 Good morning, and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have two decisional matters on the agenda this morning. The first that we will consider is the termination, the consideration of termination of rulemaking for recreational off-highway vehicles. After we conclude that and probably take a short break, we'll turn to consideration of a proposed regulation amending our fireworks rigs. We'll start with the ROV package and for that discussion the staff members before us are Ms. Caroline Paul who's a mechanical engineer in the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction and Ms. Barb Little from the Office of the General Counsel. Based on agreement from the Commission, we're going to have ten round ten minutes per round of questions as opposed to our usual five. And so we'll now turn to questions and since I have a feeling many of my questions will be addressed by other questioners I'm going to pass at this point turn to Commissioner Adler for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning So the first line of questions I want to ask and I'll try to make this succinct has to do with the this is not Has to do with hang tags Because this is an area at least in my mind for controversy and what I've got in my hand I don't know if you can see it Ms. Paul is the current ROVA hang tag. You've seen this The current drafts hang tag, yes Okay, so one of the things that I'm trying to figure out is what is required and what is it that ROVA has Its members have added so the only thing that I could see that's actually mandatory is that a number a metric be announced and then Statements below and those statements. I thought I would just read them Measurement of lateral stability in degrees of a sample standard Conditioned vehicle with an operator and a passenger load as measured by the Manufacturer in accordance with the tilt table lateral stability test in the ANSI ROVA standard for recreational off-highway vehicles vehicle Modification accessories and loading can affect lateral stability. Then the other mandatory language is training courses to teach ROV driving are available for information contact your dealer and or rovid.org and finally check with your dealer to find out about State or local laws regarding ROV operation. There's no requirement in the ROVA standard for there to be a comparative Scale showing different degrees of tilting. Is that correct? That that's correct and similarly as I look at the back of the tag. There's a lot of language there That language is not required in the ROVA standard. Is that language that CPSC has expressly explicitly blessed? It actually is required in the standard and one in our comment letter to the canvas draft we express concerns that That was a lot of information to put and we were worried that the value that we were interested in would be diluted and It's in the first section that it shall contain the contents as listed in section four point sixteen point four point five point one And the backside is all those Warnings so it is actually in the standard Okay, so that if I were to turn to four point one six point four point five point one it would have this language on The back of it. It's actually listed and a through zero a through oh on Manufacturers to provide a general warning label that provides messages in the following content areas and This is a repeat of Information that's that's found elsewhere So they it looks like it was the information that already met that requirement and then repeated again in this hang tag But on the backside So that you're saying the language on the backside is language expressly Mandated in the rova voluntary standard. Yes, okay new information to me. Thank you I guess another question I would have and this really goes to my big issue with respect to the current hang tags Back in Sorry, I think it was March of I'm sorry December of 2015 There's a paragraph in the staff letter to Tom Yeager from rova which says CPSC staff believes that a hang tag should allow consumers to make informed decisions Regarding the stability of ROVs when purchasing an ROV the hang tag information should also provide a comparison Between rollover resistance of different ROV models Therefore the hang tag should be effective at conveying information and must be easily understood by a spectrum of Consumers and I note also that we had hired a contractor Eureka facts. Is that correct to look at various? hang tags yes, and the hang tag that Eureka facts came up with is a hang tag that has a picture and it has a risk rating Now as I understand that staff then met with the industry Contractor ASC and they came up with a different hang tag Did they convince staff that what the staff had said in its letter of December 1st was wrong and that we don't need a comparative rating? It wasn't so much that ASC convinced us of that but actually Eureka facts on conclusions Showed that it is very difficult to convey that information and Their recommendation for a rollover risk rating is something that we knew we're unable to do I do still believe that that information is important and That it can be Developed with a lot more work and I understand that and in terms of What ASC did with the information from Eureka facts? I think they did listen to our main concern, which is that the tilt table angle at two-wheel lift is prominently displayed It's prominently displayed, but if I'm a consumer, what does that tell me? How can I use that information to help me make a better purchase? I guess is the question that is the question that has eluded us in quite a few hang tags that were tested by Eureka facts and In terms of our rationale for having the hang tag we have said from since the NPR days that Our goal is to increase lateral stability and we have learned from NHTSA and through their NCAP program that providing a metric of stability publicly incentivizes the manufacturers and also we assume consumer awareness in You know preferring these vehicles and so in terms of incentivizing manufacturers and Also consumer awareness. I do believe this hang tag with this Very important value does at least achieve half that goal. I understand that the consumer awareness Component is lacking in terms of having one hang tag inform a consumer and turn them into a Informed consumer and it's very very difficult and actually one of the conclusions of the Eureka facts report was to provide supplemental information and We do agree that that is a way to go. I mean consumer awareness can occur through either Looking at a hang tag and instantly becoming informed also third-party interpretations of the value in terms of They say a UTV magazine or consumers report Ranking vehicles, that's another way to learn it and that's not on the hang tag And the third is supplemental information in terms of go to this website to learn about this or the dealer providing the information and that is one of the Recommendations that came out of the report that we I think is is worth pursuing. I mean Somewhere excuse me if you can't contextualize if there's not a comparison then you just have a number that then you have to go Elsewhere to some third-party source of information to tell you what that information means my Special assistant Sarah showed me because she came from CSPI on nutrition facts Just giving a nutrition number doesn't help unless it tells you that when you're getting total fat It's telling you out of your recommended daily allowance. And so that gives you a context But just giving a number seems to me doesn't really give you either comparison or context I Guess the other question I would have is with respect to the tilt table the minimum That we will permit And a vehicle to meet is the 33 degrees before the wheels lift off the tilt table to your knowledge Are there any vehicles on the market today that would flunk the 33 degrees? Of all that we tested in the 2014-2050 models none all of them exceed that and yeah In fact most of them if I recall correctly were between 36 and 40 was it Correct. Okay. Thank you Commissioner Robinson I have a number of comments and questions today But I really want to start by saying that anything that I say or the questions that I ask I want to make it abundantly clear that none of this is critical of staff in in what you have had in this very difficult situation your 2014 NPR on Mandatory rule is absolutely superb and the time that you spent with me Explaining the engineering behind the recommendations you were making was very clear The explanation was clear in the and the time in the explanation were very much appreciated And let me say as only a commissioner I appreciate that there's much of what goes on behind the scenes at our agency that I am not privy to So I'm left with what I do know and what I may infer from Circumstantial evidence and that is what I must rely on in performing my duties here as a commissioner today And let me also add that I appreciate abundantly Well how you as staff were put between a rock and a hard place With respect to our OV rulemaking by the straight jacket that Congress put on you in terms of having any hand whatsoever In trying to force industry to do the right things and I greatly admire how well you worked with the industry to All we could do is nudge because we ran a straight jacket, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate that And I do appreciate that there are some things about the standard. It's been proposed or I guess passed for 2016 That have been some improvement But I still think that that standard falls far short of what I believe would I could be comfortable with as a Commissioner relying on and without the reliance. I cannot fathom why we would even talk about terminating rulemaking I'm perplexed frankly on why we're here today voting to terminate rulemaking and these But in these particular circumstances with ROVs, which are one of the most deadly products under our jurisdiction In the fiscal year 2016 operating plan staff was tasked with drafting a briefing package on the ROV voluntary standards revision evaluation We were not you were not directed by the Commission to make any recommendation with respect to termination of rulemaking And yet here we are today with a hearing on terminating rulemaking The evaluation of the standard, which is what commission that full commission instructed you to do was very informative And I thank you for the detailed analysis, but it's the recommendation to Terminate rulemaking to which I strongly object the recommendation is far removed from any direction by the Commission And I believe very inappropriate under these circumstances, but I do understand Correctly or incorrectly that the chair directed you to add a recommendation to terminate rulemaking I have no idea why an instruction would come from one commissioner Even if he is the chair and I don't know if it's related to the testimony on the hill in February 26th As I say I don't know but anyone who takes even a cursory look at the reg agendas over many many years at the Commission Will appreciate that the CPSC rarely terminates rulemaking and for good reason And it certainly has never been even recommended let alone done during my Three and a half years as a commissioner and it particularly makes no sense to me to take this highly unusual step of terminated Rulemaking with this product week after week just the sheer number of people of all ages who are killed or Seriously injured as a result of ROV accidents is absolutely heartbreaking and gut-wrenching The primary cause of the deaths and injuries is rollovers and vehicle instability is a classic hidden danger to consumers which they cannot Possibly be aware of as they get behind the wheel ROVs are very different than ATVs The voluntary standard our staff evaluated was put together by an industry group that resisted even the most basic safety measures for many many years and before it went forward forward with the 2016 revision of the standard it first made sure that the CPSC's involvement was severely restricted by Congress And it used the ANSI canvas method which I've commented about many times before It's the least transparent least collaborative effort and one is that is the most easily dominated by industry Which I believe very much happened here and most troublingly as I will discuss in more detail The voluntary standard in question at best just barely meets any Adequacy threat threshold especially when it comes to the most crucial element of rollover resistance But even if the standard was outstanding staff's evaluation of potential compliance and the repeated use of Industry trending toward compliance are not reassuring and I just cannot imagine under these circumstances Why we would take the extraordinary step of terminating real rulemaking Was so little information and so many lives on the line. So let me spend a little time on this rollover resistance It's my main concern about the voluntary standard It's glaring omission with respect to improving the ROV's inherent rollover resistance page seven of the package states that in 2012 staff analyzed 428 reported ROV related incidents 68 percent involved rollover of the vehicle glad that was you and not me caroline 66% of the incidents resulting in at least one death involved a rollover and 38% of those were on flat terrain Is it net? So let me just ask first of all I guess caroline. You're the one that I should say miss Paul Is it correct to state that the ROV rollover is the dominant hazard that a voluntary Standard knee or mandatory needs to address in order to reduce deaths and injuries Yes rollover hazard in occupant ejection. Yes Is it also correct that the best way to reduce rollovers is to require stable vehicles hate to state the obvious but Want to make sure we're on the same page on them Could you repeat the question sure is it correct that the best way to reduce rollovers is to require more stability in the vehicles in terms of Ability I Include vehicle handling in that so in that sense. Yes in terms of what you can address Vehicle handlings one, but it's also the the Corrects lateral ability, right? Yes lateral stability All things being equal on level ground of a more stable vehicle is going to be It's going to take more to roll that over than a less stable vehicle All things being equal on level ground. So let me um for a moment. I'm going to go back to our 2014 NPR that was so wonderfully prepared in that NPR with the proposed mandatory standard you just discuss the J turn to measure a y and that being the preferred method for Evaluating vehicle stability and I confess that I'm very heavily influenced in my opinion today by that carefully prepared Package which was prepared before Congress put us in a straight jacket and in that package You proposed a J turn test to measure the ROV's threshold lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift or the a y This recommended test was according to that package based in part on Knitz's finding that this type of test is the most Objective and repeatable test method for vehicles with low rollover resistance It's the preferred method of