u
OOOR78105
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED MOTORCYCLE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS
AND
MOTORCYCLE REPLACEMENT EXHAUST SYSTEMS
VOLUME I
Friday, April 28, 1978,
9:00 o'clock, a.m.,
Garden Grove Room,
Anaheim Convention Center,
Anaheim, California.
Macauleg & Manning
Court i Deposition Reporters
1630 E PiimSt. • S*nt« Ant, C«nf
(7141 658 0400 • (213)4371327
-------
2-a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
l^DEX
MEMBERS OF HEARING PANEL;
HENRY EVANS THOMAS, IV, Director, Standards and
Regulations Division, Noise Control Programs — Chairman
SCOTT EDWARDS, Program Manager, Office of Noise
Abatement and Control
RICHARD KOZLOWSKI, Director, Noise Enforcement
Division
RONALD NAVEEN, ESQ., EPA Office of General
Counsel
VICTOR PETROLATI, Noise Enforcement Division
PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS;
MRS. JAN CHATTEN-BROWN, Assistant Attorney,
Los Angeles City Attorney's Office p. 7
THOMAS HIGGINS, Right to Quiet p. 28
ALAN GIRDLER, Editor, Cycle World .... p. 35
ALAN ISLEY, President, Motorcycle
Industry Council p. 53
JOHN W. SWING, Noise Control Engineer,
California Office of Noise Control p. 101
JOHN DAVIDSON, Chairman of the Board,
AMF/Harley-Davidson Motor Company p. 131
(213) 07.1317
MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir.
(714) 551-9400
-------
2-b
1 PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS (CONTINUED;:
2
3 JERRY JARDINE, Jardine Header Company ... p. 165
4 HON. RALPH B. CLARK, Supervisor, Orange
5 County p. 188
6 JOHN HECTOR, Oregon Department of
7 Environmental Quality p. 206
8 ROSS LITTLE, California Highway Patrol,
9 Engineering Section p. 236
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(213) 4)7.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 55I-9400
-------
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Good morning, ladies and
4 gentlemen. I am Henry Thomas, of the United States
5 Engironmental Protection Agency.
6 Today is Friday, the 28th of April, 1978, and
7 the time is 9:07, and we are, at this time, convening
8 Public Hearing, to take public comments on regulations
9 issued on Wednesday, March 15, 1978, published in the
10 Federal Register, regulations by the United States
11 Environmental Protection Agency, proposing Noise Emission
12 Standards for Motorcycles and Motorcycle Replacement Exhaust
13 Systems.
14 Before we begin to receive comments this morning,
15 let me first establish a few administrative procedures.
16 This is a Public Hearing to receive comments from any
17 interested parties who care to present their views to the
18 United States government in this federal rule-making action.
19 It is an administrative hearing designed to receive
20 comments -- testimony of any nature.-- affecting these
21 regulations. Rules of evidence will not apply, nor will
22 sworn statements be appropriate.
23 Comments made here will become a part of
24 the official public record associated with these rule
25 makings, and will be available for public inspection, and
26 copies, approximately ten days after these hearings, and
(213) 4JMJ27
MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA.
(714) $51-9400
-------
j will be available at each of the EPA regional offices.
2 Additionally, copies may be acquired by purchase
o directly from the commercial firm providing the transcription
A service. The address of that organization may be obtained
c from our administrative personnel at the registration desk.
c Those who would care to speak today, we have
7 already received a list of individuals and organization who
n have indicated a desire to speak, and anyone in the audience
o who would care to present their comments later, you should
JQ so indicate to the administrative personnel at the registration
jj desk, and we will be pleased to hear from anyone in the
12 audience at any time during the day as the schedule permits
J3 between those who are already scheduled to speak.
14 Following the formal presentations by those who
15 care to make representation to the Agency, the panel here,
Ig representing the United States Environmental Protection
17 Agency, will direct certain questions to those making
18 presentations. Additionally, anyone in the audience who
19 cares to address comments, or questions, to the individual
20 making the presentation, may do so by submitting those
21 comments, in writing, to me, here at the panel. I believe
22 that in each of the packages of information you received on
23 registration, there was a question card provided there.
24 You are not limited to only one question. You may pick up
25 additional cards if you like.
