[Federal Register: August 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45903-45962]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au06-14]
[[Page 45903]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Consumer Product Safety Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Parts 1307, 1410, 1500 and 1515
Standards for All Terrain Vehicles and Ban of Three-Wheeled All Terrain
Vehicles; Proposed Rule
[[Page 45904]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1307, 1410, 1500 and 1515
Standards for All Terrain Vehicles and Ban of Three-Wheeled All
Terrain Vehicles; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To address the unreasonable risks of injury and death
associated with all terrain vehicles (``ATVs''), the Commission is
proposing rules for adult and youth ATVs. The proposed rules include
requirements concerning the mechanical operation of ATVs, requirements
for providing safety information about operating ATVs (such as through
labeling and training), and requirements for certification, testing and
recordkeeping. The proposed standards would apply to adult single-rider
and tandem ATVs and to youth ATVs. The Commission is also proposing a
rule to ban three-wheeled ATVs. The proposed rules are issued under the
authority of both the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'') and the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA'').
DATES: Written comments in response to this document must be received
by the Commission no later than October 24, 2006. Comments on elements
of the proposed rule that, if issued in final form would constitute
collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
and with the Commission. Comments will be received by OMB until October
10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by email to cpsc-os.gov. Comments
also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or they may be
mailed or delivered, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Comments should be captioned ``ATV NPR.''
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the
materials as copies of comments submitted to OMB on the proposed
collection of information requirements for the proposed ATV standard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leland, Project Manager, ATV
Safety Review, Directorate for Economic Analysis, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-
4408; telephone (301) 504-7706 or e-mail: eleland@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Commission is proposing rules that will cover single-rider
ATVs, tandem ATVs (intended for two people) and ATVs intended for
children under 16 years of age.\1\ These proposed rules include
proposed standards that specify mechanical requirements for ATVs and
informational requirements so that ATV purchasers and operators will
have safety information about ATVs. The Commission is also proposing to
ban three-wheeled ATVs. The Commission believes that these proposed
rules are necessary to address an unreasonable risk of injury and death
associated with ATVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission voted unanimously to issue the notice of
proposed rulemaking with changes to address youth and adult ATV
training (subsection (g)). Commissioner Nancy A. Nord and
Commissioner Thomas H. Moore voted for additional changes not
included in Chairman Stratton's vote, including additional
instructions to staff and request for comments, a new subsection and
modifying language in the preamble. Commissioners Nord and Moore
issued statements which are available from the Commission's Office
of the Secretary or from the Commission's Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATVs were first available in this country in the early 1970's, and
became increasingly popular in the early 1980's. With their rise in
popularity, the number of ATV-related incidents also rose. On May 31,
1985, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(``ANPR'') stating the Commission's safety concerns and outlining
options the Commission was considering to address ATV-related hazards.
50 FR 23139. In 1987, the Commission filed a lawsuit under section 12
of the CPSA against the five companies that were major ATV distributors
at that time to declare ATVs an imminently hazardous consumer product,
see 15 U.S.C. 2061(b)(1).\2\ The lawsuit was settled by Consent Decrees
filed on April 28, 1988 that were effective for ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The five distributors were American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
American Suzuki Motor Corp., Polaris Industries, L.P., Yamaha Motor
Corp., USA, and Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA. In 1996, Arctic Cat,
Inc. began manufacturing ATVs and entered into an Agreement and
Action Plan with the Commission in which the company agreed to take
substantially the same actions as required under the Consent
Decrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Consent Decrees
In the Consent Decrees, the distributors agreed to: (1) Halt the
distribution of three-wheel ATVs, (2) attempt ``in good faith'' to
devise a voluntary performance standard satisfactory to the Commission;
(3) label ATVs with four types of warnings, the language and format of
which were specified in the Consent Decrees; (4) supplement existing
owners manuals with safety text and illustrations specified in the
Consent Decrees and to prepare new owners manuals with specified safety
information; (5) provide point of purchase safety materials meeting
guidelines specified by the Consent Decrees, including hangtags, a
safety video, and other safety information; (6) and offer a rider
training course to ATV purchasers and members of their immediate
families at no cost. In addition, the Consent Decrees contained several
media and marketing provisions.
The distributors also agreed in the Consent Decrees that they would
``represent affirmatively'' that ATVs with engine sizes between 70 and
90 cc should be used only by those age 12 and older, and that ATVs with
engine sizes larger than 90 cc should be used only by those 16 and
older. Because distributors did not sell their products directly to
consumers but through dealerships (which were not parties to the
Consent Decrees), distributors agreed to ``use their best efforts to
reasonably assure'' that ATVs would ``not be purchased by or for the
use of'' anyone who did not meet the age restrictions. While the
Consent Decrees were in effect, the distributors entered into
agreements with the Commission and the Department of Justice agreeing
to monitor their dealers to determine whether they were complying with
the age recommendations and to terminate the franchises of dealers who
repeatedly failed to provide the appropriate age recommendations.
2. Development of the Voluntary Standard for Single-Rider ATVs
Industry had begun work on a voluntary standard before the Consent
Decrees were in place. Distributors that were parties to the Decrees
agreed to work in good faith to develop a voluntary standard that was
satisfactory to the Commission within four months of the signing of the
Consent Decrees. The five companies, working through the Specialty
Vehicle Institute of America (``SVIA''), submitted a standard
[[Page 45905]]
for approval as an American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')
standard in December 1988. On January 13, 1989, the Commission
published a notice in the Federal Register concluding that the
voluntary standard was ``satisfactory'' to the Commission.\3\ 54 FR
1407. The standard, known as ANSI/SVIA 1-2001, The American National
Standard for Four Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles--Equipment, Configuration,
and Performance Requirements, was first published in 1990, and was
revised in 2001. The ANSI standard has requirements for the mechanical
operation of ATVs, but does not contain any provisions concerning
labeling, owners manuals or other information to be provided to the
purchaser because such requirements were stated in the Consent Decrees
that were in effect when the ANSI standard was developed. As discussed
in section G.3, ANSI now has a draft voluntary standard for tandem
ATVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the FR notice, the Commission noted that it
``specifically reserved its rights under the consent decrees to
institute certain enforcement or rulemaking proceedings in the
future.'' 54 FR 1407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ATV Action Plans/Letters of Undertaking
The Consent Decrees expired in April 1998. The Commission entered
into voluntary ``Action Plans,'' also known as ``Letters of
Undertaking'' or ``LOUs,'' with eight major ATV distributors (the five
who had been parties to the Consent Decrees, plus Arctic Cat, Inc.,
Bombardier, Inc. and Cannnondale Corporation, which no longer makes
ATVs) See 63 FR 48199 (summarizing Action Plans).\4\ Except for
Bombardier's, all of the Action Plans took effect in April 1998 at the
expiration of the Consent Decrees. (Bombardier's took effect in 1999
when the company began selling ATVs.) The companies agreed to continue
many of the actions the Consent Decrees had required concerning the age
recommendations, point of sale information (i.e., warning labels,
owners manuals, hang tags, safety alerts, and safety video),
advertising and promotional materials, training, and stopping
distribution of three-wheeled ATVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These documents are available on CPSC's Web site at
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/honda.pdf; www.cpsc.gov/
library/foia/foia98/fedreg/suzuki.pdf; http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/kawasaki.pdf
; www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/
polaris; http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/yamaha.pdf;
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedred/arctic.pdf; and
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia99/pubcom/bobard.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Termination of Previous Rulemaking
As mentioned above, the Commission issued an ANPR concerning ATVs
in 1985, but chose to pursue legal action under section 12 of the CPSA
instead of taking regulatory action. In 1991, the Commission terminated
the rulemaking proceeding it had started with the 1985 ANPR. 56 FR
47166. The Commission observed in its termination notice that, at the
time of the termination, the Consent Decrees were in effect, the five
ATV distributors had agreed to conduct monitoring of dealers'
compliance with the Consent Decrees' provisions, and ATV-related
injuries and deaths were declining. The ATV-related injury rate for the
general population (per ATV) had dropped by about 50 percent between
1985 and 1989, and ATV-related fatalities had declined from an
estimated 347 in 1986 to about 258 in 1989. Id. At 47170.
The Commission's termination of its rulemaking proceeding was
challenged by the Consumer Federation of America (``CFA'') and U.S.
Public Interest Research Group (``PIRG'') arguing that withdrawing the
ANPR rather than pursuing a ban on the sale of new adult-size ATVs for
use by children under 16 was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld
the Commission's decision. Consumer Federation of America v. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 990 F.2d 1298 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The court
noted that it was reasonable for the Commission to determine the
effectiveness of the Consent Decrees and monitoring activities before
considering whether additional action would be necessary. Id. at 1306.
5. CFA's Petition and the Chairman's Memo
In August 2002, CFA and eight other groups requested that the
Commission take several actions regarding ATVs. CPSC docketed the
portion of the request that met the Commission's docketing requirements
in 16 CFR Sec. 1051.5(a). That request asked for a rule banning the
sale of adult-size four wheel ATVs for the use of children under 16
years old. The Commission solicited public comments on the petition. 67
FR 64353 (2002). In 2003, the Commission held a public hearing in West
Virginia, and the Chairman held hearings in Alaska and New Mexico to
hear oral presentations from the public about ATVs. The staff prepared
a briefing package analyzing the petition and recommending that the
Commission deny the petition (available on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/briefing.html). (After an
initial vote on October 6, 2005 to defer a decision on the petition,
the Commission voted 2-1 to deny the petition when it voted on July 12,
2006 to issue this NPR. The statements issued by Commissioner Nord and
Commissioner Moore, referenced in footnote 1, also discuss their votes
on the petition.)
On June 8, 2005, Chairman Hal Stratton delivered a memorandum to
the staff asking the staff to review all ATV safety actions and make
recommendations on a number of issues. The memo directed the staff to
consider whether: (1) The current ATV voluntary standards are adequate
in light of trends in ATV-related deaths and injuries; (2) the current
ATV voluntary standards or other standards pertaining to ATVs should be
adopted as mandatory standards by the Commission; and (3) other
actions, including rulemaking, should be taken to enhance ATV safety.
The memo also identified several specific issues for the staff to
review, namely: (1) Pre-sale training/certification requirements; (2)
enhanced warning labels; (3) formal notification of safety rules by
dealers to buyers; (4) the addition of a youth ATV model appropriate
for 14-year olds; (5) written notification of child injury data at the
time of sale; (6) separate standards for vehicles designed for two
riders; and (7) performance safety standards. The memo directed the
staff to give particular attention to improving the safety of young
riders.
6. 2005 ANPR
On October 14, 2005, the Commission published an ANPR that began
this proceeding. 70 FR 60031. The ANPR reviewed the history of the
Commission's involvement with ATVs, summarized the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001
standard, described regulatory and non-regulatory options to address
ATV-related injuries and deaths, and requested comments from the
public. Comments on the ANPR and the Commission's responses are
discussed at section H.
B. Statutory Authority
This proceeding is conducted pursuant to the Consumer Product
Safety Act (``CPSA'') and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
(``FHSA''). All Terrain Vehicles are ``consumer products'' which can be
regulated by the Commission under the authority of the CPSA. See 15
U.S.C. 2052(a). However, the FHSA provides the Commission with
regulatory authority over articles intended for use by children. See 15
U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D). See also 15 U.S.C. 2079(d) (requiring, that the
Commission regulate under the FHSA if the risk of injury at issue can
be eliminated or sufficiently reduced by action under the FHSA unless
the Commission finds by rule that it is in the public interest to
[[Page 45906]]
regulate under the CPSA). Thus, the Commission is proposing standards
for adult 4-wheel ATVs and a ban of adult three-wheeled ATVs under the
CPSA, and is proposing a standard for youth ATVs, which includes a ban
of three-wheeled ATVs, under the FHSA.
1. The CPSA
Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue consumer
product safety standards that consist of performance requirements and/
or requirements for warnings or instructions. Id. 2056(a). The
requirements of the standard must be ``reasonably necessary to prevent
or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such
product.'' Id.
