PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2015
ROV In-Depth Examination Act
The Consumer Product Safety Commission shall have no authority to: (1) establish recreational off-highway vehicle (ROV) performance or configuration standards until the study required by this Act is completed, or (2) require ROV manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser of an ROV for purposes other than resale.
The Commission shall contract with the National Academy of Sciences to determine:
the technical validity of the lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements proposed by the Commission for purposes of reducing the risk of ROV off-road rollovers,
the number of ROV rollovers that would be prevented if the proposed requirements were adopted,
whether there is a technical basis for the proposal to provide information on a point-of-sale hangtag about a vehicle's rollover resistance on a progressive scale, and
the effect on the utility of ROVs used by the Armed Forces if the proposed requirements were adopted.
People & committees
Rep. Pompeo, Mike [R-KS-4] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.999 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.999 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.999 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.999 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.