Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)

Federal RegisterNov 19, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1422

RIN 3041-AC78

[Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087]

Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)

AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs). To address these risks, the Commission proposes a rule that includes: lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements that specify a minimum level of rollover resistance for ROVs and require that ROVs exhibit sublimit understeer characteristics; occupant retention requirements that would limit the maximum speed of an ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour (mph), unless the seat belts of both the driver and front passengers, if any, are fastened, and would require ROVs to have a passive means, such as a barrier or structure, to limit further the ejection of a belted occupant in the event of a rollover; and information requirements.

DATES:

Submit comments by February 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

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

Electronic Submissions:

Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through

www.regulations.gov.

The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Written Submissions:

Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions:

All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to:

http://www.regulations.gov,

and insert the docket number CPSC-2009-0087, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

Submit comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) aspects of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC or by email:

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov

or fax: 202-395-6881. In addition, comments that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov,

under Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2225; email:

cpaul@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is proposing a standard for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).

ROVs are motorized vehicles that combine off-road capability with utility and recreational use. Reports of ROV-related fatalities and injuries prompted the Commission to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in October 2009 to consider whether there may be unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with ROVs. (74 FR 55495 (October 28, 2009)). The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The Commission received 116 comments in response to the ANPR. The Commission is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would establish requirements for lateral stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection performance, as well as information requirements. The information discussed in this preamble is derived from CPSC staff's briefing package for the NPR and from CPSC staff's supplemental memorandum to the Commission, which are available on CPSC's Web site at

http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2014/SafetyStandardforRecreationalOff-HighwayVehicles-ProposedRule.pdf

and

http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/SupplementalInformation-ROVs.pdf.

The Commission voted (3-2) to publish this notice in the

Federal Register

. Chairman Elliot F. Kaye and Commissioners Robert S. Adler and Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve publication of the proposed rule. Commissioners Ann Marie Buerkle and Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against publication of the proposed rule.

II. The Product

A. Products Covered

ROVs are motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four or more pneumatic tires designed for off-highway use; bench or bucket seats for two or more occupants; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and braking; and a maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per hour (mph). ROVs are also equipped with rollover protective structures (ROPS), seat belts, and other restraints (such as doors, nets, and shoulder barriers) for the protection of occupants.

ROVs and All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) are similar in that both are motorized vehicles designed for off-highway use, and both are used for utility and recreational purposes. However, ROVs differ significantly from ATVs in vehicle design. ROVs have a steering wheel instead of a handle bar for steering; foot pedals instead of hand levers for throttle and brake control; and bench or bucket seats rather than straddle seating for the occupant(s). Most importantly, ROVs only require steering wheel input from the driver to steer the vehicle, and the motion of the occupants has little or no effect on vehicle control or stability. In contrast, ATVs require riders to steer with their hands and to maneuver their body front to back and side to side to augment the ATV's pitch and lateral stability.

Early ROV models emphasized the utility aspects of the vehicles, but the recreational aspects of the vehicles have become very popular. Currently, there are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and recreational. Models emphasizing utility have larger cargo beds, higher cargo capacities, and lower top speeds. Models emphasizing recreation have smaller cargo beds, lower cargo capacities, and higher top speeds. Both utility and recreational ROVs with maximum speed greater than 30 mph are covered by the scope of this NPR.

B. Similar or Substitute Products

There are several types of off-road vehicles that have some characteristics

that are similar to those of ROVs and may be considered substitutes for some purposes.

Low-Speed Utility vehicles (UTVs)

—Although ROVs can be considered to be a type of utility vehicle, their maximum speeds of greater than 30 mph distinguish them from low-speed utility vehicles, which have maximum speeds of 25 mph or less. Like ROVs, low-speed utility vehicles have steering wheels and bucket or bench seating capable of carrying two or more riders. All utility vehicles have both work and recreational uses. However, low-speed utility vehicles might not be good substitutes for ROVs in recreational uses where speeds higher than 30 mph are important.

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)

—Unlike ROVs, ATVs make use of handlebars for steering and hand controls for operating the throttle and brakes. The seats on ATVs are intended to be straddled, unlike the bucket or bench seats on ROVs. Some ATVs are intended for work or utility applications, as well as for recreational uses; others are intended primarily for recreational purposes. ATVs are usually narrower than ROVs. This means that ATVs can navigate some trails or terrain that some ROVs might not be able to navigate.

Unlike ROVs, ATVs are rider interactive. When riding an ATV, the driver must shift his or her weight from side to side while turning, or forward or backward when ascending or descending a hill or crossing an obstacle. Most ATVs are designed for one rider (the driver). On ATVs that are designed for more than one rider, the passenger sits behind the driver and not beside the driver as on ROVs.

Go-Karts

—Go-karts (sometimes called “off-road buggies”) are another type of recreational vehicle that has some similarities to ROVs. Go-karts are usually intended solely for recreational purposes. Some go-karts with smaller engines are intended to be driven by children 12 and younger. Some go-karts are intended to be driven primarily on prepared surfaces. These go-karts would not be substitutes for ROVs. Other go-karts have larger engines, full suspensions, can reach maximum speeds in excess of 30 mph, and can be used on more surfaces. These go-karts could be close substitutes for ROVs in some recreational applications.

III. Risk of Injury

A. Incident Data

As of April 5, 2013, CPSC staff is aware of 550 reported ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and April 5, 2013; there were 335 reported fatalities and 506 reported injuries related to these incidents. To analyze hazard patterns related to ROVs, a multidisciplinary team of CPSC staff reviewed incident reports that CPSC received by December 31, 2011 concerning incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011. CPSC received 428 reports of ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, from the Injury and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases.

ROV-related incidents can involve more than one injury or fatality because the incidents often involve both a driver and passengers. There were a total of 826 victims involved in the 428 incidents. Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, there were a total of 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be classified as severe; that is, based on the information available, the victim has lasting repercussions from the injuries received in the incident. The remaining 207 victims were either not injured or their injury information was not known.

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 incidents involved drivers under 16 years of age (18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 years of age or older (53 percent); and 125 involved drivers of unknown age (29 percent). Of the 227 incidents involving adult drivers, 86 (38 percent) are known to have involved the driver consuming at least one alcoholic beverage before the incident; 52 (23 percent) did not involve alcohol; and 89 (39 percent) have an unknown alcohol status of the driver.

Of the 619 victims who were injured or killed, most (66 percent) were in a front seat of the ROV, either as a driver or passenger, when the incidents occurred. The remaining victims were in the rear of the ROV or in an unspecified location of the ROV.

In many of the ROV-related incidents resulting in at least one death, the Commission was able to obtain more detailed information on the events surrounding the incident through an In-Depth Investigation (IDI). Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 224 involved at least one death. This includes 218 incidents resulting in one fatality, five incidents resulting in two fatalities, and one incident resulting in three fatalities, for a total of 231 fatalities. Of the 224 fatal incidents, 145 (65 percent) occurred on an unpaved surface; 38 (17 percent) occurred on a paved surface; and 41 (18 percent) occurred on unknown terrain.

B. Hazard Characteristics

After CPSC staff determined that a reported incident resulting in at least one death or injury was ROV-related, a multidisciplinary team reviewed all the documents associated with the incident. The multidisciplinary team was made up of a human factors engineer, an economist, a health scientist, and a statistician. As part of the review process, each member of the review team considered every incident and coded victim characteristics, the characteristics of the vehicle involved, the environment, and the events of the incident.

Below, we discuss the key hazard characteristics that the review identified.

The data collected for the Commission's study are based on information reported to the Commission through various sources. The reports are not a complete set of all incidents that have occurred, nor do they constitute a statistical sample representing all ROV-related incidents with at least one death or injury resulting. Additionally, reporting is ongoing for ROV-related incidents that occurred in the specified time frame. The Commission is expecting additional reports and information on ROV-related incidents that resulted in a death or injury and that occurred in the given time frame.

1. Rollover

Of the 428 reported ROV-related incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, more than half of which occurred while the vehicle was in a turn (52 percent). Of the 224 fatal incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of those incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat terrain. The slope of the terrain is unknown in 39 fatal incidents.

A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 reported incidents, including 231 fatalities and 388 injuries. Of the 231 reported fatalities, 150 (65 percent) died in an incident involving lateral rollover of the ROV. Of the 388 injured victims, 75 (19 percent) were classified as being severely injured; 67 of these victims (89 percent) were injured in incidents that involved lateral rollover of the ROV.

2. Occupant Ejection and Seat Belt Use

From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by CPSC, 817 victims were reported to be in or on the ROV during the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were known to have been injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.

Of the 610 fatally and nonfatally injured victims who were in or on the ROV, 433 (71 percent) were partially or fully ejected from the ROV; and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck by

a part of the vehicle, such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, after ejection. Seat belt use is known for 374 of the 610 victims; of these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.

Of the 225 fatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the vehicle, and 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected victims; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.

C. NEISS Data

To estimate the number of nonfatal injuries associated with ROVs that were treated in a hospital emergency department, CPSC undertook a special study to identify cases that involved ROVs that were reported through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010.

NEISS is a stratified national probability sample of hospital emergency departments that allows the Commission to make national estimates of product-related injuries. The sample consists of about 100 of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that have at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency service. Consumer product-related injuries treated in emergency departments of the NEISS-member hospitals are coded from the medical record. As such, information about the injury is extracted, but specifics about the product and its use are often not available.

NEISS does not contain a separate category or product code for ROVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually assigned to an ATV product category (NEISS product codes 3286—3287) or to the utility vehicle (UTV) category (NEISS product code 5044). A total of 2,018 injuries that were related to ATVs or UTVs were recorded in NEISS between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010. The Commission attempted follow-up interviews with each victim (or a relative of the victim) to gather more information about the incidents and the vehicles involved. CPSC determined whether the vehicle involved was an ROV based on the make and model of the vehicle reported in the interviews. If the make and model of the vehicle was not reported, staff did not count the case as involving an ROV.

A total of 688 surveys were completed, resulting in a 33 percent response rate for this survey. Of the 688 completed surveys, 16 were identified as involving an ROV based on the make and model of the vehicle involved. It is possible that more cases involved an ROV, but it was not possible to identify them due to lack of information on the vehicle make and model.

The estimated number of emergency department-treated ROV-related injuries occurring in the United States between January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 2010, the estimated number of emergency department-treated, ROV-related injuries is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 4,900.

D. Yamaha Rhino Repair Program

CPSC staff began investigating ROVs following reports of serious injuries and fatalities associated with the Yamaha Rhino. In March 2009, CPSC staff negotiated a repair program on the Yamaha Rhino 450, 660, and 700 model ROVs to address stability and handling issues with the vehicles.

CPSC staff investigated more than 50 incidents, including 46 driver and passenger deaths related to the Yamaha Rhino. The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to design changes through a repair program that would increase the vehicle's lateral stability and change the vehicle's handling characteristic from oversteer to understeer. The repair consisted of the following: (1) Addition of 50-mm spacers on the vehicle's rear wheels to increase the track width, and (2) the removal of the rear stabilizer bar to effect understeer characteristics.

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

CPSC staff reviewed reports of ROV-related incidents reported to the CPSC between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 2012, involving Yamaha Rhino model vehicles. (The data are only those reported to CPSC staff and are not representative of all incidents.) The number of incidents that occurred by quarters of a year are shown below in Figure 1.

EP19NO14.000

After the repair program was initiated in March 2009, the number of reported incidents involving a Yamaha Rhino ROV decreased noticeably.

CPSC staff also analyzed the 242 Yamaha Rhino-related incidents reported to CPSC and identified 46 incidents in which a Yamaha Rhino vehicle rolled over during a turn on flat or gentle terrain. Staff identified forty-one of the 46 incidents as involving an unrepaired Rhino vehicle. In comparison, staff identified only two of the 46 incidents in which a repaired Rhino vehicle rolled during a turn, and each of these incidents occurred on terrain with a 5 to 10 degree slope. Among these 41 reported incidents, there were no incidents involving repaired Rhinos rolling over on flat terrain during a turn.

The Commission believes the decrease in Rhino-related incidents after the repair program was initiated can be attributed to the vehicle modifications made by the repair program. Specifically, correction of oversteer and improved lateral stability can reduce rollover incidents by reducing the risk of sudden and unexpected increases in lateral acceleration during a turn, and increasing the amount of force required to roll the vehicle over. CPSC believes that lateral stability and vehicle handling have the most effect on rollovers during a turn on level terrain because the rollover is caused primarily by lateral acceleration generated by friction during the turn. Staff's review of rollover incidents during a turn on level ground indicates that repaired Rhino vehicles are less likely than unrepaired vehicles to roll over. CPSC believes this is further evidence that increasing lateral stability and correcting oversteer to understeer contributed to the decrease in Yamaha Rhino incidents.

IV. Statutory Authority

ROVs are “consumer products” that can be regulated by the Commission under the authority of the CPSA.

See

15 U.S.C. 2052(a). Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard that sets forth certain performance requirements for a consumer product or that sets forth certain requirements that a product be marked or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings or instructions. A performance, warning, or instruction standard must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk or injury.

Id.

Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. In accordance with section 9, the Commission may commence rulemaking by issuing an ANPR; as noted previously, the Commission issued an ANPR on ROVs in October 2009. Section 9 authorizes the Commission to issue an NPR including the proposed rule and a preliminary regulatory analysis in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA and request comments regarding the risk of injury identified by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk.

Id.

2058(c). Next, the Commission will consider the comments received in response to the proposed rule and decide whether to issue a final rule along with a final regulatory analysis.

Id.

2058(c)-(f). The Commission also will provide an opportunity for interested persons to make oral presentations of the data, views, or arguments, in accordance with section 9(d)(2) of the CPSA.