measuring vehicle stability Because it's dynamic which we all know that ROV's are perfectly safe if they're just standing still So it's not static, but it's it's dynamic and it's a measure and this is a quote from your NPR It's a direct measure of the minimum or threshold lateral acceleration required to initiate a rollover event or tip up of the test vehicle when turning and You also stated in that package that the tilt table test is a very limited use the 2014 NPR also stated that even though the tilt table test may be quick and simple and not require sophisticated Instrumentation because of the long suspension travel and soft tires of ROV's the tilt table test quote would not accurately Directorize the dynamic lateral stability and to state the obvious when the ROV is being driven It's a dynamic and not static the NPR also stated that we had found low correlation between tilt table tests and a y and although I appreciate that the 2016 voluntary standard includes some improvement in handling through a requirement concerning understeering the 2014 NPR considered that a potential rule That would include only improvements in dynamic stability such as a 2016 standard but not lateral stability and vice versa and You found that quote a vehicle that meets both the dynamic stability requirement and the understeer Requirement is safer than a vehicle that only meets one of those requirements staff also rejected reliance on the voluntary standards in the 2014 package in part because they use a tilt table test that did not adequately address lateral stability because it used a static measurement and as you've told us today Ms. Paul in response to Commissioner Adler's questions all ROV's at that point even that prefix Yamaha rhinos could pass the tilt table test and thus Leaving it that way would not promote stability. I do have some questions, but I'm reaching the end of my time Next round commissioner Berkel Thank You. Mr. Chairman. I'm quite frankly Don't know where to start I actually have no questions for the staff per se I want to thank all of you since 2009 when the NPR was published The incredible amount of work that so many people in this agency Have put into this package to get us to today. So I want to say that at the outset of my comments So my colleague once is perplexed why we're here, and I think the answer to that is pretty simple the Consensus standard was developed by our staff along with industry and staff came to us with a package that said That that that standard addresses the hazard and that there will be substantial compliance And so their recommendation to us was to terminate That's why we're here today because we've listened to staff. We let a process play out and That's why we're sitting here today to terminate that rule now. I want to say something because I Keep hearing that Congress put us in a straight jacket. I think it's important to point out That the standard was agreed upon before there was any appropriate language So there was no straight jacket other than the number of bipartisan letters that we received Encouraging us to work on a voluntary standard and did not go forward with the mandatory standard now if that's a straight jacket that's how the three branches of government work and unfortunately we Congress is who funds us and so when they direct us to do something or to not to do something I think it behooves us as an agency and I've talked about this before that we heed their advice and we heed their direction and I think Very appropriately it's so industry along with our staff sat down and This gets me to my third point they sat down and they went through not just months but years of Process the voluntary standard consensus process and that is not industry driven that is a consensus process and It didn't come easily it didn't come after a month's work It came after years of work and it was our staff digging in and working hard to get what they they believed as engineers as scientists Would it adequately address the the hazard and that's why we're here today And so I think it really belittles and insults staff to say it was an industry driven standard Our staff put in an incredible amount of work in to get to the standard that they believe adequately address the hazard There's a lot of other things I can say but that's that is essentially sums it up And I will probably have further comment after if there's more questions But again, I want to thank staff and industry. It was a joint effort and To get us to where we are today and we're here to terminate the rule. Thank you, Mr. Chair Commissioner Moorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Good morning. I wanted to get to one particular element that commissioner Adler brought up specifically with regards to the hang tag a bit So the hang tag was one of five recommendations made by staff in the original mandatory standard, correct Correct, correct. So that was one of five now. We all know that by virtue of the rule making For for a mandatory rule on ROVs one of those findings is a least burdensome alternative So therefore any of our recommendations have to show an incremental benefit or otherwise by definition It would not in fact be the least burdensome alternative now with regards to hang tags and supplementing and providing for greater Consumer information to make a better informed choice on anything but especially with regards to health and safety I'm a major proponent. So what Commissioner Adler was talking about I think not to put words in his mouth, of course, but looking at Realistically the extent to which the hang tag as proposed does fill that void does help a Consumer make a more informed choice with regards to relative safety as it relates As it does or doesn't relate to the performance on the tilt table And I think he does make some good points that in terms of the extent to which that might be seen Or that might fill that information gap, which was FA Hayek probably one of the most conservative Economist has identified has been a key driver for market failures in terms of what should Why health and safety agencies in particular are justified in rulemaking and often with an information gap and this the hang tag I Think attempts to try to fill that but as I looked back into our original package And and this is why I wanted to maybe ask why there wasn't a demonstrable quantifiable Benefit and benefit meaning hey look if we have you can either include the hang tag requirement or not include a hang tag requirement But for it to pass a least burdensome alternative test It would have to show in addition to all the other four requirements that that this will reduce additional injuries or fatalities or Reduce property damage can you explain the analysis of staff with regards to the hang tag and why there were no Quantifiable benefits associated with it as a mandate as a proposed mandatory provision. I can try please. I know it's a tough one so it is very complex in terms of how we looked at addressing rollover because the Dynamics and the actual event have many many factors that are involved so when we Do it through a process of elimination of what can we achieve short of? You know human behaviors is a big factor and we can't do much about that in terms of a product standard So it did come down to lateral stability and vehicle handling those we do know from the engineering perspective Have a major impact on rollovers Now those are not factors that are noted in an injury port or so that was why it was not able to be quantified We're a seatbelt use. That's a binary. Yes. No or or unknown So but in terms of from an engineering perspective We do know that of a vehicle that spins wildly out of control and it's a industry accepted event to avoid that a sliding vehicle especially in loose soil will form a berm and rollover and or hit a rut and therefore to avoid rollover you avoid that situation and as I said before all things being equal on level ground a More stable vehicle is less likely to roll over than a less stable vehicle So from those engineering precepts that is how we came to Here's what we can do for performance requirement for a product to address the rollover hazard to eliminate the hazard To prevent the injuries that is the first order of engineering second would be then to Guard against the danger in this case. It would that guarding would probably be more of the seatbelts and keeping occupants Retained within the protective zone of the rollover cage So that is why it was difficult to quantify but in terms of the cost and this is a cost base originally on doing a J-turn test and Doing the J-turn test gave you a starting point But our goal has always been to provide an incentive for manufacturers to increase the roller instability of these vehicles and that would be through a public display of a rollover metric the best rollover metric is a y Less perfect is tilt table angle, but they both achieve the same goal We're trying to increase the rollover resistance that combined with a more Stable handling vehicle is all in our opinion the best way to address rollovers if there was a and of course the staff proposal on a on a hang tag had to do with the Relative performance as it as it dealt with a y correct as opposed to the tilt table because we weren't the staff proposal Wasn't based on the tilt table, right? So it was a different metric Which may or may not be a surrogate? I think others might disagree whether it's appropriate as a surrogate, but the voluntary standard as a tilt table and we had another way of measuring what staff Attempted to address is the same kind of performance metric right correct, okay? And it's debatable whether or not they are perfect substitutes for each other But this is the kind of point that I was getting to on the hang tag while I think it's a it's a fantastic thing To have to better inform consumers so they can make a better informed decision as it relates to safety Putting elements in mandatory rules That can't stand up on themselves Jeopardize the entire rule so I think not to talk about seat belts with the term belts and suspenders We all ever think about well We're gonna take a belts and belts and suspenders approach You know we're gonna address it here, but we're gonna address pants falling down Through another means all together and then we'll be extra safe with rulemaking and the especially the least burdensome alternative Requirement a belts and suspenders approach if they can't show an incremental increase in safety to justify their costs Jeopardizes the rule so why I completely agree with the staff suggestion of a hang tag and I can appreciate where commissioner Adler has been going with Evaluating the current hang tag. I think we should keep in mind that if we're going to let the Perfection or the quality of the hang tag as it's as it's currently Provided for in the volunteer in the two voluntary standards be a deal breaker For withdrawing or terminating this rulemaking then we have to be Very clear with how how many how many quantifiable Injuries or lives we're going to save through an incredibly effective Hang tag and I do appreciate what you mentioned in terms of working with the with the experts and the experts agreeing that this is a Tough one to get to It'll be interesting to see whether or not we ever have an incredibly effective hang tag with regards to lateral stability and whether or not it It better informs Consumers But what I don't think what I'm when I'm scared about here with this agency is that the hang tag becomes a fig leaf That in fact The hang tag it'd be interesting if it was in the form of a fig leaf to really hide a desire to not want to terminate rulemaking even when staff has suggested that the voluntary standards are adequate that will adequately Reduce the risk of injury or death and that this is a very very small matter And for this commission to hide behind a hang tag as a fig leaf For just an otherwise desire to constantly write red tape I think would be intellectually dishonest So I really hope that if those who want to look at a maybe imperfect hang tag will consider the fact that even a perfect hang tag as Opined by the staff was not shown to demonstrate any quantifiable benefits. It was a good thing But still we couldn't say a great hang tag is going to push industry in this direction And therefore We can estimate that there will be X amount of lives saved or injuries prevented through a perfect hang tag So let's not let the hang tag be the fig leaf for this particular matter today. Thank you, mr. Chairman We'll now go to the second round of questions Miss Paul do you or does anyone on staff on the team view the hang tag as a superfluous aspect of the standard? Whether the mandatory standard that was proposed or the voluntary standard No, I see it as the main driver for increasing lateral stability and Isn't lateral stability the first line of defense basically before you have to confront a Problem with an ROV if it doesn't sort of where Commissioner Robinson was If it doesn't even start to roll over you don't even have to kick in Occupant protection or any other safety mechanism, correct correct when it's coupled with vehicle handling So it's not really accurate to say it's a belt and suspenders approach It sounds like that that is the key aspect of the first line of defense to make sure that the safety mechanisms that have been agreed On actually work Commissioner Adler Thank You mr. Chairman and I do want to go back to the package and by the way I forgot to express my great appreciation for all the hard work that you've done and all the many many hours You've spent answering my Questions and I really want to go on record of saying that so I'm looking at the briefing package and with respect to the hang tag I'm reading this under CPSC staff's evaluation on page nine It says CPSC staff does not believe that a requirement for minimum tilt table angle of 33 degrees By itself will increase the rollover resistance of ROVs Where it kicks in is with the hang tag it says staff believes that combining a minimum tilt table angle requirement with a hang tag requirement that displays the vehicle's maximum tilt angle Tilt table angle at two-wheel lift will increase the rollover Resistance of ROVs by providing incentive for manufacturers to increase the rollover resistance of ROVs So at least if I understand correctly you're saying those two are inextricably intertwined that we're if we're going to have a tilt table test Then that by itself is not going to provide any incentive for manufacturers to improve the The tilt table test, but that the hang tag coupled with that we hope will provide an incentive Okay, and I do want to comment about my colleague commissioner Mohorovic's just beautifully metaphor-laden Remarks that a hang tag is not a fig leaf and I can certainly accept that But let me let me directly answer the challenge that you pose commissioner Mohorovic my Concerns about hang tag. I don't think are trivial and I don't think this is a trivial concern And this is something I would have to be satisfied on before I would vote to terminate But if I