would be Least burdensome requirement. The warning light and sounds a chime for 6 motivated to fasten their seatbelts, Commission considered less- seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 unless the warning was substantially burdensome alternatives to the minutes as long as the car is operating louder than the systems used in proposed rule on ROVs, but we and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. passenger cars. Therefore, the concluded that none of these Honda developed a similar system in Commission believes that the loud or alternatives would adequately reduce which the warning could last for longer intrusive seat belt reminders would not the risk of injury: than 9 minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is be as effective as the seat belt speed (1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but not fastened. Studies of both systems limiter requirement. instead relying upon voluntary found that a statistically significant For the reasons set forth above, the standards. If CPSC did not issue a increase in the use seatbelts of 5 percent Commission finds preliminarily that the mandatory standard, most (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 percent rule imposes the least burdensome manufacturers would comply with one (from 84 to 90 percent), respectively. requirement that prevents or adequately of the two voluntary standards that However, these more intrusive reduces the risk of injury for which apply to ROVs. As discussed previously, seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to promulgation of the rule is proposed. the Commission does not believe either be as effective as the seatbelt speed voluntary standard adequately limitation requirement in the proposed XVIII. Request for Comments addresses the risk of injury and death rule. The Commission believes that the We invite all interested persons to associated with ROVs. seatbelt speed limitation requirement submit comments on any aspect of the (2) Including the dynamic lateral will cause most drivers and passengers proposed rule. In particular, the stability requirement or the understeer who desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten Commission invites comments requirement, but not both. The their seatbelts. Research supports this regarding the estimates used in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69022 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

preliminary regulatory analysis and the XIV. Conclusion § 1422.2 Definitions. assumptions underlying these estimates. For the reasons stated in this In addition to the definitions in The Commission is especially interested preamble, the Commission proposes section 3 of the Consumer Product in data that would help the Commission requirements for lateral stability, vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the to refine its estimates to more accurately handing, and occupant protection to following definitions apply for purposes reflect the expected costs of the address an unreasonable risk of injury of this part 1422. (a) Recreational off-highway vehicle proposed rule as well as any alternate associated with ROVs. estimates that interested parties can (ROV) means a motorized vehicle provide. The Commission is also List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1422 designed for off-highway use with the interested in comments addressing Consumer protection, Imports, following features: Four or more wheels whether the proposed compliance dates Information, Labeling, Recreation and with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket of 180 days after the publication of the Recreation areas, Incorporation by seating for two or more people; final rule to meet the lateral stability reference, Safety. automotive-type controls for steering, and vehicle handling requirements and throttle, and braking; rollover protective For the reasons discussed in the 12 months after the publication of the structure (ROPS); occupant restraint; preamble, the Commission proposes to final rule to meet the occupant and maximum speed capability greater amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal protection requirements are appropriate. than 30 mph. Regulations as follows: The Commission also seeks comments (b) Two-wheel lift means the point at on the following: ■ 1. Add part 1422 to read as follows: which the inside wheels of a turning • vehicle lift off the ground, or when the Additional key issues related to PART 1422—SAFETY STANDARD FOR seatbelts for ROVs, including: available uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a technology to prevent any hazards from VEHICLES the application of a passenger seatbelt precursor to a rollover event. We use requirement (such as sudden speed Sec. this term interchangeably with the term reductions if a passenger unbuckles); 1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance ‘‘tip-up.’’ (c) Threshold lateral acceleration whether CPSC should extend the phase- dates. means the minimum lateral acceleration in period for the seat-belt requirement; 1422.2 Definitions. 1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral of the vehicle at two-wheel lift. and any other relevant information stability. related to the proposed seatbelt 1422.4 Requirements for vehicle handling. § 1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral requirements. 1422.5 Requirements for occupant stability. • Whether CPSC should allow the use protection performance. (a) General. The Recreational Off- of doors or other mechanisms capable of 1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling. Highway Vehicle (ROV) requirement for meeting specified loading criteria to 1422.7 Findings. lateral stability is based on the average meet the shoulder restraint requirement. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076. threshold lateral acceleration at rollover, • as determined by a 30 mph dropped Whether there are further consistent § 1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance and repeatable testing requirements that throttle J-turn test. This threshold lateral dates. acceleration is measured parallel to the should be added to the proposed rule (a) This part 1422, a consumer that would capture off-road conditions ground plane at the center of gravity product safety standard, establishes (CG) of the loaded test vehicle and drivers experience in ROVs. If so, set requirements for recreational off- forth the specifics of such further occurs at the minimum steering wheel highway vehicles (ROVs), as defined in angle required to cause the vehicle to requirements. § 1422.2(a). The standard includes • roll over in a 30 mph dropped throttle Whether CPSC should establish requirements for dynamic lateral, J-turn test on a flat and level, high- separate requirements for utility vehicle handling, and occupant friction surface. Rollover is achieved vehicles, including: definitions, scope, protection. These requirements are when all of the wheels of the ROV that additional standards, and/or exemptions intended to reduce an unreasonable risk are on the inside of the turn lift off the that would be suitable for requirements of injury and death associated with ground. For convenience, this condition specific to utility vehicles. ROVs. is referred to as two-wheel lift, The Commission seeks comment, data (b) This standard does not apply to regardless of the number of wheels on