Id.

2058(d)(2).

According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a consumer product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate

findings to be included in the rule, concerning the following issues: (1) The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce; (2) the approximate number of consumer products subject to the rule; (3) the need of the public for the products subject to the rule and the probable effect the rule will have on utility, cost, or availability of such products; and (4) the means to achieve the objective of the rule while minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices.

Id.

2058(f)(1).

According to section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the Commission must find that the rule is “reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product” and that issuing the rule is in the public interest.

Id.

2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). In addition, if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and implemented, the Commission must find that: (1) The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury, or that (2) substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely.

Id.

2058(f)(3(D). The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirements that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.

Id.

2058(f)(3)(E)&(F).

Other provisions of the CPSA also authorize this rulemaking. Section 27(e) provides the Commission with authority to issue a rule requiring consumer product manufacturers to provide the Commission with such performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out the CPSA and to give such performance and technical data to prospective and first purchasers.

Id.

2076(e). This provision bolsters the Commission's authority under section 7 to require provision of safety-related information, such as hang tags.

V. Overview of Proposed Requirements

Based on incident data, vehicle testing, and experience with the Yamaha Rhino repair program, the Commission believes that improving lateral stability (by increasing rollover resistance) and improving vehicle handling (by correcting oversteer to understeer) are the most effective approaches to reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with higher lateral stability are less likely to roll over because more lateral force is necessary to cause rollover than an ROV with lower lateral stability. ROVs exhibiting understeer during a turn are less likely to rollover because steering control is stable and the potential for the driver to lose control is low.

The Commission believes that when rollovers do occur, improving occupant protection performance (by increasing seat belt use) will mitigate injury severity. CPSC's analysis of ROV incidents indicates that 91 percent of fatally ejected victims were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction with better shoulder retention performance, will significantly reduce injuries and deaths associated with an ROV rollover event.

To address these hazards, the Commission is proposing requirements for:

• A minimum level of rollover resistance of the ROV when tested using the J-turn test procedure;

• A hang tag providing information about the vehicle's rollover resistance on a progressive scale;

• Understeer performance of the ROV when tested using the constant radius test procedure;

• Limited maximum speed of the ROV when tested with occupied front seat belts unbuckled; and

• A minimum level of passive shoulder protection when using a probe test.

VI. CPSC Technical Analysis and Basis for Proposed Requirements

A. Overview of Technical Work

In February 2010, the Commission contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to conduct an in-depth study of vehicle dynamic performance and static rollover measures for ROVs. SEA evaluated a sample of 10 ROVs that represented the recreational and utility oriented ROVs available in the U.S. market that year. SEA tested and measured several characteristics and features that relate to the rollover performance of the vehicles and to the vehicle's handling characteristics.

In 2011, SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and analyze occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide range of machines, including ROVs. The Commission contracted with SEA to conduct occupant protection performance evaluations of seven ROVs with differing occupant protection designs.

SEA's reports are available on CPSC's Web site at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/.

B. Lateral Stability

1. Definitions

Following are definitions of basic terms used in this section.

• Lateral acceleration: acceleration that generates the force that pushes the vehicle sideways. During a turn, lateral acceleration is generated by friction between the tires and surface. Lateral acceleration is expressed as a multiple of free-fall gravity (g).

• Two-wheel lift: point at which the inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a rollover event. We use the term “two-wheel lift” interchangeably with “tip-up.”

• Threshold lateral acceleration: minimum lateral acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.

• Untripped rollover: rollover that occurs during a turn due solely to the lateral acceleration generated by friction between the tires and the road surface.

• Tripped rollover: rollover that occurs when the vehicle slides and strikes an object that provides a pivot point for the vehicle to roll over.

2. Static Measures to Evaluate ROV Lateral Stability

CPSC and SEA evaluated the static measurements of the static stability factor (SSF) and tilt table ratio (TTR) to compare lateral stability of a group of 10 ROVS.

a. Static Stability Factor (SSF)

SSF approximates the lateral acceleration in units of gravitational acceleration (g) at which rollover begins in a simplified vehicle that is assumed to be a rigid body without suspension movement or tire deflections. NHTSA uses rollover risk as determined by dynamic test results and SSF values to evaluate passenger vehicle rollover resistance for the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).

SSF relates the track width of the vehicle to the height of the vehicle center of gravity (CG), as shown in Figure 2. Loading condition is important because CG height and track width vary, depending on the vehicle load condition. Mathematically, the relationship is track width (T) divided by two times the CG height (H), or SSF=T/2H. Higher values for SSF indicate higher lateral stability, and lower SSF values indicate lower lateral stability.

NHTSA, 68 FR 59250, “Consumer Information; New Car Assessment Program; Rollover Resistance,” (Oct. 14, 2003).

EP19NO14.001

SEA measured track width and CG height values for the sample group of 10 ROVs. SEA used their Vehicle Inertia Measurement Facility (VIMF), which incorporates the results of five different tests to determine the CG height. SEA has demonstrated that VIMF CG height measurements are repeatable within ±0.5 percent of the measured values.

Using the CG height and track width measurement, SEA calculated SSF values for several different load conditions. (See Table 1).

Heydinger, Gary J., et al,

The Design of a Vehicle Inertia Measurement Facility,

SAE 950309, 1995.

Table 1—SSF Values

Vehicle rank

(SSF)

SSF

0.881

0.887

0.918

0.932

0.942

0.962

0.965

0.991

1.031

1.045

b. Tilt Table Ratio (TTR)

SEA conducted tilt table tests on the ROV sample group. In this test, the vehicles in various loaded conditions were placed on a rigid platform, and the angle of platform tilt was increased (see Figure 3) until both upper wheels of the vehicle lifted off the platform. The platform angle at two-wheel lift is the Tilt Table Angle (TTA). The trigonometric tangent of the TTA is the Tilt Table Ratio (TTR). TTA and TTR are used to evaluate the stability of the vehicle. Larger TTA and TTR generally correspond to better lateral stability, except these measures do not account for dynamic tire deflections or dynamic suspension compliances. Tilt testing is a quick and simple static test that does not require sophisticated instrumentation. Tilt testing is used as a rollover metric in the voluntary standards created by the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). TTA and TTR values measured by SEA are shown in Table 2.

ROHVA developed ANSI/ROHVA 1 for recreation-oriented ROVs and OPEI developed ANSI/OPEI B71.0 for utility-oriented ROVs.

EP19NO14.002

Table 2—TTA and TTR Values

Vehicle rank

(TTA)

TTA

(deg.)

Vehicle rank

(TTR)

TTR

33.0

0.650

33.6

0.664

33.7

0.667

35.4

0.712

35.9

0.724

36.1

0.730

36.4

0.739

38.1

0.784

38.8

0.803

39.0

0.810

Because ROVs are designed with long suspension travel and soft tires for off-road performance, staff was concerned that SSF and TTR would not accurately characterize the dynamic lateral stability of the vehicle. Therefore, CPSC's contractor, SEA, conducted dynamic J-turn tests to determine whether SSF or TTR measurement corresponded with actual dynamic measures for lateral stability.

3. Dynamic Test To Measure ROV Lateral Stability—the J-Turn Test

In 2001, NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test (also called drop-throttle J-turn testing and step-steer testing) as a method to measure rollover resistance of automobiles. NHTSA found the J-turn test to be the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance. Specifically, the J-turn test is objective because a programmable steering machine turns the steering wheel during the test, and the test results show that the vehicle speed, lateral acceleration, and roll angle data observed during J-turn tests were highly repeatable.

However, NHTSA determined that although the J-turn test is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance, the J-turn test is unable to measure the high rollover resistance of most passenger automobiles.

On pavement where a high-friction surface creates high lateral accelerations, vehicles with high rollover resistance (such as passenger automobiles) will lose tire traction and slide in a severe turn rather than roll over. The threshold lateral acceleration cannot be measured because rollover does not occur. In contrast, vehicles with low rollover resistance exhibit untripped rollover on a pavement during a J-turn test, and the lateral acceleration at rollover threshold can be measured. Thus, the J-turn test is the most appropriate method to measure the rollover resistance of ROVs because ROVs exhibit untripped rollover during the test.

Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA's Light Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 513.

J-turn tests are conducted by driving the test vehicle in a straight path, releasing (dropping) the throttle, and rapidly turning the steering wheel to a specified angle once the vehicle slows to a specified speed. The steering wheel angle and vehicle speed are selected to produce two-wheel lift of the vehicle. Outriggers, which are beams that extend to either side of a vehicle, allow the vehicle to roll but prevent full rollover. The sequence of events in the test procedure is shown in Figure 4. SEA conducted drop-throttle J-turn tests to measure the minimum lateral accelerations necessary to cause two-wheel lift (shown in Step 3 of Figure 4) for each vehicle. Side loading of the vehicle occurs naturally as a result of the lateral acceleration that is created in the J-turn and this lateral acceleration can be measured and recorded. The lateral acceleration produced in the turn is directly proportional to the side loading force acting to overturn the vehicle according to the equation F = (m)(A

), where F is force, m is the mass of the vehicle, and A

is lateral acceleration.

EP19NO14.003

SEA conducted the J-turn testing at 30 mph. A programmable steering controller input the desired steering angles at a steering rate of 500 degrees per second for all vehicles. The chosen steering rate of 500 degrees per second is high enough to approximate a step input, but still within the capabilities of a driver. (A step input is one that happens instantly and requires no time to complete. For steering input, time is required to complete the desired steering angle, so a steering step input is approximated by a high angular rate of steering input.) SEA conducted preliminary tests by starting with a relatively low steering angle of 80 to 90 degrees and incrementally increasing the steering angle until two-wheel lift was achieved. When SEA determined the steering angle that produced a two-wheel lift, SEA conducted the test run for that vehicle load condition. For each test run, SEA recorded the speed, steering angle, roll rate, and acceleration in three directions (longitudinal, lateral, and vertical). SEA processed and plotted the data to determine the minimum lateral acceleration required for two-wheel lift of the vehicle.

The J-turn test is a direct measure of the minimum or threshold lateral acceleration required to initiate a rollover event, or tip-up of the test vehicle when turning. ROVs that exhibit higher threshold lateral acceleration have a higher rollover resistance or are more stable than ROVs with lower threshold lateral accelerations. Each of the 10 ROVs tested in the study by SEA exhibited untripped rollover in the J-turn tests at steering wheel angles ranging from 93.8 to 205 degrees and lateral accelerations ranging from 0.625 to 0.785 g. Table 3 shows the vehicles arranged in ascending order for threshold lateral acceleration (A

) at tip up, SSF, TTA, and TTR. Table 3 illustrates the lack of correlation of the static metrics (SSF, TTA, or TTR) with the direct dynamic measure of threshold lateral acceleration (A

) at tip up.

Table 3

Vehicle rank (A)

(g)

SSF

TTR

0.625

0.942

0.667

0.655

0.932

0.664

0.670

0.887

0.650

0.670

0.962

0.730

0.675

1.045

0.712

0.690

0.881

0.739

0.700

0.965

0.784

0.705

0.918

0.724

0.740

0.991

0.803

0.785

1.031

0.810

Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011). Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Vehicle J. Retrieved from

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.

SEA also conducted J-turn tests on four ROVs to measure the repeatability of the lateral acceleration measurements and found the tests to be very repeatable.

The results of the repeatability tests indicate the standard deviation for sets of 10 test runs (conducted in opposite directions and left/right turn directions) ranged from 0.002 g to 0.013 g.

Heydinger, G. (2013). Repeatability of J-Turn Testing of Four Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Retrieved from

http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Sports-and-Recreation/ATVs/SEAReporttoCPSCRepeatabilityTestingSeptember%202013.pdf.

Comparison of the SSF, TTR, and A

values for each ROV indicate that there is a lack of correspondence between the static metrics (SSF and TTR) and the direct measurement of threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. Static metrics cannot be used to evaluate ROV rollover resistance because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by the ROVs during a J-turn maneuver. Therefore, the Commission believes that the lateral acceleration threshold at rollover is the most appropriate metric to use when measuring and comparing rollover resistance for ROVs.

C. Vehicle Handling

1. Basic Terms

•

Understeer:

Path of vehicle during a turn in which the vehicle steers less into a turn than the steering wheel angle input by the driver. If the driver does not correct for the understeer path of the vehicle, the vehicle continues on a straighter path than intended (see Figure 5).

•

Oversteer:

Path of vehicle during a turn in which the vehicle steers more into a turn than the steering wheel angle input by the driver. If the driver does not correct for the oversteer path of the vehicle, the vehicle spirals into the turn more than intended (see Figure 5).

•

Sub-limit understeer or sub-limit oversteer:

Steering condition that occurs while the tires have traction on the driving surface.

•

Limit understeer or limit oversteer:

Steering condition that occurs when the traction limits of the tires have been reached and the vehicle begins to slide.

EP19NO14.004

2. Staff's Technical Work

a. Constant Radius Test

SAE International (formerly Society of Automotive Engineers) standard, SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice,

Steady-State Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,

establishes test procedures to measure the vehicle handling properties of passenger cars and light trucks. ROVs obey the same principles of motion as automobiles because ROVs and automobiles share key characteristics, such as pneumatic

tires, a steering wheel, and spring-damper suspension that contribute to the dynamic response of the vehicle.

Thus, the test procedures to measure the vehicle handling properties of passenger cars and light trucks are also applicable to ROVs.

See Tab A of the CPSC staff's briefing package.