were satisfied with respect to the hang tag, I'm very likely to vote to terminate in other words I do think that as I read the staff's very very thoughtful and careful analysis with respect to the issues of lateral stability oversteer and Occupant protection They're pretty satisfied with most of those requirements, and I'm pretty satisfied because the staff is pretty satisfied So it may be trivial to some it's not trivial to me and with respect to the notion of quantifying There's quantification and there's quantification I've read a fair amount of the case law and I know you as a nonlawyer have read maybe as much if not more as I Have on the whole issue of warning labels My best recollection is I've never seen a court say that you must Demonstrate that the specific wording of this hang tag will a result in x reduction of injuries and fatalities That's asking too much of warning labels what they have said is give us a careful thoughtful expert assessment of the implications and the impact of thing like a hang tag or a warning label and that's really where I think the staff did a great job in the original briefing package and I'm still resting my my position on the staff's Letter to Rova back in December in which they very clearly said that You need to affect consumers and you need to do it by providing comparative information in an easily readable format that that's My position. Thank you Commissioner Robinson. I think it's a very important today before I even move to the hang tag I think it's important for us not to move into the present administration's realm of alternate facts Commissioner Burkle's representation that the 2016 voluntary standard was passed and with our Acquiescence before Congress put us in a straightjacket. It's absolutely false And I want to walk through this because I think it's important for the issue that's before us today Soon after we voted on the NPR it became clear that Congress lobbied heavily by industry through Rova and OPI Was going to tie our hands with respect to rulemaking if we didn't move quickly and we did not in February of 2015 Representative Pompeo introduced the RIDE Act which would have required the CPSC to contract for completely unnecessary and redundant tests to evaluate things that we had been evaluating for years and they'd been these tests had been done exhaustively by CPSC Engineers the only purpose of that act was to delay by years any Mandatory rulemaking and then in July 23rd of 2015 the Senate Appropriations Committee Essentially reported out an appropriate appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, which then they also did for 2017 Which in essence instructed us to stop doing anything with respect to mandatory rulemaking if that isn't a straightjacket I don't know what is and I think it's very instructive to look at the fact that one week before Congress did that that our staff sent a letter commenting on the draft voluntary Standard and in that letter of July 7 reiterated exactly what their position was in 2014 briefing package which we all understood so well and said that the tilt table angles are not a measure of Lateral stability because the test does nothing to account for dynamic effects of the vehicle It also said that there's poor correspondence between tilt table angle and lateral acceleration that generates two-wheel lift and Given in but but staff said that given industries insistence on using this ineffective test at an absolute minimum. They had to go with a 35 degree Requirement and not the 33 they were proposing which absolutely every vehicle on the market that was killing people and maiming people would pass and we insisted on that but After the appropriations bill on October 14, 2015 Three months after Congress had prohibited us from doing anything further then suddenly our letter from staff Did and I'm not being critical. I really mean this we had no choice Because Congress wouldn't let us do what we needed to do to protect consumers But what we said was that it had to be no less than 33 degrees Even though we knew that that was not going to be a test that was going to in any way Increase stability and make these vehicles safer But we started totally focusing then on the hang tag and the idea if the hang tag is a fig leaf for anything It's the fact that we're not requiring these vehicles to be safer And so the hang tag is everything and I understand why Ms. Paul said that it's everything and I understand Commissioner Adler's focus on it Staff clearly put a lot of importance on that hang tag at that point because that's all we had and the ROVs that we said that we had to have the ROVs exhibit a higher TTA at two-wheel lift We had to say that that they're generally more stable and more resistant to ROVs We had to say on the hang tag that the ROVs can occur on a flat surface If they're turned to sharply or at too high a speed and we had to say on the hang tag that consumers Should use the stability metric to compare with other vehicles before they make the purchase the proposed hang tag does Absolutely, none of that so now I'm going to turn to the hang tag Let me start with this The problem I have with the very idea that the really the only thing we're doing and as as Ms. Paul said This is not even educating the consumer consumer awareness. We've given up on this is a breath supposedly Educating a an industry that is absolutely refused to do anything to make these vehicles safer So we're addressing the industry and we're not addressing the consumer and maybe that explains why they didn't do a single one of the Things that either we required or the people who who did the study of what knit we needed required But let me start at another point the very fact that we are relying on the hang tag as a primary means of effectuating improved rollover resistance is contrary to everything we've done here at the CPSC Just two weeks ago chairman K introduced an amendment to our infant slings rule and made it clear that the commission recommends quote Designing the hazard out of a product or guarding the consumer from the hazard rather than employing warnings because a warning's effectiveness depends on persuading consumers to alter their behavior to avoid the hazard and I can't resist saying and we're not even trying to Effect consumers behavior because we know the consumers won't even understand this hang tag Both chairman K and commissioner Adler spoke eloquently about this approach for safety and how fundamental it is to how we approach safety Standards commissioner mojorovic spoke about how industry should take this approach of designing out the hazard and improving the safety standards And yet here we are considering the extraordinary step of Terminating rulemaking based on a standard with that with respect to the most severe hazard purports to address Completely reverses this approach relies on a warning and the warning even if it was adequate even if it was Comprehensible to consumers. It doesn't travel with the vehicle. So all these places where you rent ROV's They're not going to see any tag any place where you their second-hand purchases or third-hand purchases or passed down in the family They're not going to see that the warning doesn't travel with the product So we're backing off of designing out the hazard since staff Acknowledges that it does not believe a requirement of a minimum tilt at table angle of 33 degrees by itself Will make the vehicles any safer instead the standard relies on a hang tag Informing purchasers of ROV's of a tilt table test where that's absolutely incomprehensible So this even isn't even as good as a warning It's a quote gentle nudge on quote to purchasers of new ROV's although we're learning today It's not even to purchasers. It's to industry a gentle nudge to to try to make their ROV's safer And the the idea that we're no longer trying to nudge The purchasers in a direction that would that would give them information is clear from what the hang tag doesn't do The focus group that Eureka facts did asked that the hang tag and I've got I've got here the one that I've got I meant to pull this out for you to use commissioner Adler, but you were too fast for me The the one that the the consumers like to the best is this one and this is the incomprehensible one that industry is proposing the focus group asked it to be an entirely yellow background And all we have on this one is black and green and gray and green They asked that the pictorial of a tipping vehicle be included in it And the only picture that industry has is this tiny little one on the back of the hang tag They asked for a simple heading rollover guide, which we have on this with rollover risk in Industries recommended tag has the incomprehensible heading tilt table test result. That means nothing to anybody The use of that the focus group asked for a use of simple easy to understand language And industries as as commissioner Adler so ably started reading what they say It's absolutely incomprehensible It starts with measurement of lateral stability in degrees of a sample standard condition of vehicle and continues with language I have absolutely no meaning to a consumer and they ask you that and the focus group asked for a use of a scale to convey Stability which this has it and industries recommended tag provides a raw number with no Context whatsoever the proposed tag also fails to it to incorporate any of the suggestions that CPSC that the CPSC Staff recommended The New York Times had an article today about the Hall of Mirrors We're in with this new president and it seems like this termination Hearing is putting our agency in just such a hall It just boggles the mind that we would be contemplated terminating rulemaking Based on a standard that with respect to the most severe hazard of rollovers does nothing to design out the hazard and relies on a hang tag that in its current current form doesn't meet the most basic requirements of Comprehensibility to to to consumers With respect to the lateral stability I have to say it even with that staff's endorsement of the voluntary standard is tepid at best The staffs takes unequivocally that the tilt table test at 33 degrees is easy to meet and will not increase Resistance and virtually not virtually all robs on the market will will meet that test and the only saving grace The only saving grace according to staff is this hang tag that is a complete farce So it's hard to fathom how the CPSC can keep a straight face and the commissioners can look themselves in the mirror If we vote to terminate rulemaking under these outrageous circumstances. Thank you, Commissioner Berkel Well at the risk of making this into some political show, which I don't want to do I will say that President Obama signed into law the approach bill in December of 2015 which Put a restriction. I would not call it was the word Straightjacket was the first time but All it said was if you want to continue with mandatory rulemaking then you have to do this study first So but it was it was in the past administration where that consolidated Appropriations bill was signed into law. So I just want to and it was in September of 2015 It was when the standard was agreed upon so facts do matter That's part of this discussion Miss Paul. I want to get back to what the matter at hand here Let's talk about hang tags for a little bit So the parameters of the hang tag is in the voluntary standard. Will the discussion about the hang tag cease When we terminate the rule No, I don't believe so and You know, we're in the process of responding to the hang tag that we were exposed to at a meeting in December and you essentially we think it's a good starting point and We believe that more work can be done But in terms of having a hang tag versus no hang tag, I do believe this is a good start I just want to add that in terms of the hang tag and what the tilt table angle is supposed to mean and I I think there is some differences in Interpreting what you know, I personally believe in what I think I put forth in the NPR and in terms of There is yes a lack of correspondence between the tilt table angle and the a y and correspondence meaning one to one One's a survey for the other now We have said back in the NPR that in terms of correlation generally a higher tilt-type angle tilt table angle does result in higher stability higher a y's and So in terms of what is your goal if my goal is a discreet a y value? That is a difference between safe and unsafe absolutely not I would not use a tilt table angle However, my goal has always been to increase Provide an incentive for manufacturers to increase the lateral stability increase the roll over resistance by whatever metric you want to use And in that case because a higher tilt-table angle generally results in a higher a y Now this is a causal relationship here as well You have a lower CG or a right wider track with that affects both of these values in terms of the Yamaha rhino We increase the track with and we reduce the stiffness in the rear that resulted in a higher a y as well as a higher tilt-table angle And that is what informs our decision Thank you very much. I don't have any other questions Mr. Mo roving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you commissioner Adler for responding in part to To my last round of questions and with regards to the suggestion that the hang tag being a fig leaf and you very eloquently saying that it is not in your case that you believe that the The effectiveness or you you need to be significantly convinced that the hang tag meets the Expectations and it's not a surrogate to hide behind just continuing rulemaking. I take you absolutely at your word I would ask you to consider the following though With regards to the hazard pattern if this was if this one element That I know we're not talking about it in the conversation of the proposed mandatory rule But as it exists in the voluntary standard and the extent to which we should Terminate our rulemaking based on the adequacy of the voluntary standard I think we would both admit that as a factor for safety It is dwarfed by all the other elements that contribute To the alarming rates of fatalities and injuries associated with these vehicles a no hang tag Although there is proper warnings Other kind of warning labels talk about the elements that contribute more directly to the the hazard patterns that we're seeing with these Vehicles number one wearing one seat belt although I would argue that the fact that the voluntary standards For see a seat belt interlock at speeds over 15 miles per hour will adequately address That you know in a very paternalistic fashion that I'm not that I'm not in favor of but the voluntary standards group decided to Put that in their standards Subject themselves to it so be it so it will be a fact in the future But also the fact that people drive these vehicles recklessly They drive them drunk We don't even talk about the amount of the injuries and fatalities where alcohol was involved and yet We don't really talk about a mandatory breathalyzer. I wonder what that mandatory proposal what that would do