 We are lying. Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission this morning. CPSC staff will brief the commission on his work to make off highway vehicles safer. Today's briefing is timely as this morning CPSC amplified our public safety education efforts for ATVs and other off highway vehicles ahead of the summer riding season. The dangers of riding off highway vehicles are real and include not only debris penetration, but also overturning collisions in occupant ejection. CPSC's latest data show an annual average of more than 700 deaths and an estimated 100,000 emergency room injuries involving these vehicles. What these data show is how vital it is for all riders to take off highway vehicle safety seriously, but particularly young riders. CPSC's most recent report shows nearly 300 deaths among children under the age of 16 over the covered three year period. It's critical that young riders always drive safely wear protective equipment. They should only drive youth model vehicles and never adult vehicles. I urge parents and caregivers to provide good examples for younger riders and their younger riders to call out your parents when they're not acting safe. Now, today's hearing is to allow the commission to hear from CPSC staff on recommendations for proposed rule making regarding 1st. Specific aspect of safety, just debris penetration reports of R. OV slash related fatalities injuries involving debris penetration penetrating the vehicles prompting CPSC to publish an advanced proposed rule making in May of 2021 to consider where there there may be unreasonable risk of injury and death associated. With R. OV's new TVs staff found a total of 107 incidents in CPSC databases between 2009 and 2021 involving debris penetration hazards. In addition from 2014 to 2016, there are 3 D debris penetration recalls associated with the R. OV's consisting of approximately 55,000 recalled vehicles. 630 incidents of debris cracking and breaking through the floorboards and 10 injuries. Specifically, this package summarizes the analysis performed by CPSC staff in the following areas. The review of outside contractor SCA's test data and engineering analysis. Examination proposed performance requirements and test protocol. Assessment of current voluntary standards for R. OV's and UTV's and summary of R. OV, UTV debris penetration related comments that were received in response to the 2021 A and PR and staff's response to those comments. I greatly appreciate the hard work the staff has put into the package and I look forward to hearing about CPSC's work in this space and to explore the next steps we can take to prevent unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with debris penetration in OHV's. Today, we have 2 briefers. 1 is Han Lim, project manager, director of engineering sciences and Barbara Little, attorney from regulatory affairs division. Also, in attendance are Mary Boyle, CPSC's executive director, Austin Schlegt, general counsel and Alberta Mills, CPSC's secretary. Once Mr. Lim and Ms. Little have completed the briefing, each commissioner will have up to 10 minutes to ask questions with multiple rounds if necessary. And I will now turn over the gavel to Mr. Lim and Ms. Little. Welcome and thank you. Cone Sark, commissioners, Bianco, Belman and Trumka. Barbara Little, attorney with the office of general counsel and I, Han Lim, mechanical engineer, project manager, we'll be giving you a presentation on the recreational off highway vehicle, R. OV, and utility task terrain vehicle, UTV debris penetration notice of proposed rule. Next slide please. The agenda for our presentation is first, we'll explain section 7 and 9 of the consumer product safety act, then we'll proceed with the product description, hazard description, the advance notice of proposed rulemaking summary. Then we'll discuss incident data review, recalls, contract work done by SCA limited. And we'll talk about the ANPR public comments and our staff responses. Then we'll comment on the adequacy of the voluntary standards. Then proceed with preliminary regulatory analysis, initial regulatory flexibility analysis, and we'll conclude with staff recommendations. Staff recommends a proposed performance requirement of no debris penetration when a test R. OV, UTV, or stimulated R. OV, UTV test led, fit it with a test floorboard traveling at a minimum of 10 miles per hour collides with a stationary 2 inch diameter oak dowel. That believes the current aftermarket solutions that exist in the marketplace demonstrated usability. The proposed performance requirement will reduce the risk. We'll reduce the debris penetration hazard from R. V's and you. And now I will turn it over to Barbara little who will explain section 7 and 9 of the CPSA. Morning, as chair on Sarah mentioned, I'm Barbara little and I'm in training with the office of the general council and the regulatory affairs division. I'll be giving a brief overview of the statutory framework for issuing a standard under the consumer product safety act. This rulemaking falls under section 7 and 9 of the CPSA. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission to issue consumer product safety standards that consist of performance requirements and or requirements for names or instructions. The requirements must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product. Next slide please section 7 of the CPSA also states that consumer product safety standards must be issued in accordance with the procedures in section 9 of the CPSA. Section 9 of the CPSA provides procedural and substantive requirements for issuance of a consumer product safety standard. Section 9 provides that the commission may initiate rulemaking through publication of an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking or a NPR in the federal register. And as the chair mentioned, the commission published an NPR in the federal register in May of 2021 next slide please. Section 9 specifies that a notice of proposed rulemaking or NPR must include the text of the proposed rule, alternatives to the proposed rule considered by the commission and a preliminary regulatory analysis. Pursuant to section 9, the commission must make certain findings before issuing a final rule. The commission makes these findings on a preliminary basis at the proposed rule stage. Section 9 also requires that the commission provide opportunity for both written and oral comments on the proposed rule. Next slide. As I mentioned, one component of an NPR is a preliminary regulatory analysis. Section 9 of the CPSA provides certain elements that must be included in the preliminary regulatory analysis. The analysis must address the potential benefits and costs of the rule and who is likely to receive these benefits and bear the costs. Reasons the standard submitted to the commission was not published as part of the proposed rule and alternative to the alternatives to the proposed rule and reasons why the alternatives were not chosen. In addition to supporting the preliminary regulatory analysis, information about costs and benefits associated with the rule also help form the basis for several findings required for the final rule. So, as I mentioned to issue a final rule, the commission must consider and make specific findings and those findings must be included in the rule. Although the commission does not have to make these findings at the end PR stage, preliminary findings are included in the NPR because section 9 requires that the findings must be included in the regulatory text as part of the NPR, including the preliminary findings in the NPR also provides an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the findings. This slide shows 8 of the 9 required findings. Next slide, please. The final finding deals with voluntary standards. If a voluntary standard that addresses the issue has been adopted and implemented, the commission must find that either the voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury or substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely. I'll now turn it back over to Han, who will provide further information about the briefing package and the draft proposed rule. Next slide, please. Thank you, Barbara. Now I will cover the products that are in scope picture here starting at the top. We have 2 types of ROVs, a utility type, ROV and a recreational type ROV. On the bottom, we have an example of a typical UTV. The utility oriented ROVs and UTVs are generally used for work oriented tasks as seen here with their cargo beds that are larger in comparison to the recreational type ROVs. And the recreational type ROVs are generally used for leisure, trail riding or competitive racing type of purposes. Next slide, please. Now I'm going to show you some examples of products that are not in scope. Going clockwise, starting from the upper left, we have all terrain vehicles, also known as ATVs, golf cars, personal transport vehicles, also known as PTVs, low speed vehicles and gopards. Next slide, please. ROVs and UTVs share similar features. Both are motorized vehicles designed for all highway use with 4 or more wheels with tires designed for all highway use, steering wheels for steering control, non-straddle seating for one or more occupants, flip controls for throttle and braking. What separates ROVs and UTVs is maximum speeds. ROVs have maximum speeds greater than 30 miles per hour, whereas UTV maximum speeds are typically between 25 and 30 miles per hour. Also, another distinguishing feature is UTVs are equipped with larger cargo beds with higher loading capacities than in comparison to ROVs. Next slide, please. So a little bit more than a year ago, the NPR was published on May 11, 2021. The scope of the NPR covered fire hazards for ATVs, ROVs and UTVs, and debris penetration hazards for ROVs and UTVs. The NPR concluded the applicable voluntary standards did not have performance requirements to address fire and debris penetration hazards. Next slide, please. The current NPR scope is only for ROVs and UTVs debris penetration hazards. At the NPR stage, Commission noted that because the rulemaking involved three vehicle types and two different hazard patterns, it