 Welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission today. We're considering a staff draft notice proposed rulemaking to establish safety requirements to prevent debris penetration and off highway vehicles. Now, before we get started, I'm pleased to announce that today is our first online meeting with translation. Alright, I saw translator will be visible as a panelist throughout the duration of our meeting to see our translator full screen. You can simply drag their thumbnail to the stage. So, today, we're considering important post rule at a key step in the commission's efforts to improve the safety of off highway vehicles. The rule is just straightforward. It requires that all recreational off highway vehicles and utility task vehicles be designed to prevent. Debris and penetrating the floorboards of vehicles. The vehicle is designed to go off road and travel through rough terrain should be able to withstand a branch or a large stick from penetrating the seat area, normal operations, which potentially injure or kill the occupants. We were briefed on this proposal in May today. We will consider amendments and I expect the end approved publications of proposals, the federal register. There are several staff members present at this meeting with us are 2 members of our staff who briefed us on this proposal in May on limb project manager, director for engineering sciences and Barbara little attorney in the regulatory affairs division. Also, in attendance are Alex muskoso associate executive director for economic analysis, Wayne Boniface assistant executive director, Austin, slick general counsel and Alberta mills, the commission secretary. Each commissioner will have 5 minutes for questions or comments. Now, after the questions are complete, we'll consider any amendments. Once again, I remind every day body. Well, it's perfectly permissible to voice your personal opinions on legal issues. It's not appropriate to discuss any legal advice given to us by the office of general counsel outside of executive session. A legal advice we receive must remain confidential. This point, I would again, thank staff for attending and for the briefing materials prior to this. And turn to questions rounds. I personally do not have any questions. So, I'll turn to commissioner and actually, before I do that, I realize that probably just to confirm for the record that all commissioners are present. So. Commissioner, you present yes, sir. Commissioner Feldman commissioner Trump. Present. So, turning back to questions I turn to commissioner. Did you have any questions? You want to say anything? No, thank you, chair. I do not miss your development. No questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Trumka. Questions for you. Thank you. Great. Uh, I heard no questions. Excuse me. We'll begin consideration of the package before us. I will now entertain any amendments up to the draft. Proposed rule, I'm going to actually start with myself. I have 1 amendment and recognize myself for 3 minutes to introduce it. And this amendment is straightforward clarifies the rule applies to all vehicles that meet the definition of an R. O. V. or U. T. V. regardless of their marketing. The proposal itself has as was brought forth to us is clear on this, but the draft preamble included language that suggested that youth are these were excluded from the requirements of the role. The amendment simply matches the language in the preamble to the requirements of the role. We have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us at this point. I don't see a reason to exclude vehicles built for children from safe from a safety requirement. I stand that there's some cases there may be differences in the way that vehicles marketed for use are built. And if the different construction limits the risk that's worth considering and I invite commenters to provide additional information as to safety aspects of those designs. But I also want to make clear any exclusions should be based on evidence that the vehicles don't pose a safety hazard, not simply on how the vehicles are being marketed. Is there a second to this amendment? Second, thank you having heard a second and move forward to consideration amendment. Other commissioners will ask any questions or make any comments with respect to the amendment. Um, then I will provide myself an opportunity to close each commissioners will have 5 minutes per round and multiple rounds if necessary. I recognize commissioner. Yeah, did you have any questions or comments? Thank you, chair. I appreciate the amendment. It was necessary to clear up this discrepancy. Thank you for picking it up and for presenting the amendment. I have nothing further thank you. Commissioner commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendment also makes sense. We want the preamble and the the the text of the rule to match each other. And I think having that internal inconsistencies. Important not only for industry and other stakeholders, but just eliminating potential ambiguity makes this clear. So, I think for those reasons, I'm supportive. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner commissioner Trump. No, I no questions on this. Thank you for introducing it. I agree with the sentiment of my fellow commissioners and I do support it. Thank you. Well, with those comments, I don't actually have anything to add to this point in time. So, I would thank my fellow commissioners for their engagement and move to the vote on it. Commissioner, yes, commissioner Feldman. I vote yes, commissioner Trump. I vote yes, I vote yes as well. So the yeses are 4 and those are 0 and the amendment of the chair is adopted. Turning to other commissioner amendments, commissioner Bianco, did you have any amendments? Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments? No amendments for me. Thank you. And commissioner Trump, do you have any amendments? I do, I have 4 actually. All right, why don't we start with your 1st amendment? I recognize you and you can describe your amendment. And after the conclusion of the description, I'll ask for a 2nd. Great, so the 1st amendment deals with anti stockpiling and it would. Commissioner Trump, I lost you for a minute in your volume. Can you. Start again, sure. Is that any better? That is good. Okay, so the 1st amendment, um, deals with anti stockpiling. And it would adopt the same anti stockpiling language that we adopted in our proposed rule on clothing storage units. Currently, the proposed rule lets companies pick their best year of production in the past 5 years and produce at 125% of their fastest rate of production. And the months after rules published, but before it takes effect, that allows companies to build a hefty stockpiled. Of non compliant products that if a rules published would have meant that we deemed those products too dangerous to exist. So. So, this amendment changes the base period to the median month in the past 13 months, and it would change the allowable increase in production from 120% of the base period to 105% of the base period. Thank you, commissioner. Is there a 2nd for the amendment 2nd? Having heard a 2nd, you'd go through questions or comments for on this amendments. I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes. And say, commissioner, you know, this, as you mentioned, is an amendment you brought up before in the context of clothing storage rule. And I supported at that point in time, and I think it's right to question how we handle stockpiling and how much of a product should be made in the month leading up to an effective date. And the safety applications in the end, we need to strike a balance between what's consistent with their statutes. Um, fair to manufacturers while prioritizing protecting consumers. And I believe that issue should be fleshed out in the common process and support the amendment for that purpose and yield back to remainder of my time. Turning to commissioner, thank you. I think you also, mr. Trumka for the amendment. I do agree that we should be moving these rules along and not giving loopholes really not necessary. So, I support the amendment. Thank you, commissioner commissioner, thank you. And thank you, commissioner for introducing this amendment again. Of course, we don't want manufacturers to circumvent the intended safety benefits. The rule by engaging in stockpiling. The, the 1 note of caution that I would want to sound is that we all know that our nation has been impacted by significant supply chain concerns. Uh, and these challenges persist. It's unclear to me at this point. How are V and you TV manufacturers have been able to meet these supply disruptions. And how that perhaps has delayed sort of current production capacity. So, at this point, I think we want to maintain some maintain some flexibility in the final role with the supply chain issues. And we can revisit this in the final rule, if appropriate. So. I think for now, I'm comfortable, including the provision in the NPR so we can solicit comments. But sort of based on what we know about the supply chain and the lack of information that we currently have, I do want to hear from stakeholders. About what their inventory looks like, what the state of production is and where we might go from, from, from here in the future. But again, thank you for the provision. I look forward to supporting it. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner Trump, did you have any final. Thoughts just to thank you to my fellow commissioners for engaging on this and nothing else. Great, and I can turn to a vote at this point time, Mr. Bianco. How do you vote? Yes, Mr. Feldman. I vote yes, Mr. Trump, yes. And I vote yes as well. So, yes, for the votes are no is a part of 0. The amendment, the 1st amendment of commissioner Trump is adopted. He said, you want to start on your 2nd amendment and describe it. Sure. Sure, thank you. So, the 2nd amendment deals with effective date. It would align the effective date and the proposed rule with staff's analysis. It's good comply with the new requirements in most 4 months. So, rather than 180 days, which is the statute by max amendment would change that to an effective date of 100. In the same time, the amendment would seek. You're cutting in and out if you can just lean into the mic. I'm not sure why it's doing that, but. Most of what you said up close. Sorry about that. Is it a little bit better now? Yeah. Okay. So, I'll just start that again, but it would align the effective date in the proposed rule with staff's assessment. Staff's staff assess that it would take companies at most 4 months to comply with the requirements. So, rather than 180 days, which is the statutory max under under a statute for an effective date. The amendment would change that to 120 day effective date. And at the same time, it would seek public comment on whether that's