to To reduce in a quantifiable quantifiable fashion injuries and deaths But also the fact that people ride these vehicles on paved surfaces I see a friend and a collaborator in the audience today that that has done a fantastic job to Elevate the concerns that the same concerns that the industry have with Riders using these products on paved surfaces and alarmingly more states and municipalities are making that legal to do so so with regards to the hang tag in particular And where it where it really ranks and merits with regards to what impact safety I would ask you and and hope that you consider that To to not terminate rulemaking based on what you might see as an inadequacy in the hang tag is By is relatively a very very Small matter. It's such a small matter that we can't even quantify the extent to which an adequate hang tag would increase safety by reducing fatalities or injuries and that Making the perfect be the enemy of the good is a situation that I think is far too prevalent in Washington and I would hope that in this situation we don't make the The idea which I think miss Paul even represented that Experts and hang tags demonstrate that it might be at least it was testified that it's very difficult To get to that point of perfection So I'm not even sure if it's a matter of something that we can absolutely get to and in the end because the experts who who do This find it very challenging Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and I appreciate our dialogue back and forth And especially the tenor with which you always address me. So thank you chairman I'll turn it over to Commissioner Adler in a moment because I'm sure he'd like to respond I do want to note that and I don't want to speak for him or certainly for Commissioner Robinson But I don't think any of us believes it's actually trivial or small the hang tag and I don't think we view it as taking it from the Good to the perfect. I think we view it as taking it at least I'll speak for Commissioner Adler in this instance from the Not good enough to probably good enough and that's actually an important threshold to cross for me And I think for Commissioner Adler as well Commissioner Adler Thank you, and you have Excuse me accurately represented my view I did Also want to say I am one of those who does not believe that I Completely agree with the notion that the perfect should not defeat the good or be the enemy of the good But this is this is something that to me is a minimal requirement and I did want in terms of quantification Ms. Paul I did want to ask you one question. We have this industry hang tag Have we done or to your knowledge has anybody done an assessment of this the same way Eureka facts did With these kinds of hang tags or to your knowledge. Have they done a similar kind of test? No to my knowledge no and I Do want to point out that the Eureka facts report The primary purpose of that report was to evaluate the hang tag that was designed by us in it in the NPR and the So there is a little bit of a disconnect so that it is it was not trying to test a tilt table angle hang tag So the information we got from it is useful, but it shouldn't completely inform and be transferred to a hang tag with a tilt table angle now in terms of the Rover hang tag that's the draft one that's been proposed that is something that I think should be done I think we should evaluate it to See where you start with in terms of consumer comprehension. I think a good start in terms of making it clear that it is a test You know, it's a measurement of a test What little we learn from the Eureka hang tags report was that if you put in degrees and tried to you had people Then visualizing a real-life situation, which is different for everybody and quickly became very confusing so I do see glimmers of or Potential that there is a better consumer understanding in terms of this is a number from a test the next step was what does that mean and You know, I do understand and agree that that is a difficult next step, but I do think yes some type of testing You have to have some type of big starting point Well, thank you for that is always a very thoughtful comment. I guess for the life of me. I can't imagine how The difference between measuring a y and measuring a tilt table test result would in any way change the basic notion of having a Scale that gives you a risk rating Because consumers are basically going to say how does this compare to others and how does this come out on whether? It's minimally acceptable or better so that at least in those terms I can't see that there's much of a distinction between the two approaches, but I take you at your word and I also am delighted to hear a staff is Committed to working further with the industry to try to refine the hang tag. I did want to also Go back to a point that Commissioner Mohorovic was making and let me also note that this voluntary standard is Approved and is scheduled to go into effect in 2018 that's going to happen whatever we do The only point of leverage I have is whether I'm going to vote to terminate the Mandatory rulemaking that is leverage that we have and as far as I'm concerned I'm not prepared at all to vote to terminate unless there is an adequate hang tag Which is not the be all and end all but it's a lot more important in terms of lateral stability Which is one of the three foundational approaches that the staff adopted when they were drafting the NPR So to me, it's extremely important and I'm not prepared to vote to terminate with the current hang tag before us Commissioner Robinson Miss Paul I wrote down a couple of quotes from you when you responded to Commissioner Adler's first questions about the hang tag that I'd just like you to Explain to me what you meant by them one was that the hang tag is meant to incentivize industry. What did you mean by that? We base our original desire for a hang tag base on the Knitsa's We actually met with Knitsa and their number one recommendation to us was put some type of hang tag out there information out there that provides incentive for manufacturers to increase because Knitsa was unable to do so mandatorily and had met great resistance from the industry on their ability to increase the stability of their vehicles and then when they came up with the end cap program There was over the next two years an increase especially in SUVs and trucks which had the least ability So there is precedence for this and we're not just kind of hoping now in terms of I'm sorry what your question was well, let me just stop you there for a minute as long as we're pausing My recollection is that the reason Knitsa's program was as successful as it was in incentivizing industry is because they were able to make consumers understand Which vehicles were safer? Is that right? Am I right? You have IIHS endurance insurance industries and multiple third parties Providing that information so consumers could rate them consumers I don't think we're going from car to car, but when you have a list right and the manufacturers see where they fall on that list I believe that was that's a powerful incentive to do better than your peers The other comment that you made was that consumer awareness is lacking and you were referring to the hang tag I that's my personal opinion right this has not been tested So in terms of a lot of this is my personal I'm an engineer that number means a lot to me It means a lot to a lot of people now in terms of my goals I've always been focused on that tilt table angle at two-wheel-lift which is a It's you know a number from a test that is very easy to find and that was my primary concern when Requirement that didn't show a pictorial, but had all these and it was one of many many things so in terms of You know what I find good in this is my eyes were immediately drawn to this number right in terms of consumer awareness This has not been tested we could only infer from what we know from past reports that we're really testing a different type Well as somebody who's had some of the best engineers in the world explained to me What is meant by the language of this hang tag? I can tell you I don't understand it So I'm not sure any consumer can understand it and I guess what the piece that I'm missing here is I Understand that if we were able to simply communicate with consumers Which ROVs are more stable air goes safer Before they put their family and friends into them that that might cause them to not purchase one That's not as safe which might lead to incentives for industry to start producing safer vehicles What I'm missing on this is when we seem to be leaving the consumer out of this We seem to be looking at a hang tag that is meant for industry without involving consumers Being knowledgeable so that they can force this so I'm just missing how the hang tag is going to incentivize Industry if it leaves the consumer out of the equation That would depend on what incentivizes the industry Is it would it be consumer awareness or would be a public display of where their vehicle stands compared to other vehicles So if so if we set aside the consumer awareness that I think we've agreed In can be there Then we're relying on industry to get into a like macho a macho sort of you know I'm my vehicle safer than yours. They certainly do it with my vehicles faster than yours. Yes, they do. I know that But I haven't seen that in this industry with respect to safety. Have you Have you seen them advertised that you should buy our ROV because it's safer? I Have not seen that as a marketing. I haven't either. Thanks. I have nothing further Mr. Berkel Thank You mr. Chair. So we've Since I've been here at the agency we've talked about the hierarchy of priorities and we talk about Designing out the hazard we talk about guarding against the hazard and warning has always been the last sort of option And I feel as if this morning we've elevated the warning up to the top of that list And we're disregarding all of the other performance requirements that are in the standard And I'm perplexed by that approach because the J turn the yaw rate the seat belt interlock Those are all key components of this of this standard And I feel like they're not getting the appropriate attention and we're focused on this on this hang tag Which to me is the warning piece of Of how we're going to approach this hazard and address this hazard and I I will say and to my dear colleague Commissioner Adler, I don't like hearing the word leverage because Leverage to me means we need to keep something because industry hasn't acted in good faith And I think the last since 2009 certainly since work on this standard started till we completed the standard I think that industry along with our agency have exhibited Just a tremendous amount of effort to get us to where we are today with a standard that adequately addresses the hazard. Thank you Commissioner Moorovic. I think anybody have any further questions commissioner Adler Sorry, not a question, but with respect to the notion of elevated warnings, I actually Planned to remind my colleague when we start talking about education campaigns as an exclusive approach to safety that It is not to be all and end all and I'm certainly not arguing that what I'm arguing is that in terms of the The requirements in the voluntary standard, I'm pretty satisfied with most of them as I've said The one I'm really dissatisfied with though to me is not small is not Irrelevant and is something that is designed to be an action producer. I cannot guarantee that it would do that I have seen that in other contexts as with SUVs. So that that is why I'm So concerned about this, but I would never argue that Hantag is the be-all and end-all of promoting safety because I certainly don't believe that And let me also say I have not questioned I don't think I've even hinted that I believe that the industry has acted in other than good faith It's been a contentious relationship from time to time But I do think that they have acted in complete good faith And I would say that all of us have acted in complete good faith So questioning people's motives is really not what I'm about. So in case there was any Doubt in your mind. Let me hasten to add. I am not questioning anybody's motives Mr. Robinson, I won't make a comment about motives, but I certainly see the the actions By industry and I see nothing in this standard contrary to what Commissioner Burkle would have us believe that they have a jay-turn Test in the standard, which is absolutely not true She listed a bunch of stuff that's not in the standard That's the reason we're talking about the hang tag because we're not doing anything to increase stability We're doing nothing to make these vehicles safer. So the only thing we have is the hang tag and she has been so Vocal and said so many hearings about how important education is and now we're not even going to educate the consumer We're going to put out something that might educate industry that presumably knows something about ROVs So I have I Disagree about that that first of all that we're not doing anything to increase safety and secondly the hang tag is the only thing we have Mr. Burkle I don't want to get into a tit for tat but am I supposed to disregard what staff is telling me in this package to terminate They're going through and they are telling us based on a Number of performance standards in this voluntary standard that this standard Addresses the hazards and the risks of injuries and deaths. So I take their their advice They're the engineers and the experts and I take their advice very seriously Commissioner Morova glass to comments for this round having heard no further questions We're now going to move to consideration of any motions or amendments staff is excused from the table if you'd like to be Thank you for them. No, they want to hang around for all the fun Does anybody have any amendments or motions? Mr. Chairman I do now commissioner Adler. I'll meant I'll recognize you as an emotion or amendment by the way It's a motion. Okay. I will recognize you for a motion I'll ask you to describe it and up to three minutes and then after the conclusion of that. I'll ask for a second commissioner Adler, okay, so Before the commission and I believe everybody has a copy of it it is a motion for retrospective review and very simply I am asking for the Staff to be directed at a time no later than two years after the effective date of the voluntary standard To do an assessment and report on the two voluntary standards and I have several things that I'd like them to look at and report primarily and most importantly whether the provisions of the voluntary standards relating to lateral stability vehicle handling and occupant protection have eliminated or adequately reduced the risk of ROV rollover an occupant occupant ejection if they're not doing that then The whole point of terminating this proceeding is lost. And so I think that's a critical thing to assess then I as commissioner Robinson said we don't really have the kind of documentation In writing about the industry's commitment to compliance and I would like to