SEA used the constant radius test method, described in SAE J266, to evaluate the sample ROVs' handling characteristics. The test consists of driving each vehicle on a 100 ft. radius circular path from very low speeds, up to the speed where the vehicle experiences two-wheel lift or cannot be maintained on the path of the circle. The test vehicles were driven in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions. For a constant radius test, “understeer” is defined as the condition when the steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path increases as the vehicle speed increases because the vehicle is turning less than intended. “Neutral steer” is defined as the condition when the steering wheel angle required to maintain the circular path is unchanged as the vehicle speed increases. “Oversteer” is defined as the condition when the average steering wheel input required to maintain the circular path decreases as the vehicle speed increases because the vehicle is turning more than intended.

SEA tested 10 ROVs; five of those vehicles (A, D, F, I, and J) exhibited sub-limit transitions to oversteer when tested on asphalt (see Figure 6). The five remaining vehicles (B, C, E, G, and H) exhibited a sub-limit understeer condition for the full range of the test.

EP19NO14.005

b. Slowly Increasing Steer (SIS) Test

SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice,

Steady-State Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,

also establishes test procedures for the Constant Speed Variable Steer Angle Test. SEA calls this test the “constant speed slowly increasing steer (SIS) test.” During the SIS test, the ROV driver maintains a constant speed of 30 mph, and the vehicle's steering wheel angle is slowly increased at a rate of 5 degrees per second until the ROV reaches a speed limiting condition or tip-up. A programmable steering controller (PSC) was used to increase the steering angle at a constant rate of 5 degrees per second. During the test, instrumentation for speed, steering angle, lateral acceleration, roll angle, and yaw rate were recorded. SEA conducted SIS tests on the sample of 10 ROVs.

Figure 7 shows SIS test data plotted of lateral acceleration versus time for Vehicle A and Vehicle H. Vehicle H is the same model vehicle as Vehicle A, but Vehicle H is a later model year, where the sub-limit oversteer has been corrected to understeer.

Plots from the ROV SIS tests in Figure 7 illustrate a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral acceleration is exponential and represents a dynamically unstable

condition.

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

(Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 204-205.)

EP19NO14.006

The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains linear, and the lateral acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 seconds.

Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers.

SEA test results indicate that ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also exhibited a sudden increase in lateral acceleration that caused the vehicle to roll over. An ROV that exhibits this sudden increase in lateral acceleration is directionally unstable and uncontrollable.

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

Plots of the vehicle path during SIS tests illustrate further how an oversteering ROV (Vehicle A) will roll over earlier in a turn than an understeering ROV (Vehicle H), when the vehicles are operated at the same speed and steering rate (see Figure 8). Vehicle A and Vehicle H follow the same path until Vehicle A begins to oversteer and its turn radius becomes smaller. Vehicle A becomes dynamically unstable, its lateral acceleration increases exponentially, and the vehicle rolls over suddenly. In contrast, Vehicle H continues to travel 300 more feet in the turn before the vehicle reaches its threshold lateral acceleration and rolls over. A driver in Vehicle H has more margin (in time and distance) to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically unstable.

EP19NO14.007

The Commission believes that tests conducted by SEA provide strong evidence that sub-limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident, especially given the low rollover resistance of ROVs. All ROVs that exhibited sub-limit oversteer reached a dynamically unstable condition during a turn where the increase in lateral acceleration suddenly became exponential. The CPSC believes this condition can contribute to ROV rollover on level ground, and especially on pavement.

D. Occupant Protection

1. Overview and Basic Terms

The open compartment configuration of ROVs is intentional and allows for easy ingress and egress, but the configuration also increases the likelihood of complete or partial ejection of the occupants in a rollover event. ROVs are equipped with a ROPS, seat belts, and other restraints for the protection of occupants (see Figure 9). Occupants who remain in the ROV and surrounded by the ROPS, an area known as the protective zone, are generally protected from being crushed by the vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover. Seat belts are the primary restraint for keeping occupants within the protective zone of the ROPS.

EP19NO14.008

NHTSA evaluates the occupant protection performance of passenger vehicles with tests that simulate vehicle collisions and tests that simulate vehicle rollover.

The NHTSA tests use anthropometric test devices (ATDs), or crash test dummies, to evaluate occupant excursion and injury severity during the simulation tests. The occupant movement during these tests is called occupant kinematics. Occupant kinematics is defined as the occupant's motion during a crash event, including the relative motion between various body parts. Occupant kinematics is an important element of dynamic tests because forces act on an occupant from many different directions during a collision or rollover.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (1971) 49 CFR 571.208.

There are no standardized tests to evaluate the occupant protection performance of ROVs. However, a test to evaluate occupant protection performance in ROVs should be based on simulations of real vehicle rollover. In a rollover event, the vehicle experiences lateral acceleration and lateral roll. A valid simulation of an ROV rollover will reproduce the lateral acceleration and the roll rate experienced by an ROV during a real rollover event.

2. Seat belts

a. Seat Belt Use in Incidents

From the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the Commission, 817 victims were reported to be in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were known to have been injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the incident.

Of the 610 fatal and nonfatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 433 (71 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the ROV, and 269 (62 percent) of these victims were struck by a part of the vehicle, such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, after ejection. Seat belt use is also known for 374 of the 610 victims; of these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.

Of the 225 fatal victims who were in or on the ROV at the time of the incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected partially or fully from the vehicle, and 146 (75 percent) were struck by a part of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected victim; of these, 141 (91 percent) were not wearing a seat belt.

A total of 826 victims were involved in the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed the Commission's multidisciplinary team. Of these victims, 353 (43 percent) were known to be driving the ROV, and 203 (24 percent) were known to be a passenger in the front seat of the ROV. Of the 231 reported fatalities, 141 (61 percent) were the driver of the ROV, and 49 (21 percent) were the right front passenger in an ROV.

ROHVA also performed an analysis of hazard and risk issues associated with ROV-related incidents and determined that lack of seat belt use is the top incident factor.

ROHVA has stated: “Based on the engineering judgment of its members and its review of ROV incident data provided by the CPSC, ROHVA concludes that the vast majority of hazard patterns associated with ROV rollover would be eliminated through proper seat belt use alone.”

Heiden, E. (2009). Summary of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) Hazard Analysis. Memorandum from E. Heiden to P. Vitrano. Docket No. CPSC-2009-0087. Regulations.gov.

Yager, T. (2011) Letter to Caroleene Paul. 18 Apr. 2011. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) written response to CPSC staff's ballot on proposed American National Standard ANSI/ROHVA 1-201X.

a. Literature Review (Automotive)

CPSC staff reviewed the substantial body of literature on seat belt use in automobiles. (See Tab I of staff's briefing package.) Although seat belts are one of the most effective strategies for avoiding death and injury in motor vehicle crashes, seat belts are only effective if they are used.

Strategies for increasing seat belt use in passenger vehicles date to January 1, 1972, when NHTSA required all new cars to be equipped with passive restraints or with a seat belt reminder system that used a visual flashing light and audible buzzer that activated continuously for one minute if the vehicle was placed in gear with occupied front seat belts not belted. In 1973, NHTSA required that all new cars be equipped with an ignition interlock that allowed the vehicle to start only if the driver was belted. The ignition interlock was meant to be an interim measure until passive airbag technology matured, but public opposition to the technology led Congress to rescind the legislation and to prohibit NHTSA from requiring either ignition interlocks or continuous audible warnings that last more than 8 seconds. NHTSA then revised the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require a

seat belt reminder with warning light and audible buzzer that lasts 4 seconds to 8 seconds when front seat belts are not fastened at the time of ignition. This standard still applies today (15 U.S.C. 1410 (b)).

Work by NHTSA indicates seat belt users can be separated loosely into three categories: Full-time users, part-time users, and nonusers. Part-time users and nonusers give different reasons for not wearing seat belts. Part-time seat belt users consistently cite forgetfulness and perceived low risk, such as driving short distances or on familiar roads, as reasons for not using seat belts.

Block, 1998; Bradbard et al., 1998; Harrison and Senserrick, 2000; Bentley et al., 2003; Boyle and Vanderwolf, 2003; Eby et al., 2005; Boyle and Lampkin, 2008.

One approach to increasing vehicle occupant seat belt use is to provide in-vehicle reminders to encourage occupants to fasten their seat belts. However, possible systems vary considerably in design, intrusiveness, and, most importantly, effectiveness.

Observational studies of cars equipped with the original NHTSA-required seat belt reminders found no significant difference in seat belt use among vehicles equipped with the continuous one minute visual-audio system and vehicles not equipped with the reminder system.

After NHTSA adopted the less stringent 4-second to 8-second visual and audio reminder system requirements, NHTSA conducted observational and phone interview studies and concluded that the less intrusive reminder system was also not effective in increasing seat belt use.

Robertson, L. S. and Haddon, W. (1974). The Buzzer-Light Reminder System and Safety Belt Use.

American Journal of Public Health,

Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 814-815.; Robertson, L. S. (1975). Safety Belt Use in Automobiles with Starter-Interlock and Buzzer-Light Reminder Systems. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 1319-1325.

Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B. M. (1976). Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

A national research project by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute endeavored to promote safety belt use in the United States by developing an effective in-vehicle safety belt reminder system.

The project authors performed literature reviews and conducted surveys and focus groups to design an optimal safety belt reminder system. The authors concluded that principles for an optimal safety belt reminder system include the following:

Eby, D. W., Molnar, L. J., Kostyniuk, L. P., and Shope, J. T. (2005). Developing an Effective and Acceptable Safety Belt Reminder System. 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June 6-9, 2005.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot....01/esv/esv19/05-0171-O.pdf

1. The full-time safety belt user should not notice the system.

2. It should be more difficult to cheat on the system than to use the safety belt.

3. Permanent disconnection of the system should be difficult.

4. The system should be reliable and have a long life.

5. Crash and injury risk should not be increased as a result of the system.

6. System design should be based on what is known about the effectiveness and acceptability of system types and elements.

7. System design should be compatible with the manufacturer's intended purpose/goals for the system.

NHTSA conducted a study of enhanced seatbelt reminder (ESBR) effectiveness that compared results of controlled experiments with field observations of actual seat belt use. Among the findings of the ESBR effectiveness report are: (1) Systems with only visual reminders are not effective; (2) ESBR systems, in general, promote greater seat belt use by 3 to 4 percentage points; (3) more annoying systems are more effective, but that creates the challenge of designing an effective system that is acceptable; (4) potential gains in seat belt use not only come from simply reminding users, but also from motivating users, such as equating seat belt use with elimination of an annoyance; and (5) the positive effects of ESBRs on belt use were more pronounced for the low belt-use propensity groups.

Lerner, N., Singer, J., Huey, R., Jenness, J. (2007). Acceptability and Potential Effectiveness of Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder System Features. (DOT HS 810 848). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Freedman, M., Lerner, N., Zador, P., Singer, J., and Levi, S. (2009). Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal Reminder Systems. (DOT HS 811 097). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

c. Innovative Technologies

Automobiles.

Researchers developed more innovative in-vehicle technology, beyond visual and audible warnings, to study the effectiveness of systems that hindered a vehicle function if the driver's seat belt was not buckled. One system allowed drivers to start the vehicle but delayed the driver's ability to place the vehicle in gear if the seat belt was not buckled.

Follow-up systems made it more difficult for the driver to depress the gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 20-25 mph if the driver's seat belt was not buckled. Study participants were more receptive to the latter system, which was a consistent and forceful motivator to buckle the seat belt without affecting the general operation of the vehicle.

Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., Reagan, I., Sifrit, K., Compton, R., & Tenenbaum, J. (2010). Increasing Seat Belt Use in Service Vehicle Drivers with a Gearshift Delay.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43,

369-380.

Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and Reagan, I. (2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase Seat Belt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS 811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ROVs.

In 2010, Bombardier Recreation Products (BRP) introduced the Can-Am Commander 1000 ROV with a seat belt speed limiter system that restricts the vehicle speed to 9 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled. CPSC staff performed dynamic tests to verify that the vehicle's speed was limited when the driver's seat belt was not buckled. On level ground, the vehicle's speed was limited to 6 to 9 mph when the driver was unbelted, depending on the ignition key and transmission mode selected.

In 2013, BRP introduced the Can-Am Maverick vehicle as a sport-oriented ROV that also includes a seat belt speed limiter system. CPSC staff did not test the Maverick vehicle because a sample vehicle was not available for testing.

In 2014, Polaris Industries (Polaris) announced that model year 2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs will include a seatbelt system that limits the speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the seatbelt is not engaged. (Retrieved at:

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/machine/sidebyside-vehicles-soon-to-get-safety-improvements/story-fnkerd6b-1227023275396.)

The Commission has not tested these vehicles because they are not yet available on the market.

d. User Acceptance of Innovative Technologies in ROVs

Studies of seat belt reminder systems on automobiles are an appropriate foundation for ROV analysis because ROVs are typically driven by licensed drivers and the seating environment is similar to an automobile. Staff decided to obtain data on ROV users' experience and acceptance of seat belt reminders to validate the analysis.

CPSC staff was not aware of any studies that provide data on the effectiveness of seat belt reminder systems on ROVs or user acceptance of such technologies. Therefore, the CPSC contracted Westat, Inc. (Westat), to conduct focus groups with ROV users to explore their opinions of seat belt speed-limitation systems on ROVs. Phase 1 of the effort involved

conducting focus groups of ROV users and asking questions about ROV use and user opinions of the Can-Am speed-limitation system that were shown in a video to the participants. Results from Phase 1 were used to develop the protocol for Phase 2. Phase 2 of the effort conducts focus groups of ROV users who provide feedback after driving and interacting with an ROV equipped with a speed-limitation system.