the appropriate period or if any shorter period is appropriate. Thank you, 2nd for the amendment. Thank you for the 2nd turn to questions and comments. Next. Recognize myself for 5 minutes. Uh, commissioner trump get the ones again. Thank you for continue your focus on ensuring product safety rules go into effect as quickly as possible. Support your efforts to shorten the effective dates on other in other proposed, uh, those proposed rule making and to see comment on the appropriate length of time. And I look forward to seeing robust comments on this issue as well. And giving the staff the information they need to make an informed. Proposed on the final role, so I will support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same and yield back the remainder of my time. Commissioner Bianca, yes, thank you and thank you commissioner Trump on this particular amendment and this particular situation. I pause as to whether the time period is too short. Um, but that being said, I think this particular commission has recognized under your certainly by your leadership here on this issue that these safety rules need to get into effect. And the just too much time that the safety issues are not getting addressed. So, I'm going to stay consistent and I'm going to support the amendment with the caveat that if we do receive comments that we need to revisit the time period that we will take a take a closer look at that. But in the meantime, I do support moving this rule and a lot of the rules that we make forward. Thank you, commissioner commissioner Feldman. Thank you and again, thank you for offering this. This is the 4th such amendment that that you've introduced and counting the votes that it sounds like much like. Colgate versus Cornell during your playing years, you're about to go for now. But, but I am concerned that that because this particular rule that we're proposing would likely result in in a substantial redesign for. A number of the ROVs and you TVs that are on the market that we should allow sufficient time for designing and testing. It's been the commission's position that in the past. The design and test processes for ROVs is similar to the processes that auto manufacturers apply with respect to model years when it when it comes to new vehicles. And we've proposed longer compliance dates. For example, when we propose that a seatbelt rule for occupant protection back in 2014. And because the commission understood at the time that that manufacturers needed to redesign and test. We did up for a bit of a longer time period and with the debris penetration proposal that's currently in front of us. I'm told that that staff also considered sort of the model year approach when proposing the 180 day effective date. So, according to staff, based on the questions that we asked, typically a manufacturer needs at least 1 model year to retool and make the design changes and test. And that's all, you know, somewhat involved in here. Staff thinks 180 days is appropriate. So, presumably the changes that we're proposing could be implemented within those 180 days. I think that date makes sense. And for those reasons, I think I'm comfortable. Not keeping the effective data as it is and not shortening it shortening it beyond what what staff has proposed. I think that said, I'd be open to hearing the comments from from from from manufacturers and other stakeholders about whether or not this is something we may want to revisit on the back end. I'd also note that that I put this product category in a slightly different category than than where we've done this previously. For instance, on magnets and window coverings in the former. We were talking about essentially what amounted to a amounted to a product ban in the latter. We were dealing with an industry that had reneged on some commitments that it made to the commission and also that had sort of established that proof of of concept and engineering viability. Because it had already shown that that redesign could work with respect to stock products and what we're proposing here today is slightly different. So, I'm a no, I'm open to hearing the comments that we receive and I appreciate the effort and the sentiment. Of course, we want to move these rules along as quickly as possible. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Trump. Did you have any additional comments? Well, the my only comment and I thank you for all that. There is no way that we went for now and I have to go back and check the record. Oh, you're cutting out again. I'm sorry, but, you know, no, no more comments. Thank you. Okay. So, hearing no additional comments. Um, thank you. Bill commissioners for engagement and move to vote to a vote. Commissioner, you may be muted. I vote yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Feldman, Mr. Trump. Yes, I vote yes. So, the yes, so 3, the nose or 1, and then 2nd amendment of commissioner Trump is adopted. I think your 3rd amendment, Mr. Sure. And I hope I don't cut out on this 1, because there's a. It stopped me if I, if I do start coming out there, but, but this this 1 addresses evaluation of benefits. Um, the way that we look at them in the. Cost analysis, and as for public comment on whether we should consider to hear from people on that subject, for example, our briefing package says. That we know about at least 634 debris penetration incidents and at least 11 associated injuries from our recall data between 2014 