testing parameters and testing results the following vehicles, as defined by the the ROV. Testing shall be conducted on concerning: relevant voluntary standards: a randomly selected representative • Oversteer and understeer, (1) Golf carts production vehicle. dynamically unstable handling, and (2) All-terrain vehicles (b) Test surface. Tests shall be minimal path-following capabilities; (3) Fun karts conducted on a smooth, dry, uniform, and (4) Go karts paved surface constructed of asphalt or (5) Light utility vehicles concrete. The surface area used for • Whether there is a need for (c) Any ROV manufactured or dynamic testing shall be kept free of supplemental criteria in addition to imported on or after [date that is 180 debris and substances that may affect specific lateral stability acceleration days after publication of a final rule] test results during vehicle testing. limits to avoid potential unintended shall comply with the lateral stability (1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic consequences of a single criterion. requirements stated in § 1422.3 and the testing shall have a peak braking The public is invited to submit vehicle handling requirements stated in coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 additional information about any other § 1422.4. Any ROV manufactured or and a sliding skid coefficient greater issues that stakeholders find relevant. imported on or after [date that is 12 than or equal to 0.80 when measured in Comments should be submitted in months after publication of final rule] accordance with ASTM E 1337, accordance with the instructions in the shall comply with the occupant Standard Test Method for Determining ADDRESSES section at the beginning of protection requirements stated in Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of this notice. § 1422.5. Paved Surfaces Using Standard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69023

Reference Tire, approved December 1, level, and the fuel tank shall be full to TABLE 1—INSTRUMENTATION SPECI- 2012, and ASTM E274, Standard Test its rated capacity. FICATION FOR J-TURN AND CON- Method for Skid Resistance of Paved (vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such STANT RADIUS TESTING OF ROVS— Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire, that the combined weight of the test Continued approved January 2011, respectively. operator, test equipment, and ballast, if The Director of the Federal Register any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 Parameter Accuracy approves these incorporations by kg ± 5 kg). reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. (vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the Acceleration (x, y, and z di- ± 0.003 g 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may equipped test vehicle shall be no more rections ). obtain a copy from ASTM International, Steering Wheel Angle ...... ± 0.25 deg. than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0 ± 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) Steering Wheel Angle Rate .. 0.5 deg./ West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// sec. the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at ± www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Rates ... 0.10 deg./ retail and loaded according to paragraph sec. inspect a copy at the Office of the (c)(vi) of this section. Roll Angle* ...... ± 0.20 deg. Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product (2) Vehicle test equipment. (i) Safety Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 equipment. Test vehicles shall be * For constant radius testing, roll angle must East West Highway, Bethesda, MD be measured directly or roll rate accuracy equipped with outriggers on both sides must be ± 0.01 deg./sec. 20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at of the vehicle. The outriggers shall be the National Archives and Records designed to minimally affect the loaded (d) Test procedure. (1) 3.3.1. Set the Administration (NARA). For vehicle’s center of gravity location, shall vehicle drive train in its most-open information on the availability of this permit the vehicle to experience two- setting. For example, two-wheel drive material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, wheel lift during dynamic testing, and shall be used instead of four-wheel or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ shall be capable of preventing a full drive, and a lockable differential, if so federal_register/code_of_ equipped, shall be in its unlocked, or _ vehicle rollover. federalregulations/ibr locations.html. (ii) Steering controller. The test ‘‘open,’’ setting. (2) Slope. The test surface shall have vehicle shall be equipped with a (2) Drive the vehicle in a straight path a slope equal to or less than 1 degree programmable steering controller (PSC), to define zero degree (0.0) steer angle. (1.7% grade). (3) Program the PSC to input a 90- (3) Ambient conditions. The ambient capable of responding to vehicle speed, with a minimum steering angle input degree turn to the right at a minimum temperature shall be between 0 degrees of 500 degrees per second as soon as the Celsius (32 ß Fahrenheit) and 38 ßC (100 rate of 500 degrees per second, and accurate within + 0.25 degree. The vehicle slows to 30 mph. Program the ßF). The maximum wind speed shall be PSC to hold steering angles for a no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s). steering wheel setting for 0.0 degrees of steering angle is defined as the setting minimum of 4 seconds before returning (c) Test conditions. (1) Vehicle to zero steer angle. The steering rate condition. An ROV used for dynamic which controls the properly aligned vehicle to travel in a straight path on a when returning to zero may be less than testing shall be configured in the 500 degrees per second. following manner: level surface. The PSC shall be operated in absolute steering mode, where the (4) Conduct a 30 mph dropped (i) The test vehicle shall be a throttle J-turn. representative production vehicle. The amount of steering used for each test shall be measured relative to the PSC (i) Accelerate the vehicle in a straight ROV shall be in standard condition. line to a speed greater than 30 mph. Adjustable seats shall be located in the reading when the vehicle steering is at (ii) As the vehicle approaches the most rearward position. zero degrees. desired test location, engage the PSC (ii) The ROV shall be operated in two- (iii) Vehicle instrumentation. The and fully release the throttle. wheel drive mode, with selectable vehicle shall be instrumented to record differential in its most-open setting. The lateral acceleration, vertical (iii) The PSC shall input the tires shall be the manufacturer’s acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, programmed steering angle when the original-equipment tires intended for forward speed, steering wheel angle, vehicle decelerates to 30 mph. Verify normal retail sale to consumers. The steering wheel angle rate, vehicle roll that the instrumentation recorded all of tires shall be new when starting the angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, the data during this J-turn event. tests, then broken-in by conducting a and yaw angle rate. See Table 1 for (5) Conduct additional J-turns, minimum total of ten J-turns with five instrumentation specifications. Ground increasing the steer angle in 10-degree in the