Section 8 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a rule
declaring a consumer product a ``banned hazardous product'' when the
Commission finds that: The product is being, or will be, distributed in
commerce; the product presents an unreasonable risk of injury; and no
feasible consumer product safety standard would adequately protect the
public from the risk of injury. Id. 2057.
Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must
follow to issue a consumer product safety standard or a ban under
section 8. In accordance with section 9, the Commission commenced this
rulemaking by issuing an ANPR identifying the product and the risk of
injury, summarizing regulatory alternatives, and inviting comments or
suggested standards from the public. Id. 2058(a). 70 FR 60031 (2005).
The Commission considered the comments submitted in response to the
ANPR, and has decided to issue these proposed rules and a preliminary
regulatory analysis in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. Next,
the Commission will consider the comments received in response to the
proposed rules and decide whether to issue final rules and a final
regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c)-(f).
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)
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 hangtags,
instructional/owners manuals, safety videos, and training.
Section 14 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a rule
requiring certification that a product meets a consumer product safety
standard. Id. 2063(c). Section 14 also authorizes the Commission to
prescribe, by rule, reasonable testing programs for consumer products
subject to a consumer product safety rule. Id. 2063(b).
Finally, section 16 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue
rules requiring establishment and maintenance of records needed to
implement the CPSA or to determine compliance with rules or orders
issued under the CPSA. Id. 2065(b).
2. The FHSA
The FHSA requires proceedings and findings similar to those
required by the CPSA. Section 2(f)(1)(D) of the FHSA defines
``hazardous substance'' to include any toy or other article intended
for use by children that the Commission determines, by regulation,
presents an electrical, mechanical, or thermal hazard. 15 U.S.C.
1261(f)(1)(D). An article may present a mechanical hazard if its design
or manufacture presents an unreasonable risk of personal injury or
illness during normal use or when subjected to reasonably foreseeable
damage or abuse. 15 U.S.C. 1261(s).
Under section 2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA, an article intended for use
by children, which is a hazardous substance (as defined in the FHSA)
accessible by a child, is banned. 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(A). Under this
authority, the Commission can issue a rule stating that if a particular
article intended for use by children does not meet requirements that
the Commission specifies by rule, the item is banned. See Forester v.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 559 F.2d 774, 782 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Section 3(f) through 3(i) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1262(f)-(i),
describes the procedures to promulgate a regulation determining that an
article intended for children presents an electrical, mechanical, or
thermal hazard. The procedures are the same as those required for a
CPSA rule discussed above. 15 U.S.C. 1262(f) through (i).
Before the Commission can issue this type of final rule under the
FHSA, it must make many of the same findings necessary for a final CPSA
rule: (1) if an applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and
implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely
to adequately reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with the
voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that benefits
expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its
costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome
alternative that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id.
1261(i)(2).
Section 10 of the FHSA authorizes the Commission to issue
regulations ``for the efficient enforcement of'' the FHSA. Id. 1269(a).
This provision gives the Commission authority to issue the requirements
for certification, testing and recordkeeping in the youth ATV standard.
C. The Product
1. What's Covered by the Proposed Rules
An ATV is a motorized vehicle with three or four broad, low
pressure tires (less than 10 pounds per square inch) a seat designed to
be straddled by the operator, handlebars for steering, and it is
designed for off-road use. Most ATVs are designed for use by only one
person. However, some companies have developed ATVs intended for use by
the operator and one passenger. These
[[Page 45907]]
ATVs are referred to in this notice as tandem ATVs. The proposed rules
the Commission is issuing cover three-wheeled ATVs, four-wheeled adult
ATVs intended for single riders, four-wheeled adult tandem ATVs, and
ATVs intended for children under 16 years of age (referred to here as
youth ATVs).
2. Market and Sales Information
The market for ATVs has increased greatly since they were first
introduced over thirty years ago. The SVIA, an ATV trade association,
estimated that in 2005, there were 6.9 million ATVs in use. The market
is made of seven major distributors of ATVs (the companies that have
entered into voluntary LOUs with the Commission and are represented by
SVIA) and new entrants that import ATVs to the U.S. Sales by both
groups have increased over the past decade. U.S. retail sales of ATVs
by the seven major distributors have increased from an estimated
293,000 ATVs sold in the U.S in 1995 to an estimated 921,000 ATVs sold
in the U.S. in 2005. [4] \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed at the end of
this notice. They are available from the Commission's Office of the
Secretary (see ``Addresses'' section above) or from the Commission's
web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/ library/foia/foia.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Imports
Imports for the new entrants have increased markedly in recent
years. In the late 1990's, imports comprised a small portion of the ATV
market, near zero. In 2001, imports were estimated to account for about
5 percent of total U.S. sales. By 2004, imports had increased to 10
percent of the total U.S. market. [4]
In 2006, Commission staff has identified over 80 importers of ATVs.
Most of these firms import other products in addition to ATVs, such as
powered scooters, dirt bikes, go-carts and snow mobiles. A recent trade
report estimated that 100 to 150 Chinese manufacturers and an estimated
22 Taiwanese firms exported ATVs worldwide in 2005. The trade report
does not indicate what share of these firms'' output is exported to the
U.S., but based on another trade analysis, Commission staff estimates
that approximately 80,000 ATVs were exported from China to the U.S. in
2004 and approximately 14,000 ATVs were exported from Taiwan in that
year. There also appear to be imports from other countries in Europe
and Southeast Asia (notably South Korea and Vietnam), but the staff
does not have information on the extent of such imports. [4]
Staff has observed that imported ATVs may lack some or all of the
labeling specified in the LOUs. On such ATVs, labels may be unclear,
translated incorrectly, or in a language other than English. Staff has
also found that owner's manuals for imported ATVs may not provide
information that could be understood by U.S. consumers (e.g.,
information that conflicts with labeling, measurements in unfamiliar
measuring systems). [8]
4. Marketing
The major distributors have traditionally marketed ATVs through
franchises, either as free-standing locations or in conjunction with
other related retail operations (such as motorcycle retailers). [4]
Imported ATVs are sold in a variety of ways. They may be sold
through distributors, including some of the major distributors. Foreign
firms also market through U.S. importer/wholesalers who, in turn, may
market the products to retailers (including such mass marketers as Pep
Boys, Fleet and Farm, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, and BJ's). Some importer/
suppliers also have dealer networks. [4]
Imported ATVs also are offered for sale directly to consumers
through import brokers who transship imported units to retailers (or
consumers), often without taking physical control of the products. Web
sites offering ATVs for sale are ubiquitous. A recent CPSC surveillance
effort reported that there were literally hundreds of Web sites
offering ATVs for sale, but the staff does not know the extent of
actual purchases through the Internet. [4]
5. Consumer Prices
The staff's 2004 market study observed that the major distributors'
suggested retail price for ATVs ranged from about $2,000 to $8,000; the
median suggested retail price was $5,150. As a subgroup, the price
ranges for youth ATVs from these manufacturers was $1,800 to $2,500.
The median suggested retail price for youth ATVs was about $2,300. [4]
A recent staff Internet search of new ATVs with brand names other
than those of the North American distributors, offered for sale by
business entities, found youth ATV models ranging from about $320 to
$950 each, with an average price of about $630. Larger ATVs ranged from
about $600 to $2,400, with an average of $1,340. The cited prices
included the cost of shipping to points within the lower 48 states from
the dealers' U.S. warehouses. Thus, it appears that ATVs from
importers/new entrants may have a significant price advantage over the
major distributors' products. [4]
D. Risk of Injury
As noted in the 2005 ANPR, the most recent annual report of ATV
deaths and injuries that the Commission has issued is the 2004 Annual
Report (which was issued in September 2005). According to that report,
the Commission had reports of 6,494 ATV-related deaths that have
occurred since 1982. Of these, 2,019 (31 percent of the total) were to
children under 16 years of age and 845 (13 percent of the total) were
to children under 12 years of age. According to the 2004 Annual Report,
569 ATV-related deaths were reported to the Commission for 2003. Deaths
reported to the Commission represent a minimum count of ATV-related
deaths. To account for ATV-related deaths that are not reported to the
Commission, the staff calculates an estimated number of ATV deaths. The
most recent estimate of ATV-related deaths for 2003 is 740. [3]
CPSC collects information on hospital emergency room treated
injuries. The estimated number of ATV-related injuries treated in
hospital emergency rooms in 2004 was 136,100. This is an increase of
about eight percent over the 2003 estimate. The estimated number of
injuries to children under 16 in 2004 was 44,700 (about 33 percent of
the total estimated injuries for 2004). [3]
The staff also estimates the risk of injury and the risk of death
per 10,000 ATVs in use. According to the 2004 Annual Report, the
estimated risk of injury for four-wheel ATVs for 2004 was 187.9
injuries per 10,000 four-wheel ATVs in use. A recent high in the
estimated risk of injury occurred at 200.9 in 2001. The estimated risk
of death for four-wheel ATVs in 2003 was 1.1 deaths per 10,000 four-
wheel ATVs in use. In 1999, the earliest comparable year due to changes
in data collection, the estimated risk of death was 1.4 deaths per
10,000 four-wheel ATVs in use. [3]
Based on injury and exposure studies conducted in 1997 and, most
recently, in 2001, the estimated number of ATV-related injuries treated
in hospital emergency rooms rose from 52,800 to 110,100 (a 109 percent
increase). Injuries to children under 16 rose 60 percent. During these
years, the estimated number of ATV drivers rose from 12 to 16.3 million
(a 36 percent increase); the estimated number of driving hours rose
from 1,580 to 2,360 million (a 50 percent increase); and the estimated
number of ATVs rose from 4 to 5.6 million (a 40 percent increase). The
chief finding of the 2001 Report was that increases in the estimated
[[Page 45908]]
numbers of drivers, driving hours and vehicles did not account for all
of the increase in the estimated number of ATV injuries. [3]
E. Children and ATVs
During its involvement with ATVs, the Commission has been
particularly concerned with reducing the ATV-related deaths and
injuries suffered by children. The Consent Decrees established age
guidelines, which the major distributors continue through their Letters
of Undertaking. In the Consent Decrees, the major distributors agreed
to represent and to make their best efforts to see that their dealers
also abided by age recommendations in their dealings with purchasers.
These age recommendations were based on the ATV's engine size (measured
as cubic centimeter (``cc'') displacement). They established that an
ATV with an engine that is larger than 90 cc should be used only by
those 16 years of age and older, and that an ATV with an engine size
between 70 and 90 cc should be used only by those 12 years of age and
older. Thus, ATVs with engine sizes larger than 90 cc have been
considered adult ATVs.
Yet, in spite of these efforts through the Consent Decrees and
LOUs, recent Commission staff studies have shown that many children
ride adult ATVs, and that injury rates are climbing. The Commission's
injury and exposure studies indicate that injuries to children under
age 16 rose 60 percent from 1997 to 2001. Although the number of
children riding ATVs also rose during this period, that increase does
not fully account for the rise in incidents.
The age delineations in the Consent Decrees made no mention of
speed limits. However, the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 voluntary standard does
categorize youth ATVs by reference to speed limits. The voluntary
standard requires that Y-6 ATVs (intended for ages 6-11) have devices
to limit their speed to not more than 10 mph and allow upward
adjustment to a maximum unrestricted speed of 15 mph. Y-12 ATVs
(intended for ages 12-16) have similar requirements to limit speed to
not more than 15 mph and allow upward adjustment to a maximum
unrestricted speed of 30 mph.
The Commission is proposing to change the categorization of ATVs
based on engine size that the Consent Decrees established. Instead the
Commission proposes three categories of youth ATVs based on maximum
speed of the ATV. The 90cc policy is design restrictive; engine size
does not necessarily restrict ATV size, nor does it necessarily
regulate maximum unrestricted speed; staff cannot make assumptions
(e.g., speed, power, weight, or size) about all ATVs of a certain
engine size based solely on the engine displacement values; and the
current voluntary standard for ATVs categorizes youth ATVs by speed
limiting characteristics, not engine size.
The Commission's ESHF staff considered several sources to determine
appropriate categories of ATVs. Based on developmental characteristics,
children are typically grouped as: age 5 through 7 or 8; age 8 or 9
through 11 or 12; age 12 through 15; and age 16 and up. Children, of
course, do not all develop at the same rate, but these groupings are
appropriate for most.