see that there be substantial compliance documentation before the commission And then especially looking to the future Just as when we do retrospective review of mandatory standards We look to see whether they need to be modified or made more stringent I would like to see that assessment And then finally there are some risks that we have heard about with respect to rov's that are not included in the standard And I would like to see the staff monitor the general level of risks associated with rov's in order to see whether any additional action from the commission would be warranted now That's my motion and I have some further comments in support of it. But that that's my motion Is there a second? Second having heard a second will now move to consideration of commissioner out there's motion and I'll speak first then We'll come back to you at the end I plan to support the motion. I think it's an excellent idea Regardless of how the vote to terminate or not to terminate goes. I do think that it's a sound practice that we should Do this and I'm actually surprised it's taken us this long to Look to incorporate something like this into consideration of voluntary standards So I think it's an excellent idea and I plan to support it commissioner robinson I would like to ask you commissioner adler if you would be willing to add at the end of number one Based on incident data with the addition of those words. I would be happy to support this With that friendly amendment. I'm delighted to accept those words. Thank you. I will support this. Thank you Commissioner berkel. Thank you, mr. Chairman I'd like to ask my colleagues Which of these four would you think that staff isn't doing in the ordinary course of business? I mean, do you not think they'll be looking to see Whether there are whether the standard is addressing the hazard whether it is effective You know whether they've been there's been substantial compliance which aspect of this Don't you think they do in the ordinary course of business? Well, there are a couple of things I would say about that first of all trying to Plumb my memory about what we've done when we have stopped action on mandatory standards in favor of voluntary standards and I honestly don't think My best recollection anyway is that we haven't looked at the voluntary standards Over time the way that we've looked at mandatory standards and in this case because this is such a critically important Endangerous product that I think we need to be explicit about having staff look at it and actually provide a written report I don't think we've ever gotten a written report for our For a voluntary standard that we've deferred to but Just picking up on your point also if it's going to happen anyway, then everybody should be delighted to join in my motion Well, my concern is is It has to do with the money and appropriations and resources And it seems to me this would be more appropriately placed in the ops plan where we can plan Will this require the purchase of more vehicles to where we have the capacity to do that and the resources to do that So I think a more appropriate place to discuss this would be in the ops plan Do you yield for commission out of a response? Yeah, yes Um, I think that uh, if we approve this then that tells us that we need to look forward to putting some language into the ops plan keeping in mind that this Actual assessment is not going to be done for several years because the voluntary standard will not be in effect until 2018 But it is certainly a question of resources and what you're suggesting is That to do this would require something above and beyond what we would normally do and that's my point We need to do something above and beyond what we would typically do So I would think that that discussion certainly would be on a broader policy basis in the ops plan That's all I have. Thank you commissioner marvorek Thank you, mr. Chairman. Um along the same lines of the consideration of whether or not this motion for retrospective review is appropriate At this particular deliberation is one that I find curious in the sense that it's It's very much an unfunded mandate As we look at our scarce resources every time we consider Spending a taxpayer dollar on anything we put it in comparison to something else that's going to go away So I would ask commissioner adler. I would ask my colleagues on the left To consider how they will justify what doesn't get done because this will get done. There's no identification Of the resources that will be required And while the idea retrospective review appeals to me greatly There's no identification of what's not going to happen. What have we put out? What have we committed to congress in terms of our performance budget requests our operating plan? We have mid-year review coming up very very shortly commissioner adler This would be a perfect and appropriate venue to suggest this in mid-year operating plan You won't need to do that You've got three votes and you can decide what's germane in terms of emotion and The votes majority will carry But I think we would both recognize that this is not an appropriate place to look at a project That has financial resources and chairman as the manager and the administrator of this agency I wish you would consider it personal responsibility as our chairman as part of being the chief administrative officer Of the of the agency to consider that as a sense of responsibility in terms of not identifying Where these funds will come from for us to be able to Talk a big game about certain elements i'll point out one one element that's not funded at all We'll talk a big game about furniture tip over. We have not one nickel Not one taxpayer dollar In our current fiscal year is associated with funding an award-winning uh, anchorage campaign But yet when the toddler tip over makes national news and that's about product that's in the market that can't be associated with a standard A change in a voluntary standard We don't mention the fact that this agency won't spend a dollar on an anchorage campaign That has been award-winning and here we're considering an unfunded mandate for retrospective review Which i think is commissioner berkel put it is part of what we regularly do anyway But the irony here in suggesting formal retrospective review and a voluntary standard while this commission speaking of Our words meeting our actions. We have a policy That suggests that we're going to do x anti retrospective review and performance standards We all voted for it. We all talk about the fact that yes and Bipartisan former administrators of olira say that x anti review x anti being in a perspective rule You should embed how you're going to measure its effectiveness And that's essentially what commissioner adler is suggesting here. We've got a new voluntary standard He's suggesting that we do A review of its effectiveness down the road american bar association suggests that we have Retrospective review built into future rule makings. So we talk a big game on this so we can agree with the american bar association The most thoughtful minds and administrative law But then in practice we have this very rule making an rov rule Which does not incorporate retrospective review Except you find it's so compelling As a matter of importance to the agency that while you would not suggest Having it in the mandatory in the mandatory rule You want it applied to a voluntary rule and i'll also point out that we've got a table saw rule We've got so many other rules since we've passed that Since we've passed that policy, none of them have retrospective retrospective review x anti built into the rules how How staff are able to give us these packages While ignoring the will of the commission is a question that i've raised in testimony before i still don't have an answer There's been allegations of today of pressure from the chairman's office I would find that surprising mr. Chairman If you have in fact constructed staff to not include x anti retrospective review and in performance standards You have not and i take you at your word. So why doesn't it happen? It's not my experience That staff ignore the express will of the commission. That's not my experience But yet it's happening and it's happening time and time again with performance elements So, uh, I think before we start applying retrospective review to voluntary standards We ought to do what we said we were going to do with our very suggestions for for future performance standards Uh, such as uh rovs or table saws or anything else from my conceivable. Thank you chairman commissioner adler Thank you very much A good flip answer would be that we can take the resources that we save by Terminating and using those to do the study But what we're really talking about are resources Well into the future and may I also say with respect to the this whole notion? Uh, it has been commissioner moho rovix Very thoughtful Proposals on including retrospective review when we do mandatory standards that got me thinking about this And I guess I almost look at it the in in a somewhat different way because it's a mandatory standard And because we have a legislative mandate and things like the regulatory flexibility act and various executive orders that we try to follow There's no question of my mind that we will be doing retrospective review of mandatory standards But I'm I'm certainly open to seeing Uh proposals from commissioner moho rovix placed when we undertake rulemaking on things like rovs I mean, excuse and things like table saws and I'm delighted to see that he will bring a budget proposal along with those proposals for retrospective review Um, I think that it is perfectly appropriate for us in addition to Uh enacting this motion to set aside or at least a contemplate and plan for future resources for retrospective review So, uh, I still haven't gotten to my little prepared remarks, but we're having that discussion right now I would like to at least this is about three minutes worth of Stuff I wrote out. So I'd like to go through it Uh, and as my as our my colleagues have reminded us once a set of safety requirements is in place Sound public policy dictates that we revisit the requirements to be certain that they in fact are doing the job We expected them to do when we approved them I personally think this approach should be Applied both with respect to mandatory standards and not every voluntary standard, but some certainly this one And I am definitely mindful of my colleague commissioner moho rovix proposals that we do that And as I say, I think his ideas are good and that's why I have tried to take it and expand it In an area where I think it's very much called for But there's a broader point for me at least with respect specifically to rovs We've been working publicly and diligently To promote greater rov safety for certainly the officially for the last seven years But even before that dating from we first when we first published an a npr And we've been actively working with rova and other industry members since june 2009 To see whether we could develop a good voluntary standard One that adequately addressed the risk of injury and that was substantially complied with This is very important work and it's occupied a high priority position In the commission's operating plan for years And as commissioner robinson said at this point we have an appropriations writer that bars cpsc From doing any work on a mandatory standard So our only path forward has been to work on industry's voluntary standard Which to me means that it behooves us to make doubly certain that the voluntary standard will do what the industry has promised it will do And what our staff pretty much thinks it will do I think the biggest objection to my motion would be and commissioner berkel suggested this That we're going to do it anyway And i'm just not so sure about that. That's why i'd like to have it explicitly Voted on and approved by the commission And this is not an objection i've heard yet, but i've been waiting for it and i'm going to anticipate it and respond Anticipatory rebuttal I vehemently disagree with the notion that the cpsc should be less involved in monitoring a voluntary standard Because it's voluntary and not mandatory Boy, is that a double standard. It's something i strongly reject The idea that we should pay less attention or care less about consumers at risk from dangerous products Because the products are subject to a voluntary standard rather than a mandatory standard Frankly offends my sense of justice and fair play We should monitor dangerous products. However, they arise in the marketplace and whoever's regulating them We have a strong mandate to protect the health and safety of the public The reason we rely on voluntary standards when we do and i like when we do is because we believe they'll do the job And the only way to be sure that's happening is to monitor their progress in an effective manner in short Let us trust but verify. Thank you I'll say commissioner adler. I agree commissioner robinson Commissioner berkel nothing further commission moro Thank you chairman commissioner adler the way you Demonstrate a position and we're able to offend yourself so much Is something that i find uh reminds me only of woody allen and take the money and run where he was able to cross examine himself And you kind of played that part here Actually, i think that was in bananas, but But I take your point and it's a it's a delightful one. We're both woody allen fans Having heard no further woody allen references or questions to commissioner adler will move to consideration of the motion As amended by commissioner robinson commissioner adler, how do you vote i commissioner robinson? How do you vote commissioner berkel? No commissioner moro, but no and i vote i the yeas are three the nays is two are two The motion by commissioner adler as amended by commissioner robinson has been approved. Are there any more amendments or motions? Yes, mr. Chairman. I have a motion on Hang tags surprisingly enough Please explain your motion in three minutes and then i'll ask for a second. Okay, my motion is very simple I move that the commission defer this vote until the requirement on hang tags In the voluntary standards provided a minimum A risk rating that places the tilt table tests Results in an ascending scale from Minimally acceptable roll over resistance to better roll over resistance In a simple easily readable format acceptable to cpsc staff And provides a commitment, which i think is already there to place hang tags on all models in the showrooms or any other location Which rovs are offered for sale to the public And that the voluntary standards bodies provide written documentation that all members of each of the Standards development organizations opei and rova Plan to achieve and are on track to achieve full compliance With the requirements of the voluntary standards and provide this Not company by company but in aggregate form so we can see what percentage of the Market is likely to be complying with the voluntary standard Is there a second Second having heard