right-turning direction and five in plane lateral acceleration shall be increments, as required, until a two- the left-turning direction. The J-turns calculated by correcting the body-fixed wheel lift event is visually observed. conducted for tire break-in shall be acceleration for roll angle. A roll motion (6) Conduct additional J-turns, conducted at 30 mph and steering inertia measurement sensor that decreasing the steering angle in 5-degree angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. provides direct output of ground plane increments to find the lowest steering (iii) Springs or shocks that have lateral acceleration at the vehicle CG angle that will produce two-wheel lift. adjustable spring or damping rates shall may also be used in lieu of manual Additional adjustments, up or down, in be set to the manufacturer’s correction to obtain ground plane lateral 1-degree increments may be used. recommended settings for delivery. acceleration. Roll angle may be (7) Repeat the process of conducting (iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV calculated from roll rate data. J-turns to determine minimum steer manufacturer’s recommended settings angle to produce two-wheel lift in left for normal operation for the load TABLE 1—INSTRUMENTATION SPECI- turn direction. condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) FICATION FOR J-TURN AND CON- (8) Start the data acquisition system. of this section. If more than one STANT RADIUS TESTING OF ROVS (9) Conduct J-turn test trials in the left pressure is specified, the lowest value and right directions using the minimum shall be used. Parameter Accuracy steering angles determined in (v) All vehicle operating fluids shall paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) of this be at the manufacturer’s recommended Vehicle Speed ...... ± 0.10 mph section to verify that the steering angle

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69024 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

produces two-wheel lift in both digitally low-pass filtered to 2.0 hertz, acceleration at rollover of that model directions. using a phaseless, eighth-order, vehicle. The label must conform in (10) Conduct five J-turn test trials Butterworth filter to eliminate noise content, form, and sequence to the hang with two-wheel lift in the left and right artifacts on the data. tag shown in Figure 1. turn directions in one direction heading (ii) Plot the data for ground plane (1) Size. Every hang tag shall be at on the test surface (10 total trials). On lateral acceleration corrected to the test least 6 inches (152 mm) wide x 4 inches the same test track, but in the opposite vehicle CG location, steering wheel (102 mm) tall. heading on the test surface, conduct five angle, and roll angle recorded for each (2) Content. Every hang tag shall more J-turn test trials with two-wheel trial conducted under paragraph (d)(10) contain the following: lift in the left and right turn directions of this section. (i) Value of the threshold lateral (10 total trials). A minimum data set (iii) Find and record the peak ground acceleration at rollover of that model will consist of 20 total J-turn test trials plane lateral acceleration occurring vehicle displayed on a progressive scale. with half of the tests conducted in one between the time of the PSC input and (ii) The statement—‘‘Compare with direction on the test surface and half of the time of two-wheel lift. other vehicles before you buy.’’ the tests conducted in the opposite (iv) If a body-fixed acceleration sensor (iii) The statement—‘‘The value above direction. Review all data parameters for is used, correct the lateral acceleration is a measure of this vehicle’s resistance each trial to verify that the tests were data for roll angle, using the equation: to rolling over on a flat surface. Vehicles executed correctly. Any trials that do Ay ground = Ay cos F¥Az sin F with higher numbers are more stable.’’ not produce two-wheel lift should be (F = vehicle body roll angle) (iv) The statement—‘‘Other vehicles diagnosed for cause. If cause is (v) Calculate the threshold lateral may have a higher rollover resistance; identified, discard the data and repeat acceleration at rollover value, which is compare before you buy.’’ the trial to replace the data. If no cause the average of the peak values for (v) The statement—‘‘Rollover cannot can be identified, repeat actions stated ground plane lateral acceleration for all be completely eliminated for any in paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(7) of of the trials conducted under paragraph vehicle.’’ this section to ensure that the correct (d)(10) of this section that produced (vi) The statement—‘‘Lateral steering angle has been determined. two-wheel lift. acceleration is measured during a J-turn Additional J-turn tests may be added to (e) Performance requirements. The test; minimally accepted value is 0.7 g.’’ the minimum data set in groups of four, minimum value for the threshold lateral (vii) The manufacturer’s name and with one test for each left/right turn acceleration at rollover shall be 0.70 g vehicle model, e.g., XYZ corporation, direction and one test for each direction or greater. Model x, ####. heading on the test surface. (f) Consumer information (3) Format. The hang tag shall be (11) Determine value of threshold requirements. The manufacturer shall formatted as shown in Figure 1. lateral acceleration at rollover. provide a hang tag with every ROV that (4) Attachment. Every hang tag shall (i) Data recorded as required in is visible to the driver and provides the be attached to the ROV and conspicuous paragraph (d)(10) of this section shall be value of the threshold lateral to the seated driver.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69025

§ 1422.4 Requirements for vehicle dynamic testing shall be kept free of minimum total of ten J-turns with five handling. debris and substances that may affect in the right-turning direction and five in (a) General. The ROV requirement for test results during vehicle testing. the left-turning direction. The J-turns vehicle handling shall be based on the (1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic conducted for tire break-in shall be vehicle’s steering gradient, as measured testing shall have a peak braking conducted at 30 mph and steering by the constant radius test method coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. described in SAE Surface Vehicle and a sliding skid coefficient greater Tires used for the full test protocol to Recommended Practice J266, published than or equal to 0.80 when measured in establish the threshold lateral January 1996. The Director of the accordance with ASTM E 1337 and acceleration at rollover value for the test Federal Register approves this ASTM E274, respectively. vehicle are acceptable for use in the incorporation by reference in (2) Slope. The test surface shall have handling performance test protocol. a slope equal to or less than 1 degree accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 (iii) Springs or shocks that have (1.7% grade). CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy adjustable spring or damping rates shall (3) Ambient conditions. The ambient be set to the manufacturer’s from ASTM International, 100 Bar temperature shall be between 0 degrees Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West recommended settings for delivery. Celsius (32 ß Fahrenheit) and 38 ßC (100 (iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// ßF). The maximum wind speed shall be manufacturer’s recommended settings www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s). for normal operation for the load inspect a copy at the Office of the (c) Test conditions.