The CPSC staff's Age Determination Guidelines, state that children
age 6 through 8 years can operate slow-moving motorized vehicles, and
that children age 9 through 12 years can operate motorized vehicles
with gear shifting up to 10 miles per hour. The guidelines state a
clear demarcation with the teenage years: ``faster [than 10 mph] moving
motorized [vehicles] are generally not appropriate even for 12-year-
olds because of the difficulty associated with both balancing and
steering the vehicle while moving.'' Since ATVs require significant
balance and control, it seems most appropriate to have an age division
around the late pre-teen/early teenage years. Based on youth attributes
described in the Age Determination Guidelines, reasonable youth ATV
categories would be Y-6 (``slow-moving,'' no gear shifting), Y-9
(speeds 5-15 mph, gear shifting acceptable) and Y-13 (since the Age
Determination Guidelines stop at age 12, no specifications can be made
based on them). Additionally, the Age Determination Guidelines mention
that 9-to 12-year-olds are generally ``aware of traffic laws, but they
are very likely to engage in high-risk behaviors like riding in traffic
and stunt riding.''
In addition to cognitive development, appropriate age groupings
should account for children's physical size. Analysis of children's
physical growth suggests groupings with breaks roughly at around ages 8
to 9 and 11 to 13, acknowledging that growth will be rapid between ages
11 and 16 for both males and females.
Groupings set out in the Age Determination Guidelines can be used
to delineate three categories for youth ATVs based on maximum speed of
the ATV. For the youngest category, the Age Determination Guidelines
indicate that the ATV should be ``slow-moving.'' One method of defining
``slow moving'' could be slow enough to allow parents to walk or jog
with the ATV to facilitate supervision. Under this premise, it would be
reasonable to set the maximum speed for the slowest youth ATV between
the jogging speed and running speed. Research indicates that is about 9
to 10 mph. Based on the Age Determination Guidelines, the next category
should be roughly 10 to 15 mph. The Age Determination Guidelines do not
extend past 12 years of age, but it is reasonable to assume that the
third category could be faster than 10 mph and that older, more
experienced teens may be able to handle speeds higher than 10 to 15
mph. The Commission's ESHF staff has found no scientific research to
support either raising or lowering the current 30 mph speed limit for
teens. Thus, 30 mph is a reasonable top speed for the third category of
youth ATVs.
Proposed ATV Models and Intended Ages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATV Model age (years) Speed range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Junior 6 +................................ 10 mph or less.
Pre-teen 9 +.............................. 10*-15 mph.
Teen 12 +................................. 15*-30 mph.
Adult 16 +................................ Not restricted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* With speed limiter.
Although the weight of the ATV can play a role in the suitability
of an ATV for a youth, the Commission does not have sufficient
information to set an appropriate weight for youth ATVs.
Frame size also plays a role in the appropriateness of an ATV for a
child. Several commenters have expressed frustration with the current
ATVs available for children because the smaller frames of these ATVs
will not fit some 13 to 15 year olds. Establishing categories based on
speed limit rather than engine size may encourage manufacturers to
offer ATVs with larger frames (and larger engines), but with limited
maximum speeds that would be appropriate for children.
The availability of such youth ATVs may shift a number of young
riders to youth ATVs rather than larger adult models. This would
increase safety. Commission analysis indicates that the injury rate for
ATV riders under the age of 16 who are driving adult ATVs is about
twice the expected injury rate of those who are driving age-appropriate
ATVs. Moreover, these categories may enable more children to receive
formal ATV training. The largest and best established formal training
programs will not train children under age 16 unless they are riding an
appropriate youth model. [8]
The proposed rule also requires that youth ATVs must have automatic
[[Page 45909]]
transmissions. Based on the Age Determination Guidelines, ESHF staff
believes that manual transmission ATVs are inappropriate for children
under 9 years of age. Due to the high cognitive load required to
operate complex motorized vehicles, HF staff believes it best to allow
all children below 16 years of age to master driving skills before
learning to coordinate gear shifting with the many other skills
involved when riding.
F. Training
In the 1980s, Commission staff worked with the major ATV
distributors to develop the predecessor to the current ATV training
course that is offered through the ATV Safety Institute (``ASI''), the
non-profit training division of the SVIA. Training is important because
operating an ATV seems deceptively easy; steering controls are similar
to a bicycle, and the throttle is generally simply lever-operated with
the thumb. ATVs are, however, high-speed motorized vehicles that
require repeated practice to drive proficiently. Operating an ATV is
somewhat comparable to operating other complex motorized vehicles. ATVs
have top speeds approaching that of automobiles on highways, yet have
as little protection from oncoming objects as a motorcycle. Even at
relatively low speeds (20-30 mph) they can take as much skill to
operate as an automobile because the operator requires: (1) Situational
awareness to negotiate unpaved terrain with both eye-level hazards
(trees, other ATVs) and trail-level hazards (ditches, rocks, hidden
holes); and (2) quick judgments including not only steering, speed, and
braking, but also terrain suitability, weight shifting and other active
riding behaviors. [12]
Formal, hands-on training teaches drivers how the ATV responds in
situations that are typically encountered. ATV training may act as a
surrogate for experience because it exposes new ATV drivers to
situations they will encounter when riding off-road and teaches them
the proper driving behavior to navigate those situations.[12]
All of the major distributors offer training through the ASI. In
spite of the offers of free training and other incentives, relatively
few ATV riders take formal safety training. According to a 2004 study
by SVIA, only about 7 percent of new purchasers actually took training.
The newer entrants to the market do not offer any training with their
ATVs. These manufacturers account for about 10 percent of domestic ATV
sales, but their share of the market has been increasing. [4 & 12]
The Commission is proposing to require that manufacturers provide
purchasers with a certificate for free training for the purchaser and
any member of his/her immediate family who meets the age
recommendations for the ATV. The benefits of training to new ATV
purchasers could be substantial. As stated above, training may act as a
surrogate for experience. The greatest risk of injury occurs with
inexperienced riders. Staff's analysis of ATV incident data has found a
strong inverse relationship between driving experience and the risk of
hospital emergency department-treated injury. The analysis indicates
that risk in the first year of riding was about 65 percent higher than
the risk in the second year, and about twice the risk of the third
year. [8]
The proposed rules outline the basic content that a free training
course must have. This curriculum is based on CPSC safety messages and
the ``ATV Rider's Course Outline'' from the Consent Decrees. In
addition to instruction about the basic maneuvers that are necessary to
operate an ATV safely, the course must include instruction about the
risks of ATV-related deaths and injuries, the importance of safety
equipment, and the importance of avoiding the warned against behaviors
that are stated in the general warning label (such as children not
riding ATVs, not driving on paved roads, etc.). [12]
In many ways, training is essentially an extension of the warning
labels and owners instruction manuals. The training course provides the
rider with a fuller understanding of the risks involved in riding an
ATV and of the actions he/she can take to avoid or reduce these risks.
G. Description of Proposed Standards
1. General
The proposed standards draw from the ANSI/SVIA 1-2001 standard for
four-wheel ATVs (for single rider ATVs), the draft voluntary standard
for tandem ATVs, the Consent Decrees, and the LOUs. The Commission has
pulled together elements from all of these sources to construct
proposed standards with the goal of reducing ATV-related deaths and
injuries. Both the adult and youth standards require that ATVs meet
requirements for the mechanical operation of the ATV, informational/
point of sale requirements, and certification and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Commission believes that the reduction of deaths and injuries
from both adult and youth ATVs will require the active participation
and cooperation of the ATV industry and we encourage their
recommendations for additional safety provisions to the proposed
mandatory standards. The creation of viable, safer youth ATVs will be
an important component of any final rule.
2. Requirements for Adult Single Rider ATVs
a. Definitions
All terrain vehicle or ATV is defined as ``a three-or four-wheeled
motorized vehicle that travels on low pressure tires, has a seat
designed to be straddled by the operator (and a passenger if provision
is made for carrying a passenger), has handlebars for steering, and is
intended for off-road use on non-paved surfaces.'' The definition of
ATV states that for purposes of this part, an ATV is one that is
intended for an operator 16 years of age or older. The term
``manufacturer'' is defined to include an importer for purposes of the
ATV standards. Many of the definitions in the proposed standard are
derived from the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard.
b. Equipment and Configuration Requirements
General. Section 1410.5 proposes requirements for various aspects
of the mechanical operation of adult single-rider ATVs. Many of these
requirements are substantially the same as requirements of the ANSI/
SVIA-1-2001 voluntary standard. However, the CPSA requires that
consumer product safety standards be stated as performance rather than
design standards. Thus, some requirements that were stated in the ANSI
standard in terms of design have been modified to establish performance
requirements.
The provisions of this section ensure that there will be uniformity
in the basic operation of ATVs from one make or model to another.
Proposed configuration requirements for vehicle controls, indicators,
and gearing ensure the standardized instrumentation and safety features
of current ATVs. It is important that the location and method of
operation of safety related controls, such as brake controls and engine
stop switch, be standardized to reduce operator confusion. The
specified requirements are consistent with current ATV practice which
is based on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
requirements for motorcycle control location and operation requirements
(49 CFR 571.123). [5]
Operator Foot Environment. Proposed performance requirements for
operator foot environment ensure adequate vehicle configuration that
reduces inadvertent contact between the
[[Page 45910]]
operator's feet and the ground or the ATV's rear wheels. Operator foot
contact with the ground or the ATV's rear wheels has been identified as
a hazard pattern among ATV-related injuries. Differing zones are
defined for ATVs equipped with footpegs (designed to support the
operator's foot with a relatively narrow bar), and footboards (designed
to support the operator's foot with a platform-type structure). [5]
Lighting. Proposed lighting requirements mandate headlamps, tail
lamps, and stop lamps on all adult ATVs. The lighting equipment must
conform to applicable referenced standards. This provision was adopted
from the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard. Nighttime riding can be expected
with adult ATVs and requirements for industry standard headlamps will
ensure minimum illumination for night-time or safer operation of the
vehicle. [5 & 7]
VIN or PIN. The proposed standard requires that each ATV have
assigned a unique vehicle identification number (``VIN'') in accordance
with 49 CFR Part 565 or a product identification number (``PIN'') in
accordance with Recreation Off-Road Vehicle Product Identification
Numbering System, SAE International Consortium Standard, ICS-1000,
issued 2004-9. If the ATV has a VIN number, the characters in location
4 and 5 of the number must be ``A'' and ``T'', respectively to identify
the vehicle as an ATV and an off road vehicle. Having a VIN or PIN on
every ATV can be helpful if an ATV is the subject of a corrective
action. The VIN or PIN should also permit tracing the ATV back to its
retailer to determine compliance with applicable requirements.
Maximum speed capability and brake requirements. Procedures are
outlined for the measurement of a loaded vehicle's maximum speed. The
maximum speed is used to determine the brake test speed and conformance
to the youth ATV speed restriction requirements. [5]
The proposed standard establishes performance tests for service
brakes and parking brakes. Reliable brake performance is critical to
the safety of an ATV operator. The requirements specify a braking
deceleration of 5.88m/s\2\ (0.6g) or greater for service brakes and
brake holding power up to a 30 percent grade for parking brakes. [5]
These proposed requirements establish minimum brake performance to
ensure that brake systems are adequate for stopping the vehicle and
holding the vehicle on an incline. The specified requirements are
consistent with current ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 voluntary standard
requirements which are patterned after those in the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems (49 CFR
571.122).
The proposed requirements deviate from the current ANSI/SVIA-1-2001
requirements in terms of the vehicle test weight used to perform
service brake tests. The current voluntary standard specifies the test
weight as the unloaded vehicle weight plus 91 kg (200 lb) if the
vehicle load capacity is specified as 91 kg (200 lb) or more. The
proposed requirements specify the test weight as the unloaded vehicle
weight plus the vehicle load capacity. This will ensure that larger
vehicles with larger load capacities do not have a less stringent brake
requirement (by using a comparatively lower test weight during brake
tests).