was possible to divide the rulemaking into separate rulemakings at the notice of proposed rulemaking stage. Accordingly, this draft proposed rule will address debris penetration hazards associated with ROVs and UTVs, and staff intended to address fire hazards associated with ATVs, ROVs and UTVs in a separate rulemaking. Next slide, please. There are two applicable voluntary standards for ROVs. There's the American National Standard for Recreational Off Highway Vehicles, developed by Recreational Off Highway Vehicle Administration Association, also known as the ANSI Robot 1, 2016. For UTVs, the American National Standard for a Multipurpose Off Highway Utility Vehicles, developed by Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, also known as OPI. And the standard is ANSI OPI B71.9, 2016. Next slide, please. And now I will describe the debris penetration hazard. Debris, usually tree branches, can puncture the floorboard and pose impalement and laceration hazards. In this slide, the left photo shows a tree branch that penetrated through the floorboard from the view of the cabinet and passenger seat. The right photo shows the branch from an exterior view, and in this particular incident, both the driver and passenger were injured. Next slide, please. With regard to debris penetration related deaths and injuries, there were 107 incidents of which there were six deaths, 22 injuries, and 79 non-injuries. Tree branches and logs can puncture through floorboards and can pose impalement and laceration hazards at speeds as low as two miles per hour. The deaths involved impalements to the heart, chest, and thigh. The injuries we've looked at involve ankle abrasions, calf laceration, abdomen impalement resulting in stomach, liver, pancreas injuries, leg bruises, and streaks. Next slide, please. In addition to the aforementioned incidents, staff is aware of three ROV debris penetration related recalls. Collectively, there are approximately 55,000 affected vehicles, approximately 630 incidents. The recalling firm describes the incidents as debris tracking or breaking through the floorboards of the vehicles. Next slide, please. And now I will shift gears and explain the contract work done by SEA Limited. The goals of the contract were to quantify the speeds and energies necessary for debris penetration of standard ROV floorboards and aftermarket floorboard guards. SEA developed two test methods. First, full-scale ROV debris penetration using an autonomous driverless robotic ROV. Second, simulated vehicle sled, which is essentially a ROV test frame fitted with floorboards and aftermarket floorboard guards and weights to simulate a fully loaded ROV that can move linearly along the track. Both of these test methods involve the test vehicle or simulated sled colliding with a stationary test valve. The next set of slides will visually illustrate these test methods. This video will show two test sequences with the simulated vehicle sled and one test sequence with a driverless robotic ROV test. Please play the video. So this first test sequence shows a sled fitted with a standard floorboard moving at 2.5 miles per hour. And in this instance, we see debris penetration have occurred here. The second test sequence, we see an aftermarket guard installed with no penetration with a sled moving at 10 miles per hour. And the third test sequence, we see a driverless robotic ROV colliding with a stationary doll at 10 miles per hour. Please advance to the next slide. Perhaps the video may have been a bit fast, so here are some time-lapse photos. The first test showed the simulated vehicle sled with a standard floorboard installed and weights to simulate the weight of a fully loaded ROV. The sled was traveling at 2.5 miles per hour when it struck the stationary dial. As you can see on the far right photo, the dial penetrated the floorboard. Next slide, please. Now this next set of time-lapse photos show a simulated vehicle sled with a commercially available aftermarket aluminum floorboard guard installed. Unlike the previous slide, the test dial did not penetrate the floorboard. The aluminum floorboard guard had sufficient thickness, rigidity, and stick-deflecting properties to allow the test dial to deflect and allow bending forces to break off the dial, accomplishing the goal of preventing debris penetration. As we go left to right, starting from the top row, we see the test dial lined up with the intended target. In the second photo, we see the test dial contacting the surface of the floorboard guard. The third photo shows the stick being deflected or pushed away due to the material strength properties of the aluminum floorboard guard and the curvature and contours to facilitate deflection. The last two photos show the dial breaking off where the fourth photo shows actual shards of wood separating, and then finally in the last photo, we see the dial breaking off into many wood fragments. Next slide, please. In the final set of time-lapse photos, we see the driverless robotic ROV colliding with the stationary dial at 10 miles per hour. The stationary floorboard