a second will now move to consideration of commissioner adler's second motion I plan to support this motion as well. I appreciate commissioner adler that you've identified at least for what me are the two Missing pieces of information staff to do an excellent job at the briefing package and the recommendation Is very thorough. I just felt that these are Critical aspects that will help me make a decision And so I very much look forward to supporting the motion commissioner robinson I do not plan to support this motion. I take terminating rulemaking very very seriously And even with a perfect hang tag this standard is simply not protective enough Because as staff explains both in its 2014 Package and in this package the tilt table test is easy to pass and will not result in an instability And I also agree that we need to have better data on compliance with the standard before we contemplate terminating rulemaking But when the underlying standard is not protective enough and it's easy to meet Better compliance is simply not enough to terminate rulemaking We'll still lack the first condition of a standard that sufficiently reduces the risk of injury So I do not intend to support this motion commissioner berkel. Thank you, mr. Chair I Like my colleague commissioner robinson do not Plan on supporting this amendment I oppose this motion. I oppose this motion on a number of fronts Number one our staff has spent countless hours Working with the industry on these voluntary standards and the staff has explicitly said they believe the standard will adequately reduce the risk of concern To the commission when it's proposed Um In the voluntary standard, it's not appropriate and this is what I feel so strongly about It's not appropriate for us to be moving the goalpost Long after the standards have been finalized with our staff's considerable input My second objection is that it's not as there's been no discussion on the issue of the hang tags The voluntary standard specifically addresses the content of the hang tag our staff commissioned a study of hang tags format and contracted with an outside contractor The study found that many consumers were confused by the staff's original concept for representing rollover resistance on the hang tags To their credit our staff Provided this study to the voluntary standards committee for their consideration in developing The requirements for the hang tag The committee for their part agreed to provide specimens of the hang tag for our staff to review Only yesterday I heard from staff that these specimens displays With regards to the hang tag Fulfilled the requirements of the voluntary standard and they did not have any concerns with the hang tag as it was proposed Under these circumstances I think it's inappropriate for the commission to be continue to be conditioning termination of our rulemaking on new requirements that go beyond what our staff found to be acceptable quite a while ago And lastly I wish to be clear that I don't oppose our staff continuing work On this issue with the industry and we heard from miss paul this morning that that will happen If it's possible to develop a better method for displaying rollover resistance on the hang tags Then by all means let's do that given our experience in this area However, it seems clear that the problem is not an easy one to solve In the meantime, I strongly reject the notion that we would should refuse to terminate the rulemaking as our staff recommends Commissioner marovic Thank you, mr. Chairman. Uh, mr. Chairman commissioner radler I'm glad again that we I share your desire to better inform consumers in a way That is currently not foreseen in the existing designs that we've seen with regards to a hang tag But unfortunate. Well, I have one question if perhaps I'd be happy to yield the The amendment suggests that the hang tags On all models in the showroom or any other location in which rovs are offered for sale to the public I didn't see a carve-out for new models and for new models. I'm thinking the secondary market. So when showrooms When I was in aim so over the holidays I went and visited a couple of showrooms with these products were offered for sale and they were Almost as many that were that were used vehicles offered for sale as new vehicles And how would one? How would one comply with a hang tag for a product that was manufactured? Years prior Raising an issue I hadn't really thought about the fact that there are so many models that are used for sale Doesn't suggest to me a lot of confidence or a lot of support from consumers, but I think this addresses those that are supposed to be complying with the industry voluntary standard So, uh, I'm not I'm certainly not suggesting That this would apply to used models, but new models. Okay, and probably by virtue of the standard I know I haven't in front of me, but I'll never get to that place. It'll suggest to what product the standard applies and therefore A secondary market vehicles would not be expected to have that type of a hang tag in terms of providing legislative history. I'm delighted to say that I Think it should apply only to new models. And so since I know everybody scours Commission meetings for legislative history. I think this will be Indelibly inscribed in their minds. Thank you chairman Mr. Abner We've actually debated this so I don't really feel that it's useful to go through Old terrain again, but with respect to the actual Advocacy of the voluntary standard hang tag This is something as miss paul said that we've never studied. We have done no Evaluation of in contrast to the extraordinarily good work I thought that eureka facts did and they actually came up with a hang tag that Could easily be modified as far as I'm concerned to meet my concerns And until my concerns are met. I'm sorry. I do think this is critical enough so that I'm unwilling to support termination of the Mandatory standard that we're working on Does anyone else wish to be heard on commissioner adler's motion? Having heard no further questions or comments. We'll now move to consideration commissioner. Adler. How do you vote? I commissioner robinson. No Commissioner burkle. No commissioner morovic. No I vote I the the azer two the nays are three the motion by commissioner adler is not adopted Are there any further motions or amendments? I have a motion after you Mr. Robinson Which order do we go? We'll go with you first and then commissioner. Um, I and I apologize because I don't have this in in Printed out, but it is actually sort of a An amalgamation of commissioner adler's two motions because now that the first one passed And we will have this retrospective review at a time No later than two years after the effective dates of the standards based on data And let me just add I don't often say this But I really really hope that I'm wrong and that this standard will indeed make vehicles safer And that we'll see deaths and injuries go down And if after that review the commission Is able to find that this standard is sufficient that we may rely on it under section nine Then I would uh move that we indeed delay The vote on termination to see if after this review the standard is such That we are comfortable relying on it both because it protects consumers and because there's sufficient compliance And if so at that time terminate rulemaking Is there a second for commissioner robinson's motion to defer pending the results of the retrospective review? Um Yes, I second having heard a second will now turn to consideration commissioner adler Well, uh I certainly appreciate uh, commissioner robinson your thought this does Violate the protocol that the commission has had that if you have a motion or amendment that you circulated at least 24 hours Before the commission vote. So that that makes me extremely Reluctant to support something That I that I think I understand but i'm not entirely clear that I understand And so I think also that this is More dismissive of the caliber of the voluntary standard than i'm prepared to to suggest So for those reasons i'm very reluctant to support the motion, but I certainly Appreciate the good faith in which it's offered commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair I do want to concur with commissioner adler that this does violate. We call it the robinson rule Getting the amendment out by one o'clock the day before I think first time in three and a half years. Yes, it is um, I I do want to just I will not be supporting this amendment For a number of reasons, but I primarily I think what we're seeing here is And I said it and I'll continue to say it moving the gold post After we've established the rules at a too far into the game and actually the game is over the voluntary standards It's been completed and staff has said to us that it's adequate And so now to make all of these make terminating the rule conditional on all of these different conditions I'm adamantly opposed to it Commissioner mover oven. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Uh, mr. Chairman commissioner robinson. I'm thinking about the The effect of your of your proposed motion here the way I read commissioner adler's motion is that the retrospective review Wouldn't commence wouldn't start is that right until two years after It would have to be completed no later than two years after the uh effective date of the voluntary standard Is there an idea of given a uh a an activity of that side how soon Or how early Staff would have to begin because I'm wondering it's been said that we want to focus on the data To determine the effectiveness of the standard and I'm finding the bandwidth between when the standard goes into place And when we begin a retrospective Review to be very small So how would we be doing anything except reviewing the previous environment prior to the new standard going into play? Well, if I might just comment on that in fact what we've heard from the industry is that even now they are starting to implement The voluntary standard. So there may well be substantial compliance Before the 2018 effective date. So I think we certainly need to give them credit for that But that is the sort of thing that uh, we can't decide now what we're going to have to do is Have consultation with our staff and get a better sense of the implementation of the voluntary standard Thank you may not for a point. Sure. Everybody else can answer I was asking questions of commissioner robinson But you guys can jump in whenever just a point of clarification that my understanding from industry is that There's not an effective date in calendar year 2018 that it is effective upon the issuance of model year 18 vehicles which will begin as early of this july And depending on the manufacturer will through into the fall So in terms of vehicles being online that are Are intended to be compliant with the standard it should be no later I would imagine then this winter if that helps right But as a matter of practical purpose is all I'm bringing up is that the products have to come in line They have to be used we have to have a significant amount of time In the environment to be able to evaluate its effectiveness And I think it's uh, that's why in most situations A retrospective review are usually in the five-year time frame To give an opportunity for more data One that I think our fine statisticians would be more confident in In providing some analysis and recommendations on On the shortcomings or the effectiveness two years and even beginning In advance of two years say it doesn't need to be it needs to be completed before two years Is a very short bandwidth. I don't know how many Live rounds if you will that staff will be able to have to evaluate the the efficacy If I might you may be right In which case and this is one of the things I think we all love and respect and admire our staff so much for it Staff is not reluctant to come in and say can't tell you just yet And so that might be a useful thing But if they could tell us then I think the earlier the better of course commissioner radler I'd be happy to yield my time to you to answer that question. Thank you mr chairman Uh, I do not plan to support commissioner robinson's motion I'm not troubled by the fact that you just offered it. I have no problem with that. I think we're all we can all handle something on the fly My Issue and it's not a strong one is just that I believe that the voluntary standard is closer to being potentially effective than commissioner robinson might And I do I would hope that industry would see through the remaining issues that commissioner adler has identified because I do think that those are Missing links, but I do appreciate commissioner robinson offering it commissioner robinson Would only say that as I said, I hope you're absolutely right I hope this is a great standard and if indeed it is and it makes these vehicles safer That's why my proposal was that we evaluated under section nine to see if we may rely on it Um And then terminate rulemaking if so because I'm just not comfortable terminate rule terminating rulemaking Making when we don't have a standard on which we could rely Does anybody else wish to be heard on commissioner robinson's motion? Having heard no further consider no further comments or questions will not turn to consideration commissioner adler How do you vote no commissioner robinson? Yes commissioner berkel no Commissioner moho rovick no and I vote no The yeas is one the nays are for the motion by commissioner robinson has not been agreed to are there any additional motions or amendments I have a motion mr. Chairman commissioner moho rovick You can have three minutes to describe it please certainly and again I apologize to my colleagues for making a motion to terminate rulemaking although I don't think it'll come as to any surprise to our colleagues here We've been considering the staff's recommendation to terminate rulemaking for some time We've had lots of votes here today except on The big motion before us that the that the public has been expecting for quite some time to terminate rulemaking There's been a lot of congressional testimony suggesting That if staff comes to a point in time where they can be Confident in the voluntary standards such that mandatory rulemaking Is no longer warranted Then we should we should hit that point and however we got here I know there was some testimony this morning how Or earlier in the day and and and how or what drove the the staff's recommendation We do have it before us. So um, I hope my colleagues will Will appreciate just for the record As many of many are paying attention to the record on this matter that we should have a vote to terminate rulemaking I'm just asking you the point of clarification. Who has that different from the underlying vote. That's before us Do we do you plan on having the underlying vote? I thought that uh, yes, that's why we're here. Yeah, okay I just wanted to make sure I wanted to make sure we weren't going to go through without having the actual Final vote we will okay. Do you want to withdraw your emotion? I'll withdraw the motion. Okay. Thank