—(1) Vehicle condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product condition. A vehicle used for dynamic of this section. If more than one Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 testing shall be configured in the pressure is specified, the lowest value East West Highway, Bethesda, MD following manner. (i) The test vehicle shall be used. 20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at shall be a representative production (v) All vehicle operational fluids shall the National Archives and Records vehicle. The ROV shall be in standard be at the manufacturer’s recommended Administration (NARA). For condition. Adjustable seats shall be level and the fuel tank shall be full to information on the availability of this located in the most rearward position. its rated capacity. material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, (ii) The ROV shall be operated in two- (vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ wheel drive mode with selectable that the combined weight of the test _ _ _ federal register/code of differential in its most-open setting. The operator, test equipment, and ballast, if _ federalregulations/ibr locations.html. tires shall be the manufacturer’s any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 (b) Test surface. Tests shall be original-equipment tires intended for kg ± 5 kg). conducted on a smooth, dry, uniform, normal retail sale to consumers. The (vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the paved surface constructed of asphalt or tires shall be new when starting the equipped test vehicle shall be no more concrete. The surface area used for tests, then broken-in by conducting a than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.017 69026 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) examined for repeatability and then federal_register/code_of_ the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at averaged. federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. retail and loaded according to paragraph (5) Data collection, method 1— (8) Data analysis. The lateral (c)(vi) of this section. discrete data points. In this data acceleration data shall be corrected for (2) Vehicle test equipment. Test acquisition method, the driver roll angle using the method described in vehicles shall be equipped with maintains a constant speed while § 1422.3(11)(iv). To provide uniform outriggers on both sides of the vehicle. maintaining compliance with the and comparable data, the ground plane The outriggers shall be designed to circular path, and data points are lateral acceleration shall also be minimally affect the loaded vehicle’s recorded when a stable condition of corrected to reflect the value at the test center of gravity location, shall permit speed and steering angle is achieved. vehicle’s center of gravity. The data the vehicle to experience two-wheel lift After the desired data points are shall be digitally low-pass filtered to 1.0 during dynamic testing, and shall be recorded for a given speed, the driver Hz, using a phase-less, eighth-order, capable of preventing a full vehicle accelerates to the next desired speed Butterworth filter, and plotted with rollover. setting, maintains constant speed and ground plane lateral acceleration on the (ii) Vehicle instrumentation. The compliance with the path, and data abscissa versus hand-wheel steering vehicle shall be instrumented to record points are recorded for the new speed angle on the ordinate. A second-order lateral acceleration, vertical setting. This process is repeated to cover polynomial curve fit of the data shall be acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, the speed range from 0.0 mph to 28 constructed in the range from 0.01 g to forward speed, steering wheel angle, mph, which will map the lateral 0.5 g. The slope of the constructed plot steering wheel angle rate, vehicle roll acceleration range from near 0.0 g to determines the understeer gradient angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, 0.50 g. Increments of speed shall be 1 value in the units of degrees of hand- and yaw angle rate. See Table 1 in to 2 miles per hour, to allow for a wheel steering angle per g of ground § 1422.3(c) for instrumentation complete definition of the understeer plane lateral acceleration (degrees/g). specifications. Ground plane lateral gradient. Data shall be taken at the Using the coordinate system specified in acceleration shall be calculated by lowest speed practicable to obtain an paragraph (d)(7) of this section, positive correcting the body-fixed acceleration approximation of the vehicle’s values for understeer gradient are for roll angle. A roll motion inertia Ackermann steering angle. required for values of ground plane measurement sensor that provides direct (6) Data collection, method 2— lateral acceleration values from 0.10 g to output of ground plane lateral continuous data points In this data 0.50 g. acceleration at the vehicle CG may also acquisition method, the driver (e) Performance requirements. Using be used in lieu of manual correction to maintains compliance with the circular the coordinate system specified in obtain ground plane lateral acceleration. path while slowly increasing vehicle section 1422.4(d)(7), values for the (d) Test Procedure. (1) Handling speed; and data from the vehicle understeer gradient shall be positive for performance testing shall be conducted instrumentation is recorded values of ground plane lateral using the constant radius test method continuously, so long as the vehicle acceleration values from 0.10 g to 0.50 described in SAE Surface Vehicle remains centered on the intended g. The ROV shall not exhibit negative Recommended Practice J266. The radius. The rate of speed increase shall understeer gradients (oversteer) in the minimum radius for constant-radius not exceed 0.93 mph per second. Initial lateral acceleration range specified. testing shall be 100 feet. In this test speed shall be as low as is practicable, § 1422.5 Requirements for occupant method, the instrumented and loaded in order to obtain an approximation of protection performance. vehicle is driven while centered on a the vehicle’s Ackermann steering angle. (a) General. The ROV requirement for 100-ft. radius circle marked on the test The speed range shall be 0.0 mph to occupant protection shall be based on surface, with the driver making every 28.0 mph, which will be sufficient to the maximum vehicle speed limitation effort to maintain the vehicle path produce corrected lateral accelerations when the seat belt of any occupied front relative to the circle. The vehicle is from near 0.0 g to 0.50 g. seat is not buckled, and on passive operated at a variety of increasing (7) Vehicle dimension coordinate coverage of the occupant shoulder area speeds, and data are recorded for those system. The coordinate system as measured by a probe test. various speed conditions to obtain data described in SAE Surface Vehicle (b) Vehicle speed limitation. (1) Test to describe the vehicle handling Recommended Practice J670, published surface. Tests shall be conducted on a behavior across the prescribed range of in January 2008, shall be used. The smooth, dry, uniform, paved surface ground plane lateral accelerations. Data Director of the Federal Register constructed of asphalt or concrete. The shall be recorded for the lateral approves this incorporation by reference surface area used for dynamic testing acceleration range from 0.0 g to 0.5 g. in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and shall be kept free of debris and (2) Start the data acquisition system. 