26 Those questions will be posed by me if I believe
(31)1 417.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. *ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
1 them appropriate to the individual making the presentation.
2 If I do not believe the question appropriate to be posed at
3 this time, the question will be made a part of the official
record for this rule making, and will be considered by the
government as a question of the government, in the process
of analyzing the comments and testimony received during the
public response period.
Let me now introduce the individuals who are
sitting up here, in front of you, representing the United
States EPA:
11 I am the Director of Standards and
12 Regulations Division for Noise Control Programs, and, as
13 such, have general responsibility for the governing of this
14 rule making.
15 To my left is Mr. Richard Kozlowski,
16 Director of the Noise Enforcement Division of the US
17 Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Kozlowski will be the
18 official charged with enforcing such regulations as the EPA
19 may issue under this rule making action.
20 To Mr. Kozlowski's left is Mr. Victor
21 Petrolati, who is the Noise Enforcement Division official
22 responsible for developing the noise enforcement rules
23 associated with this rule making.
24 To my right is Mr. Scott Edwards, the EPA
25 Project Officer, who is responsible for the development of
26 the specific regulations.
(J13) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUF. (714J SS»-»400
-------
j And, to his right, Mr. Ronald Naveen,
2 representing the Office of the General Counsel. We, like
3 most of the industry, don't go too many places, these days,
A without our lawyers close at hand.
5 Although this may look something like the
g Supreme Court sitting in front of you minus the black robes,
7 let me assure you, first, that we intend to run the session
o as a public hearing, to receive your candid comments. It
9 is non-adversarial in nature. Our business is fact finding.
10 The Federal government has published its position
jj as proposed regulations. It has presented the information
\2 on which it based its decisions, and we are now soliciting
13 views from all interested parties as to the veracity of the
14 information presented, the actual data. We are endeavoring
15 to obtain better information, and even if you have not
16 taken issue with the specific data, or have other data to
17 provide us, we, nonetheless, would still like to receive
18 your general thoughts, subjective or objective, and this
19 particular ruling.
20 Let me ask now if there are any comments from
21 anyone in the audience with respect to the administrative
22 procedures to be followed here. (No response from the
23 members of the audience.) There being none, I believe we
24 are, therefore, prepared to ask the first person who has
25 asked to speak today to come forward, and I believe this is
26 Jan Chatten-Brown, representing the Los Angeles City
(21)) 437-1127 MACAULEY a MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALir <7U) 551-9400
-------
1 Attorney's Office.
2 Good morning.
3 MRS. JAN CHATTEN-BROWN
4 Good morning, panel members. Now that I have
5 provided you with a copy of my prepared presentation, I will
g assure you that I will divert from that and attempt to just
1 highlight our thoughts about these proposed regulations.
g My name is Jan Chatten-Brown, Assistant L.A.
9 City Attorney, in charge of the Environmental Protection
10 Section.
11 All of us, I believe, recognize the serious
12 nature of the noise problem in the United States, and I
13 believe, particularly in the greater Los Angeles area. All
14 urban areas experience high levels of noise.
15 I was -surprised by one EPA representative, that
IS approximately fifty per cent of the motorcycles sold in the
17 United States are sold in the State of California, and due
18 to our climatic conditions, they are undoubtedly used more
19 extensively than in most parts of the United States.
20 In an urban area, and probably -- especially --
21 Los Angeles, which has a low density as compared to other
22 urban areas, and where much of even the City of Los Angeles
23 is more of a suburban area with a substantial number of
24 hilly areas, we find that residents in the City of Los
25 Angeles are exposed to high noise levels, generally, in their
26 place of work, and many of them go home -- myself, living
(211) OM127 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551 »400
-------
8
j in a hilly area, know that motorcycles are used not only
2 for transportation in those areas, but also for recreation
2 and we find motorcyclists traversing the same streets over
. and over again.
c Now, our Section receives substantial numbers of
complaints, probably more than any other area, from people
complaining to be adversely affected by noise, and without
question, I can see that these people seem to be more
distressed than any other complainants that we have.