is installed and no floorboard guard was installed. As you can see on the right photo, the dial made full penetration into the passenger-occupant cabin area. Next slide, please. Now I will summarize the contractor's findings. The CA concluded that the 10-mile-per-hour test replicated real-world scenarios. The standard plastic floorboards experienced debris penetrations at speeds as low as 2.5 miles per hour. Tests with aftermarket floorboard guards show the risk of debris penetration is vastly reduced if the stick is deflected and bending forces break the stick instead of energy absorption. The likelihood of bending and breaking the stick is increased at 10 miles per hour and greater. Next slide, please. Now I will shift gears again and speak about the ANPR comments and staff responses. There were 10 public comments of which four supported the ANPR. Two comments stated that it's not clear whether the debris penetration hazard incidents were caused by lack of clear sight, user error, or whether the driver and or passenger were impaired. One of these comments also states it is unclear when the product is being dangerous due to improper installation, inspection, operation, and or maintenance. Next slide, please. The staff response was that debris penetration incidents occurred during non-severe conditions. 44% of the incidents we looked at that had information regarding speed involved speeds at 5 miles per hour or less, 66% at 10 miles per hour or less, and some at speeds as low as 2 miles per hour. These vehicles are marketed and intended to be driven in wooden trails. Next slide, please. Two comments assert the ANPR should be withdrawn due to insufficient information to determine that there is an unreasonable risk of injury and that debris penetration incidents are rare and involved, highly dissimilar factors. Our response was that at least six deaths and 22 injuries have occurred and illustrate the potential risk for more injuries and more deaths. Staff analysis indicates debris penetrations occur at low speeds in areas with branches that a user would expect to be able to drive the vehicle. Next slide, please. Four comments advocated voluntary standard activities in lieu of rulemaking to address the debris penetration hazard. The staff response was that since 2018, staff met with OPEI and ROVA multiple times to discuss incident data, recalls, and possible performance requirements to address the debris penetration hazard. To date, there are no performance requirements in the voluntary standards to address the debris penetration hazard. Each and every time we met with ROVA and OPEI, staff strongly encouraged them to address the debris penetration hazard through the voluntary standards process. The staff conveyed the same message in written form with multiple voluntary standards letters. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. As I stated previously, to date, there are no performance requirements to address the debris penetration hazard in the applicable standards, ANSI, ROVA 1, 2016, and ANSI, OPEI, B71.9, 2016. Next slide, please. Based on staff's research, analysis, evaluation, and the contractor's test program, staff recommends a performance requirement of no debris penetration when a test ROV, UTV, or simulated ROV, UTV test led fitted with a test floorboard traveling at a minimum of 10 miles per hour collides with a stationary 2-inch diameter oak style. The current aftermarket solutions that exist in the marketplace demonstrated feasibility. The proposed performance requirement will reduce the debris penetration hazard from ROVs and UTVs. Next slide, please. Now I will speak on the preliminary regulatory analysis. Staff estimated costs and benefits for two types of solutions. One, a fully redesigned floorboard that uses most of the material in the original floorboards. And two, floorboards with floorboard guards. The benefits are avoided deaths and injuries from floorboard debris penetration. The associated costs involve industry costs, which include the labor and materials required to redesign and test existing ROV and UTV models, as well as the cost of manufacturing and installation. The price impact to market estimated as changes to consumer and product and producer surplus. Next slide, please. This next chart summarizes the possible floorboard solutions, the associated estimated costs, the annualized and per vehicle costs, and the benefit to cost ratio. Staff considered two alternatives to comply with the draft regulation. One is the redesigned floorboards and the other floorboard guards. The redesigned floorboards had a net benefit as indicated by the benefit cost ratio of 1.67 and floorboard guards had a ratio of benefits to cost just about even at 1.0. Next slide, please. With regard to regulatory alternatives, staff considered four alternatives and rejected all four. First, staff considered conducting marketing, campaigns and recalls. We found that marketing campaigns are not likely to reduce incidence encountering debris. It's largely unavoidable. The recalls are specific and not universal and they're