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy substances that may affect test results (3) Drive the vehicle on the circular from ASTM International, 100 Bar during vehicle testing. path at the lowest possible speed. Data Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West (i) Friction. Surface shall have a peak shall be recorded with the steering Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// braking coefficient greater than or equal wheel position and throttle position www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may to 0.90, and a sliding skid coefficient fixed to record the approximate inspect a copy at the Office of the greater than or equal to 0.80, when Ackermann angle. Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product measured in accordance with ASTM E (4) Continue driving the vehicle to the Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 1337 and ASTM E274, respectively. next speed at which data will be taken. East West Highway, Bethesda, MD (ii) Slope. The test surface shall have The vehicle speed shall be increased 20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at a slope equal to or less than 1 degree and data shall be taken until it is no the National Archives and Records (1.7% grade). longer possible for the driver to Administration (NARA). For (2) Test condition 1. Test conditions maintain directional control of the information on the availability of this shall be as follows: vehicle. Test shall be repeated at least material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, (i) The test vehicle shall be a three times so that results can be or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ representative production vehicle. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69027

ROV shall have a redundant restraint when the ROV has reached a stabilized the National Archives and Records system in the driver’s seat. maximum speed. A maximum speed Administration (NARA). For (ii) ROV test weight shall be the capability test shall consist of a information on the availability of this vehicle curb weight plus the test minimum of two measurement test runs material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, operator, only. If the test operator conducted over the same track, one each or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ weighs less than 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 in opposite direction. If more than two federal_register/code_of_ kg ± 5 kg), then the difference in weight measurement runs are made, there shall federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. shall be added to the vehicle to reflect be an equal number of runs in each All measurements for the point shall be ± an operator weight of 215 lbs. 11 lbs. direction. The maximum speed taken with respect to the base of the ± (98 kg 5 kg). capability of the ROV shall be the seatback. The base of the seatback lies (iii) Tires shall be inflated to the arithmetic average of the measurements on the surface of the seat cushion along pressures recommended by the ROV made. the centerline of the seating position manufacturer for the vehicle test weight. (5) Performance requirement. The and is measured without a simulated (iv) The driver’s seat belt shall not be maximum speed capability of a vehicle occupant weight on the seat. Point R is buckled; however, the driver shall be with an unbuckled seat belt of the driver located 432 mm (17 inches) along the restrained by the redundant restraint or any occupied front passenger seat seat back above the base of the seatback. system for test safety purposes. shall be 15 mph or less. (3) Test condition 2. Test conditions (c) Passive coverage of shoulder area. The point is 152 mm (6 inches) forward shall be as follows: (1) General test conditions. of and perpendicular to the seatback (i) The test vehicle shall be a (i) Probes shall be allowed to rotate surface as shown in the figure. For an representative production vehicle. in through a universal joint. adjustable seat, Point R is determined standard condition. (ii) Forces shall be quasi-statically with the seat adjusted to the rear-most (ii) ROV test weight shall be the applied and held for 10 seconds. position. Point R2 applies to an vehicle curb weight, plus the test (2) Shoulder/Hip performance adjustable seat and is located in the operator and a passenger surrogate that requirement. The vehicle structure or same manner as Point R except that the will activate the seat occupancy sensor. restraint system must absorb the force seat is located in the forward-most If the test operator weighs less than 215 specified in § 1422.5(c)(5) with less than position. ± ± lbs. 11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg), then the 25 mm (1 inch) of permanent deflection (4) Barriers. Remove all occupant difference in weight shall be added to along the horizontal lateral axis. protection barriers that require action on (3) Location of applied force. Locate the vehicle to reflect an operator weight the part of the consumer to be effective ± ± point R on the vehicle, as shown in of 215 lbs. 11 lbs. (98 kg 5 kg). (i.e. remove nets). Passive barriers that Figure X of ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011, (iii) Tires shall be inflated to the do not require any consumer action are American National Standard for pressures recommended by the ROV allowed to remain. manufacturer for the vehicle test weight. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, (iv) The driver’s seat belt shall be approved July 11, 2011. The Director of (5) Shoulder/Hip test method. Apply buckled. The front passenger’s seat the Federal Register approves this a horizontal, outward force of 725 N belt(s) shall not be buckled. incorporation by reference in (163 lbf.). Apply the force through the (4) Test procedure. Measure the accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 upper arm probe shown in Figure 2. The maximum speed capability of the ROV CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy upper arm probe shall be oriented so under Test Condition 1, specified in from ASTM International, 100 Bar that Point Q on the probe is coincident paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and Test Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West with Point R for a vehicle with a fixed Condition 2, specified in paragraph Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// seat, or Point Q shall be coincident with (b)(3) of this section using a radar gun www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may any point between R and R2 for a or equivalent method. The test operator inspect a copy at the Office of the vehicle with an adjustable seat. The shall accelerate the ROV until maximum Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product probe’s major axis shall be parallel to speed is reached, and shall maintain Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 the seatback angle at a point 17 inches maximum speed for at least 15 m (50 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD along the seat back above the base of the ft.). Speed measurement shall be made 20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at seatback.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69028 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