The adverse physiological impacts of noise are
II well documented, but I think more and more evidence is
jo going to be developed about the psychological stress
experienced by persons with noise impact; and my own
personal experience in one case, although I believe her a
hypersensitive noise complainant, nevertheless I had one
15 woman, after trying to resolve a problem with an air
17 conditioner in a helipad near her residence, for some time
18 actually threatened, I believe, seriously, suicide, if she
19 could not find quieter accomodations, and this was a woman
20 who was living on social security, with very limited income
21 Now, that particular complainant was not
22 complaining about motorcycle noise, but we have found that
23 our most frequent complaints are about vehicular noise,
24 and specifically, motorcycle noise.
25 Because of that, we recently undertook a fairly
26 comprehensive program to try to improve enforcement of
(211) 437.1127 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUr. (714) 551 9400
-------
1 existing laws — which we believe most adequate in
i
2 .California -- within the City of Los Angeles. Myself, and
3 several other representatives of the LA City Attorney's
4 Office, met with high level LAPD representatives, and
5 through those efforts, have established that within the
5 Police Department much higher priority is now being given
7 to enforcement of the Vehicular Code provisions on modified
g and defective mufflers.
9 We also recently sent a letter to the presiding
10 judge of the Los Angeles municipal court system requesting
11 modification of their current policy which is, that with
12 both modified and defective mufflers a fine will not be
13 imposed if the person presents a certificate of compliance
14 upon appearance, and after discussing the matter with the
15 LAPD, and being informed by them that they have good reason
16 to believe that many people actually have two exhaust
17 systems in their garages, this seemed most appropriate.
18 We want the courts to distinguish between the
19 situation where there is a defective muffler, and where
20 there is a modified muffler, in which case a fine should
21 be imposed regardless.
22 So, having spent a considerable amount of time
23 in terms of the small amount, admittedley, we give to noise
24 control, within the last several months, on motorcycle
25 noise in particular, I was most interested when I saw the
26 notice of your hearings in the Federal Register, and it is
(213) 07-1337 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551 9400
-------
10
1 at that point that we began review, knowing that the 1972
2 Noise Control Act requires, rather than makes discretionary,
3 preemption of state laws once new regulations are adopted.
4 Our concern is that the efforts we have made in
5 trying to begin to achieve more effective enforcement of
$ California law are enhanced, not undermined, by the action
7 you will take in adopting noise control regulations.
8 As I have already noted, when you consider the
9 number of motorcycles which are sold in California alone,
10 and the fact that there is some other state, Montana, I
11 believe, that has the same standard -- ultimate standard --
12 that we do, which is 70 dB(A), and several other states,
13 Vermont, Maryland and Florida, have 75 dB(A) ultimate
14 standards, it is very significant that your proposed
15 ultimate standard is at 78 dB(A) standard.
16 Essentially, when we compare the existing
17 California laws as opposed to your proposed standards, you
18 start out slightly more stringent than we do, and over the
19 period up to 1986, are, in fact, slightly more stringent.
20 After 1986, we go down to the 75 dB(A).
21 It is critical to us that you really carefully
22 evaluate the impact of what you are doing on operation of
23 over fifty per cent of the motorcycles sold in the United
24 States -- if that figure is, in fact, correct.
25 What is the impact of those differences? We
26 think, because of the regulations of other states, and of
(J1J) 437-1I27 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 551 »400
-------
11
1 California, that it is appropriate for you to seriously
2 consider the current California lav; in adopting the
3 standards; and my feeling is that, working on numerous
4 occasions with the California legislature, that they do not
5 readily adopt standards more stringent that the industry is
5 capable of meeting.
7 We have had motorcycle standards on the books
8 of California since 1967. On numerous occasions they have
9 been modified, and they have been constantly modified to
10 push back the attainment date.
11 In 1976, a bill was introduced by Senator Chaffey
12 that was supported by the Motorcycle Industry Councel.
13 Admittedly, as introduced, it had an ultimate standard of
14 75, but I would suggest that, since that bill was introduced,
15 I went over the staff report on the bill, and the primary
16 proponent was the Motorcycle Industry Council. If they
17 were willing to lobby for 75 dB(A) in California, why
18 should you adopt anything less than that?
19 Now, ultimately, the California legislature
20 refused to come up to 75 from this existing 70 dB(A)
21 standard, but they did push back the attainment date until
22 1990, and this seems to us a most reasonable kind of
23 approach.