Stability requirements. The standard proposes the same pitch
stability requirements as the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 voluntary standard. The
pitch stability for single-rider ATVs is based on the longitudinal tilt
angle of a vehicle without an operator. A vehicle's longitudinal tilt
angle can be calculated by measuring the vehicle's front and rear
weights and balancing angle (angle at which vehicle is balanced on its
rear wheels) or it can be measured on a tilt table. The ANSI/SVIA-1-
2001 voluntary standard requires calculation of a vehicle's
longitudinal pitch angle which must be 45 degrees or higher to meet the
pitch stability requirement. The proposed requirements adopt this test
procedure and minimum tilt angle for single-rider ATVs, and add a tilt
table option to address larger ATVs whose weights could make it unsafe
to follow the voluntary standard procedures for measuring and
calculating the pitch stability.
The proposed pitch stability requirements deviate from ANSI/SVIA-1-
2001 in terms of the test conditions of the vehicle. The current
voluntary standard specifies that the vehicle tires be inflated to the
ATV manufacturer's lowest recommended pressure. The proposed
requirements specify that the tires be inflated to the ATV
manufacturer's highest recommended pressure. This will ensure that the
vehicle configuration with the highest expected center of gravity will
be tested.
Over the years, the Commission has analyzed the issue of ATV
stability. Because ATVs are rider-active vehicles (that is, their
performance is affected by the rider's movements), it is difficult to
evaluate an ATV's actual stability. A satisfactory static test has been
developed to measure an ATV's pitch stability (movement from front to
back). At this point in time, the industry has not been able to develop
a satisfactory test of lateral stability (movement from side to side).
Thus, the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard has a requirement for pitch
stability, but not for lateral stability. The Commission's proposed
standard likewise contains requirements only for pitch stability.
However, the Commission encourages the industry to continue to pursue
an accurate and reliable test for lateral stability.
c. Information/Point of Sale Requirements
The proposed standard mandates by rule many similar information/
point of sale requirements as were specified in the Consent Decrees and
subsequently continued in the LOUs. This subpart of the proposed
standard contains requirements for labeling, hangtags, age
acknowledgment forms, instructional/owner's manuals, a safety video,
and instructional training.
Warning labels. The Consent Decrees specified four labels to appear
on all ATVs: (1) a general warning label, (2) an age recommendation
label, (3) a passenger warning label, and (4) a tire pressure and
overloading warning label. Most ATVs include these or substantially
equivalent labels as well as other discretionary warning labels.
However, imported ATVs may not have all of these warning labels, the
labels may be unclear or they may not be in English.
The proposed rule requires labels that are similar to those
required by the Consent Decrees, but allows more flexibility. The
warning labels have evolved since the Consent Decrees, and the major
distributors currently use their own copyrighted labels that present
substantially the same warnings. In the case of the general warning
label and the passenger label, the distributors sought Commission
approval for new labels that included pictograms and somewhat different
wording than had been specified in the Consent Decrees.
Like the Consent Decrees, the proposed rule requires a general
warning label, an age recommendation warning label, a passenger warning
label and a tire pressure/overloading label (or labels). All of the
warning labels must display the safety alert symbol in accordance with
section 4.1 of ANSI Z535.4-2002, American National Standard for Product
Safety Signs and Labels, and the word ``WARNING'' in capital letters.
The format for all of the labels must be consistent with the ANSI
Z535.4-2002 standard. The proposed rule requires the same location for
the single-rider ATVs as was required by the Consent Decrees. The
proposed rule
[[Page 45911]]
requires the warning labels to be in English.
The proposed rule specifies statements for these warning labels and
requires that the warning labels provide these, or substantially
equivalent, statements. This should enable provision of the vital
safety information but allow some flexibility to manufacturers who are
using labels that are consistent with, but not identical to, the
Consent Decree labels.
General warning label. The proposed rule requires a general warning
label that contains the same statements, or substantially equivalent
ones, as the general warning label required by the Consent Decrees.
This label warns that ATVs can be hazardous to operate and that severe
injury or death can result if the operator does not follow instructions
to: Read the owners manual and all labels; never operate the ATV
without proper instruction; never carry a passenger; never operate the
ATV on paved surfaces or on public roads; always wear a helmet and
protective clothing; never consume alcohol or drugs before or while
operating ATVs; never operate the ATV at excessive speeds; and never
attempt wheelies, jumps or other stunts. The proposed rule states that
the warning statements may be arranged on the label to group the
prohibited actions together and the required actions together. This is
how many of the current general warning labels are arranged. The
location is to be the same as specified in the Consent Decrees.
Age recommendation warning labels. The content of the age
recommendation warning labels differs from the Consent Decree labels.
The Commission's Human Factors staff concluded that the Consent Decree
age labels for adult ATVs are vague about the nature of the hazard they
are warning against and may not be as persuasive as they could be. The
primary reasons for the age recommendations are children's lack of
experience and, particularly, their immature judgment. If the reasons
for the age recommendations are not explicitly described in the label,
parents may rationalize why their children are exceptions to the
recommendations. Thus, the proposed rule requires the following, or
substantially similar statement: ``Even youth with ATV experience have
immature judgment and should never drive an adult ATV.'' The proposed
age recommendation label also differs from the Consent Decree label by
directing the message to the supervising parents rather than to the
child, who is likely to ignore it. Thus, the proposed rule requires the
following, or substantially equivalent, statement: ``Letting children
under the age of 16 operate this ATV increases their risk of severe
injury or death. NEVER let children under age 16 operate this ATV.''
[10]
Passenger warning label. The proposed rule specifies different
wording for the passenger warning label than the Consent Decrees
required. The major distributors are currently using a passenger label
that differs from the Consent Decrees. As with the general warning
label, they asked for and received approval from the Commission for a
different passenger label. Both the current label and the Consent
Decree label identify that the hazard caused by a passenger is that the
ATV may go out of control, but the labels do not state how the presence
of a passenger can lead to loss of control. To address this, the
proposed standard requires the following, or substantially similar,
statement: ``Passengers can affect ATV balance and steering. The
resulting loss of control can cause SEVERE INJURY or DEATH.'' The
proposed standard also requires the statement (or a substantially
similar one): ``NEVER ride on this ATV as a passenger.'' The proposed
language inserts the phrase ``on this ATV'' because, with the
development of tandem ATVs, some ATVs are intended to carry passengers.
[10]
Tire pressure and overloading label(s). Like the Consent Decrees,
the proposed standard allows the option of having the tire pressure
warning and the overloading warning in separate warning labels or
combined into one label. The proposed content of the label(s) is the
same as specified in the Consent Decrees.
Label durability. The proposed rule requires that all of the
warning labels must meet the durability requirements of Underwriters
Laboratories Standard UL 969, fourth edition, October 3, 1995. This
should ensure that the labels will remain on the ATVs and legible for
operators to see.
Discretionary warning labels. The proposed standard allows
manufacturers to display additional warning labels on ATVs so long as
they are consistent with ANSI Z535.4-2002, American National Standard
for Product Safety Signs and Labels ANSI Z535.4 (2002) and are affixed
to the ATV in an appropriate location that does not detract from the
required warning labels. [10]
Hangtags. Like the Consent Decrees, the proposed standard requires
that certain hangtags be present on the ATV at the point of sale. The
hangtags must provide the contents of the general warning label, a
statement that the hangtag is not to be removed before sale, and a
statement directing the purchaser to check with the ATV dealer about
state or local laws concerning ATVs. The hangtags must be conspicuous
and must be at least 4 by 6 inches.
Age acknowledgement form. The proposed rule requires that before
the sales transaction, the ATV retailer must provide the purchaser with
an age acknowledgement form, the content of which is specified in the
proposed rule. The form tells the purchaser that the ATV he/she is
considering is for adults and that children have immature judgment and
should never drive an adult ATV. The form states the number of children
who have died and who have been injured on adult ATVS in each year
since 2001 and informs the purchaser that youth ATVs are available. The
retailer must require the purchaser to sign the acknowledgement form
before the sales transaction; must provide the purchaser and
manufacturer with a copy of the form; and must maintain the original
for at least five years. The signed forms must be available for
Commission inspection upon request.
The purpose of the age acknowledgment form is to ensure that
everyone who purchases an adult ATV is aware that it is not intended to
be ridden by anyone under 16 and that children can be severely injured
or die when riding an adult ATV. The Commission has received comments
from parents indicating that they were unaware of the hazard adult ATVs
pose for children until their child became injured or killed while
riding one. Even with the current warning labels on ATVs stating this
hazard and with the LOU provisions that voluntarily continue the major
distributors' agreement to follow the age guidelines of the Consent
Decrees, apparently some consumers purchase adult ATVs without knowing
that a child should not ride them. Requiring purchasers to sign a form
which states the age recommendations will inform the purchaser of the
risks to children riding adult ATVs and could influence them to
prohibit children under 16 from riding one. [8 & 11]
Instructional/owners manuals. Like the Consent Decrees, the
proposed rule requires that ATVs be provided with an instructional/
owners manual. The proposed rule continues many of the Consent Decrees'
requirements for the manuals. They must be written to convey
information about the safe operation and maintenance of the ATV, be
written plainly in language that is comprehensible to a 7th grader, and
be consistent with other required safety messages. The basic content of
the
[[Page 45912]]
manual is specified much as it was in the Consent Decrees. The proposed
rule adds a requirement that the manuals be in English.
An introductory safety section must contain certain specified
safety messages. This section concludes with CPSC's website and phone
number, and the manufacturer must provide a contact number for the
purchaser to obtain further ATV safety information. The manufacturer
also must provide a phone number or email address for the owner to
report any safety issues (this could be the same phone number). The
section of the manual that describes proper operating procedures must
include narrative text identifying potential hazards, possible
consequences, and describing how to avoid or reduce the risk of those
hazards. This text must also include relevant warning statements
required by the standard. The manufacturer must retain a copy of the
manual for each model for 5 years and make it available for CPSC
inspection upon request.
Safety Video. The proposed rule requires the retailer to provide
the purchaser with a safety video before the sales transaction is
completed. The requirements for the safety video are substantially the
same as those set out in the Consent Decrees. The video is to include
the contents of the hang tag, the concept of knowing one's limitations
when operating an ATV, the importance of gradually progressing from
basic to more complex maneuvers, and the importance of remaining alert
while operating the ATV. The video also must include ATV-related death
and injury statistics, both for all riders and for children under the
age of 16, which can be stated in rolling five-year averages. These
must be updated when there is a statistically significant change in the
statistics. The video must be made available to the purchaser in at
least one commonly used format, such as VHS or DVD. The manufacturer
must retain a copy of the video for 5 years and make it available for
CPSC inspection upon request.
The Commission believes that providing the safety video is an
extension of the safety messages specified in the warning labels and
the instructional/owners manual. The video provides safety information
through a readily accessible medium. It can impart more detailed safety
information than a warning label can. A purchaser might be more
inclined to watch a safety video shortly after purchasing an ATV than
he/she would be to read the entire owner's manual with all of its
safety information.
Instructional Training. The proposed rule requires ATV
manufacturers to provide to purchasers a training course (at no cost)
for the purchaser and each member of the purchaser's immediate family
who meets the minimum age recommendation for the ATV that is being
purchased. At the time of sale, the retailer must deliver to the
purchaser a certificate which is valid for attendance at a training
course that meets the requirements in the proposed rule. The retailer
also must have the purchaser sign a form indicating that ATVs are
complex vehicles to drive and that he/she is aware that free training
is available. The retailer must retain the original of the training
disclosure form and provide the purchaser and the manufacturer each
with a copy.
As discussed above, the Commission believes that training can play
an important role in reducing ATV-related deaths and injuries. The
curriculum specified in the proposed rule is similar to training that
is currently offered by SVIA. It includes instruction on the maneuvers
necessary for operation of the ATV and information about behaviors to
avoid in order to reduce the rider's risk of injury. The course must
include classroom, field and trail activities. The course content must
include information on ATV-related deaths and injuries; the role of
safety equipment; rider responsibilities and safety messages;
identifying displays and controls on the ATV itself; recognizing one's
limitations while driving; evaluating a variety of situations to
predict a proper course of action, including terrain obstacles and
behavior of other riders; demonstrating successful learning of riding
skills, including starting, stopping, and negotiating turns of all
types; stopping in a turn; emergency braking; negotiating full-track
and partial-track obstacles; driving up hills; and combining skills
together in a non-predictable manner. No course duration is specified,
but it must be sufficient to cover all of the topics outlined in the
proposed rule and to allow for students to individually master the
riding skills covered in the course and to allow for written and riding
skills tests.[12]
Although no specific time or location is stated, the course must be
provided within a reasonable time from the date of purchase of the ATV
and a reasonable distance from the place the ATV is purchased.