you. Are there any further motions or amendments? Having heard no further motions amendments. We'll now turn to the exact vote that commissioner morovic was trying to have us vote on Does anyone else wish to be heard before we take the vote on the underlying question of termination commissioner adler? I think I've made my perspective fairly clear I do not plan to support the notion of terminating just now But I did want to say that I think we're quite close I think the industry voluntary standard in many many respects is quite good And I appreciate all the work and the effort that they've put into developing the voluntary standard I appreciate their willingness to cooperate with staff and I appreciate staff's Willingness to cooperate with them. I think we're close, but we're not there just yet. So I plan to vote no commissioner robinson commissioner berkel nothing further commissioner morovic Having heard no further Comments on the underlying vote. I'll now call it. This is on the vote to terminate commissioner adler. How do you vote? No Commissioner robinson now commissioner berkel. Yes Commissioner morovic. Yes, and I vote no The a's or two the nays or three the motion to terminate has not been agreed to We'll now turn to closing statements. We'll have up to 10 minutes for those and I will go first Well, perhaps the only thing we can agree on today is that this process might have left Many of us a little bit displeased I had had a fuller statement prepared today in case We had reached a different conclusion, but i'm not going to read that now I'm going to hold that off with hope that that will be applicable down the road But I will say though that i'm disappointed that i've not seen enough of a willingness All around to find more common ground At this last bit when it's needed the most I commend commissioner adler for offering an extremely reasonable path forward as a way to enhance the standard further And button up this process And even though his motion did not pass I am willing to support immediately bringing this backup for a vote if the two achievable conditions that he laid out are met My hope is that cooler heads will once again prevail as they did in 2014 And we can address these last items in the cooperative Collaborative and constructive spirit in which they have worked and everybody has worked in the past two years For the remainder of the time that I serve in my current position I pledge that cpsc staff who really has just done an absolutely outstanding Amount of work on this will stay engaged with the voluntary standards process as long as there is something With which to stay engaged We've had really strong support from very different and numerous aspects of the stakeholder community I want to particularly point out the efforts through all these years from the consumer federation of america particularly by Ms. Rachel wine drop who really has carried the water For consumer safety for probably about a decade on this issue. We're we're close. We're getting there I also do want to acknowledge the industry personnel specifically mr. Paul vitrano from polaris and mr. Eric pritchard from sva Who have put in a ton of time and energy to get us to where we are today? And we are so close in my mind to the finish line I am concede. I am confused as to why there is suddenly so much counterproductive rigid rigidity at this last moment As an initial matter industry already has the clarity and the certainty that it needs Throughout the npr process. We heard over and over again that the rulemaking moving forward And I mean the mandatory rulemaking was creating design and manufacturing uncertainty. That was harming business needed clarity Industry needed certainty. They needed to know that there was just one set of standards to follow Well, they have that clarity and they have that certainty now The only standards they have to follow starting with model year 2018 vehicles are the voluntary standards From last year and i'm saying it in the plural because there's an opei standard and then there's a rova standard Today's vote does not change that fact and it never would have either way The mandatory standard is not moving forward at this time and we all know it The failure to terminate does not mean anything more than the failure to terminate It obviously does not mean the rulemaking goes forward Because absent engaging in completely wasteful spending by pouring hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to study the feasibility of something already technically resolved As the bizarre appropriations rider would require Moving forward is not legally permitted at this point It is also unlikely to be legally permitted in the foreseeable future While it is understandable to strongly want termination to make today's vote into something it is not Is not productive It was also no need to dig in and resist moving the vote to try to accommodate commissioner addler's requests I do not believe that that is leadership and I do not believe that that is collaboration That is not in my mind keeping the big picture in mind in terms of how far we have come and how close indeed that we are There really was no reason to make today Some kind of stand claiming that today is the day the rulemaking has to be terminated or else I just do not accept that narrative We could have easily just as moved the vote could have just as easily moved the vote or voted to provide more time Not only to sort out our concerns with the hang tag But also to work together to make it more effective For those who would minimize and marginalize concern over the hang tag I would just say and has been proven by staff's testimony today That is the lynch pin in the first line of defense in the standards against injury or death I'm talking about rollover Even before you might need occupant protection Even before you might need to avoid dynamic instability You need to avoid rollover And rollover can occur From something as simple as riding on slope surfaces at low speeds The point of the hang tag is to drive consumer demand and engineering competitiveness Toward more inherently stable vehicles Staff stated strongly that the tilt table threshold in the standards alone is weak and unlikely to make any discernible safety difference That is why getting the hang tag right is so important It is also important to have some assurances regarding substantial compliance It is not clear why our colleagues did not support this request either We are only talking about a letter from each standards development Organization after they survey their members Similar to the hang tag concerns having a commitment on likely compliance matters to us So while some might be upset about the result today Please do not just brush off our concerns as trivial or pretextual. They are neither There is much to commend in the standards and I acknowledge all the work that went into them from all the parties By knowing the mandatory rulemaking is not moving forward anytime soon Industry has the clarity and the certainty they asked for and needed Now we need some clarity and certainty on two final components the hang tag and compliance with the standard There is still a path forward for further consideration well before the commission composition changes As always the cpsc staff in my office Are ready to roll up our sleeves and engage and I think I can say the same of commissioner addler and his staff I hope others will join us as well commissioner addler Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman just to make The meeting Shorter I simply want to associate myself with your remarks stated much more articulately and eloquently that I could possibly have done So I have just a very brief statement First again, I want to thank staff for their always excellent work on preparing briefing packages And this one in particular This is a very challenging issue and it's been a very challenging vote for me and I've thought about it a lot After a rocky start, I believe that cpsc staff and the rov industry have worked together effectively and cooperatively to promote rov safety Each side has listened to the other and both have shown a willingness to consider new approaches to safety I'm particularly impressed with the industry's willingness to address staff concerns about oversteer risk And staff's openness to industry's proposal to develop a yaw rate Ratio test to address the agency's concern about this risk Staff has tested industry's requirements and seem satisfied that they will adequately reduce the risk of divergent instability from oversteer I'm also satisfied that the agency's concerns about occupant protection have been adequately Albeit, not perfectly not perfectly Addressed through the adoption of a carefully designed interlock system that will permit vehicles to operate up to 15 miles per hour If the driver's seat belt is not fastened The voluntary standards requirement is less than the one proposed by cpsc and its npr Which would have required all front seat belts to be fastened nonetheless On the theory that the driver is the captain of the ship I suspect that most occupants will fasten their seat belts once the driver has done so Moreover, I believe it important for the agency to show the same flexibility toward the industry that we've called on them To show in the development of their voluntary standards So the one area that I have and continue to remain skeptical about Is the requirements in the voluntary standard for lateral stability Insofar as it pertains to the inadequacy of the hang tags So I once again call on our colleagues in the industry to reconsider their position with respect to hang tags And also to provide some assurance which should not take very much work To demonstrate that there will be substantial compliance with the standard. Thank you commissioner robinson Over the past three and a half years. I've received regular reports of the hundreds of deaths and serious injuries caused by ROVs I am not going through to go through the statistics statistics again as I did earlier But suffice it to say that Large percentage of these serious injuries and deaths result from ROVs rolling over ROVs as they're currently designed are unreasonably dangerous And their biggest danger is their propensity to roll over For years cpsc engineers and representatives of the recreational off highway vehicle association And its members had ongoing communications concerning proper safety and testing standard for ROVs Rova developed a standard in 2011 and again in 2014 The standard was developed through the canvassing method that I so oppose And because of the canvassing process Which is not one in which consumer groups and the cpsc Are given any control whatsoever Industry leads and heavily dominates the process as part of the process However, the cpsc engineers informed rova repeatedly that based on cpsc testing And they're very careful analysis of accident data They did not believe either of the rova and seek voluntary standards in 2011 and in 14 Went far enough to make ROVs safer for consumers Particularly with respect to at that time they told them vehicle stability handling and occupant protection And further they informed them repeatedly That based on cpsc's experience with the yamaha rhino repair program That the changes that would be required to meet safety requirements that could save lives Were relatively easy and inexpensive to make In the summer of 2014 as I've said so often in encouraging my fellow commissioners to go do the same Actually went to our lab and rode off-road in an ROV And while the experience was exciting and fun, you certainly quickly appreciated why these ROVs are such a And inherently dangerous product. They look like cars. They feel like cars and people drive them like cars But they're completely different the center of gravity the mechanics Are completely different and as a result if you drive an ROV the way you do a car There's no way for the consumer to know of the latent hazard of it being more likely to tip over When the cpsc staff concerns were again Not addressed in the drafts that became the 2014 standard The cpsc staff that proposed that the commission issue a mandatory standard that included These relatively simple inexpensive measures that they knew from in-depth analysis would save lives The cpsc's proposals in this 2014 npr on a mandatory rule Included a thorough analysis of the 2014 standard and its deficiencies On october 29th 2014 the commission and I was one of them and i'm proud to say voted to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking Proposing this mandatory standard with these inexpensive easy changes to ROVs that would save lives After publishing the npr cpsc continued to dedicate significant staff time And resources meeting with industry representatives Cpsc list staff listened with an open mind industry's comments on the proposed rule However, I have to say that to this commissioner industry Immediately lost credibility during this process by producing two extremely misleading videos that were widely distributed Including on a major manufacturer's website and both Both videos made gross misrepresentations or to to use today's vernacular presented alternative facts The first video reported to show what would be required under the cpsc proposed standard with respect to altering the rov's Oversteering but industry admitted in january 2015 hearing that what it showed in that first video was a gross exaggeration of understeer which industry very well knew was neither required nor anticipated by the npr The second grossly gross misrepresentation in a video was with respect to the stability requirement The supposedly the cpsc's proposed rule would have and what they did is they took an rov with on-road tires And performed maneuvers off row in an off-road environment Knowing very well that that was a complete misrepresentation of what the cpsc was requiring Since we would have required of course that they use the tires on the vehicles being tested That in that fact they would be marketed with and no one would ever sell an rov for the off-road environment with on-road tires But the phony videos apparently had the desired effect Members of congress got riled up and the public got riled up about this nanny state and what the cpsc Was not going to require And we saw what happened on january 7 2015 the cpsc held a statutorily required hearing On the npr in which the cpsc received critically important information and the commissioners discussed the many issues We heard from doctors who presented just tragic testimony about What what happens within families when a child dies and we heard the story of an iowa father Who was very responsibly driving his rov with his six-year-old daughter when it had a low speed on a flat surface tipped over and killed her The comment period on the mandatory rule was extended to april 2015 Pursuant to request by industry But instead of continuing to work with us industry then went to the hill and lobbied very hard to get congress to shut Us down congress first threatened the cpsc with the ride act I won't don't