24 In my opinion, the 1970 Noise Control Act, in
25 the same manner as the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water
26 Pollution Act, is meant to be technology forcing. Now, in
(213) 07.1327
MACAUUEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) SSt »400
-------
12
1 your supplementary information, included in the March 15th
2 Federal Register, you stated that the appropriate levels
3 were those "achievable to the application of best available
4 technology," and, "the lowest sound level which can be
5 reliably predicted."
g We are in no position to take issue with that.
7 I mean, we don't have any particular experts on our staff,
3 although we frequently work with experts in other areas in
9 government and outside of government, but it is hard for
10 me to believe that the California legislature was that far
11 off base when they addopted the 1990 70 dB(A) standards,
12 and what we are essentially here saying is, please don't
13 appreciably undermine California's program by adopting a
14 less stringent ultimate standard.
15 Now, it seems that it is to the benefit, if we
16 are ever going to get to that standard which is the most
17 desirable one, to give the motorcycle industry the longest
18 possible lead time possible, in the way that Congress had
19 had more stringent air emission standards and then stepped
20 back, that seems the best way to force the development of
21 technology.
22 If the industry can not achieve it using its
23 best efforts, which are certainly warranted in this case,
24 then, at that time, you step back, but by saying 78 is the
25 best we can do now, we feel that you are undermining the
26 good efforts that have been made by, certainly, parts of
(713) 417-1)27 MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S5I-V400
-------
13
1 the industry, at this point, and by the various regulatory
2 agencies.
3 After I have criticized all the bad parts of the
4 regulations, which is basically just saying, you are not
5 going far enough in the long term, not right away, but
6 let's set a higher goal because that is the only way we are
7 really going to force the change that is needed, I would
8 like to specifically commend at least two parts of the
9 regulations, one of which is the Accoustical Assurance
10 Period, which makes a lot of sense in the protection of the
11 consumer, and in getting the kind of impact that you really
12 want, and also, in the regulation of replacement parts,
13 which seems to be a large part of the problem in California.
14 So, as you may have guessed, I am basically
15 here to say that the establishment of your standards has a
16 has a tremendous potential for helping us obtain the
17 harmonious place in which to live, that the Congress has
18 certainly declared, via the National Environmental Policy
19 Act, and mostly, the regulatory laws that we want, and I
20 think it is of mutual interest, and- I know that the document
21 that we see eventually adopted will not be weakened by
22 industry protests as to what can be done some twelve years
23 from now, but in fact, will be strenghtened with the
24 commitment from EPA, which is a reasonable one, that if it
25 does not work then — and we can do an awful lot of
2" technology — the legitimate interests of industry at that
(21)) 437-133? MACAULEY a MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)
-------
14
1 time will certainly be accommodated.
2 Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That you very much, Mrs.
4 Chatten-Brown. I am sure we will have some questions.
5 Don't go away yet, please. After an attorney from the
6 City, we are probably going to have several questions that
7 we want to ask you.
8 I would like to start off with just one. Your
9 reading of the law under which these regulations have been
10 proposed differs in some respects from our reading of the
11 law — I will let my counsel do that. Since everyone plays
12 a legal interpretation game, I want to put my oar in for a
13 minute.
14 You have suggested, I believe, that your reading
15 of this law is similar to the Clean Air Act in that it
16 should be technology forcing. Is that a fair statement?