and 2016. But we don't currently account for those incidents in our benefit cost analysis. Instead, our analysis assumes that 105 total incidents involving the brief penetration occurred from 2009 to 2021. And further assumes that only 22 non fatal injuries and 6 deaths occurred from 2009 to 2021. Those data here in our nice and CPSR and that's databases and the way our estimate of benefits works. We make a forecast of future incidents that would occur without our rule, and then we estimate that our rule would prevent 95% of them. That whole forecast builds on the nice and CPSR and that's incidents instead of the larger number of incidents than we have them recall data. In, in every year going forward, our estimates of injuries prevented. Incidents prevented and deaths prevented are likely under counted and undervalued because they're based on a subset of our data in the hall of our data. So, it's possible that accounting for all those incidents in our recall data, combined with nice and CPSR incidents could make a difference. So, we see comment on, on this assessment of our analysis and how we might account for the larger number of incidents in our data inside that, inside that, that process analysis. The 2nd point on that is that the current analysis doesn't forecast how many incidents injuries and deaths are we would prevent across the whole country because we're dealing with a relatively small number of incidents captured and nice and CPSR. We couldn't make a national estimate from those sources alone and I get that. But there could be other sources of data that we could use to supplement what we have and get an estimate of what's happening across the country, including data from industry that we haven't yet seen. It'd be great to hear from the public on whether we could tap other sources of data to get an understanding of the full national picture, but even if we've used all the data that's out there, I'd still like to see public comment on if we could get better about making plausible assumptions. Instead of assuming that we've captured 100% of incidents. So, in fact, OMB has a guidance document on this circulary for and it advises agencies that when benefits are uncertain, there's no scientifically valid way to estimate the and there's no scientifically valid way to estimate them. We should describe benefits or costs under possible scenarios and characterize the evidence assumptions underlying each scenario. So, I'd like to hear comments on how we could incorporate that thinking here. And then 3rd, when a side by side gets seriously damaged, even if you come out without a scratch on your body, you still need to get the vehicle fixed. And that takes time and money and for anyone who uses 1 of these for work, say on the farm, that's even worse. They could be out some real money. So our analysis doesn't currently count that any benefits that are proposed were great by avoiding those incidents. And I'd like to hear comments from people on that, especially from people who use these vehicles and the cost they might face after an incident. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a 2nd for the 2nd? 2nd, thank you turn to questions and comments and I'll start with myself quickly and say, I think asking for additional information on these issues in the common process is important. And if proved, I'll be very interested in seeing what we learn from this. So, we'll be supportive commissioner Bianco. Thank you, I'm going to support this amendment, commissioner Trump, but for some of the exact opposite reasons why you presented it. And I know that may not make sense in the beginning, but let me explain. First of all, I agree that our current analysis is it doesn't include data. There's lots of other sources of data out there and I do think they need to be taken into consideration. It is an issue that I have in many instances. I think that we rely too heavily on, you know, at least data and very limited data. Pots, if you will, so I do think that we need to look at other sources of data. I am not a big supporter of this associated incident information. And this is where I disagree with you, but I'm going to support your amendment for really the same reasons as it turns out when we do have associated incidents, the importance to me is should they all be included? Yes, we should analyze every single 1 of them. But to the extent that they're only associated with and do not represent, you know, some type of causal relationship to the result that should also be considered. So not only should we look at these, all of these incidents deeper, but they need to be analyzed and looked at appropriately for what they are and for what they are not. I'm not convinced that niece is as accurate as it needs to be to make a causal connection between problems that we see with any product, including this particular class and a product hazard, if you will. So the opposite view may be of yours, but comes out at the same place. Additional data I think is important. I think we should have been taking information from outside sources for a long time. And this is good a place as any to start as to what other sources there are. And I do think we ought to be looking at our data and in a deeper, more analytical way, rather than just counting up slash marks of associated incidents. So, for that reason, I will support your amendment. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you, Commissioner Trump for the amendment. I'm also supportive. I do want to sound a brief note of caution to the commission. We have a dedicated team of professional economists whose job it is to consider what factors are considered appropriate for the purposes of conducting cost benefit analysis under the role. And I wouldn't want, this is a strong rule that we have right now. I wouldn't want to put the final rule in jeopardy because the valuation of benefits wasn't completed in a holistic manner. I don't think we should be putting the thumb on the scale one way or the other to reach a desired outcome with respect to where we would want the CBA ultimately to end up. So, with that, I do think it's a good idea to receive information from the public here and for that reason, I'm going to offer my support. Thank you, Commissioner, turning back to Commissioner Trump, a closing closing thoughts. Again, just my thanks. I lost you again. Can you try that? Yeah, yeah, I just wanted to say that I really appreciate how we can think about things from different perspectives. All right, I lost you after thanking from different perspectives. That's the gist of it, I guess. Thank you, Commissioner, with that, I will turn to a vote. Commissioner Bianca, how do you vote? You may be muted. All right, I vote yes. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Yes. Commissioner Trump. Yes. I vote yes as well. So the S's are 4, the no's are 0. And the 3rd amendment by Commissioner Trumka is adopted. Turning to your 4th amendment, Commissioner Trumka. Thank you. And the 4th one short, it's 2 small changes to remove super close information. That might inadvertently give the wrong impression here. So our proposed role refers twice to the fact that we have data. He felt use even though there's nothing in the briefing package to suggest that consumers wearing. Relevant to whether to contribute for you punching through their floorboards. I just want to make sure that we're not accidentally suggesting that there's any consumer fault with that issue and answer this amendment would just remove those 2 references. Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a 2nd? Thank you for sure. Hearing a 2nd, we move to questions or comments. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Commissioner Trumka, thank you again for raising this like you raise a good point when we think about the safety of off road vehicles. We often think about driver behavior, including decisions about whether to wear a seat belt or not. In the case of debris penetration, the presence or absence of seat belt really is not relevant to others and injury. Support your amendment to remove the language and yield back the remaining the remainder of my time. Commissioner, thank you. I find myself again supporting your amendment for the opposite reasons. I do appreciate the clarification you have here. I do think that. I don't think that the language here was intended to blame the user. And, but I do think that the clarification is necessary because whether or not they were using a seat belt is. Is not relevant to the actual issue we're looking at so the clarity is necessary. I don't straight across the board believe that usage of the product is necessarily victim, victim blaming. I mean, there is there are situations for misuse again. Not relevant exactly here, but I think that we ought to be clear and taking out that information. I think it's important here. So I do support it. Thank you, commissioner commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again, commissioner Trump for the amendment this this is in amendment that that I do have some issues with I think it goes beyond just sort of general edits. And I don't I don't I don't believe it's victim blaming, but I'm also not sure collecting information and soliciting comments on seat belt use is is totally superfluous here either. I've reviewed the edits that that you're suggesting I do have some concerns. I'm concerned that that striking reference to seat belt use might well eliminate important data that we would want to consider and comments that that may well be relevant to the analysis here. I don't know that seat belt use is is related to the hazarded issue, but I also can't say that it's not at a minimum. I think we would want to have that information in place. For example, if the commission wanted to study the phenomenon of risk compensation, where you see users engage in riskier behavior with with certain safety mechanisms and technologies in place. I think that might be important data. I don't know that that the presence or use of a seat belt is relevant to the positioning of a vehicle occupant and that may be relevant to. Penetration and impalement it may not be. I think more information's better. So, for that reason, I'm uncomfortable with with the 1, particular edit with respect to the seat belt use. I don't think it has anything to do with victim blaming, but, but unfortunately, I am a no on this amendment for that reason. Thank you, commissioner turning back to you, commissioner Trump, if you have any final thoughts. No, just just to thank you for the consideration. If that will turn to a vote commissioner. Yako, how do you vote? Yes, thank you. Commissioner Feldman. How do you vote? I vote now, Mr. Trump. How do you vote? And I will vote yes. So, yes, so 3, the nose on the 4th amendment by commissioner Trump is adopted. Don't believe you have any other