Results of Phase 1 of the Westat study indicate that participants:

• Admit to being part-time seat belt users;

• cite familiarity and low-risk perception as reasons for not wearing seat belts;

• value easy ROV ingress and egress over seat belt use;

• generally travel around 5 mph when driving on their own property, and overall, drive 15 to 30 mph for typical use;

• had a mixed reaction to the speed-limitation technology at 10 mph;

• were more accepting of the speed-limitation technology if the speed was raised to 15 mph or if the system was tied to a key control.

Phase 2 of the Westat study is ongoing, and a report of the results is expected by December 2014. The results will provide data on ROV users' acceptance of a seat belt speed limitation technology with a threshold speed of 10 mph, 15 mph, and 20 mph. CPSC believes the results will provide additional rationale for determining a threshold speed for a seat belt speed limitation technology that balances users acceptance (as high a speed as possible) with safe operation of the ROV without seat belt use (as low a speed as possible).

3. CPSC's Technical Work

To explore occupant protection performance testing for a product for which no standard test protocol exists, CPSC staff contracted Active Safety Engineering (ASE) to conduct two exploratory pilot studies to evaluate potential test methods. After completion of the pilot studies, CPSC staff contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to conduct occupant protection performance evaluation tests, based on a more advanced test device designed by SEA.

The ASE and SEA reports are available on CPSC's Web site at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/.

a. Pilot Study 1

ASE used a HYGE

accelerator sled to conduct dynamic rollover simulations on sample ROVs, occupied by a Hybrid III 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The HYGE

system causes a stationary vehicle, resting on the test sled, to roll over by imparting a short-duration lateral acceleration to the test sled. The torso of an unbelted ATD ejected partially from the ROV during a simulated rollover. In comparison, the torso of a belted ATD remained in the ROV during a simulated rollover. The tests demonstrated that use of a seat belt prevented full ejection of the ATD's torso.

b. Pilot Study 2

In a follow-up pilot study, ASE used a deceleration platform sled rather than a HYGE

accelerator sled to impart the lateral acceleration to the test vehicle. The deceleration sled is more accurate than the HYGETM sled in re-creating the lower energy rollovers associated with ROVs.

An unbelted ATD ejected fully from the vehicle during tests conducted at the rollover threshold of the ROV. In comparison, a belted ATD partially ejected from the vehicle during tests conducted at the same lateral acceleration. These exploratory tests with belted and unbelted occupants indicate the importance of using seat belts to prevent full ejection of the occupant during a rollover event.

c. SEA Roll Simulator

SEA designed and built a roll simulator to measure and analyze occupant response during quarter-turn roll events of a wide range of machines, including ROVs. The SEA roll simulator produces lateral accelerations using a deceleration sled and produces roll rates using a motor to rotate the test sled (see Figure 10).

EP19NO14.009

SEA validated the roll simulator as an accurate simulation of ROV rollover and occupant kinematics by comparing roll rates, lateral accelerations, and ATD ejections that were created by the simulator with actual values measured during autonomous rollover. Results show that the roll simulator accurately re-creates the conditions of an ROV rollover. CPSC believes that the vehicle kinematics on the SEA rollover simulator accurately represent real-world events because SEA validated the sled kinematics against full-vehicle, real-world rollover events.

SEA simulated tripped and untripped rollovers of seven sample ROVs using belted and unbelted ATD occupants. Plots of the head excursion data indicate how well the vehicle's occupant protection features retain the occupant inside the protective zone of the ROPS during a roll simulation (see Figure 11). Head displacement plots above the ROPS Plane indicate the occupant's head stayed inside the ROPS zone, and plots below the ROPS Plane indicate that the occupant's head moved outside the ROPS zone.

EP19NO14.010

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

performance of belted occupants varied from vehicle to vehicle, depending on seat belt design, passive hip and shoulder coverage, whether the rollover was tripped or untripped, and ROPS dimensions and geometry.

CPSC staff analysis of the SEA roll simulator test results indicates that vehicles with the best occupant protection performance restricted movement of the occupant with combinations of quick-locking seat belts, passive coverage in the hip and shoulder areas of the occupant, and large ROPS zones around the occupant's head. Rollover tests indicate that a seat belt is effective at preventing full occupant ejection, but in some cases where the seat belt does not lock quickly, partial occupant ejection still occurs. However, when a seat belt is used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier restraint, testing indicates that the occupant remains within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during quarter-turn rollover events.

The SEA roll simulator test results also indicate that unbelted occupants are partially or fully ejected from all vehicles, regardless of the presence of other passive restraints, such as hip restraints or shoulder restraints. Although passive shoulder barriers may not provide substantial benefit for occupant protection in unbelted rollovers, the roll simulator test results indicate that shoulder restraints significantly improved occupant containment when used in conjunction with a seat belt.

Although the SEA roll simulator is the most advanced test equipment viewed by the Commission, to date, and the test results provide clear evidence of occupant head excursion, not enough test data have been generated to base dynamic occupant protection performance test requirements on a device like the roll simulator. Therefore, the Commission is using the roll simulator test results to focus on occupant protection requirements that maximize occupant retention through seat belt use with passive shoulder restraint.

d. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Occupant Protection Tests

CPSC staff tested 10 sample ROVs to the occupant retention system (ORS) zone requirements specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. Requirements are specified for Zone 1—Leg/Foot, Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip, Zone 3—Arm/Hand, and Zone 4—Head/Neck. CPSC focused on the requirements for Zone 2 because occupant ejection occurs in this zone.

See Tab H of the briefing package.

ANSI/ROHVA Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip requirements allow the vehicle to pass one of two different test methods to meet that zone's requirement. Under the first option, a construction-based method defines an area near the occupant's side that must be covered by a passive barrier. The test involves applying a 163-lbf. load at a point in the defined test area without failure or deformation of the barrier. Under the second option, a performance-based method specifies a tilt table test with a vehicle occupied by a belted test dummy. When the vehicle is tilted to 45 degrees on the tilt table, the ejection of the dummy must not exceed 5 inches beyond the vehicle width.

Results of CPSC tests indicate that only four of 10 vehicles passed the construction-based test requirements, and eight of 10 vehicles passed the performance-based test requirements.

CPSC analysis identified a primary weakness with the performance-based tilt table tests. The performance-based test criteria measure the torso excursion outside the vehicle width, not the excursion outside the protective zone of the ROPS. An occupant must remain inside the envelope of the ROPS to be protected; therefore, the requirement allows an inherently unsafe condition where the occupant moves outside the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS.

See Tab H of the briefing package.

CPSC measured the difference between the outermost point of the ROV and the outermost point on the ROPS near the occupant's head (see Figure 12). On one vehicle, the vehicle's maximum width was 6.75 inches outside the maximum ROPS width near the occupant's head. Because the requirement is based on a 5-inch limitation beyond the vehicle width, the occupant's torso could be 11.75 inches (6.75 inches plus 5 inches) outside of the vehicle ROPS and still meet the performance-based requirement.

EP19NO14.011

CPSC also compared the occupant head excursion relative to the torso excursion during the tilt table tests. Due to occupant rotation during the tests, the maximum head displacement exceeded the torso displacement by up to 3 inches. The discrepancy between head and torso displacement and between the vehicle width and ROPS' width can result in occupant head ejection that is 14.75 inches (11.75 inches plus 3 inches) outside the protective zone of the ROPS and still meet the performance-based requirement.

VII. Relevant Existing Standards

A. Background

Two different organizations developed separate voluntary standards for ROVs. The Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) developed ANSI/ROHVA 1,

American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles,

and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) developed ANSI/OPEI B71.9,

American National Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway Utility Vehicles.

ROHVA member companies include: Arctic Cat, BRP, Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/ROHVA 1 started in 2008, and work completed with the publication of ANSI/ROHVA 1-2010. The standard was immediately opened for revision, and a revised standard, ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011, was published in July 2011.

OPEI member companies include: Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was started in 2008, and work was completed with the publication of ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 in March 2012.

Both voluntary standards address design, configuration, and performance aspects of ROVs, including requirements for accelerator and brake controls; service and parking brake/parking mechanism performance; lateral and pitch stability; lighting; tires; handholds; occupant protection; labels; and owner's manuals.

CPSC staff participated in the canvass process used to develop consensus for ANSI/ROHVA 1 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9. From June 2009 to the present, CPSC staff has engaged actively with ROHVA and OPEI through actions that include the following:

• Sending correspondence to ROHVA and OPEI with comments on voluntary standard ballots that outlined CPSC staff's concerns that the voluntary standard requirements for lateral stability are too low, that requirements for vehicle handling are lacking, and that requirements for occupant protection are not robust;

• Participating in public meetings with ROHVA and OPEI to discuss development of the voluntary standard and to discuss static and dynamic tests performed by contractors on behalf of CPSC staff;

• Sharing all CPSC contractor reports with test results of static and dynamic tests performed on ROVs by making all reports available on the CPSC Web site;

• Requesting copies of test reports on dynamic tests performed on ROVs by ROHVA for CPSC staff to review;

• Demonstrating dynamic test procedures and data collection to ROHVA and OPEI at a public meeting at an outdoor test facility in East Liberty, OH; and

• Submitting suggested changes and additions to the ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 voluntary standard to improve lateral stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection (OPEI was copied).

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 was published in July 2011, without addressing CPSC staff's concerns. CPSC staff requested, but has not received reports or test results of static or dynamic tests conducted by contractors on behalf of ROHVA.

ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 was published in March 2012, without addressing CPSC staff's concerns.

On August 29, 2013, CPSC staff sent a letter to ROHVA with suggested modifications to the voluntary standard requirements to address staff's concerns. CPSC staff sent a courtesy copy of the August 29, 2013 recommendation letter to OPEI. On November 27, 2013, ROHVA responded that ROHVA plans to adopt less stringent versions of CPSC staff's suggested requirements to improve the lateral stability and occupant protection performance of ROVs. On March 13, 2014, ROHVA sent CPSC staff the Canvass Draft of proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. Staff responded to the Canvass Draft on May 23, 2014, and summarized why staff believes ROHVA's proposed requirements will not reduce the number of deaths and injuries from ROVs. The discussion below also provides that explanation. On September 24, 2014, ANSI approved the proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011, which is identical to the Canvass Draft. ROHVA has advised that the revised standard will soon be published as ANSI/ROHVA 1-2014. In addition, CPSC staff met with representatives from ROHVA and OPEI on October 23, 2014. Following is a link to the video of this meeting:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/Multimedia/?vid=70952.

On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff requesting that the CPSC exclude from CPSC's rulemaking efforts multipurpose off-highway utility vehicles (MOHUVs) that meet the ANSI/OPEI B71.9-12 standard requirements. We address this request in the response to comments section of this preamble (Section VIII).

B. Voluntary Standards Provisions Related to the Proposed Rule

In this section, we summarize the provisions of the voluntary standards that are related to the specific requirements the Commission is proposing and we assess the adequacy of these voluntary standard provisions.

1. Lateral Stability

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to address static lateral stability and differing provisions to address dynamic lateral stability:

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.2 Stability Coefficient (K

) and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 8.6 Stability Coefficient (K

) specify a stability coefficient, K

st,

which is calculated from the vehicle's center of gravity location and track-width dimensions. The value of K

for a vehicle at curb weight (without occupants) is required to be no less than 1.0.

Adequacy:

The Commission believes the stability coefficient requirement does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs in a dynamic maneuver. For practical purposes, K

and SSF values provide the same information for ROVs because the difference in front and rear track widths are averaged in the SSF calculation. Table 4 shows the results of SSF measurements made by SEA for driver-plus-passenger load condition. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the SSF (or K

) were used instead of the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover (A

) illustrates how poorly a stability coefficient correlates to the actual rollover resistance of the vehicle. The stability coefficient does not account for dynamic effects of tire compliance, suspension compliance, or vehicle handling, which are important factors in the vehicle's lateral stability.

Table 4—Vehicle Ascending Rank Order A

vs. SSF

[Operator plus passenger load]

Vehicle

rank

)

(g)

Vehicle

rank

(SSF)

SSF

0.625

0.881

0.655

0.887

0.670

0.918

0.670

0.932

0.675

0.942

0.690

0.962

0.700

0.965

0.705

0.991

0.740

1.031

0.785

1.045

Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Vehicle J. Retrieved from

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf

Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested pass the K

minimum of 1.0 for an unoccupied vehicle, as specified by ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-12. The K

value of an ROV with no occupants is of limited value because an ROV in use has at least one occupant. The Commission believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI stability coefficient requirement is a requirement that all ROVs can pass, does not reflect the actual use of ROVs, does not promote improvement in lateral stability, and does not correspond to the actual rollover resistance of ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct measure for rollover resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for a stability coefficient requirement.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.1 Tilt Table Test and ANSI/OPEI Section 8.7 Tilt Table Stability specify tilt table tests in the driver-plus-passenger load condition and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) load condition. The minimum tilt table angle (TTA) requirement for an ROV with a driver-plus-passenger load condition is 30 degrees, and the minimum TTA for GVWR load condition is 24 degrees.

Adequacy:

The CPSC believes the tilt table requirement does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs in a dynamic maneuver. Table 5 shows the results of tilt table measurements made by SEA for driver-plus-passenger load condition. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the TTA were used instead of the direct measurement of threshold lateral acceleration at rollover (A

) illustrates how poorly the TTA corresponds to the actual rollover resistance of the vehicle. The tilt table test does not account for dynamic effects of tire compliance, suspension compliance, or vehicle handling, which are important factors in the vehicle's lateral stability.

Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested passed the minimum 30 degree TTA requirement specified by ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. The ROV with the lowest rollover resistance, as directly measured by threshold lateral acceleration at rollover (Vehicle D, A

= 0.625 g, TTA = 33.7 degrees), exceeds the voluntary standard TTA requirement by 3.7 degrees, or 12 percent above the 30 degree minimum. The ROV that was part of a repair program to increase its roll resistance, Vehicle A, exceeds the TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 percent above the 30 degree minimum.

Table 5—Vehicle Ascending Rank Order Ay vs. TTA

[Operator plus passenger load]

Vehicle

rank

)

(g)

Vehicle

rank

(TTA)

TTA

(deg.)

0.625

33.0

0.655

33.6

0.670

33.7

0.670

35.4

0.675

35.9

0.690

36.1

0.700

36.4

0.705

38.1

0.740

38.8

0.785

39.0

Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Vehicle J. Retrieved from

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf.

The CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement does not detect inadequate rollover resistance. The TTA requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual rollover resistance of ROVs, allows a vehicle that was part of repair program to pass the test without having undergone the repair, and provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral stability of ROVs. The CPSC believes the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct measure of rollover resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for a tilt table test requirement.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 8.3 Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic stability test based on a constant steer angle test performed on pavement. The standard describes the method for driving the vehicle around a 25-foot radius circle and slowly increasing the speed until 0.6 g of lateral acceleration is achieved; or 0.6 g lateral acceleration cannot be achieved because the vehicle experiences two-wheel lift of the inside wheels, or the vehicle speed is limited and will not increase with further throttle input. The vehicle passes the dynamic test if at least eight out of 10 test runs do not result in two-wheel lift.

Adequacy:

The CPSC does not believe the ANSI/ROHVA requirement accurately characterizes the lateral stability of an ROV because it does not measure the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. The Commission is not aware of any standards, recognized test protocols, or real-world significance that supports using a constant steer angle test to assess dynamic lateral stability.

CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct constant steer angle testing, as specified by the ROHVA standard, on vehicles A, F, and J of the ROV study.

Table 6 shows the results of the tests.

Heydinger, G. J. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers—Vehicles A, F, and J. Retrieved from:

http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.

)

Table 6—Summary of Constant Steer Angle Test for 25 ft. Radius Path

Vehicle

Turn direction

(CW = clockwise

CCW = counter-clockwise)

Test end condition/limit response

ROHVA Test

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.**

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/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.

The Commission is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability can pass ROHVA's dynamic stability requirement because the small turn radius limits the ROV's speed and prevents generation of the lateral accelerations necessary to assess rollover resistance (as shown by the results for Vehicle F). The Commission is also concerned that the effects of oversteer can allow an ROV to pass the test because maximum speed is reached by vehicle spinout (as shown by the results for Vehicle J).

NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure the rollover resistance of automobiles.

NHTSA determined that the J-turn test is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance. Vehicles with low rollover resistance exhibit untripped rollover on pavement during a J-turn test and the lateral acceleration at the rollover threshold can be measured. Lateral acceleration is the accepted measure by vehicle engineers for assessing lateral stability or rollover resistance.

This value is commonly used by engineers to compare rollover resistance from one vehicle to another. The ANSI/ROHVA test protocol does not measure the lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the parameters of the test appear tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. Based on CPSC's testing and review, the Commission does not believe the ANSI/ROHVA dynamic stability requirement is a true measure of rollover resistance, and the CPSC does not believe the requirement will improve the lateral stability of ROVs.

Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 309-319.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 8.8 Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic stability test based on a 20 mph J-turn maneuver performed on pavement. At a steering input of 180 degrees in the right and left directions, the vehicle shall not exhibit two-wheel lift.

Adequacy:

The Commission does not believe the ANSI/OPEI requirement accurately characterizes the lateral stability of an ROV because the ANSI/OPEI requirement does not measure the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. The Commission is not aware of any standards or recognized test protocols that support using a J-turn maneuver with 180 degrees of steering wheel input to assess dynamic lateral stability of an ROV.

OPEI's use of the J-turn maneuver does not measure the lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift that produces ROV rollover. There is no correspondence between the proposed ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability requirement and ROV lateral stability because the 180-degree steering wheel input does not correspond to a turning radius. For example, an ROV with a low steering ratio will make a sharper turn at 180 degrees of steering wheel input than an ROV with a high steering ratio. (The steering ratio relates the amount that the steering wheel is turned to the amount that the wheels of the vehicle turns. A higher steering ratio means the driver turns the steering wheel more to get the vehicle wheels to turn, and a lower steering ratio means the driver turns the steering wheel less to get the vehicle wheels to turn.) In the proposed ANSI/ROHVA J-turn test, a vehicle with a larger steering ratio will make a wider turn and generate less lateral acceleration than a vehicle with a smaller steering ratio.

The steering ratio is set by the ROV manufacturer and varies depending on make and model. SEA measured the steering ratios of the 10 sample ROVs that were tested (see Figure 13). If the dynamic lateral stability requirement is defined by a steering wheel angle input, a manufacturer could increase the steering ratio of a vehicle to meet the requirement rather than improve the vehicle's stability.

EP19NO14.012

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

Table 7—Summary of J-Turn Test Results

[20 mph with 180 degrees steering wheel angle input]

Vehicle

Turn direction

Speed required for 2-wheel

OPEI 20 mph test

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/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.

CPSC is concerned that ROVs with low lateral stability can pass OPEI's dynamic stability requirement because an ROV that was part of a repair program (Vehicle A) to increase its roll resistance passed the ANSI/OPEI stability test. When the ANSI/OPEI J-turn maneuver was conducted just one mile above the requirement at 21 mph, Vehicle A failed. Similarly, when the maneuver was conducted at 22 mph, Vehicle F and Vehicle J failed. These results indicate that the parameters of the test protocol allow most ROVs to pass.

NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test protocol as a method to measure rollover resistance of automobiles and determined that the J-turn test is the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance.

Vehicles with low rollover resistance exhibit untripped rollover on pavement during a J-turn test and the lateral acceleration at the rollover threshold can be measured. Lateral acceleration is the accepted measure by vehicle engineers for assessing lateral stability or rollover resistance.

This value is commonly used by engineers to compare rollover resistance from one vehicle to another. The ANSI/OPEI test protocol does not measure the lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the parameters of the test appear tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. Based on CPSC's testing and review, the CPSC does not believe the ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability requirement is a true measure of rollover resistance, and the CPSC does not believe the requirement will improve the lateral stability of ROVs.

Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 309-319.

2. Vehicle Handling

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 both lack provisions to address vehicle handling:

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 do not specify a vehicle handling requirement.

Adequacy:

CPSC's testing and review indicate that a requirement for sub-limit understeer is necessary to reduce ROV rollovers that may be produced by sub-limit oversteer in ROVs. Tests conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a condition where the lateral acceleration increases suddenly and exponentially.

The CPSC believes this condition can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and experience tripped rollover.

ROVs that understeer in sub-limit conditions do not exhibit a sudden increase in lateral acceleration. Therefore, the CPSC concludes that ROVs should be required to operate in understeer at sub-limit conditions based on the associated inherent dynamic stability of understeering ROVs and the smaller burden of steering correction it places on the average driver who is familiar with driving a passenger vehicle that operates in sub-limit understeer.

SIS tests conducted by SEA that illustrate the sudden increase in lateral acceleration that is found only in vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. The sudden increase in lateral acceleration is exponential and represents a dynamically unstable condition. This condition is undesirable because it can cause a vehicle with low lateral stability (such as an ROV) to roll over suddenly.

In Figure 14, Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same model ROV, but a later model year in which the oversteer has been corrected to understeer.

EP19NO14.013

When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the lateral acceleration suddenly increased in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled over. In contrast, Vehicle H never reaches a dynamically unstable condition because the condition does not develop in understeering vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains linear, and Vehicle H rolls over more than 5 seconds later than Vehicle A.

3. Occupant Protection

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011and ANSI/OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions to address occupant retention during a rollover event.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 11.2 Seat Belt Reminder and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 5.1.3.2 Seat Belt Reminder System specify that ROVs shall be equipped with a seat belt reminder system that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the operator for at least 8 seconds after the vehicle is started.

Adequacy:

The CPSC believes the requirement for an 8-second reminder light is not adequate to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs because the system is not intrusive enough to motivate drivers and passengers to wear their seat belts. Results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies also conclude that reminder systems must be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.

The Commission's analysis of ROV-related incidents indicates that 91 percent of fatal victims, and 73 percent of all victims (fatal and nonfatal), were not wearing a seat belt at the time of the incident. Without seat belt use, occupants experience partial to full ejection from the ROV, and many occupants are struck by the ROV after ejection. Based on review of ROV incident data and CPSC's testing described above, the Commission believes that many ROV deaths and injuries can be eliminated if occupants are wearing seat belts.

Automotive researchers have developed technology that motivates drivers to buckle seat belts by making it more difficult to drive faster than 20-25 mph if the driver's seat belt is not buckled.

This concept shows promise in increasing seat belt use because the technology was acceptable to users and was 100 percent effective in motivating drivers to buckle their seat belts. One ROV manufacturer has also introduced a technology that limits the vehicle speed if the driver's seat belt is not buckled. ROVs with the speed-limitation technology have been in the market since 2010.

Given the low seat belt use rate in ROV-related incidents, as well as the substantial potential reduction in injuries and deaths if seat belt use were higher, the CPSC believes that the requirement for seat belt reminders should be more stringent and should incorporate the most recent advances in technology developed in the automotive and ROV market.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 Section 11.3 ORS Zones specifies construction and performance requirements for four zones that cover the leg/foot, shoulder/hip, arm/hand, and head/neck areas of an occupant. (Occupant retention system (ORS) is defined in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 as a system, including three-point seat belts, for retaining the occupant(s) of a vehicle to reduce the probability of injury in the event of an accident.) The construction requirements specify a force application test to set minimum guidelines for the design of doors, nets, and other barriers that are intended to keep occupants within the protection zone of the ROPS. The performance requirements use a tilt table and a Hybrid III 50th percentile male anthropomorphic test device (ATD) to determine occupant excursion when the vehicle is tilted 45 degrees laterally.

Adequacy:

The CPSC believes the tilt table performance requirements for Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip are not adequate to ensure that occupants remain within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a rollover event. The tilt table test method measures the torso ejection outside the vehicle width, not the ejection outside the protective zone of the ROPS. The CPSC's test results indicate the tilt table test allows unacceptable occupant head excursion beyond the protective zone of the vehicle ROPS. The Commission also believes the tilt table test method is not an accurate simulation of an ROV rollover event because the test method does not reproduce the lateral acceleration and roll experienced by the vehicle, and by extension, the occupants, during a rollover.

CPSC staff also believes the construction-based test method for Zone 2 is inadequate because the specified point of application (a single point) and 3-inch diameter test probe do not accurately represent contact between an occupant and the vehicle during a rollover event. Specifying a single point does not ensure adequate coverage because a vehicle with a passive barrier at only that point would pass the test. Similarly, a 3 inch diameter probe does not represent the upper arm of an occupant and therefore does not ensure adequate coverage.

Voluntary Standard Requirement:

ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 Section 5.1.4 Occupant Side Retention Devices specifies ROVs shall be equipped with occupant side retention devices that reduce the probability of entrapment of a properly belted occupant's head, upper torso, and limbs between the vehicle and the terrain, in the event of a lateral rollover. Physical barriers or design features of the vehicle may be used to comply with the requirement, but no performance tests are specified to determine compliance with the requirement.

Adequacy:

The Commission believes the occupant side retention requirements are not adequate because they lack performance requirements to gauge occupant protection performance. Performance requirements, based on occupant protection performance tests of ROV rollovers, are needed to ensure that occupants remain within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a rollover event.

VIII. Response to Comments

In this section, we describe and respond to comments to the ANPR for ROVs. We present a summary of each of the commenter's topics, followed by the Commission's response. The Commission received 116 comments. The comments can be viewed on:

www.regulations.gov,

by searching under the docket number of the ANPR, CPSC-2009-0087. Letters with multiple and detailed comments were submitted by the following:

Joint comments submitted on behalf of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. (Companies);

Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI);

The OPEI/ANSI B 71.9 Committee (Committee); and

ROHVA.

The respondents were ROV manufacturers and their associations, consultants to ROV manufacturers, and more than 110 consumers. Eighteen commenters supported developing regulatory standards for ROVs. The other commenters opposed rulemaking action. The commenters raised issues in five areas:

• Voluntary standard activities,

• Static stability metrics,

• Vehicle handling,

• Occupant protection, and

• Consumer behavior.

The comment topics are separated by category.

Voluntary Standard Activities

Comment:

Comments from the Companies, ROHVA, and several individuals state that the CPSC should work with ROHVA to develop a consensus voluntary standard for ROVs.

Response:

As described in detail in the previous section of this preamble, CPSC staff has been engaged actively with ROHVA since 2009, to express staff's concerns about the voluntary standard and to provide specific recommendations for the voluntary standard and supply ROHVA with CPSC's test results and data supporting the staff's recommendations.

CPSC believes the history of engagement with ROHVA, as detailed above, shows that CPSC staff has tried to work with ROHVA to improve the voluntary standard requirements to address low lateral stability, lack of vehicle handling requirements, and inadequate occupant protection requirements. The Commission does not believe deferring to ROHVA will address those areas of concern because, although ROHVA has made changes to the voluntary standard, the requirements still do not improve the lateral stability of ROVs, do not eliminate sub-limit oversteer handling, and do not improve occupant protection in a rollover event.

Comment:

Comments from the Committee and ROHVA state that the Commission should defer to the current voluntary standards for ROVs. Several comments state that the current voluntary standards are adequate.