specific to a subset of existing products cannot prevent the introduction of unsafe products and only put in place only after the incidents have already happened. The second alternative was to rely on the voluntary standard development. As mentioned previously, despite active CPSC involvement since 2018, the voluntary standards have not addressed the re-penetration hazard. The third alternative was to limit the ROV in UTV speed to a maximum of 10 miles per hour. We believe that would impose a high utility cost to consumers and not address a large number of incidents. Finally, staff considered the alternative of implementing the small batch exemption. However, the ROV UTVs still by small businesses are not different from others and they will still pose the same risk of injury. Next slide, please. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis showed seven of 35 identified ROV UTV manufacturers meet the Small Business Administration criteria for small businesses. Five of seven small ROV UTV manufacturers are likely to experience significant economic impact. 19 of 26 identified ROV UTV importers may meet the SBA criteria for small businesses. Small importers of ROVs and UTVs are unlikely to experience significant economic impact because four manufacturers are likely to issue general certificates of conformity, also known as GCCs, and unlikely to accept the market. If GCCs are not issued, the 13 of 19 smaller importers could experience a significant economic impact. Next slide, please. So, in conclusion, staff recommends a proposed performance requirement of no debris penetration when a test ROV UTV or simulated ROV UTV test sled fitted with a test floorboard traveling at a minimum of 10 miles per hour, collides with a stationary two inch diameter bulk style. The current aftermarket solutions that exist in the marketplace demonstrate a feasibility. The proposed performance requirement will reduce the debris penetration hazard from ROVs and UTVs. Next slide, please. This concludes our presentation. Thank you. Now we'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Lim. Thank you, Ms. Little. At this point in time, we're going to turn to questions from the commission. We'll do so in 10 minutes per commissioner with multiple rounds if necessary. So, I'm first going to recognize myself for 10 minutes and again, thank the staff for the presentation and the work they've done and putting together the proposal. A note in the proposal doesn't cover youth ROVs, in part because of the low ground clearance and smaller wheel area in the one youth ROV the staff focused on. This particular youth ROV configuration appears to allow for a lower space for debris penetration and lower likelihood of debris penetration than the larger adult size ROVs are being tested. Is there anything that would prohibit, I guess, a question from Mr. Lim, anything that would prohibit youth ROV from being manufactured with a higher ground clearance and a larger wheel well area? At this stage, we're not aware of any provisions. However, there are anthropometric limits to what a youth could safely use and thereby limits how a large manufacturer could safely make a youth ROV. So, there's what I heard is there's nothing that prohibits them from manufacturing yet. You think that those might be unsafe, but we don't have any standards for that at this point in time. Do we? Correct. We don't have any standards for that. If the youth ROV was manufactured with a higher clearance and a larger well area, would the youth ROV have a similar risk profile as the adult ROV and put it differently? Is there anything that would in the proposed rule that would prohibit a manufacturer from producing a youth ROV with a similar risk profile that we're seeing in the adult size ones? Let's check this Mr. Lim as well. There's nothing in the proposed rule that would prohibit a youth, a large youth ROV, but again, there are limits to what size ROV youth could safely handle and staff is certainly interested in comments about defining youth ROVs for this rule. Thank you. I'm going to pause my questions at this point in time and turn over to Commissioner Bianco. Recognize you for 10 minutes. You're muted, Mr. Commissioner Bianco. Thank you. And thanks again to our home, Sarah. Thank you both for the presentation. Mr. Lynn are the floor board guards removable. We had a floor floor board guard can a consumer then after after they purchase it take them off. Are you referring to the aftermarket products? Well, if you're referring to the aftermarket products, I mean, that's something that it's a product that a consumer can install themselves. I'm asking about. Okay. I'm sorry. I, it was my understanding that it was the floor board guard was one of the proposed solutions here. Correct. Yes. Okay. And that wouldn't be an aftermarket floor board guard. It would be installed on the original equipment. Correct. It's installed on the original equipment. That will depend on the manufacturer if they make it removable. I mean, if it's the, the matter in which it's fastened. If it's riveted, it's probably