§ 1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling. and December 31, 2011, and were (c) Number of consumer products (a) Stockpiling. Stockpiling means received by December 31, 2011. There subject to the rule. (1) Sales of ROVs manufacturing or importing a product were a total of 826 victims involved in have increased substantially since their which is the subject of a consumer the 428 incidents. Within the 428 ROV- introduction. In 1998, only one firm product safety rule between the date of related incidents, there were a total of manufactured ROVs, and fewer than issuance of the rule and its effective 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported 2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a date at a rate that is significantly greater injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries second major manufacturer entered the than the rate at which such product was (19 percent) could be classified as market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. produced or imported during a base severe, that is, the victim has lasting The only dip in sales occurred around period prescribed by the Consumer repercussions from the injuries received 2008, which coincided with the worst of Product Safety Commission. in the incident, based on the the credit crisis and recession that also (b) Base period. The base period for information available. The remaining started about the same time. In 2013, an ROVs is, at the option of each 207 victims were either not injured or estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by manufacturer or importer, any period of their injury information was not known. about 20 different manufacturers. (This 365 consecutive days beginning on or Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 information is based upon a after October 1, 2009, and ending on or involved drivers under 16 years of age Commission analysis of sales data before [the date of promulgation of the (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 provided by Power Products Marketing, rule]. years of age or older (53 percent); and Eden Prairie, MN.) (c) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and 125 involved drivers of unknown age (2) The number of ROVs available for importers of ROVs shall not (29 percent). use has also increased substantially. manufacture or import ROVs that do not Because ROVs are a relatively new comply with the requirements of this (2) Using data reported through the product, we do not have any specific part between [the date of promulgation National Electronic Injury Surveillance information on the expected useful life of the rule] and [the effective date of the System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to of ROVs. However, using the same rule] at a rate that exceeds 10 percent of August 31, 2010, the Commission operability rates that CPSC uses for the rate at which this product was conducted a special study to identify ATVs, we estimate that there were about produced or imported during the base cases that involved ROVs that were 570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. period described in paragraph (b) of this reported through NEISS. (NEISS is a By the end of 2013, there were an section. stratified national probability sample of estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. hospital emergency departments that (d) The need of the public for ROVs § 1422.7 Findings. allows the Commission to make national and the effects of the rule on their (a) General. In order to issue a estimates of product-related injuries.) utility, cost, and availability. (1) consumer product safety standard under Based on information obtained through Currently there are two varieties of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the the special study, the estimated number ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early Commission must make certain findings of emergency department-treated ROV- ROV models emphasized the utility and include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. related injuries occurring in the United aspects of the vehicles, but the 2058(f)(3). These findings are discussed States between January 1, 2010 and recreational aspects of the vehicles have in this section. August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. become very popular. (b) Degree and nature of the risk of Extrapolating for the year 2010, the (2) In terms of the effects of the rule injury. (1) CPSC received 428 reports of estimated number of emergency on ROVs utility, according to several ROV-related incidents from the Injury department-treated ROV-related injuries ROV manufacturers, some ROV users and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 ‘‘might prefer limit oversteer in the off- In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases percent confidence interval of 1,100 to highway environment.’’ (This assertion that occurred between January 1, 2003 4,900. was contained in a public comment on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP19NO14.018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69029

the ANPR for ROVs (Docket No. CPSC– (5) The effect of the rule on cost and (f) Unreasonable risk. (1) CPSC 2009–0087) submitted jointly on behalf availability of ROVs is expected to be received 428 reports of ROV-related of Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier minimal. The average manufacturer’s incidents from the Injury and Potential Recreational Products, Inc., Polaris suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth Industries, Inc., and Yamaha Motor weighted by units sold, was about Investigation (INDP) databases that Corporation, USA.) To the extent that $13,100 in 2013, with a range of about occurred between January 1, 2003 and the requirements in the proposed rule $3,600 to $20,100. The preliminary December 31, 2011, and were received would reduce the ability of these users regulatory analysis estimates the per- by December 31, 2011. There were a to intentionally reach limit oversteer, unit cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 total of 826 victims involved in the 428 the proposed rule could have some to $94. Because this per-unit cost incidents. Within the 428 ROV-related adverse impact on the utility or resulting from the rule is a very small incidents, there were a total of 231 enjoyment that these users receive from percentage of the overall retail price of reported fatalities and 388 reported ROVs. These impacts would probably be a ROV, it is unlikely that the rule would injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries limited to a small number of have more than a minimal effect on the (19 percent) could be classified as recreational users who enjoy activities cost or availability of ROVs. severe, that is, the victim has lasting or stunts that involve power (e) Other means to achieve the repercussions from the injuries received oversteering or limit oversteer. objective of the rule, while minimizing in the incident, based on the (3) Although