Recordkeeping, testing and certification. The proposed rule
requires manufacturers to provide near the VIN or PIN number a
statement certifying that the ATV meets the requirements of the
standard. The manufacturer must perform, or cause to be performed,
tests sufficient to demonstrate on an objectively reasonable basis that
each ATV produced by the manufacturer meets the mechanical operation
requirements of the proposed rule (sections 1410.5 through 1410.9).
(This requirement is not intended to mandate testing of every ATV of a
particular model.)
The proposed rule requires ATV manufacturers (including importers)
to keep records sufficient to show that each ATV the manufacturer
produces meets the requirements of the proposed standard. The records
must be in English and must be kept at a U.S. location for five years
after the manufacturer ceases production of that model. Retailers must
keep records of the age recommendations acknowledgment form and the
training acknowledgment form for five years after the purchase.
3. Requirements for Tandem ATVs
a. Background
Tandem ATVs are a relatively recent development. The Consent
Decrees did not contemplate ATVs designed for more than one rider. The
ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard does not cover tandem ATVs. However, in 2002
the International 2-Up ATV Manufacturers Association (I2AMA) began
working on a voluntary standard for tandems, which subsequently became
a draft ANSI voluntary standard, ANSI/I2AMA-1-XXXX, Draft American
National Standard for Four Wheel, Two Person, All-Terrain Vehicles
Equipment, Configuration, Performance, Safety Information and Training
Requirements. Recently, I2AMA agreed to suspend its development of a
tandem standard and will instead work with SVIA to include tandem ATVs
in the existing ANSI/SVIA standard. [5]
The Commission covers tandem ATVs in its proposed standard for
adult ATVs. Most of the requirements for single rider ATVs also apply
to tandems. A few provisions in the equipment and configuration
requirements and the information requirements are different in order to
make them appropriate for tandems. The certification, testing and
recordkeeping requirements specified above also apply to tandem ATVs.
b. Equipment and Configuration Requirements
Most of the proposed equipment and configuration requirements for
single rider ATVs also apply to tandem ATVs. The proposed standard for
tandems states requirements for the passenger environment, and modifies
the single
[[Page 45913]]
rider requirements for the operator and passenger foot environment to
suit tandem ATVs. The proposed tandem standard also adds requirements
for passenger handholds. Two headlights and two tail lights are
required for tandem ATVs that are wider than 1500 mm. These proposed
requirements are based on the draft voluntary standard for tandem ATVs
and additional information provided by letter from the SVIA of May 19,
2006. [5]
The proposed pitch stability requirements are different for tandem
ATVs than for single rider ATVs. The pitch stability for single rider
ATVs is based on the longitudinal tilt angle of a vehicle without an
operator. However, the pitch stability for tandem ATVs is based on the
tilt angle of a vehicle with an operator and passenger (simulated
loads). The proposed requirements for tandem ATVs adopt the tilt table
method and minimum tilt angle specified in the ANSI draft standard for
tandem ATVs. A tandem ATV with simulated operator and passenger weights
must reach a minimum of 36 degrees in the longitudinal direction on a
tilt table before lift-off of both uppermost tires occur. Lift-off of a
tire occurs when a strip of 20-gauge steel can be pulled from
underneath the tire with a force of 9 N (2 lbf) or less. [5]
c. Information Requirements
Most of the information requirements discussed above for single
rider ATVs also apply to tandem ATVs. However, there are a few
differences. The general warning label proposed for tandem ATVs omits
the warning about carrying a passenger. The passenger warning label is
completely different from the passenger warning label of single rider
ATVs. It states ``Never carry more than 1 passenger,'' and states the
following recommended hazard avoidance behaviors: ``Never carry a
passenger too small to firmly plant his/her feet on the footrests and
to securely grab the handles; never allow a passenger to sit in a
location other than the passenger seat; and never carry a passenger who
is not securely grasping the grip handles at all times.'' [10]
The location required for the passenger warning label for tandem
ATVs is also different from the location required for the single rider
ATV. Because the general warning label required by the proposed
standard no longer has any warnings about passengers, the passenger
warning label should have greater visibility. Therefore, the proposed
rule requires it to be affixed to the front fender of the tandem
adjacent to the general warning label, so that it can be easily read by
the operator when seated on the ATV in the proper operating position.
[10]
The hangtag must provide the contents of the general warning label
required for tandems rather than the one required for single rider
ATVs. The instructional/owners manual also must have a different
statement about passengers. It must state the following (or
substantially equivalent): ``NEVER CARRY MORE THAN ONE PASSENGER. This
ATV has been designed specifically to carry one passenger.'' [10]
4. Requirements for Youth ATVs
a. General
As discussed in section E above, the Commission is proposing three
categories of youth ATVs based on maximum speed. Many of the proposed
requirements for youth ATVs are similar to those for adult ATVs and the
ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 voluntary standard. Because the FHSA, which provides
authority for the proposed youth standard, allows design standards,
some of the provisions of the proposed youth standard are phrased more
closely to the ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard than the comparable adult
standard provisions.
A youth ATV is defined as an ATV that is intended for use by an
operator less than 16 years of age. A Junior ATV is a youth ATV
intended for use by an operator at least 6 years old. A Pre-teen ATV is
a youth ATV intended for use by an operator at least 9 years old. And a
Teen ATV is a youth ATV intended for use by an operator at least 12
years old.
b. Equipment and Configuration Requirements
With the exception of lighting, maximum speed capability, and the
requirement for automatic transmission, the proposed equipment and
configuration requirements for youth ATVs are essentially the same as
those for adult single rider ATVs, which are expressed as performance
requirements.
Lighting. The proposed youth standard requires all youth ATVs to
have at least one stop lamp, and it prohibits any headlamp or forward-
facing day-time running lights. The ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 standard prohibits
both headlamps and tail lamps and is silent about running lights. [7]
The Commission believes that youth ATVs should have stop lamps to
alert a follower to the deceleration of a lead vehicle. The Commission
believes it is also appropriate to allow (but not require) tail lamps
for youth ATVs. Both of these types of lights could increase the
ability of other ATVs to see a youth ATV, but they would not improve
the ability of the youth ATV rider to operate the ATV at night. It is
the concern that children may be encouraged to ride ATVs at night that
is the basis for the proposed rule's prohibition of headlamps and
forward-facing daytime running lights. Although the purpose of daytime
running lights is to make the vehicle more conspicuous to other drivers
rather than to illuminate the driver's path, the Commission is
concerned that parents and children may have difficulty distinguishing
between a daytime running light and a headlamp. This may encourage a
child to ride at night. Thus, the proposed standard for youth ATVs
allows daytime running lights only if they are not forward facing. This
should increase the conspicuity of the ATV without providing forward
illumination that could encourage night riding. [7]
Maximum speed capability. As discussed above, the proposed rule
establishes maximum speeds for three categories of youth ATVs. Junior
ATVs, which are intended for children age 6 and older, must have a
maximum speed capability of 10 mph. Pre-teen ATVs, which are intended
for children age 9 and older, must have a maximum speed capability of
15 mph. And Teen ATVs, intended for children age 12 and older, must
have a maximum speed of 30 mph. In addition to placing limits on the
maximum speed capability of the ATV, the proposed youth standard also
requires speed limiting devices for Pre-teen and Teen ATVs. The maximum
speed allowed for a Pre-teen ATV with a speed limiting device is 10 mph
and the maximum restricted speed allowed for a Teen ATV is 15 mph. The
youth ATVs requiring speed limiting devices must be delivered to the
purchaser with the speed limiting device adjusted to limit the maximum
speed to the lowest setting specified for each category of youth ATV.
The proposed rule requires the simultaneous use of two different tools
for the speed limiting devices to be adjusted or removed. This
requirement is to make the devices more difficult to remove and thus
discourage children from removing them without the participation of an
adult. [5&6]
Although the proposed rule creates three categories of youth ATVs
instead of the current two categories, the proposal retains the current
maximum unrestricted speed of 30 mph for youth ATVs. The combination of
defining youth ATVs only by their maximum speed capability (rather than
engine size) while retaining the maximum speed currently in place
should allow manufacturers to develop ATVs with larger frames and
somewhat more powerful engines while still
[[Page 45914]]
maintaining the safety of the current speed limitations. Consequently,
provided a manufacturer is committed to the speed limitations of this
proposed youth ATV standard, the Commission would not oppose a
modification to a LOU to delete the engine size limitation.
Automatic transmission. As discussed above, the proposed rule
requires that all youth ATVs have automatic transmissions. The
operation of an ATV is complex for a child even without the added
activity of changing gears.
c. Information Requirements
The requirements for labels, hangtags, instructional/owners
manuals, safety video, and training in the proposed youth ATV standard
are essentially the same as those in the proposed adult standard.
However, there are some differences in wording where appropriate.
Labels. As with the warning labels for adult ATVs, the format for
all required warning labels for youth ATVs must be consistent with the
ANSI Z535.4-2002 standard. The required location for all of the youth
warning labels is the same as required for adult single rider ATVs. The
contents of the general warning label, the passenger warning label, and
the tire pressure and overloading label(s) are the same as required for
adult single rider ATVs. The contents of the age recommendation labels
differ slightly for each category of youth ATV. The age recommendation
label for the Junior ATV must display the safety alert symbol and the
word ``WARNING'' in capital letters. It must also contain a circle with
a slash through it and within the circle the words ``UNDER 6.'' The
proposed rule requires that below the circle must be the following, or
substantially equivalent, statements: ``Operation of this ATV by
children under the age of 6 increases the risk of severe injury or
death. Adult supervision required for children under 16. Never let
children under 6 operate this ATV.'' The age recommendation labels for
the Pre-teen and Teen ATVS are similar, but the ages 9 and 12,
respectively, are inserted instead of the age 6. [10]
Hangtags. The proposed rule requirements for hangtags are similar
to those in the proposed adult single rider standard. However, in
addition to the statements required there, the youth ATV hangtag must
also state: ``Even though a child is of the recommended age to operate
a particular size ATV, not all children have the strength, skills, or
judgment needed to operate an ATV safely, and parents should,
therefore, supervise their child's operation of the ATV at all times.''
[10]
Age acknowledgment. The proposed youth ATV standard also requires
the retailer to get the purchaser's signature on an age acknowledgment
form before the sales transaction. However, the required acknowledgment
form is different from the adult standard. The form states the age
categories and corresponding speed range. It advises the purchaser to
buy an ATV that fits his/her child or teen, to use the speed limiter
while the child is developing skills on the ATV, and to always
supervise his/her child or teen. [6]
Instructional/owners manuals. The proposed youth standard's
requirements for owners manuals are essentially the same as the
requirements for adult single rider ATVs. However, statements
concerning children's use of ATVs have been modified or added. The
manual must contain an introductory notice to parents emphasizing that
ATVs are not toys and that it is important for children to understand
the manual's instructions and warnings. The introductory section must
contain the following statement: ``Children differ in skills, physical
abilities, and judgment. Some children may not be able to operate an
ATV safely. Parents should supervise their children's use of the ATV at
all times.'' [10]
Safety video and training. Requirements concerning the safety video
and training are the same in the proposed youth standard as in the
proposed adult ATV standard.
5. Ban of Three-Wheeled ATVs
The Consent Decrees prohibited the ATV distributors who signed the
Consent Decrees from distributing or selling three-wheeled ATVs. In the
LOUs, the major distributors agreed to continue to refrain from selling
three-wheeled ATVs. None of them currently sell them (although three-
wheeled ATVs that pre-date the Consent Decrees are still in use and
could continue to be used if a ban is finally adopted). However, newer
entrants to the ATV market have not made such agreements with the
Commission.