Response:

In the previous section of this preamble, we explain in detail why the requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 do not adequately address the risk of injury and death associated with ROVs. We summarize that explanation below.

Lateral Stability.

The Commission believes the static stability requirements and the dynamic lateral stability requirements specified in both voluntary standards do not measure the vehicle's resistance to rollover. Static and dynamic tests conducted by SEA on a sample of ROVs available in the U.S. market indicate that the tests specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and the ANSI/OPEI B71.9 will not promote improvement in the rollover resistance of ROVs.

Vehicle Handling.

In addition, ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 do not have requirements for vehicle handling. The Commission believes that a requirement for sub-limit understeer is necessary to reduce ROV rollovers that may be produced by sub-limit oversteer in ROVs. Tests

conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a condition where the lateral acceleration increases suddenly and exponentially. The Commission believes this runaway increase in lateral acceleration can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and experience tripped rollover.

Occupant Protection.

ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9—2012 require only an 8-second reminder light to motivate users to buckle seat belts. This requirement is similar to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) seat belt reminder requirements for automobiles. Manufacturers in the automotive industry have long since exceeded such minimal seat belt reminder requirements because numerous studies have proven that the FMVSS requirements, and indeed visual-only reminders, are not effective.

Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B.M. (1976). Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Lastly, the occupant protection requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 are not based on valid occupant protection performance tests that simulate conditions of vehicle rollover. ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012 does not include any performance requirements for occupant protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 includes performance requirements based on static tilt tests that allow unacceptable occupant head ejection beyond the protective zone of the vehicle ROPS.

Comment:

On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff requesting that the CPSC exclude multipurpose off-highway utility vehicles (MOHUVs) from CPSC's rulemaking efforts. OPEI states that there are key differences between work-utility vehicles and recreational vehicles. The differences include: Maximum vehicle speed, engine and powertrain design, cargo box configuration and capacity, towing provisions, and vehicle usage.

Response:

The Commission's proposed requirements for lateral stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection are intended to reduce deaths and injuries caused by ROV rollover and occupant ejection. ROVs are motorized vehicles that are designed for off-highway use and have four or more tires, steering wheel, non-straddle seating, accelerator and brake pedals, ROPS, restraint system, and maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 mph.

“MOHUVs,” as defined by ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012, are vehicles with four or more wheels, a steering wheel, non-straddle seating, and maximum speed between 25 and 50 mph. Therefore, the Commission believes that an MOHUV that exceeds 30 mph is an ROV that is subject to the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The differences cited by OPEI between work-utility vehicles and recreational vehicles,

e.g.,

the cargo capacity or the powertrain of a vehicle, do not exclude these ROVs from the hazard of rollover and occupant ejection.

Static Stability Metrics

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that the Static Stability Factor (SSF), defined as T/2H, is not an appropriate metric for stability because there is no correlation between SSF values and ROV rollovers.

Response:

The Commission agrees that the SSF is not an appropriate metric for ROV lateral stability because CPSC staff compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that static measures (whether K

, SSF, or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the vehicle's rollover resistance. The static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover (Ay) is the most appropriate metric to use because it is a direct measure of the vehicle's resistance to rollover.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies and the Committee state that NHTSA decided not to implement a minimum SSF standard for on-road vehicles because it would have forced the radical redesign of the characteristics of many, and in some cases, all vehicles of certain classes, which would have raised issues of public acceptance and possibly even the elimination of certain classes of vehicles.

Response:

Contrary to the comment's implication that setting a minimum lateral stability (in this case SSF) is detrimental to vehicle design, and that NHTSA abandoned the use of SSF, NHTSA concluded that there is a causal relationship between SSF and rollover, and NHTSA has incorporated the SSF in its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) rating of vehicles. In June 1994, NHTSA terminated rulemaking to establish a minimum standard for rollover resistance because it would be difficult to develop a minimum stability standard that would not disqualify whole classes of passenger vehicles (light trucks and sport utility vehicles) that consumers demand. Instead, by January 2001, NHTSA concluded that consumer information on the rollover risk of passenger cars would influence consumers to purchase vehicles with a lower rollover risk and inspire manufacturers to produce vehicles with a lower rollover risk.

NHTSA found consistently that given a single-vehicle crash, the SSF is a good statistical predictor of the likelihood that the vehicle will roll over.

The number of single-vehicle crashes was used as an index of exposure to rollover because this method eliminates the additional complexity of multi-vehicle impacts and because about 82 percent of light vehicle rollovers occur in single-vehicle crashes. NHTSA decided to use the SSF to indicate the risk of rollover in single-vehicle crashes and to incorporate the new rating into NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Based on NHTSA's statistical analysis of single-vehicle crash data and vehicle SSF value, the NCAP provides a 5-star rating system. One star represents a 40 percent or higher risk of rollover in a single vehicle crash; two stars represent a risk of rollover between 30 percent and 40 percent; three stars represent a risk of rollover between 20 percent and 29 percent; four stars represent a risk of rollover between 10 percent and 19 percent; and five stars represent a risk of rollover of less than 10 percent.

Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html

Rollover Prevention Docket No. NHTSA-2000-6859 RIN 2127-AC64. Retrieved from

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/rollover/Chapt05.html.

A subsequent study of SSF trends in automobiles found that SSF values increased for all vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, and SUVs tended to have the worst SSF values in the earlier years. NHTSA's intention that manufacturers improve the lateral stability of passenger vehicles was achieved through the NCAP rating, a rating based predominantly on the SSF value of the vehicle.

Based on dynamic stability tests conducted by SEA and improvements in the Yamaha Rhino after the repair program was initiated, the Commission believes that setting a minimum rollover resistance value for ROVs can improve the lateral stability of the current market of ROVs, without forcing radical designs or elimination of any models. The Commission also believes continued increase in ROV lateral stability can be achieved by making the value of each model vehicle's threshold lateral

acceleration at rollover available to consumers. Publication of an ROV model's rollover resistance value on a hang tag will allow consumers to make informed purchasing decisions regarding the comparative lateral stability of ROVs. In addition, publication of rollover resistance will provide a competitive incentive for manufacturers to improve the rollover resistance of their ROVs.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies and the Committee state that K

is the more appropriate stability factor than SSF because it accounts for differences in the rear and track width, as well as differences in the fore and aft location of the vehicle's center of gravity.

Response:

is a three-dimensional calculation of the two-dimensional SSF, and when the front and rear track widths are equal, K

equals SSF. For practical purposes, K

and SSF provide the same information on ROVs. Occupant-loaded values of K

and SSF are informative to the design process of ROVs; however, K

and SSF values do not account for all the dynamic factors that affect actual rollover resistance. Therefore, they do not represent the best stability metric for ROVs.

The Commission compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that the static measures (whether K

, SSF, or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the vehicle's actual lateral stability. Direct dynamic measurement of the vehicle's resistance to rollover is possible with ROVs. Therefore, the Commission believes that J-turn testing to determine the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover should be used as the standard requirement to determine lateral stability.

Comment:

Comments from CEI and the Companies state that tilt table angle or tilt table ratio should be used as a measure of lateral stability.

Response:

As stated above, the staff compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that the static measures (whether it is K

or SSF or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the vehicle's actual lateral stability.

The Commission believes that the tilt table requirement in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 does not adequately address lateral stability in ROVs. A comparison of how the vehicles would rank if the TTA were used instead of the direct measurement of lateral acceleration at rollover (A

) illustrates how poorly the TTA correlates to the actual rollover resistance of the vehicle. The tilt table test does not account for dynamic effects of tire compliance, suspension compliance, and vehicle handling, which are important factors in the vehicle's lateral stability.

Direct dynamic measurement of the vehicle's resistance to rollover is possible with ROVs. Therefore, the Commission believes that J-turn testing to determine the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover should be used as the standard requirement to determine lateral stability.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies state that the ANSI/ROHVA 1,

American National Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles,

lateral stability requirement of K

= 1 and TTA = 30 degrees is adequate and should be adopted by CPSC.

Response:

SEA tested 10 representative ROV samples to the tilt table requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011. All of the ROVs tested pass the minimum 30-degree TTA, which indicates that the tilt table requirement is a status quo test. Vehicle D, the vehicle with the lowest rollover resistance (A

= 0.625 g, TTA = 33.7 degrees), exceeds the TTA requirement by 3.7 degrees, or 12 percent above the 30-degree minimum requirement. Vehicle A, the ROV that was part of a repair program to increase its roll resistance, exceeds the TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 percent above the 30-degree minimum.

CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement is a requirement that all ROVs can pass and will not promote improvement among vehicles that have lower rollover resistance. The TTA requirement in the voluntary standard does not correlate to the actual rollover resistance of ROVs; the requirement allows the Yamaha Rhino to pass the test without having undergone the repair; and the requirement provides no incentive for manufacturers to improve the lateral stability of ROVs. The Commission believes that the threshold lateral acceleration at rollover value is a direct measure for rollover resistance, and its use would eliminate the need for tilt table testing as a requirement.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies, the Committee, and several individuals state that the SSF values recommended by CPSC staff for ROVs would make the vehicles unusable for off-road use and would eliminate this class of vehicle.

Response:

Based on the testing and data discussed in this preamble, CPSC staff no longer recommends using the SSF value as a measure of an ROV's rollover resistance. The SSF value of a vehicle represents the best theoretical lateral stability that the vehicle can achieve. CPSC staff compared the actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn test, and found that the static measures (whether it is K

st,

or SSF, or TTA) are not accurate predictors of the vehicle's actual lateral stability due to the extreme compliance in the vehicle's suspension and tires. Therefore, the Commission believes that neither the K

st,

nor the SSF is an accurate measure of an ROV's lateral stability. Rather, the vehicle's actual lateral acceleration at rollover threshold is the appropriate measure of the vehicle's lateral stability.

Vehicle Handling

Comment:

Comments from CEI and the Companies state that measurements of understeer/oversteer made on pavement are not applicable to non-pavement surfaces. ROVs are intended for off-highway use and any pavement use is product misuse, they assert.

Response:

Both the ANSI/ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI standards specify dynamic testing on a paved surface. This indicates that ROHVA and OPEI agree that testing of ROVs on pavement is appropriate because pavement has a uniform high-friction surface. Tests conducted on pavement show how the vehicle responds at lateral accelerations that range from low lateral accelerations (associated with low friction surfaces like sand) up to the highest lateral acceleration that can be generated by friction at the vehicle's tires. This provides a complete picture of how the vehicle handles on all level surfaces. The amount of friction at the tires, and thus, the lateral accelerations generated, varies on non-paved surfaces. However, the vehicle's handling at each lateral acceleration does not change when the driving surface changes.

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that CEI has performed various tests and analyses on ROVs that demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit oversteer are not unstable.

Response:

The Commission disagrees with the statement that ROVs that exhibit oversteer are stable. Vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer have a unique and undesirable characteristic, marked by a sudden increase in lateral acceleration during a turn. This dynamic instability is called critical speed and is described by Thomas D. Gillespie in the

Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics

as the speed “above which the vehicle will be unstable.”

Gillespie further explains that an oversteer vehicle “becomes

directionally unstable at and above the critical speed” because the lateral acceleration gain approaches infinity.

Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 204-205.

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

EP19NO14.014

When Vehicle A reached its dynamically unstable condition, the lateral acceleration suddenly increased from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a dynamically unstable condition because the condition does not develop in understeering vehicles. The increase in Vehicle H's lateral acceleration remains linear, and the lateral acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 seconds. A driver in Vehicle H has more margin to correct the steering to prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle A because Vehicle H remains in understeer during the turn, while Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and becomes dynamically unstable.

Tests conducted by SEA provide strong evidence that sub-limit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident, especially given the low rollover resistance of ROVs.

Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of Vehicle Design Parameters on Characteristic Speed and Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957). Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control and Stability. SAE 570044.

Comment:

Comments from CEI and the Companies state that all vehicles, whether they understeer or oversteer, can be driven to limit conditions and can spin or plough. Any vehicle can exhibit “limit oversteer” through manipulation by the driver.

Response:

The Commission does not dispute that operator input and road conditions can affect limit oversteer or understeer in a vehicle. The vehicle handling requirements proposed by the Commission specify that vehicles exhibit sub-limit understeer. The Commission believes that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident. Ten sample ROVs were tested by SEA; five of the 10 vehicles exhibited a desirable sub-limit understeer condition, and five exhibited a transition to undesirable sub-limit oversteer condition. CPSC's evaluation indicates that ROVs can be designed to understeer with minimal cost and without diminishing the utility or recreational value of this class of vehicle.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies state that oversteer is desirable for path-following capability. Specifically, vehicles in oversteer will generally follow the path and allow directional control of the vehicle. High rear tire slip angles and tire longitudinal slip are needed for traction on off-highway surfaces, such as loose soil.

Response:

The Commission is not aware of any studies that define “path-following capability” and its relation to the sub-limit understeer or oversteer design of the vehicle. Of the 10 sample ROVs tested by SEA, five vehicles exhibited a desirable sub-limit understeer condition. The Commission is not aware of any reports of the steering of sub-limit understeering vehicles causing loss of control or preventing the driver from navigating off-road terrain.

A significant body of research has been developed over many years regarding the science of vehicle dynamic handling and control. The Commission has reviewed technical papers regarding vehicle handling research and finds no agreement with the statement that “a vehicle in an oversteer condition will generally follow the path and allow directional control of the vehicle to be maintained longer.” In fact, the Commission's research finds universal characterization of sub-limit oversteer as directionally unstable, highly undesirable, and dynamically unstable at or above the

critical speed.

The Commission's review of 80 years of automotive research did not find support for the suggestion that sub-limit oversteer provides superior precision in handling and control.