the impact on consumers the impact on competition and information available. who prefer limit oversteer cannot be manufacturing. (1) The Commission (2) The estimated cost and benefits of quantified, the Commission expects that does not believe the rule will have the rule on an annual basis can be it will be low. Any impact would be adverse impact on competition. The calculated by multiplying the estimated limited to those consumers who wish to preliminary regulatory analysis benefits and costs per unit by the intentionally engage in activities estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of number of ROVs sold in a given year. In involving the loss of traction or power the rule to be $61 to $94. The average 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the oversteer. The practice of power manufacturer’s suggested retail prices proposed rule had been in effect that oversteer is the result of driver choices, (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units year, the total quantifiable cost would such as the speed at which a user takes sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with have been between $14.3 million and a turn. The proposed rule would not a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 234,000 units, respectively). The prevent ROVs from reaching limit per-unit cost resulting from the rule is oversteer under all conditions; nor total quantifiable benefits would have a very small percentage of the overall would the rule prevent consumers from been at least $515 million ($2,199 × retail price of a ROV and is unlikely to engaging in these activities. At most, the 234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 have any impact on competition. proposed rule might make it somewhat million (or about 88 percent) would more difficult for users to reach limit (2) The Commission believes that have resulted from the reduction in fatal oversteer in an ROV. Moreover, some but not all ROV models already injuries, and about $62 million (or about consumers who have a high preference meet the rule’s requirement that the 12 percent) of the benefits would have for vehicles that oversteer would be able speed of the vehicle be limited if the resulted from a reduction in the societal to make aftermarket modifications, such driver’s seat belt is not fastened. Before cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 as adjustments to the suspension of the implementing any changes to their million of the reduction in the societal vehicle, or using different wheels or vehicles to meet the requirement, cost of nonfatal injuries would have tires to increase the potential for manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet been due to a reduction in pain and oversteering. the seatbelt speed limiter requirement suffering. We conclude preliminarily (4) The seat belt speed limiter would have to analyze their options for that ROVs pose an unreasonable risk of requirement could have a negative effect meeting the requirement. This process injury and that the proposed rule is on utility and impose some would include developing prototypes of reasonably necessary to reduce that risk. unquantifiable costs on some users who system designs, testing the prototypes (g) Public interest. (1) This proposed would prefer not to use seat belts. The and refining the design of the systems rule is in the public interest because it cost to these users would be the time based on this testing. Once the may reduce ROV-related deaths and required to buckle and unbuckle their manufacturer has settled upon a system injuries in the future. The Commission seat belts and any disutility cost, such for meeting the requirement, the system believes that improving lateral stability as discomfort caused by wearing the will have to be incorporated into the (by increasing rollover resistance) and seat belt. We cannot quantify these costs manufacturing process of the vehicle. improving vehicle handling (by because we do not know how many This will involve producing the correcting oversteer to sub) are the most ROV users choose not to wear their seat engineering specifications and drawings effective approaches to reduce the belts, nor do we have the ability to of the system, parts, assemblies, and occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. quantify any discomfort or disutility subassemblies that are required. ROVs with higher lateral stability are that they would experience from Manufacturers will need to obtain the less likely to roll over because more wearing seat belts. However, the needed parts from their suppliers and lateral force is necessary to cause proposed rule does not require that the incorporate the steps needed to install rollover. ROVs exhibiting understeer seat belts be fastened unless the vehicle the system on the vehicles in the during a turn are also less likely to is traveling 15 mph or faster. This assembly line. The Commission believes rollover because lateral acceleration should serve to mitigate these costs that manufacturers should be able to decreases as the path of the ROV makes because many people who would be complete all of these activities and be a wider turn, and the vehicle is more inconvenienced or discomforted by the ready to produce vehicles that meet the stable if a sudden change in direction requirement, such as people using the requirement within 12 calendar months. occurs. vehicle for work or utility purposes or The Commission is proposing a 12- (2) The Commission believes that, who must frequently get on and off the month effective date for the occupant when rollovers do occur, improving vehicle are likely to be traveling at protection requirements to minimize the occupant protection performance (by lower speeds. burden on manufacturing. increasing seat belt use) will mitigate

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 69030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules

injury severity. CPSC analysis of ROV the shoulder/hip area. However, testing meets both the dynamic stability incidents indicates that 91 percent of performed by CPSC identified requirement and the understeer fatally ejected victims were not wearing weaknesses in the performance-based requirement should be safer than a a seat belt at the time of the incident. tilt table test option that allows vehicle that meets only one of the Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction unacceptable occupant head ejection requirements. Moreover, the cost of with better shoulder retention beyond the protective zone of the meeting just one requirement is not performance, will significantly reduce vehicle Rollover Protective Structure substantially lower than the cost of injuries and deaths associated with an (ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a meeting both requirements. The cost of ROV rollover event. passive shoulder barrier could reduce testing a vehicle for compliance with (h) Voluntary standards. (1) The the head excursion of a belted occupant both the dynamic lateral stability and Commission is aware of two voluntary during quarter-turn rollover events. The vehicle handling/understeer standards that are applicable to ROVs, Commission believes that this can be requirement was estimated to be about ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National accomplished by a requirement for a $24,000. However, the cost of testing for Standard for Recreational Off-Highway