The Commission's Office of Compliance has found that three-wheeled
vehicles are being advertised and marketed as ATVs for sale in the
United States. Compliance staff has identified three importers who have
sold a recreational vehicle that is essentially a cross between a
traditional ATV and a dirt bike, and would meet the proposed rule's
definition of an ATV. All three importers use the Internet as the
retail location for this product. They refer to it as a three-wheeled
ATV. The price ranges from $350.00 to $380.00, plus shipping. All three
importers are selling this product with a 49cc engine displacement.
[14]
In addition, two styles of an all terrain three-wheeled golf
scooter are being sold on the Internet and at golf supply stores. Both
of these styles would meet the proposed rule's definition of an ATV.
The presence of these three-wheeled vehicles on the market
indicates that the current LOU provisions, which continue the stop sale
provision in the Consent Decrees, are not sufficient to keep new three-
wheeled ATVs from entering the market. As discussed earlier, the newer
entrant importers have been increasing their proportion of the market
for ATVs sold in the U.S. This could mean increasing availability of
these types of three-wheeled ATVs. [4]
Analysis of Commission data indicates that the risk of injury
associated with three-wheeled ATVs is substantially higher than with
four-wheeled ATVs. A recent risk analysis, based on injuries reported
through the CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(``NEISS'') and a parallel survey of the general population of ATV
drivers, found that the risk of a hospital emergency department treated
injury on a three-wheeled ATV was about 3.1 (95% confidence interval,
1.5 times to 6.4 times) times the risk on a similar four-wheeled ATV.
As explained in the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, the staff
estimates the expected difference in non-fatal injury costs between
three- and four-wheeled ATVs to be about $3,045 per ATV annually. This
means that over the expected 9 year life of an ATV, the present value
of the injury cost difference would be about $23,700. Even a lower
bound estimate for the injury cost differential comes to a difference
of $6,839 over the life of the product. The injury cost difference
would be offset somewhat by the lower retail costs of a three-wheeled
ATV compared to a four-wheeled ATV. Accounting for this, the total
costs associated with three-wheeled ATVs (including both the injury
costs and the costs of purchasing the ATV) might amount to about
$23,400 ($23,700 in injury costs less $300 in retail costs) more than
the costs of a similar four-wheeled ATV (over its useful product life).
At the lower bound level, the difference would amount to about $6,530.
[8]
Although the Commission cannot quantitatively estimate the utility
of a three-wheeled ATV, available evidence suggests that the utility
differential between a three-wheeled ATV and a four-wheeled ATV, for
most people, is minimal. In the 1980s, before the Consent Decrees,
four-wheeled ATVs
[[Page 45915]]
were steadily increasing their market share, so that by 1986, 80% of
ATVs sold were four-wheeled models. Moreover, after the manufacturers
agreed to stop selling three-wheeled ATVs pursuant to the Consent
Decrees, the market price of used three-wheeled ATVs declined relative
to four-wheeled models. This indicates that most consumers did not
value three-wheeled ATVs significantly more than four-wheeled ATVs. [8]
At this point, it seems unlikely that any feasible standard could
be developed for three-wheeled ATVs. As the Engineering staff notes,
three-wheeled ATVs are less stable than four-wheeled ATVs and require
far more active rider input to steer properly. Although many technical
factors make a four-wheeled ATV more dynamically stable than a three-
wheeled ATV, one of the largest factors is the fourth wheel. Given the
inherent difference in vehicle configuration, the Commission does not
believe that it is feasible to develop a performance standard for
three-wheeled ATVs that would improve their stability performance to
the level of a four-wheeled ATV. [5]
H. Response to Comments on the ANPR
As discussed above, the Commission published an ANPR in the Federal
Register on October 14, 2005, 70 FR 60031. The Commission received 165
comments; one of those comments was a form letter, copies of which were
submitted by about 1,500 consumers. Among those who sent comments to
the Commission were ATV Safety Institute instructors; a state senator;
ATV riders; parents and relatives of riders; parents, relatives, and
friends of fatality and injury victims; consumers; medical
professionals; consumer organizations; ATV industry associations;
employees of the ATV industry; the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; and students at a U.S. university.
The issues that were raised most frequently concerned the
importance of training and safety education; state and local laws and
enforcement; the use of protective gear; age/size guidelines, the
proper fit of a child on an ATV and a transitional vehicle; the need to
provide ATV purchasers with ATV-related death and injury statistics;
ATV design; and parental rights and responsibilities. Other comments
provided ATV-related injury and fatality statistics for specific
states, regions, and hospitals. Some comments stated a position on the
petition that was submitted in 2002 by the CFA and eight other groups.
Another issue raised in a handful of comments was the non-recreational
use of ATVs and the marketing of ATVs for that purpose.
Each of these issues, with the Commission's response, is summarized
below. Many of the issues raised in the comments are discussed in more
detail in the staff's input memoranda listed at the end of this notice.
Training
Comment. Many comments expressed the importance of training for
safe ATV driving. Some comments spoke about training in general being
important, while a few others suggested that training should be
mandated, that training should be required before purchase of an ATV,
or that training should be free of charge to all ATV riders.
Response. CPSC agrees that formal hands-on training teaches drivers
how the ATV responds in situations that are typically encountered. CPSC
believes that ATV training is important because, as mentioned in the
memo ``ATV Training'' from the Division of Human Factors, operating an
ATV seems deceptively easy; steering controls are similar to a
bicycle's, and the throttle is generally lever-operated with the thumb.
ATVs, however, are high-speed motorized vehicles that require repeated
practice to drive proficiently. In addition, riding an ATV is ``rider-
active,'' that is, the rider must actively shift his or her body to
maintain proper control of the vehicle. It takes repeated practice to
become a proficient driver. Formal training may act as a surrogate for
experience because it exposes new ATV drivers to situations they will
encounter while riding off-road and teaches them the proper driving
behavior to navigate those situations.
As discussed above, to address the issue of training, CPSC is
proposing that retailers of ATVs provide to every purchaser of an ATV a
training certificate that would offer free hands-on training to members
of the purchaser's immediate family. The course would include
classroom, field, and trail activities, and a means for the student to
demonstrate skills.
State and Local Laws and Enforcement
Comment. Many comments reflected on the role of states and
localities in addressing the risks associated with ATVs. Some
commenters expressed the need to enact state legislation, while others
expressed the need for the states to clarify and enforce the laws that
already are in place. Some commenters called for ATV licensing, just as
automobile drivers have driver's licenses. Others suggested fines for
riding on public roads, as well as sales taxes or city taxes on ATVs.
Some commenters felt that more laws are not the answer because they
still will not cause irresponsible drivers to drive safely. One
commenter suggested that state laws should set minimum age limits for
ATV riders and require licensing, registration, training, safety
equipment, and prohibit passengers, while another commenter suggested
that Congressional action should be taken to provide financial
incentives for states to adopt safer ATV laws. Other commenters asked
that CPSC join the ATV companies and other interested parties in
actively supporting enactment of comprehensive ATV safety legislation
in states where it is under consideration. A state senator from
Minnesota expressed opposition to any federal regulation that ``removes
the state as the primary regulatory mechanism'' for ATVs. Other
commenters wrote about having graduated licensing of ATV drivers as
some states have for automobiles.
Response. CPSC believes that states and localities have a critical
role to play in any strategy to address the risk of injury and death
associated with ATVs. Legislative activity, or interest in such
activity, has been on the increase in the states. As noted in the
staff's briefing memorandum, the staff suggests that the Commission
establish an online state data resource bank for use by those who might
want to pursue legislation or other ATV safety-related actions.
Helmets and the Use of Protective Gear
Comment. Some commenters noted that the use of helmets and
protective gear is important in reducing deaths and injuries. One
commenter cited CPSC staff research that suggests that between 42 and
64 percent of fatalities and hospitalized injuries involving the head
``could have been averted by helmet use in cases where a helmet was not
being worn.'' Others mentioned that ATV riders and parents of riders
need to know the importance of helmet use, while another commenter
suggested that the helmet should be ``required to be thrown in as part
of the package.''
Response. CPSC has always emphasized the importance of using
helmets and other protective safety gear. As noted in the briefing
package, CPSC staff encourages retailers to co-merchandise ATV safety
gear, particularly helmets, alongside ATVs. The importance of wearing
helmets and safety gear is one of the messages in the proposed rule;
the message would be required on the general warning label and in the
owner's manual. Wearing suitable equipment also is included as
[[Page 45916]]
an element in the required training course.
Age/Size Guidelines, Proper Fit, and Transitional Vehicle
Comment. Many commenters addressed the current age/size guidelines
and the importance of finding a ``right fit'' for a child who rides an
ATV; they also supported or opposed a transitional vehicle. Commenters
noted the difficulty of children being able to get training when they
were on an adult ATV; others said that the current CPSC guidelines
matching engine size to age are too narrow in focus. One commenter
suggested focusing less on the age of the rider and more on size,
weight, and experience. Another commenter pointed out that the market
now has some mid-sized ATVs and that they are safer for a child to ride
than the smaller 90cc ATVs, while another suggested that children ages
12 to 15 years old should be able to ride up to a 250cc 4-stroke ATV.
Other commenters pointed out that the age restriction actually leads to
a safety problem because riding an undersized ATV is as much a safety
concern as riding an oversized ATV. A few commenters mentioned that
being able to adjust the throttle limits was a particularly useful
feature as children grow physically and learn to ride.
With respect to a transitional vehicle, many commenters expressed
opposition and stated that any proposal to put a child on an ATV larger
than 90cc should be rejected, that this would be a step backward, and
it would put children at an even greater risk of death and injury.
Commenters who were in opposition to a transitional vehicle seemed to
equate a transitional vehicle as one that was heavier, larger and
faster.
Response. As discussed in section E of this notice and in the
briefing memo, CPSC believes that speed, not engine size, is a more
appropriate criterion for determining which ATVs should be recommended
for children and youth under the age of 16. The proposed rule
eliminates engine size as a category marker for distinguishing youth
ATVs. In addition, all youth model ATVs will be required to have an
automatic transmission, so that children can focus on mastering driving
skills before learning to coordinate gear shifting with the many other
skills involved in operating an ATV.
CPSC believes that limiting maximum speed is the most critical
safety factor for youth ATV models. By eliminating the engine size
restriction, manufacturers will be able to produce a variety of ATV
models that meet speed restrictions but are more appropriately sized to
account for the wide variation in physical dimensions of young people.
By having the option of riding better-fitting ATVs that are not
performance limited by undersized engines, CPSC believes that more
youth will ride age-appropriate and speed-restricted ATVs rather than
gravitating toward adult ATV models.
Disclosure of Death and Injury Data
Comment. Several comments expressed the belief that information
about the risk of injury and death associated with riding ATVs,
especially with regard to children riding adult ATVs, has not been
available to prospective purchasers and that such information should be
provided at the point of sale. One of these comments includes the 1,500
individuals who submitted the letters that are entered as comment 57.
Response. The proposed rule would require that ATV dealers provide
purchasers of adult ATVs with a written statement that (1) clearly
states that adult ATVs are not intended for use by children under the
age of 16, and (2) gives consumers specific information about the
possible injury consequences of allowing children to ride adult ATVs.
The disclosure statement would be provided to purchasers prior to
completion of the sale. Consumers would be required to sign the
statement to acknowledge that they had been informed about the CPSC age
guidelines for youth models and the risks associated with children
riding adult ATVs. Similar disclosure forms would be provided to
purchasers of youth ATVs; those forms would indicate the age of the
child for which the youth model was designed.
ATV Design
Comment. Comments on ATV design ranged from the belief that deaths
and injuries are operator error and not the result of the machine's
design to some specific suggested design changes. One commenter said
that manufacturers should not be required to significantly modify their
designs for the sake of adding safety equipment, while a few others
stated that ATVs should have a roll bar and safety belt. Other
suggested design changes included: tags (license plates) on machines so
they can be identified; make the ATVs two inches wider; provide a seat
actuator which would turn the engine off if a passenger was on a
single-person ATV; provide daytime running lights and headlights on
ATVs. One commenter suggested that CPSC should determine the
appropriate testing that needs to be done in order to assess dynamic
stability, rollover propensity, and braking, suspension, and handling
systems.