going to be more difficult, but if it's not bolted, then perhaps it can be removed by. That, that to me is significant. Is there anything in the proposed rule that addresses that we do in the staff briefing package? It does not specify the attachments. It's just a performance standard that the vehicle has to be able to withstand this impact loading. How they do that was was left for them to decide and certainly could take questions or comments on on that concept. Nobody thinks that's significant. If this is our, if this is a proposed solution to this debris penetration yet somebody buys it and then removes the guard and we see this with tons of other products. Why would that be a viable solution? What am I missing here? Yeah, so I think again, it comes down to the mechanism of how the, how the manufacturers do that. And when staff created a performance standard, we were looking at, at just dealing with protecting against that impact loading. But certainly we again, I think we can add questions to that effect. So there was a slide Mr. Lynn that you had that said, one of the comments said that the, and I don't remember the slide, the word specifically, but somebody said there were highly dissimilar factors in some of the other injuries or deaths that occurred. Can you tell me what those highly dissimilar factors were? Well, I think we were addressing the comment as that most of these were majority of the incidents were occurring at lower speeds. There were about over 40% at 5 miles per hour. Over 60% had less than 10 miles per hour. And the, and our responses. More about just the scenarios that these, these vehicles are used in trails and and similar. Well, I do understand, trust me, I do understand all of this and I understand the points. What I'd like to know is where they're truly highly dissimilar factors. I'd like to hear if there were if what you're saying is the factors that were proposed by the comment or commentators. Were really the same type of thing different speeds and such. That's 1 thing. But if they were highly, highly different, like somebody was running it up a tree. For example, I would be interested in hearing. Jump in just momentarily, but I, I believe that this particular commenter had mentioned that in 1 instance, the driver was driving through a stream or through some water. The comment there was also characterizing that some of the drivers may have been impaired through alcohol use. But right. You know, I think from what staff has said in the briefing packages and staffs, you, they, these weren't constitute highly dissimilar factors such that the hazard or the risk can't be regulated. And these are, these are intended to be driven off road where there will be branches. There may be streams and it's foreseeable that a consumer will encounter that when they were driving an off road vehicle. Okay, just out of sheer curiosity, if you don't mind just to send me those highly dissimilar factors. I just would like to look at them. I just would like to look at them. Otherwise, I have no more questions. I appreciate your responses. Thank you. Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our presenters today for the work that you put into this package. It's quite a lengthy package as well as the presentation today, which was, which was fairly comprehensive and helpful. So thank you. I don't have many questions, but I did want to ask and I apologize. The slides here are not numbered, but I am looking at the preliminary regulatory analysis summary that appears towards towards the end of the presentation. And there's a footnote here where staff seems to have calculated the dollar of benefits per vehicle for the redesigned floorboard and for the floorboard guard. And the footnote talks about the cost differential between those two benefits differing slightly because the two solutions are different due to their slightly different impacts on the market demand, which would affect the number of incidents in the long run. I'm not sure that I understand what that means. Could you explain your thinking and rationale? I think what that footnote refers to is the fact that the choice for redesigning the floorboard versus the floorboard guard is dealing with the differing approaches for dealing with the hazard. And what what staff was trying to account for there is the impact after over the full life cycle of the products and staff in this case used looked at a 30 year design cycle. So encompassing multiple generations of vehicles and then tried to account for how those dip the redesigned floorboard versus floorboard guard impacted the demand over that time period. Well, how did it impact the demand? Yeah, so I think what we what we see in what you have in the in the table summarizing is that it shows a higher price as a result. I'm not sure I fully understand the rationale and in the explanation that you're given. Maybe this is something that we can follow up on. I do have other questions. They are legal in nature and relate to the efficiency of the work that's gone in here. That's probably not appropriate to get into an open