other amendments that correct, Mr. Trump. That's all for me. Thank you. All right, hearing no additional amendments. I move to the staff's draft. No, it's a proposed rulemaking as amended and direct publication. The same in the federal register. Is there a 2nd? 2nd, we have a 2nd can move to a vote. Commissioner Yako. How do you vote? Yes. Mr. Bellman, how do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Trumka. I vote yes, I vote yes as well. So there are 4 yeses 0, noes. The motion to approve the staff's nose, the proposed rulemaking as amended for a debris penetration of off highway vehicles passes. The nose proposed rulemaking as amended has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. Now, at this point, we have up to 10 minutes per commissioner for any closing closing. Closing remarks claiming my time. This notice of proposed rulemaking is a step forward in a long process of improving safety for off highway vehicles. The dangers of these vehicles were real and include not only debris penetration, but also. Overturning collisions and ejection. CPSC's latest show an annual annually, an average of more than 700 deaths and an estimated 100,000 emergency room department, treated injuries involving these vehicles. Courts of R. O. V. U. T. V related fatalities injuries involving debris penetration. Prompted the CPSC to publish and advance those rules rulemaking in May of 2021 to consider where there may be unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with R. V's respect to this issue. The staff found a total 107 incidents in CPSC's databases between 2009. 21 involving debris penetration hazards in addition for 2024 2016. There are 3 degree penetration recalls associated with R. V's consisting of approximately 55,000 recall vehicles. 630 incidents of debris cracking or breaking through the floor boards and 10 injuries. I appreciate the hard work the staff has put into this package and I want to thank my colleagues for their engagement on this effort. There are thoughtful amendments and please that we're moving forward with this rule today. We're making progress towards preventing unreasonable risks of injury to death associated with debris penetration in H. O. V's. Yield the remainder of my time and turn to the commissioner and Bianco. Do you have a statement? Thank you. Let me just state that I am thrilled that this particular commission was able to look at a lot of different views and get to the right answer together. I, I oftentimes until we have these discussions, don't think of or don't necessarily focus on issues that my colleagues raise and think commissioner Felman's point today about supply chain issues with with regard to. Mr. Trump, the stockpiling amendment is a very good point. I think that making the points that I made earlier about reaching the end result with different reasoning is important because it's I feel very strongly that not only. Should we be looking at what the staff presents, but it is our job as a commission to make sure that what the staff presents is inclusive and fully analyzed. And I think are using this particular rule today to do that and making starting that precedent is very important. And I'm proud of the agency staff, and I'm proud of this commission for for going in that direction and getting to that result. So, I look forward to that in the future. And thank you all who participated for getting to this point. Thank you, Mr. Beacow. Commissioner Feldman to give a statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you to you and to all of my colleagues for working collaboratively today. I'm excited to see this rule advance. I would note, I believe we all received a letter from the recreational off highway vehicle association that referenced. It's ongoing work in the voluntary standards body. I think that obviously this is something that that we would want to watch closely in parallel with our rule making advancing to see what, what, if anything, they are able to reach consensus on with with all the relevant stakeholders. That that path forward is always preferable because those voluntary rules do tend to be more durable than a final agency action on our part that would be subject to potential challenge and delay in the courts with expense to the agency and and and to let against across the board. So, with that, again, happy to see this advance, I think we'll keep our eye on the voluntary standards activities. And like I said, during some of my questions, I'm very much looking forward to reviewing the comments that we receive in response to this NPR. Thank you very much. And. Great work everybody, thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Trump. I think it's fantastic that we're able to work together collaboratively and to move this forward unanimously. So, just, just great work and happy to see them moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. And thanks again to all the staff and my fellow commissioners for their work on this rule. And I do want to take a minute and thank our interpreters as well, providing more transparency and accessibility is important for the commission to do. And I think it was a good step forward today and look forward to more in the future. And as many of my colleagues have noted, look forward to reading the comments and encourage all stakeholders to. Participate that includes today's decisional meeting of consumer product safety commission and we are done.