Response. CPSC staff notes in Tab G of the briefing package from
the Directorate for Engineering Sciences that there are technical
issues that would benefit from further testing and study. This work,
however, will require time and the coordinated application of CPSC and
private sector resources. CPSC believes that the most effective way to
carry this out is through close, ongoing interaction with voluntary
standards committees that are addressing ATVs in that regard.
With respect to lighting equipment, the proposed rule for adult
ATVs would require at least one headlamp projecting a white light to
the front of the ATV, at least one tail lamp projecting a red light to
the rear and at least one stop lamp or combination tail/stop lamp.
Daytime running lights would be allowed on adult ATVs.
All youth ATVs would be required to have at least one stop light.
As discussed in section G.4.b above and in the briefing package, CPSC
believes that riding ATVs at night is a significant risk factor for
children and should be discouraged. Because headlamps or any forward-
facing light on youth ATVs may encourage nighttime and unsupervised
riding in challenging conditions, CPSC believes that these lights
should not be allowed. Under the proposed rule, forward-facing daytime
running lights for conspicuity would be prohibited on a youth ATV; but
daytime running lights would be allowed on other parts of youth ATVs. A
brake light would be required on youth ATVs.
Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Comment. Many comments focused on parental rights and
responsibilities. For the most part, these comments expressed the
belief that parents have the right and the responsibility to make
decisions for their children and are the best judges of their
children's abilities and skill levels. Other comments stated that some
parents have neglected supervising their children and that the rights
of many should not be taken away because of the actions of a few.
Response. CPSC agrees that parents must play a critical role in
supervising their children's use of ATVs. This includes decisions about
the size of ATV their child /children should use and their child's
riding behavior. As mentioned above, the proposed rule requires that
information be provided to help parents in their decision-making. The
mandatory labels for youth ATVs provide a notice to parents that
children
[[Page 45917]]
should ride only age-appropriate ATVs, while the hangtags and the
owner's manual are required to include messages about the importance of
supervision.
Injury and Fatality Statistics
Comment. Some comments included death and/or injury statistics for
specific regions of the country, specific hospital emergency rooms, and
specific states; some of the information was contained in articles that
had been published in professional journals. A few commenters talked
about the comparative risk of ATV riding and the risk associated with
other activities. One commenter stated that overall ATV injury risk, as
measured per vehicle in use (for all ages or for children) has been
stable since the expiration of the Consent Decrees in 1998 and that
ATV-related fatality risk (for all ages or for children) has declined
or remained stable since 1999.
Response. With respect to the comment that overall ATV injury risk
has been stable since the expiration of the Consent Decrees, the
Directorate for Epidemiology notes that the 2004 Annual Report of ATV
Deaths and Injuries compared the 2004 injury risk to the 2001 injury
risk and concluded that there was no statistically significant trend in
injury risk, positive or negative, from 2001 to 2004. However, the
report noted that the statistical testing of differences in injury risk
prior to 2001 is not possible due to the unavailability of measures of
variation for risk estimates during those years.
With respect to fatality risk, CPSC staff notes that, because data
collection was incomplete for the years 2002-2004 at the time of the
most recent report, no conclusions could be made about fatality risk
for those years. The commenter's assertion that fatality risk has
declined or remained stable does not appear to be the result of a
statistical test, since no measures of variation are provided in the
commenter's report. CPSC staff has not performed statistical testing on
risk of death for similar reasons.
As noted in section D of this notice and in the briefing memo,
there were an estimated 136,100 emergency room-treated injuries for all
ages in 2004. This was an increase of 10,600 from 2003. In 2003, there
were an estimated 740 deaths associated with ATVs. Twenty-six percent
of the reported deaths in 2001 were of children under 16 years old.
Ban the Sale of Adult-Size ATVs for the Use of Children Under 16 Years
Old
Comment. Several comments were submitted that specifically
expressed a position on the CFA petition to ban the sale of adult sized
vehicles for use by children under 16 years old. This included the
1,500 form letters submitted as comment 57, which expressed the opinion
(without mentioning the petition) that the sale or rental of adult-
sized ATVs to anyone under 16 should be prohibited. A few letters
expressed opposition to the petition.
Response. The petition to ban the sale of adult ATVs for the use of
children under 16 years old was the focus of the staff's 2005 briefing
package. The staff comments on the petition are contained in that
document.
Non-Recreational Use of ATVs, ATV Marketing
Comment. A few commenters mentioned the non-recreational aspect of
ATVs, the perceived need to limit their marketing to farm or utility
use alone, and that the advertised recreational use of ATVs is not a
practical or safe form of activity. Some of these commenters expressed
concern about the injuries and deaths associated with the use of ATVs
in farm or utility work.
Response. CPSC believes the issue of how ATVs are marketed as
recreational or utility vehicles is better addressed by the Federal
Trade Commission.
I. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission is issuing a proposed rule under sections 7, 8 and 9
of the CPSA and section 2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. Both the CPSA and FHSA
require that the Commission prepare a preliminary regulatory analysis
for these proposed rules and that it be published with the final rule.
15 U.S.C. 2058(c) and id. 1262(h). The following discussion is
extracted from the staff's memo, ``All Terrain Vehicle Mandatory
Standard: Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.''
1. Introduction
The main provisions of the ATV proposed rules include (1)
Mechanical requirements for ATVs,(2) a ban on the sale of new three-
wheel ATVs, (3) speed limitations on ATVs intended for children under
16 years of age, (4) requirements for warnings and recommendations to
be provided to purchasers of new ATVs through hang tags, labels,
videos, and owner's manuals, (5) requirements for a disclosure
statement to be provided to purchasers warning against the use of adult
ATVs by children, (6) a requirement that all purchasers of new ATVs be
offered free safety training, and (7) requirements that purchasers of
new ATVs be provided with a means for reporting safety related
complaints to the manufacturer and the CPSC.
Many of the provisions of the proposed rules are based on an
existing voluntary standard (ANSI-SVIA-1-2001), provisions of the 1988
Consent Decrees, and the current LOUs with a number of manufacturers
that may account for as much as 90 percent of the U.S. market for ATVs.
Consequently, the Commission believes that most ATVs are already in
substantial conformance with most of the provisions of the proposed
rule. Some of the smaller manufacturers, and some of the recent
entrants into the market may also be in conformance with some (or most)
of the provisions of the proposed rule. Promulgating a mandatory rule
will ensure that manufacturers that are already conforming continue to
do so, and that any manufacturer that does not now conform can be
brought into conformance.
Below is a preliminary regulatory analysis of the proposed rule,
including a description of the potential costs and potential benefits.
Each element of the proposed rule is discussed separately. For some
elements, the benefits and costs cannot be quantified in monetary
terms. Where this is the case, the potential costs and benefits are
described and discussed conceptually.
2. Products Covered
An ATV is a motorized vehicle with 3 or 4 low-pressure tires (less
than 10 pounds per square inch) that is intended for off-road use. The
seat is designed to be straddled by the operator. Handlebars are used
for steering control. Most ATVs are intended to carry only one person:
the operator. More recently, some tandem ATVs have been introduced that
are designed to carry a passenger in addition to the operator. ATVs can
be used for purposes of recreation, sport or utility.
If promulgated in final, the proposed rule will apply to all ATVs
sold in the United States on or after the effective date of the rule
(180 days after publication of a final rule). It will not apply to ATVs
that were sold prior to the effective date.
3. ATV Manufacturers, Numbers in Use, and Sales
The ATV market has grown substantially since Honda introduced the
first ATV in 1969. The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA)
estimated that in 2005, there were 6.9
[[Page 45918]]
million ATVs in use. While most ATVs are used for recreational
activities, ATVs can also be used for non-recreational activities, such
as farm or ranch work or for transportation to remote work sites that
are not accessible on paved roads.
The number of new ATVs sold annually has increased substantially in
the last decade. In 1995, an estimated 293,000 ATVs were sold in the
US, almost all by 7 North American distributors (Honda, Kawasaki,
Yamaha, Suzuki, Polaris, Bombardier, and Arctic Cat). In 2005, an
estimated 921,000 ATVs were sold in the US. An estimated 10 percent (or
92,000) were imported. The share of imports is expected to continue to
increase in the future.
With the substantial increase in ATV sales has come a substantial
increase in the number of manufacturers supplying ATVs to the U.S.
market. In 1995, virtually all the ATVs were supplied by 7 domestic
distributors; by 2006, the staff had identified at least 87 firms
supplying ATVs to the U.S. market.
Generally, the largest manufacturers sell their ATVs through
franchised dealers. Importers will typically import ATVs from a foreign
manufacturer and then market them to various retailers. Some importers
may sell directly to consumers. Some imported ATVs are sold directly to
consumers through import brokers who never actually have physical
possession of the ATV. ATVs are also offered for sale through the
internet.
Most ATV retailers sell products in addition to ATVs. For example,
many ATV dealers also sell motorcycles, scooters, personal water craft,
and sometimes farm equipment. Some ATVs are sold by other types of
retailers, such as aftermarket automotive parts and accessories
dealers.
The median retail price of an ATV from the domestic manufacturers
is about $5,150 (range $2,000 to $8,000). The median price for youth
ATVs is about $2,300 (range $1,800 to $2,500). The retail prices of
imports can be substantially lower.
4. Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Rule
Mechanical Requirements. The proposed rule incorporates a number of
mechanical requirements from the current voluntary standard for ATVs
(ANSI/SVIA-1-2001). The specific requirements and rationales are
described and discussed in more detail above. They include, among other
things, requirements for service and parking brakes, mechanical
suspension, pitch stability, handlebars, and the operator foot
environment. There are also some additional design requirements for
youth models covering items such as the location of brake and throttle
controls.
The proposed rule differs from ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 with regard to some
lighting requirements. The proposed standard would require stop lamps
on all ATVs, including youth models (i.e., those intended for children
under the age of 16). ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 allows, but does not require
stop lamps on adult and youth ATVs. Stop lamps can reduce the risk of a
collision by visibly signaling to a following ATV that an ATV ahead of
it is decelerating. CPSC believes that while most adult ATVs are
already equipped with stop lamps, most youth ATVs do not currently have
stop lamps.
The proposed rule would require that youth ATVs be equipped with
automatic transmissions so that the operator does not have to either
engage a clutch or select the proper gear in order for the engine to
maintain its optimum speed. This is a change from the voluntary
standard, which does not specify the type of transmission on youth
ATVs.
Each provision of the mechanical requirements should reduce injury
risks associated with ATVs. For example, the pitch stability
requirement is intended to reduce the propensity of ATVs to tip
rearward, which could injure the rider if he or she was thrown from the
vehicle or the vehicle flipped and landed on the rider. The service and
parking brake performance requirements are intended to ensure that
brakes are at least adequate for stopping the vehicle and preventing
the vehicle from rolling when it is left unattended. The requirement
for automatic transmissions on youth ATVs could reduce injury risk by
reducing the number of tasks that inexperienced drivers must perform
while driving an ATV.
Mandating these mechanical requirements would help ensure
compliance with these minimum mechanical safety requirements and
enhance the CPSC's ability to enforce the mechanical safety
requirements at a time when many new manufacturers are entering the
market. Conformance to ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 is voluntary.
Mandating these mechanical requirements would have a small initial
impact on injury risk. The ATV manufacturers that have negotiated LOUs
with the CPSC are already in conformance with the requirements of the
voluntary mechanical standard, from which the requirements in the
proposed rule were adapted. Some of the smaller manufacturers are also
believed to be in conformance with the voluntary standard. In total,
the firms that are already in substantial conformance probably account
for more than 90 percent of ATVs now sold. However, mandating these
requirements would ensure that those firms that do not now meet these
minimum safety requirements will begin to do so. Moreover, as new firms
enter the market, the presence of a mandatory standard that can be more
easily enforced would make it more likely that new entrants comply with
the mechanical safety requirements. Mandating these requirements should
also help ensure that the risk of ATV-related injury due to ATVs that
do not meet the mechanical safety standards does not increase in the
future.