Olley, M. (1934). Independent Wheel Suspension—Its Whys and Wherefores. SAE 340080.; Stonex, K. A. (1941). Car Control Factors and Their Measurement. SAE 410092.; Segel, L. (1957). Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control and Stability. SAE 570044.; Bergman, W. (1965). The Basic Nature of Vehicle Understeer—Oversteer. SAE 650085.; Bundorf, R. T. and Leffert, R. L. (1976). The Cornering Compliance Concept for Description of Vehicle Directional Control Properties. SAE 760713.; and Milliken, William F., Jr., et al. (1976). The Static Directional Stability and Control of the Automobile. SAE 760712.

Likewise, limit oversteer is described by the Companies as the result of the driver “operating the vehicle in a turn at a speed beyond what is safe and reasonable for that turn or applying excessive power in a turn.” A vehicle in limit oversteer is essentially sliding with the rear of the vehicle rotating about the yaw axis. A vehicle in a slide is susceptible to a tripped rollover. ROVs have low rollover resistance and are at high risk of a violent, tripped rollover. Autonomous vehicle testing by SEA has duplicated these limit oversteer conditions and found that tripped rollovers can create in excess of 2 g to 3 g of instantaneous lateral acceleration, which produces a violent rollover event. CPSC's evaluation indicates that eliminating sub-limit oversteer will reduce unintentional transitions to limit oversteer.

The Commission does not agree that producing power oversteer by spinning the rear wheels is a necessity for negotiating low-friction, off-highway surfaces. Drifting or power oversteering is a risky practice that presents tripped rollover hazards and does not improve the vehicle's controllability. However, the practice of power oversteering is the result of driver choices that are not under the control of the manufacturer or the CPSC, and will not be significantly affected by the elimination of sub-limit oversteer.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies state that requiring ROVs to exhibit understeer characteristics could create unintended and adverse risk, such as gross loss of mobility. These commenters assert that CPSC would be trading one set of purported safety issues for another, equally challenging set of safety issues, and running against 100 years of experience in off-highway vehicle design and driving practice, which suggests that for off-highway conditions, limit oversteer is at least sometimes, if not most often, preferable to limit understeer.

Response:

ROVs that exhibit sub-limit understeering are currently in the U.S. market in substantial numbers. The Commission is not aware of any reports of the steering of sub-limit understeering vehicles causing loss of control or preventing the driver from navigating off-road terrain. The CPSC is not aware of any reports of sub-limit understeering vehicles that exhibit the unintended consequences described by the Companies.

The Commission believes that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident. Based on the Yamaha Rhino repair program and the SEA test results indicating that half of the sample ROVs tested already exhibit sub-limit understeer, the CPSC believes that ROVs can be designed to understeer with minimum cost and without diminishing the utility or recreational value of this class of vehicle.

Comment:

Comments from CEI, the Companies, and the Committee state that no correlation can be shown between understeer/oversteer and ROV crashes or rollovers.

Response:

From a design and engineering perspective, the physics of vehicle rollover inherently support the fact that increasing a vehicle's resistance to rollover will make the vehicle more stable. In addition, eliminating a vehicle characteristic that exhibits a sudden increase in lateral acceleration during a turn will reduce the risk of rollover. The constant radius tests and SIS tests conducted by SEA provide strong evidence that sub-limit oversteer is an unstable condition that can lead to a rollover incident.

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents reviewed by the CPSC, 291 (68 percent) involved lateral rollover of the vehicle, and more than half of these (52 percent) occurred while the vehicle was turning. Of the 147 fatal incidents that involved rollover, 26 (18 percent) occurred on a paved surface. A vehicle exhibiting oversteer is most susceptible to rollover in a turn where the undesirable sudden increase in lateral acceleration can cause rollover to occur quickly, especially on paved surfaces, where an ROV can exhibit an untripped rollover.

The Commission believes that improving the rollover resistance and vehicle steering characteristics of ROVs is a practical strategy for reducing the occurrence of ROV rollover events.

Occupant Protection

Comment:

Comments from CEI, the Companies, and the Committee state that seat belt use is critically important. Increasing seat belt use is the most productive and effective way to reduce ROV-related injuries and deaths because seat belt use is so low among those injured in ROV incidents. A major challenge is clearly how to get occupants to use the seat belt properly.

Response:

The Commission agrees that the use of seat belts is important in restraining occupants in the event of a rollover or other accident. Results of the Commission's testing of belted and unbelted occupants in simulated ROV rollover events indicate that seat belt use is required to retain occupants within the vehicle. Without seat belt use, occupants experience partial to full ejection from the vehicle. This scenario has been identified as an injury hazard in the CPSC's review of ROV-related incidents. Of those incidents that involved occupant ejection, many occupants suffered crushing injuries caused by the vehicle.

After reviewing the literature regarding automotive seat belts, the Commission believes that an 8-second reminder light, as required in ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012, is not adequate to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs because the system is not intrusive enough to motivate drivers and passengers to wear their seat belts. Results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies conclude further that effective reminder systems have to be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.

Based on literature and results from the Westat study, the Commission believes that a seat belt speed limiting system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph, if the driver seat and any occupied front seats are not buckled, is the most effective method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs. The system is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and the system consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph.

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that four-point and five-point seat belts are not appropriate for ROVs. In contrast, several individual comments state that five-point seat belts should be required on ROVs.

Response:

The Commission identified lack of seat belt use as an injury hazard in the CPSC's review of ROV-related incidents. The majority of safety restraints in the ROV incidents were

three-point restraints, and to some extent, two-point seat belts. Although four-point seat belts might be superior to three-point seat belts in retaining occupants in a vehicle, three-point seat belts have been shown to be effective in reducing the risk of death and serious injury in automotive applications. The Commission believes that it is unlikely that users who already do not use three-point seat belts will use the more cumbersome four-point and five-point seat belts.

A more robust seat belt reminder system than the current voluntary standard requirement for a visual reminder light is necessary to motivate users to wear their seat belts because automotive studies of seat belt reminders indicate that visual reminders do not increase seat belt use. Dynamic rollover tests of ROVs indicate that a three-point seat belt, in conjunction with a passive shoulder restraint, is effective in restraining an occupant inside the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during a quarter-turn rollover.

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that occupant protection requirements should be based on meaningful tests.

Response:

The Commission agrees that ROV occupant protection performance evaluations should be based on actual ROV rollovers or simulations of real-world rollovers. Occupant protection performance requirements for ROVs in the voluntary standard developed by ROHVA (ANSI/ROHVA 1-2011) and the voluntary standard developed by OPEI (ANSI/OPEI B71.9-2012) are not supported by data from rollover tests.

The SEA roll simulator is the most accurate simulation of an ROV rollover event because it has been validated by measurements taken during actual ROV rollovers. Rollover tests indicate that a seat belt, used in conjunction with a passive shoulder barrier, is effective at restraining occupants within the protective zone of the vehicle's ROPS during quarter-turn rollover events.

ROV Incident Analysis

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that ROV rollover incidents are caused by a small minority of drivers who intentionally drive at the limits of the vehicle and the driver's abilities, and intentionally drive in extreme environments.

Response:

Of the 224 reported ROV incidents that involved at least one fatality, 147 incidents involved lateral rollover of the vehicle. Of the 147 lateral rollover fatalities, it is reported that the ROV was on flat terrain in 56 incidents (38 percent) and on a gentle incline in 18 incidents (12 percent). Of the 224 fatal ROV incidents, the vehicle speed is unknown in 164 incidents (73 percent); 32 incidents (14 percent) occurred at speeds of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less; and 28 incidents (13 percent) occurred at speeds more than 20 mph. (Vehicle speeds were reported (

i.e.

, not measured by instrumentation); so these speeds can be used qualitatively only and not as accurate values of speed at which incidents occurred.) Of the 224 fatal ROV incidents, the age of the driver was less than 16 years old in 61 incidents (27 percent). Of the 231 fatalities, 77 victims (33 percent) were children less than 16 years of age.

A review of the incident data shows no indication that the majority of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who “purposely push the vehicle to and beyond its limits by engaging in stunts, racing, and intentional use of extreme environments.” An analysis of the reported ROV incidents indicates that many of the details of the circumstances of the event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are not known. In cases in which details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope terrain; and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour. Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related fatalities are children under 16 years of age.

Comment:

Comments from the Companies state that the CPSC failed to use data from the NEISS in its analysis of ROV hazards. The comments suggest further that analysis of the NEISS data on utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) indicate that UTVs, and therefore, ROVs, have a low hospitalization rate.

Response:

The joint comment's conclusions based on the commenters' analyses of the NEISS UTV data are not technically sound because the NEISS results do not specifically identify ROVs. NEISS has a product code for UTVs and several product codes for ATVs, but there is no separate product code for ROVs. ATVs have a straddle seat for the operator and handlebars for steering. UTVs have bucket or bench seats for the operator/passengers, a steering wheel for steering, and UTVs may or may not have a ROPS. ROVs are a subset of UTVs and are distinguished by having a ROPS, seat belts, and a maximum speed above 30 mph. However, many official entities, news media, and consumers refer to ROVs as ATVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are usually assigned to either an ATV product category or to the UTV product category in NEISS. At a minimum, ROVs can be thought of as a subset of UTVs and/or ATVs, and cannot be identified on a consistent basis through the NEISS case records because NEISS requires knowledge of the make/model of the vehicle (which is not coded in the NEISS for any product). Occasionally, the NEISS narrative contains make/model identification, but this cannot be used to identify ROVs accurately and consistently.

CPSC conducted a special study in 2010, in which all cases coded as ATVs or UTVs were selected for telephone interviews to gather information about the product involved. Sixteen of the 668 completed surveys had responses that identified the vehicle as an ROV. Staff's analysis shows that many ROVs are coded as ATVs; many UTVs are also coded as ATVs; and identification of ROVs and UTVs is difficult because the NEISS narratives often do not include enough information to identify the product. The miscoding rate for UTVs and ROVs is high, and most likely, the miscoding is due to consumer-reported information in the emergency department.

The CPSC added the UTV product code 5044 to the NEISS in 2005. In the years 2005 to 2008 (the years cited in the joint comment document), the UTV product code had mostly out-of-scope records, with a large number of utility trailers and similar records. After these out-of-scope records are removed, the only viable estimate is obtained by aggregating the cases across 2005 to 2008, to get an estimated 1,300 emergency department-treated injuries related to UTVs (see Tab K, Table 1). This estimate is considerably less than the estimate reported by Heiden in the joint comment. This estimate also does not include the UTV-related injuries that were miscoded as ATVs in the ATV product codes.

As the years have passed and the UTV product code is being used more as intended, a completely different picture is seen for UTVs. From 2009 to 2012, there are an estimated 6,200 emergency department-treated, UTV-related injuries (which can be attributed to an increase in the number of UTV-related injuries, a larger portion of injuries being identified in NEISS as UTVs, or a combination of all of these and other factors not identified). Of these estimated 6,200 injuries, only 80.2 percent are treated and released. The proportion of treated and released injuries for UTVs is significantly below the proportion of treated and released for all consumer products (92.0 percent of estimated consumer product-related, emergency department-treated injuries

were treated and released from 2009 to 2012). This illustrates a hazard of more severe injuries associated with UTVs.

In conclusion, data are insufficient to support the argument that UTV injuries are not as severe as those associated with other products. As more data have become available in recent years, it appears that about 80 percent of the injuries associated with UTVs have been treated and released as compared to about 92 percent of the injuries associated with all consumer products.

Comment:

The Companies provided their own analysis of ROV-related reports that were used in the CPSC's ANPR analysis. In particular, the Companies criticize Commission staff's analysis because asserting that staff's analysis did not include factors related to incident conditions and user behavior.

Response:

Commission staff's analysis of incidents for the ANPR was a preliminary review of reported incidents to understand the overall hazard patterns. For the NPR, Commission staff conducted an extensive, multidisciplinary review of 428 reported ROV-related incidents resulting in at least one death or injury. The results of this study are summarized in two reports in the NPR briefing package, along with analyses of victim characteristics, hazard patterns, environmental characteristics, and make and model characteristics. (The approach taken in the comments from the Companies, to remove reports from the analysis because there is unknown information, is not the Commission's approach in analyzing ROV-related incidents.) Unknowns from all reports are included with the knowns to ensure that the full picture is seen because every report will have at least one piece of unknown information, and every report will have at least one piece of known information. The unknowns are reported in all tables, if unknowns were recorded for the variables used.

The analysis of IDIs summarized in the comments from the Companies does not define “excessive speed,” “dangerous maneuver,” or “sharp turn.” In fact, in other places in the comments, the companies mention: “There is also no evidence suggesting that speed is an important factor in preventing accidents.” The companies also state: “Tight steering turn capability is an important feature in certain ROVs, particularly those for trail use, because of the need to respond quickly to avoid obstacles and trail-edge drop-offs, and otherwise navigate in these off-highway terrains” Thus, there is ambiguity in what the definitions could mean in the analysis of the IDIs (When is the vehicle at an excessive speed? When is a turn too sharp? When is a maneuver dangerous?). The Commission's approach to analyzing the 428 incidents summarized in the reports available in the NPR briefing package is to consider the sequence of events, the vehicle, the driver, any passenger, and environment characteristics across all incidents. All definitions are set and used consistently by the multidisciplinary review team to understand the hazard patterns and incident characteristics across all incidents, not to set responsibility in one place or another.

Comment:

Comments from CEI state that the CPSC should begin to address human factors that pertain to risk-taking behavior of the small minority of ROV users who operate the vehicles at their limits without crash-worthiness concerns. In particular, CEI proposes that the CPSC focus primarily on changing consumer behavior to wearing seat belts, wearing helmets, and refraining from driving ROVs irresponsibly.