session. So this is something that I'll follow up with our legal staff after the fact. If that's all right. Again, I thank you for the presentation and we yield back to balance of my time. Thank you commissioner turning to commissioner. Thank you, Mr chair. Thank you staff. I appreciate the NPR package that you put forward and the work that went into it. And the presentation that you've given here today. Look, I've got a side by side and and when I get into it. I close it or I get into a very comfortable seat buckle my seat belt. I can turn on windshield wipers roll down automatic windows and I'm holding a steering wheel and I've got a gas pedal. Everything about the vehicle feels like you're in a truck. My side by side actually costs more than my truck. So that tells you my or my priorities are at I guess. But the vehicle gives you a sense of security. And I think just like nobody worries about being impaled by a stick when they're in their truck. It expects that risk in their side by side either but but it happens inside by sides. My feet are on a piece of plastic and if a stick hits that it can pierce it and stab me in the leg or the stomach or the chest. And the data is showing that it happens to people that are inching along at a couple of miles. Or to people at moderate cruising speeds of just 25 or 30 as well. And so again, I want to thank our staff. You've been working on a solution. You've proposed this NPR. It's a great step. Do have some questions on how we define scopes of products and things like that. So, so we define ROV and UTV in proposed sections 16 CFR 14 21.2 and B. And it looks like the main difference between those two and Mr. Lim you mentioned this before the main difference is top speed correct. Yes, that's correct. So, you know, an ROV as we looked at that definition is a motorized vehicle designed or intended for off highway use with the following features for more wheels or tires designed for off highway use non-straddle seating for one or more occupants steering wheel put controls for throttle and braking and maximum vehicle speed over 30 miles an hour. And then the only difference with UTV is that instead of 30 miles an hour for ROVs for top speed, UTVs have typically between 25 and 30 mile an hour top speed. So we're looking at measurables with these definitions something that calls itself an ROV doesn't avoid this proposed rule by having a top speed of 25 29 miles an hour right I mean that just makes it a UTV correct. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Staff sought to have as encompassing a scope as is supported by the incident data. So we're trying to capture both sets of vehicles. Yeah, I know I think that makes sense. But I think it does raise an issue that I see as one we might need to resolve with the proposed rule. Because that that's all crystal clear to me from the text of the rule itself that it's being proposed, but I think we deviate that deviate from that and response to one of the comments and the proposed response is the quote at least one ROV manufacturer offers youth oriented ROVs that are smaller versions of the full sized ROVs and then it says staff did not include these products in the scope of the proposed rule. So the first question there, that's a reference to Polaris razor 200 and Polaris Ranger 150 correct. Yeah. And so if you look at those, you know you go on the players website, they both have four wheels, they both have non straddle seating for one or more occupants they both have a steering wheel foot controls for throttle and breaking. And they both have a maximum vehicle speed of 29 miles per hour. They both fit the definition of utv that's in the proposed rule. So I think, regardless, I don't see an exemption for youth ROVs in the text of the proposed rule itself just in those comments and response to the comments. I would say that. Sorry. I didn't intend to sure what's going on there. There's a lot of background noise. Staff didn't intend to include the youth ROVs in the scope of the rule, but, but you're correct that if, you know, if there's a vehicle that has a max speed of 29 miles per hour and has the other distinguishing features that are defined in the proposed text that it would, you know, it would, it would mean one of the definitions in the scope of the proposed rule. And I think that staff is would welcome comments on the appropriateness of including youth ROVs in the scope of the rule. That said, I'll also reiterate, from an engineering perspective, the information in the briefing package does the state that because of the configuration of both the the wheel well and the ground clearance taken taken together. Staff doesn't believe that the, the models are as susceptible to debris penetration. Incidents and we have not in fact seen any incidents related to the youth models. You know, I appreciate that clarity. So I think it's, it's something that I do hope that we iron out and just provide some clarity on as we work through this. But I think, you know, it's on our radar. We can, we can work that out. I think that one thing you mentioned there, I