Since many manufacturers already conform with the voluntary
standard, the additional cost that will be incurred by manufacturers to
meet the mechanical requirements of the proposal will be low. The cost
to some may be limited to the cost of adding stop lamps to their youth
ATVs. The cost of adding stop lamps to ATVs could amount to several
dollars or more, especially on youth ATVs. Most adult ATVs are thought
to already have stop lamps.
Additionally, some manufacturers will have to modify the
transmissions on some youth ATV models so that they are fully
automatic. Based on staff observations, most current youth ATV models
are already equipped with automatic transmissions, especially those
intended for children under the age of 12 years. The staff has
identified some ATVs intended for children between 12 and 15 years of
age that are equipped with automatic clutches, but not automatic
transmissions. These ATVs would not meet the requirements of the
proposed rule.
The fact that many youth ATVs are already equipped with automatic
transmissions indicates that many consumers are willing to pay the
additional cost of automatic transmissions for the additional safety,
convenience, or driving ease that is provided by automatic
transmissions. However, the Commission has not been able to quantify
the difference in cost between automatic transmissions and manual
transmissions or between automatic transmissions and automatic
clutches/manual transmissions.
The mechanical requirements are not expected to cause a substantial
loss of utility for the rider. In fact, to the extent that the
requirements prevent accidents, reduce downtime, make the ride more
comfortable (e.g., the suspension requirements), and increase the
functionality of the vehicles, most of the
[[Page 45919]]
requirements could have a positive impact on rider utility.
The proposed rule would require manufacturers (including importers)
to perform, or cause to be performed, testing sufficient to ensure, on
an objectively reasonable basis, that each ATV conforms to the
requirements in the proposed rule. The specified tests will require
some time and equipment. If the tests are conducted at a facility where
the required equipment is available and set up time for each test is
kept to a minimum, it is possible that all of the tests could be
conducted in one day (8 hours) or less. It is reasonable to assume that
the person supervising the tests will be a senior mechanical engineer
and that at least one other mechanical engineer will be involved in
conducting the tests. If the total labor costs were $90 per hour, then
the cost of conducting the tests would be about $720 per model (8 hours
x $90).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the average wage for a Level 13 Mechanical Engineer was
$52.45 in July 2003. In this discussion $90 is used to allow for the
assistance of a less experienced engineer and inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the labor cost, some accounting for the cost of
equipment required for testing should also be made. Assuming that ATV
manufacturers have the equipment easily available, it is probably
reasonable to assume that the cost of the equipment used in the testing
is perhaps about $500. This could be thought of as the rental value of
the equipment for a day of testing.
The testing must be documented and maintained for 5 years after the
production of that model ceases. The information required for this
documentation would be collected during the performance of the tests.
However, this information might be reformatted and assembled into the
final record after the testing is completed. Moreover, in the case of
foreign manufacturers, this documentation will have to be provided to
the U.S. based importer and it is the importer that will be required to
maintain the records. This could add perhaps another $100 to the cost
of the testing and record keeping.
These estimates suggest that the full testing and recordkeeping
costs of the proposed rule could be about $1,320 per model. Previously,
CPSC staff had identified 131 different ATV models for the model year
2001 and 235 different ATV models for the year 2003. Given the
significant increase in sales of ATVs in recent years, it is not
unreasonable to believe that there might be 500 different ATV models
today. Therefore, the full testing and recordkeeping costs could be
$660,000 per year, assuming models are changed annually.
Several ATV manufacturers conform to ANSI/SVIA-1-2001 and,
therefore, should already be performing the testing called for in the
proposed rule. The proposed rule will not impose additional testing
burdens on these manufacturers. The staff estimates that these
manufacturers account for at least 150 ATV models. Therefore, the
testing and recordkeeping costs that could be attributed to the
proposed rule that would not be incurred in the absence of the proposed
rule, could be less than $462,000 annually ($660,000 - 150 x $1,320).
Ban on the Sale of New 3-Wheel ATVs. As part of the 1988 Consent
Decrees, ATV manufacturers agreed not to sell any new 3-wheel ATVs,
which had been shown to be less stable and more risky than their 4-
wheel counterparts. As a result, until recently, no new 3-wheel ATVs
have been marketed in the United States since the late 1980s. However,
the CPSC Office of Compliance has found evidence on the Internet that
3-wheel vehicles that could be considered to be ATVs have recently been
offered for sale to the public. Therefore, the proposed rule would
formalize a ban on the sale of new 3-wheel ATVs. While formalizing the
ban will not reduce ATV-related injuries significantly from their
present levels, it will ensure that 3-wheel ATVs are not reintroduced
into the U.S. market.
The justification for a ban on the sale of 3-wheel ATVs is based on
the substantially higher expected injury costs associated with the
ownership and use of 3-wheelers, relative to 4-wheelers, and the
likelihood that these higher costs outweigh any additional utility that
they may provide to their owners. We begin with a discussion of the
costs associated with the ownership and use of 3-wheel and 4-wheel
ATVs.
The real costs of ATVs include the expected injury costs associated
with their use as well as their purchase price. A recent risk analysis,
based on injuries reported through the CPSC National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS) and a parallel survey of the general
population of ATV drivers, found that the risk of a hospital emergency
department-treated injury on a 3-wheel ATV was about 3.1 (95%
confidence interval (CI), 1.5, 6.4) times the risk on a similar 4-wheel
ATV.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Gregory B. Rodgers and Prowpit Adler, ``Risk Factors for
All-Terrain Vehicle Injuries: A National Case-Control Study,''
American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 153, No. 11 (2001). Hereafter
Cited ``Rodgers and Adler (2001).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These relative risk estimates can be used to estimate the expected
difference in annual injury costs between 3-wheel and 4-wheel ATVs. In
2001, the societal cost of non-fatal ATV-related injuries was about
$1,876 per ATV in use. In 2001, 3-wheel ATVs made up about 14 percent
of the ATVs in use. If we let Cost3 and Cost4
represent the expected annual non-fatal injury cost per 3-wheel and 4-
wheel ATVs in use respectively, then the expected annual injury cost
per ATV can be expressed as 0.14(Cost3) +
0.86(Cost4) = $1,876.
Since the risk of a non-fatal injury on 3-wheel ATVs is
approximately 3.1 times that of a 4-wheel ATV, Cost3 can be
expressed in terms of Cost4 (i.e., Cost3 = 3.1 *
Cost4). Solving these equations yields Cost3 =
$4,494 and Cost4 = $1,450. Therefore the expected difference
in non-fatal injury costs between 3-wheel and 4-wheel ATVs is about
$3,045 per vehicle annually.\8\ If the expected life of an ATV is 9
years, the present value of this injury cost difference (at a 3 percent
discount rate) over the expected life of the product will come to about
$23,700.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ An analysis of fatal injury risks also suggested a higher
relative risk on 3-wheel ATVs. However, because information
regarding a key driver characteristic was missing, the difference in
fatal injury risks was less amenable to quantification and,
therefore, not included in the above analysis. It suggests however,
that the cost differential between 3-wheel and 4-wheel ATVs
estimated above could be low (see Gregory B. Rodgers, ``Revisiting
All-Terrain Vehicle Risks: Response to Critique,'' Journal of
Regulatory Economics, Vol. 10 (September 1996).
\9\ This is a low estimate of the average life of an ATV. One
analysis suggests that the expected life of an ATV could be 19 years
(Statement of Ed Heiden of Heiden Associates at the Consumer Product
Safety Commission West Virginia Public Field Hearing, Morgantown,
West Virginia, 5 June 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lower bound estimate for the injury cost differential might be
based on the lower 95 percent confidence bounds of the relative risk
factors for 3-wheel ATVs described above, or 1.5 instead of 3.1. Based
on these relative risk estimates, the non-fatal injury cost
differential on a 3-wheel ATV would be about $877 per year. Assuming a
9-year useful life and a 3 percent discount rate, this comes to a
difference of $6,830 over the life of an ATV.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Even if a higher discount rate were used, the cost
differences would be substantial. For example, if a 7 percent
discount were used with the lower estimates of the relative risks,
the expected cost difference over the life of an ATV would be
$5,713.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The injury cost differential would be offset somewhat by the lower
retail costs of 3-wheel ATVs. Based on information from the late-1980s,
when 3-wheel ATVs were still being produced, 3-wheeled ATVs cost about
$190 less than a similar 4-wheel model. This cost
[[Page 45920]]
differential would probably amount to about $300 in 2004 dollars.
Thus, the total costs associated with 3-wheeled ATVs (including
both the injury costs and the costs of purchasing the ATV) might amount
to about $23,400 ($23,700 in injury costs less $300 in retail costs)
more than the costs of a similar 4-wheel ATV (over its useful product
life). At the lower bound level, the difference would amount to about
$6,530.
A ban of 3-wheel ATVs would therefore be beneficial (on average) if
the average extra valuation (i.e., use value or utility) that
individuals put on a 3-wheel ATV over a 4-wheel ATV is less than
$23,700 (or about $6,530 at the lower bound) over the useful life of
the product. Consequently, if the utility from a 4-wheel ATV is not
substantially different from the utility from a 3-wheel ATV, the ban
would be justified.
We cannot estimate the utility that individuals get from ATVs, and
so we cannot say that the ban would be justified for all individuals.
However, available evidence suggests that for most individuals, the
utility differential is minimal. First, 4-wheel ATVs were growing in
market share throughout the 1980s, even though their retail prices were
marginally higher than similar 3-wheel ATVs. By 1986, for example, two
years before the consent decrees became effective, about 80 percent of
ATVs sold in the U.S. had four wheels. Second, after the ATV
manufacturers agreed to stop selling 3-wheel ATVs as part of the
consent decrees, the market price of used 3-wheel ATVs actually
declined relative to the price of 4-wheel models.\11\ There was no
evidence of a strong market reaction to the 3-wheel ATV stop-sale, such
as bidding up the price of the increasingly scarce 3-wheelers that
would suggest many consumers valued 3-wheel ATVs significantly more
than they valued 4-wheel models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Gregory B. Rodgers, ``All-Terrain Vehicles: Market Reaction
to Risk Information,'' Economic Inquiry, Vol. 31, No. 1 (January
1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Limitations on ATVs Intended for Youths. The proposed rule
would limit the maximum speeds of ATVs intended for children under the
age of 16 years. Teen ATVs (i.e., those intended for riders between 12
and 15 years of age) would have a maximum unrestricted speed of 30 mph
and a speed limiting device that can limit the maximum restricted speed
to 15 mph. Pre-Teen ATVs (i.e., those intended for children between 9
and 11 years of age) would have a maximum unrestricted speed of 15 mph
and a speed limiting device that can limit the maximum restricted speed
to 10 mph. Junior ATVs (i.e., those intended for children between 6 and
8 years of age) would have a maximum speed of 10 mph. No ATVs would be
recommended for children under the age of 6 years. All references to
engine size, such as those in the LOUs, would be eliminated.
Based on an analysis by the CPSC Division of Human Factors (ESHF),
speed--not engine size--is a more appropriate control variable for
determining which ATVs should be recommended for children under age 16
years. In fact, limiting engine size could be counterproductive. There
is some evidence that limiting the power of youth models by controlling
engine size can, in some circumstances, make ATV riding less safe. As
one example, underpowered children's models have a greater potential
for stalling when going uphill.
It is also likely that engine size restrictions discourage some
people from purchasing appropriate ATVs for young riders. If the ATV
engine lacks sufficient power for things such as acceleration or hill
climbing, some young riders may resist riding these ATVs and instead
ride adult ATVs. Additionally, the frame size of the current ATVs with
less than 90cc engines might not comfortably fit ``large'' children.
Some adolescents between the ages of 12 and 14 are larger than some
adults; these adolescents may resist using an ATV with a frame designed
to fit a much smaller person. According to ESHF, ``fitting the [ATV]
frame anthropometrically to the user is one of the most important
factors for youth ATVs. If the frame is too small, the youth will be
discouraged from riding the ATV both physically and socially.'' This
may explain, at least in part, the fact that relatively few children
actually ride the youth models. Based on the 2001 exposure survey, only
about 20 percent of children under 16 years of age who drove ATVs drove
youth models.
Based on these considerations, elimi