Response:

The Commission agrees that human factors and behavior affect the risk of death and injury for ROV users. However, the CPSC believes that establishing minimum requirements for ROVs can also reduce the hazards associated with ROVs. As explained in this preamble, the ANSI/ROHVA voluntary standard does not adequately addresses the risk of injury and death associated with lateral rollovers of ROVs because the standards do not have robust lateral stability requirements, do not have vehicle handling requirement to ensure understeer, and do not have robust occupant restraint requirements to protect occupants from vehicle rollover.

An analysis of the reported ROV incidents indicates that many of the details of an event, such as vehicle speed or terrain slope, are not known. Where details of the event are known, roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral rollover incidents occurred on flat or gentle slope terrain, and 14 percent occurred at speeds below 20 miles per hour. Twenty-seven percent of the drivers in fatal rollover incidents are children under 16 years of age; and 33 percent of all ROV-related fatalities are children under 16 years of age. There is no indication that the majority of rollover incidents are caused by drivers who intentionally drive under extreme conditions.

Regarding seat belt use, results from past studies on automotive seat belt reminders conclude that visual seat belt reminders are ineffective. Numerous studies further conclude that effective reminder systems have to be intrusive enough to motivate users to buckle their seat belts. The more intrusive reminders are more effective at changing user behavior, as long as the reminder is not so intrusive that users bypass the system.

The Commission believes that a seat belt speed-limiting system that restricts the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 mph if the driver seat and any occupied front seats are not buckled is the most effective method to increase meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs. The system is transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph and below, and the system consistently motivates occupants to buckle their seat belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph.

IX. Description of the Proposed Rule

A. Scope, Purpose, and Compliance Dates—§ 1422.1

The proposed standard would apply to “recreational off-highway vehicles” (ROVs), as defined, which would limit the scope to vehicles with a maximum speed greater than 30 mph. The proposed standard would include requirements relating to lateral acceleration, vehicle handling, and occupant protection. The requirements are intended to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of injury associated with ROVs. The proposed standard would specifically exclude “golf cars,” “all-terrain vehicles,” “fun karts,” “go karts,” and “light utility vehicles,” as defined by the relevant voluntary standards. The Commission proposes two compliance dates: ROVs would be required to comply with the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements (§§ 1422.3 and 1422.4) 180 days after publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

. ROVs would be required to comply with the occupant protection requirements (§ 1422.5) 12 months after publication of the final rule in the

Federal Register

. The Commission recognizes that some ROV manufacturers will need to redesign and test new prototype vehicles to meet the occupant protection requirements. This design and test process is similar to the process that manufacturers use when introducing new model year vehicles. As described more fully in Section X, staff estimates that it will take approximately 9 person-months per ROV model to design, test, implement, and begin manufacturing vehicles to meet the occupant protection performance requirements. Therefore, the Commission believes that 12 months is a reasonable time period for manufacturers to comply with all of new mandatory requirements.

B. Definitions—§ 1422.2

The proposed standard would provide that the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the proposed standard would include the following definitions:

• “Recreational off-highway vehicle”—a motorized vehicle designed for off-highway use with the following features: Four or more wheels with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating for two or more occupants; automotive-type controls for steering, throttle, and braking; rollover protective structures (ROPS); occupant restraint; and maximum speed capability greater than 30 mph.

• “two-wheel lift”—point at which the inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off the ground, or when the uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a rollover event. We use the term “two-wheel lift” interchangeably with “tip-up.”

• “threshold lateral acceleration”—minimum lateral acceleration of the vehicle at two-wheel lift.

C. Requirements for Dynamic Lateral Stability—§ 1422.3

1. Proposed Performance Requirement

a. Description of Requirement

The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a minimum requirement for lateral stability. The dynamic lateral stability requirement would set a minimum value for the lateral acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g, as determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. The 30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test uses a programmable steering controller to turn the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at prescribed steering angles and rates to determine the minimum steering angle at which two-wheel lift is observed. These are the conditions and procedures that were used in testing with SEA. Under the proposed requirements, the data collected during these tests are analyzed to compute and verify the lateral acceleration at rollover for the vehicle. The greater the lateral acceleration value, the greater is the resistance of the ROV to tip or roll over.

b. Rationale

The J-turn test is the most appropriate method to measure the rollover resistance of ROVs because the J-turn test has been evaluated by NHTSA as the most objective and repeatable method for vehicles with low rollover resistance. As discussed previously, static metrics, such as SSF and TTR, cannot be used to evaluate accurately ROV rollover resistance because static tests are unable to account fully for the dynamic tire deflections and suspension compliance exhibited by ROVs during a J-turn maneuver. The Commission also verified that the J-turn test is objective and repeatable for ROVs by conducting numerous J-turn tests on several ROVs.

As explained above, testing conducted by CPSC staff and SEA supports the proposed requirement that ROVs demonstrate a minimum threshold lateral acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g or greater in a J-turn. Results of J-turn tests performed on a sample of 10 ROVs available in the U.S. market indicate that six of the 10 ROVs tested measured threshold lateral accelerations below 0.70 g (values ranged from 0.625 g to 0.690 g). The Commission believes that minor changes to vehicle suspension and/or track width spacing, similar to the changes in the Yamaha Rhino repair program, can increase the threshold lateral acceleration of these vehicles to 0.70 g or greater. The Yamaha repair program improved the rollover resistance of the Yamaha Rhino from 0.670 g (unrepaired Yamaha Rhino) to 0.705 g (repaired Yamaha Rhino).

Based on CPSC's evaluation of ROV testing and the decrease in injuries and deaths associated with Yamaha Rhino vehicles after the repair program was implemented, the Commission believes that improving the rollover resistance of all ROVs can reduce injuries and deaths associated with ROV rollover events.

2. Proposed Requirements for Hang Tag

a. Description of Requirement

The Commission is proposing a requirement that ROV manufacturers provide technical information for consumers on a hangtag at the point of purchase.

As discussed previously, the Commission is proposing a requirement that ROVs meet a minimum lateral acceleration of 0.70 g at rollover, as identified by J-turn testing. The Commission proposes requiring a hangtag on each ROV that would state the actual measured lateral acceleration at rollover (as identified by the J-turn testing) of each ROV model. The Commission believes that the hang tag will allow consumers to make informed decisions on the comparative lateral stability of ROVs when making a purchase and will provide a competitive incentive for manufacturers to improve the rollover resistance of ROVs.

The proposed rule specifies the content and format for the hang tag, and includes an example hang tag. Under the proposal, the hang tag must conform in content, form, and sequence as specified in the proposed rule.

The Commission proposes the following ROV hangtag requirements:

• Content. Every ROV shall be offered for sale with a hangtag that graphically illustrates and textually states the lateral acceleration threshold at rollover for that ROV model. The hangtag shall be attached to the ROV and may be removed only by the first purchaser.

• Size. Every hangtag shall be at least 15.24 cm (6 inches) wide by 10.16 cm (4 inches) tall.

• Attachment. Every hangtag shall be attached to the ROV and be conspicuous to a person sitting in the driver's seat; and the hangtag shall be removable only with deliberate effort.

• Format. The hang tag shall provide all of the elements shown in the example hangtag (see Figure 16).

b. Rationale

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to require, by rule, that manufacturers of consumer products provide to the Commission performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out the purposes of the CPSA, and to give notification of such performance and technical data at the time of original purchase to prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser of the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e)). Section 2 of the CPSA provides that one purpose of the CPSA is to “assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products.” 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2).

Other federal government agencies currently require on-product labels with information to help consumers in making purchasing decisions. For example, NHTSA requires automobiles to come with comparative information on vehicles regarding rollover resistance. 49 CFR 575.105. NHTSA believes that consumer information on the rollover risk of passenger cars would influence consumers to purchase vehicles with a lower rollover risk and inspire manufacturers to produce vehicles with a lower rollover risk.

A subsequent study of SSF trends in automobiles found that SSF values increased for all vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, which tended to have the worst SSF values in the earlier years.

Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.

Walz, M.C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans.

DOT HS 809868. Retrieved from

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/index.html.

EnergyGuide labels, required on most appliances, are another example of federally-mandated labels to assist consumers in making purchase decisions. 16 CFR part 305. Detailed operating cost and energy consumption information on these labels allows consumers to compare competing models and identify higher efficiency products. The EnergyGuide label design was developed based on extensive consumer research and following a two-year rulemaking process.

Like NHTSA rollover resistance information and EnergyGuide labels, the proposed ROV hang tags are intended to provide important information to consumers at the time of purchase. Providing the value of each ROV model vehicle's threshold lateral acceleration to consumers will assist consumers with evaluating the comparative safety of the vehicles in terms of resistance to rollover. Requiring that ROV lateral acceleration test results be stated on a hangtag may motivate manufacturers to increase the performance of their ROV to achieve a higher reportable lateral acceleration, similar to incentives created as a result of NHTSA's NCAP program.

The proposed hangtag is based, in part, on the point-of-purchase hangtag requirements for ATVs. ATVs must have hangtags that include general warning information regarding operation and operator and passenger requirements, as well as behavior that is warned against. Most ROV manufacturers are also manufacturers of ATVs. Accordingly, ROV manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the hangtag requirements for ATVs. The ANSI/SVIA 1-2010 voluntary standard that applies to ATVs requires ATVs to be sold with a hangtag that is to be removed only by the purchaser and requires ATV hangtags to be 6-inches tall x 4-inches wide. Because ROV manufacturers are likely to be familiar with the hangtag requirements for ATVs, the Commission is proposing the same size requirements for ROV hang tags.

The hang tag graph draws its format from well-recognized principles in effective warnings. When presenting graphical information, it is important to include labels so that the data can be understood. Graphs should have a unique title, and the axes should be fully labeled with the units of measurement. Graphs should also be distinguished from the text, by adding white space, or enclosing the graphs in a box.

Markel, M. (2001). Technical Communication. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.

EP19NO14.015

(1) The ROV

icon helps identify the product. The icon is presented at a slight angle to help consumers readily identify the label as addressing ROV rollover characteristics. Research has shown that pictorial symbols and icons make warnings more noticeable and easier to detect than warnings without such symbols and icons.

Hang tag not shown to scale.

Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., and Laughery, K. (1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.

(2) Graph label, “Better,” indicates that the higher the value (as shading increases to the right), the higher the ROV's resistance to rolling over during a turn on a flat surface.

(3) The Manufacturer, Model, Model number, Model year help the consumer identify the exact ROV described by the label. Likewise, the EnergyGuide label provides information on the manufacturer, model, and size of the product so that consumers can identify exactly what appliance the label describes.

The Commission is proposing a similar identification of the ROV model on the hangtag so that consumers can compare values among different model ROVs.

Guide to EnergyGuide label retrieved at

http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliances-use-energyguide-label.

(4) Textual information. Technical communication that includes graphs should also include text to paraphrase the importance of the graphic and explain how to interpret the information presented.

Additionally, including a graphic before introducing text may serve as a valuable reference for consumers, by maintaining attention and encouraging further reading.

The textual informational in the hangtag provides consumers with more definition of the values given in the graph.

Markel, M. 2001.

Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer product instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

(5) Linear scale, and anchor showing minimally acceptable value on the scale. Currently, the EnergyGuide label uses a linear scale with the lowest and highest operating costs for similar models so that consumers can compare products; the yearly operating cost for the specific model is identified on the linear scale.

The Commission is proposing a linear scale format for the ROV hangtag, as well. The text identifies the minimally accepted lateral acceleration at rollover as being 0.7 g. When providing this on the scale, people are able to determine visually how a specific model compares to the minimal value.

FTC. Retrieved from:

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliances-use-energyguide-label.

(6) Scale starts at 0.65 g to allow a shaded bar for those ROVs meeting only the minimally acceptable lateral acceleration value.

D. Vehicle Handling—§ 1422.4

1. Description of Requirement

The proposed rule would require that all ROVs meet a vehicle handling requirement, which requires that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics. The understeer requirement would mandate that ROVs exhibit understeer characteristics in the sublimit range of the turn circle test. The test for vehicle handling or understeer performance involves driving the vehicle around a 100-foot radius circle at increasing speeds, with the driver making every effort to maintain compliance of the vehicle path relative to the circle. SEA testing was based on a 100-foot radius circle. Data collected during these tests are analyzed to determine whether the vehicle understeers through the required range. The proposed rule would require that all ROVs exhibit understeer for values of ground plane lateral acceleration from 0.10 to 0.50 g.

2. Rationale

The CPSC believes that the constant radius test is the most appropriate method to measure an ROV's steering gradient because SAE J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, Steady-State Directional Control Test Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, establishes the constant radius test as a method to measure understeer/oversteer in passenger cars. The test procedures are also applicable to ROVs because ROVs are similar to cars, have four steerable wheels and a suspension system, and thus, ROVs obey the same principles of motion as automobiles.

The Commission believes that the appropriate lateral acceleration range to measure steering gradient is from 0.10 g to 0.50 g because SEA test results indicate that spurious data occur at the beginning and end of a constant radius test conducted up to vehicle rollover. Data collected in the range of 0.10 g to 0.50 g of lateral acceleration provide the most accurate plots of the vehicle's steering characteristic.

Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. Retrieved from

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/96037/rov.pdf.

Page 18.

Tests conducted by SEA show that ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to a condition where the lateral acceleration increases suddenly and exponentially. Based on testing and relevant literature, the CPSC believes that this condition can lead to untripped ROV rollovers or may cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and experience tripped rol

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.