do think I encourage us to reevaluate a little bit on the clearance issue. Because the youth Polaris razor 200 has 10 inches of ground clearance. And that is identical to the adult Polaris Ranger 500. So it doesn't have less ground clearance than at least one of the adult models actually several the adult models there. And the youth Ranger 150 is right in the same neighborhood inches. So I think we ought to take a pretty close look at that. And if they did have less brown clearance, it would help them test the penetration test. So something to think about there. I think that one other thing to think about on a slightly separate topic. We do this in the NPR we do it elsewhere and I think a lot of people do it. And we draw the distinction between you TVs and ROVs. I don't really think the public knows what we're talking about with those terms. Maybe they don't have to know rulemaking, but as we talk about these things, you know, those are functionally the same vehicles. The difference when they're buying them and everybody calls them side by side. So, so I think that going forward, at least in communications with consumers and things like that. It'd be really useful to adopt the terminology that people understand rather than tracking acronyms that were created for other purposes. I take your point and I agree in terms of messaging to consumers. I will say for the, you know, text of the proposed rule and the context of rulemaking, it's helpful to identify them. In terms of how they have been used in the past and the sort of industry usage and able to define them with their defining characteristics. So in terms of rulemaking, I would say that the distinction may make more of a difference than in terms of the consumer messaging. Yeah, and I think, you know, we do a good job describing what we're talking about here. So in this role, when we look at the characteristics that they have, we do a good job making sure we're being clear there. Just something to think about as we talk about this going forward. And I want to address one other thing that came up. It came up in comments and one that you were asked to address one of the comments. I think every time we mentioned regulating side by sides or ATVs, we hear unfounded and false attacks on the people that use them. And industry would like you to believe that we're all drunk, they're devils trying to do stunts. But in reality, that I mean, I couldn't be farther from the truth. We're trying to be our kids through the outdoors teaching them about the woods or creeping up your blind. So I do want to throw that out there. But I think in this instance, particularly any attacks like that, they certainly fall flat with this rule because we're seeing drivers in pale to two miles an hour. This is not something you could even come close to blaming on use of the product. So I'll leave that there. I did have one last question I wanted to address. It's with the way we're analyzing the impact on American businesses. And it looks possible that we're still counting companies with a U.S. entity as U.S. manufacturers of the 5th ship manufacturing jobs overseas. I hope my reach wrong on that. But I wanted to make sure we're accurately reflecting where manufacturing occurs with that tally. So this isn't a question for now. It's just a question for a follow up. If you can give me a list of the manufacturers that we counted. I mean, we had, I think, 17 U.S. and then we listed a few other countries just with the manufacturers, the country required. We credit them with an or tally and then where the manufacturing actually occurs. Yeah, we certainly can and will provide that list. I would note that our discussions on the U.S. versus foreign manufacturers is tied to the required regulatory flexibility analyses. And under the small business administration guidelines for for those analyses were required to characterize the impact on small U.S. entities. And so even if a so if a manufacturer has a U.S. facility, we are required to include it. And the fact that they also have foreign facilities is irrelevant. Although it does provide it may provide some evidence that the entity does not have the SBA requirements for small. All right, we can work to figure that out a little bit. If you could send me that, that'd be fantastic. Again, look, thanks for the briefing today. I learned a lot and I look forward to the public comments on the issues here. And, you know, we're keeping an open mind with this proposal. We want to make sure that we hear thoughts on any ways we can improve it. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. I would look to my fellow commissioners to see if anybody wants a second round. I think I am okay at this point in time. Hearing no requests. I would go back and thank the staff for this informative briefing and to the commissioners for their active participation. I look forward to continue to work on this issue and having discussions with both staff and my colleagues to follow up on some of the questions that have been raised. And next steps going forward with that this meeting is adjourned.