need to go through The specifics of this but we were just shut down in the appropriations for 2016 and 2017 So now industry decided to move forward with the new voluntary standard With the process in place that they would dominate and with cpsc's hands completely tied But to our staff's credit we did what we always do and try to get the best result that we can get After many technical meetings and letters back and forth Industry came up with a revised standard that incorporated two of the proposals in the npr the occupant protection and vehicle Handling but would not agree with the the approach to inherent stability Which is the key area that dealt most directly with the deadly hazard of rov rollovers But the problem with these three is they're like the three legs of a stool if you don't have all three This stool is going to topple over so we have two legs two legs is good But we really need the third leg and and industry has absolutely refused to do that I again commend staff for working so hard with industry. I know how frustrating this has been the spring of 2016 The new voluntary standard was passed And the staff was instructed in the 2016 op plan to To review that standard and give us their evaluation and much to my shock And I don't pretend to know why Certainly not based on having a rule that's going to increase safety with the rov's termination package came before us The current standard voluntary standard does virtually nothing to improve the rov's inherent rollover resistance And I know That what staff is hoping that somehow this hang tag but as we listen to their hopes I hate to dash them, but I just can't imagine how this hang tag is all of a sudden Going to encourage industry to compete with each other on safety not on speed but on safety There's no reason to think that the risk of rollover will be decreased in these vehicles That meet this standard and that the hang tag containing warnings and we know is just deficient in so many ways So if we don't have a voluntary standard that has is safe enough and has enough compliance that we can rely on it I cannot imagine why we would even consider terminating rulemaking and i'm delighted with the vote today to to not terminate it I certainly agree that the current standard is somewhat safer than 2014 standard Especially when it comes to occupant protection and vehicle handling, but as I said it doesn't it doesn't address inherent stability So I will say again what I said earlier. I hope i'm wrong I hope that all of a sudden industry looks at these hang tags and decides that even though Consumers can't understand them and they're not basing their purchasing on decisions on them They're going to start competing with each other to try to make these vehicles safer But uh When we reevaluate it pursuant to commissioner adler's excellent motion, um, we'll see and as I say I hope i'm wrong Thank you Thank you, mr. Chair I want to begin by thanking the staff for the many many hours that they've worked in the development of the two voluntary Standards that led to today's vote The industry stakeholders and the trade association leaders also deserve the same credit For the countless hours and resources. They all worked together to build consensus These are not status quo standards. They will force pro safety changes in design at many companies I also applaud the interactive engagement between the commission staff and the outside stakeholders My staff and I personally witnessed a number of technical meetings I was impressed by the candor as well as the caliber of the exchanges These standards represent a technical achievement of the sort that we should be proud of These should serve as a model for similar efforts I would like to see more of this type of engagement In the coming years and I only hope that all of those efforts will bear fruit such as this one did This is the type of engagement that we should strive for as a regulatory agency This is why there's such a strong preference for voluntary standards enshrined in our cpsc statutes No one has a monopoly on safety know-how We work best when we work together with outside agents each contributing to and having a stake in the final product Again these standards illustrate the point and should be the model going forward At times throughout this process Industry came up with alternative ways to achieve cpsc's objectives and the staff studied the alternatives and found them perfectly acceptable That is cooperative problem solving at its best the classic win-win And I admire and I appreciate what has transpired over the last seven years probably more Since the anpr in 2009 Apart from the usual statutory preference for the voluntary standards We have heard directly from congress on this issue They directed us to focus on voluntary standards rather than the mandatory standard And while it took us a while to get that message we finally got there or so I thought And now after all of the blood the sweat and the tears my colleagues vote against terminating the rule making Because they can think of even a more pro safety provision that they wish to be incorporated in this voluntary standard I say the following more out of disappointment and sorrow rather than anger To me this looks like moving the gold post too long after the game has begun Our staff recommend determining the rule making because they believe the voluntary standards will adequately reduce the risks as we set out to address No one imposed that view on them They reach that view after mature professional and careful consideration At this late stage in the process It is insulting to them and all who participated in this process to claim that we should have gotten more I do not see any engineers or human factors or Epidemiologists or any scientists sitting on this dais and it's troubling to see this kind of interference from the commission Last year we approved a change to our regulations allowing the staff In certain circumstances To vote in voluntary standard proceedings or to assume a leadership position in voluntary standard committees Why do we trust staff and have such great confidence in them on one hand and then turn around and criticize their work on this One of the most significant and successful voluntary standard efforts in cpsc's history Today's outcome is also basically unfair to those on the industry side who worked so hard to make this happen Implicit in this situation was a bargain You agree to a tough voluntary standard and we will terminate our rule making That understanding was practically made explicit by our chairman in a congressional hearing In testimony before the house appropriation subcommittee he referred to the two different organizations working on voluntary standards And he said there he found their progress extremely encouraging He explained to the committee that after standards were published our staff would make an assessment of those standards And send up a recommendation to the commission He concluded and I quote if it happens the way it seems to be happening I know our staff is indicated to date that they have been pleased with the direction that the voluntary standards have taken Then I would imagine that we will proceed accordingly based on their recommendation and quote As far as i'm concerned today's we break faith without understanding And we do so without proper inadequate justification The voluntary standards organization under the ancy umbrella kept their side of the bargain But we chose not to as an agency One of the most troubling aspects about this outcome is how it may affect cpsc's future efforts It is not going to help the staff negotiate tougher standards If their assurance of adequacy carries no weight with the commissioners This value to terminate the rule undermines the credibility of our agency and for me it is an extremely troubling development We should have terminated our rulemaking on recreational off highway vehicles today as our staff staff recommended to us Our staff will and can will continue working with the industry to continue to improve the standard that we go forward In fact, termination of this rule today would have helped that effort. Thank you, mr. Chair Mission of my roving. Thank you chairman. I also want to thank staff for the The thousands of hours Spent on this issue over the course of many many years Your activities and preparation for this meeting today collectively as well as the testimony we heard was Again exemplary and I want to thank you for your efforts I also want to thank the american taxpayer for the millions of dollars That she and he have spent on this mandatory rulemaking Millions of dollars the taxpayers have bought purchased fleets of rovs We have spent thousands in contractor expertise at our laboratory. We have diverted incredible amount of resources To towards this effort And I want to also apologize to the staff I apologize for the future time and effort that you're going to be forced to spend on this mandatory rulemaking That was not your decision in your technical expertise After years of work on this matter you made a sound and thoughtful recommendation to the commission Perhaps one that has some political jeopardy To it, but yet you did you felt that it was time to move on the voluntary standards were adequate And there is better use of your time and resources The commission of which i'm a part of thinks otherwise so I apologize that your time and efforts will be redirected From other areas that would have a higher safety return on investment instead. We're going to focus on hang tags the hang tag The linchpin of safety the hang tag Uh anybody looking at this issue and stepping back and looking at the injury patterns Looking at the user behavior Would never come to the conclusion That a point of sale hang tag is the linchpin to safety The users that raced these vehicles on paved roads and got hit by 18 wheelers probably impaired The thought that the hang tag offered at the point of sale That shows a relative performance element to lateral stability might have prevented that That one linchpin is what is putting the american population at such risk associated with these With these products a point of sale nudge and For this agency to think that this is the linchpin of safety after we just heard testimony today that The purchasers the enthusiasts Those that are working in the agricultural community that need these products To work on farms and i've seen it firsthand on farms uh They don't even they may not even care about the hang tag. They may see it and they may see a a relative Uh perspective which regard to lateral stability and they won't care We've heard that our our staff who have spent so much time With the manufacturers that they don't market on relative safety and we use the example of the suburban mom Buying a suburban that cares a lot about the soccer players in the car And the the tip over of that industry and it's a nice thing to think that hopefully through a hang tag We can incentivize Greater performance with lateral stability. It just shows how completely Untethered from reality this commission is and the embarrassing part that we should be embarrassed about and i'm sorry commissioner adler But you've associated yourself with the chairman's comments about this being the linchpin of safety Is you're so much smarter than that you you know firsthand that this has such a little such a small demonstrable potential impact on safety, but it just shows that uh, we've become Completely out of touch we've become out of touch with the user group Uh to think that the the hang tag is what at a point of sale is what they're is what they're making a major decision on It demonstrates how completely out of touch This commission is out of touch with what is important for safety out of touch with the users out of touch with those Who are not Unelected unaccountable bureaucrats. So we're the unelected unaccountable bureaucrats So only we can get away with that kind of foolishness now congress They had to stand behind the vote to prevent us from further rulemaking on this on the subject They are accountable and they have been held accountable Um, and uh, I don't hear a lot of people that lost their elections by virtue of preventing the cpsc from moving forward on a mandatory rulemaking for rovs But yet, you know who's not out of touch is our technical experts our staff Yes, when I say the commission's out of touch, that's the five of us Our technical staff Who want to maximize safety for the american consumer? They are not out of touch. They have recommended terminating rulemaking But in our collective wisdom, we think that they're wrong So they're not out of touch. They understand that the hang tag is not perfect They've also worked with hang tag and and and uh warning label experts to determine that it's pretty tough to get where you want to go To be able to demonstrate for a user and a consumer at a point of sale Point to be able to demonstrate this relative performance for lateral stability And taking all that into consideration Taking the opportunity costs of all those future Dollars that won't be spent more wisely on other areas to increase safety They recommend withdraw rulemaking. We're not doing that Um, and we're not going to be held accountable to it. We're unaccountable unelected bureaucrats We are by definition. We can get away with murder. We can tell congress. We can testify to congress We can say hey look these voluntary standards get to a point where our commission staff recommending withdrawal We will proceed accordingly And we can say that And then we cannot do that when in fact staff has recommended withdrawing rulemaking and we're going to get away with it Because that's the problem with regulation and a whole state of unelected Unaccountable bureaucrats And that's just a little something that disappoints me Generally, I I would hope and wish that this commission Um does more of what it says But like anything else you hear from from us, how can you even believe us? How can you even believe me? I mean, uh, we all the time go back on our word. We do it in testimony I don't even know what the consequences of that are but, uh, maybe we'll find out in the future But I'm sure it'll be part of the general narrative of washington dc regulatory environment that there will be no accountability and This uh, this federal government of ours will continue to get away with murder Uh, so I look forward to working with you all in the next panel. Mr. Chairman I saw apologize for the dour close, but I was really honestly hoping for And expecting a different outcome today. So that's the the reason for my great disappointment. Thank you chairman On a more uplifting note We will take a break until one o'clock for lunch. I do want to make one other announcement And that is uh, last week at the end of last week The commission did vote unanimously to elect commissioner berkel as vice chair And I did want to mention that publicly and congratulate commissioner berkel or vice chair berkel on that vote. Congratulations We'll take a break and resume at one o'clock on fireworks. Thank you