passive barrier based on the dimensions compliance with just the dynamic Vehicles and ANSI/B71.9, American of the upper arm of a 5th percentile stability requirement itself would be National Standard for Multipurpose Off- adult female, at a defined area near the about $20,000, or only about 17 percent Highway Utility Vehicles. As described ROV occupants’ shoulder as contained less than the cost of testing for in detail in the preamble, the in the proposed rule. compliance with both requirements Commission believes that the current (i) Relationship of benefits to costs. (1) together. This is because the cost of voluntary standard requirements not The estimated cost and benefits of the renting and transporting the vehicle to adequately reduce the risk of injury or rule on an annual basis can be the test site, instrumenting the vehicle death associated with ROVs. Neither calculated by multiplying the estimated for the tests, and making some initial voluntary standard requires that ROVs benefits and costs per unit by the static measurements are virtually the understeer, as required by the proposed number of ROVs sold in a given year. In same for both requirements and would rule. According to the ES staff, drivers 2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the only have to be done once if the tests are more likely to lose control of proposed rule had been in effect that for both requirements were conducted vehicles that oversteer, which can lead year, the total quantifiable cost would on the same day. Moreover, changes in to the vehicle rolling over or to other have been between $14.3 million and the vehicle design that affect the lateral types of accidents. $22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied stability of the vehicle could also impact (2) Both voluntary standards have by 234,000 units, respectively). The the handling of the vehicle. For these requirements that are intended to set total quantifiable benefits would have reasons, the proposed rule includes both standards for dynamic lateral stability. been at least $515 million ($2,199 × a dynamic stability and vehicle ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle 234,000). handling requirement. test for dynamic lateral stability that is (2) On a per unit basis, we estimate (3) Loud or intrusive seatbelt more similar to the test in the proposed the total cost of the proposed rule to be reminders instead of seatbelt/speed rule for whether the vehicle understeers $61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the limitation requirements. (i) Currently, than it is to the test for dynamic lateral total quantifiable benefits of the most ROVs meet the voluntary stability. The dynamic stability proposed rule to be $2199 per unit. This standards that require an 8-second requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 results in net quantifiable benefits of visual seatbelt reminder. Some more uses a J-turn test, like the proposed rule, $2105 to $2138 per unit. Quantifiable intrusive systems have been used on but measures different variables during benefits of the proposed rule could passenger cars. For example, one system the test and uses a different acceptance exceed the estimated $2199 per unit resumes warning the driver after about criterion. However, ES staff does not because the benefit associated with the 65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not believe that the tests procedures in vehicle handling and lateral stability fastened and the car is traveling at more either standard have been properly requirement could not be quantified. than 3 mph. The system flashes a validated as being capable of providing (j) Least burdensome requirement. warning light and sounds a chime for 6 useful information about the dynamic The Commission considered less seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the burdensome alternatives to the minutes so long as the car is operating voluntary standards would find some proposed rule regarding ROVs, but and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. vehicles acceptable even though their concluded that none of these A similar system is used in which the lateral acceleration at rollover is less alternatives would adequately reduce warning could last for longer than 9 than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance the risk of injury. minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is not criterion in the proposed rule. (1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but fastened. Although studies of both (3) Both voluntary standards require instead relying upon voluntary systems found an increase in the use that manufacturers include a lighted standards. If CPSC did not issue a seatbelts, the systems’ effectiveness was seat-belt reminder that is visible to the mandatory standard, most limited. Moreover, audible warnings are driver and remains on for at least 8 manufacturers would comply with one not likely to be effective in ROVs. ROVs seconds after the vehicle is started, of the two voluntary standards that are open vehicles and the ambient noise unless the driver’s seatbelt is fastened. apply to ROVs. The Commission does is higher than in the enclosed passenger However, virtually all ROVs on the not believe either voluntary standard compartment of a car. ROV drivers market already include this feature and, adequately addresses the risk of injury would not hear the warning and be therefore, relying only on the voluntary and death associated with ROVs. motivated to fasten their seatbelts unless standards would not be expected to (2) Including the dynamic lateral the warning was substantially louder raise seatbelt use over its current level. stability requirement or the understeer than the systems used in passenger cars. (4) The voluntary standards include requirement, but not both. The (ii) In contrast, these more intrusive requirements for retaining the occupant Commission believes that both of these seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to within the protective zone of the vehicle characteristics need to be addressed. be as effective as the seatbelt speed in the event of a rollover including two According to CPSC’s Directorate for limitation requirement in the proposed options for restraining the occupants in Engineering Sciences, a vehicle that rule. The Commission believes that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69031

requirement in the proposed rule will mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. Dated: October 31, 2014. cause most drivers and passengers that The system did not prevent the driver Todd A. Stevenson, desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten their from exceeding 25 mph, but it increased Secretary, Consumer Product Safety seatbelts. Research supports this the amount of force required to depress Commission. position. One experiment used a haptic the gas pedal to maintain a speed greater [FR Doc. 2014–26500 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] feedback system to increase the force than 25 mph. In this experiment all 7 BILLING CODE 6355–01–P the driver needed to exert to depress the participants chose to fasten their gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 seatbelts.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Nov 18, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\19NOP2.SGM 19NOP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2