17 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: I think that is the intent
18 of Congress. I would certainly readily admit that it does
19 not have the same provisions in it, or really, the asking
20 of provisions that the Clean Air Act has. The Clean Air
21 Act, and the requirements under the implementation plan,
22 specifically does not mention that something be economically
23 feasible, and that is where, possible, the courts have gone
24 off and said, you know, said that it must be technology
25 forcing, and while the Noise Control Act specifically
26 refers to the economic considerations, but when you're
(211) 417.1)2? MACAULEY ft MANNING, SANTA ANA. CAur. (714) 551-9400
-------
15
1 talking about determining best available control technology -
2 and I did not bring a copy of the Act with me, and admit, we
3 happen to have somebody in our office, who is tied up today,
4 that is much more familiar with applicable noise laws than
5 I am, but whatever the precise language in the Noise Control
g Act, it certainly does require that the economic and
7 technical feasibility be considered} but what I am saying
8 is that I think that Congress has well demonstrated it is
9 content to air it, if we must air, on the side of projecting
10 the type of control that may reasonably be obtained, and
11 then backing away; and I think that the findings that you
12 made really seem to go more to what is technically feasible
13 at this time, and so I am urging that you kind of give the
14 benefit of the doubt to technology and say, "You may wind
15 up getting that," and in that sense I think that is
16 consistent with, when you look at the policy language in
17 the declaration of Congressional intent, that is consistent
18 with that intent, and to that effect I think that it is
19 technology forcing.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think if that were to be what
21 we were to do, you might look to Mr. Naveen over here for
22 a possible position in our Washington Counsel's office,
23 because I am sure we would have sufficient ensuing litigatior
24 that we would have to add considerably to our lawyers,
25 which leads to the next element. It's an important question.
26 We have not been sued on this point yet under this Act, and
(213) 437-U17 MACAULEY fit MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALir. (714)
-------
16
1 so, the interpretation from the courts' perspective is still
2 to be determined.
3 But, the next point that you raise is one that
4 does intrigue me. I'm sure you will hear, if you stick
5 around today to listen to others on the program, the
g California standard of 70 decibels in 1990 for motorcycles,
7 I guess we don't know how you build motorcycles that quiet
g in the next ten years, which says, "I can't believe that the
9 industry can do that at this point."
10 There might be one or two that can meet that
11 noise level, and there's a few mopeds out there that
12 probably can do it, but large motorcycles, as I understand
13 it just -- there is no design — the technology right now --
14 that would be true technology forcing in every sense of the
15 word, which then says that California would clearly, if that
16 continues to be true, would have to keep moving those
17 effective dates back, as you have suggested they do.
18 Yet, when EPA issues a regulation, and we set
19 an effective date, we must set that effective date, as you
20 have properly and rightly said, based on the key elements
21 of the law, which are, technological availability, cost of
22 compliance, and impact on the public health and welfare.
23 The thing that we question is, in this sense,
24 what basis does California use — and I realize you are
25 with the City of Los Angeles -- what basis did California
26 use to arrive at 70 decibels as being a right level; why 70?
-------
17
1 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: I would be happy to attempt
2 to provide you with that information by the end of the June
3 15th date.
4 I had requested the authors of both of the bills
5 that established the standards and then pushed the date
5 back, the staff representation, the staff analysis, of that
7 legislation.
8 We don't have the best legislative history in
9 California, which I regret. There are certain situations
10 in which you can, perhaps, garner more information than
11 others, but there seems to have been no comprehensive staff
12 report.
13 However, I did get the staff report from Senator
14 Chaffey's office, which was the one that moved the date
15 back, but I have not get gotten that from Senator Lantennan's
16 office, who is the one that originally passed the 70 dB(A)
17 standard, and as soon as I get that, I will forward it to
18 you.
19 If there is any additional information, then I
20 can come up with either presenting specific questions to
21 the staff, or whatever, I would be happy to do that and see
22 if we can't dig something out from their past hearings; but,
23 as I said, you know, I don't claim any technical understanding
24 of these, but I just think that, with my own experience
25 with the California legislature, I can't believe they, just
26 willy-nilly, adopted standards that are beyond the realm of
437 117? MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
18
1 technical feasibility.
2 And, there's one thing from a legal standpoint
3 that very much troubled me, and that was the fact that your
4 EIS did not even consider that as an alternative, and I
5 would say that that is a point in which it is deficient,
$ that it is just ... .
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Excuse me. Did not consider
8 what?
9 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: 70 dB(A), or anything more
10 stringent that what you proposed. You know, you kind of
11 set the stage when you have an EIS that says, "These are the
12 alternatives," when all of them are less stringent than
13 what you're proposing, "and therefore, this is the most
14 stringent thing we can possibly do."
15 Well, maybe it will turn out than that's it,
16 although, again, the fact that the motorcycle industry
17 supported 75 dB(A) in California, in '76, leaves me to
18 believe that you should at least go down that far, but even
19 75 dB(A) was not considered a hairy item.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That's right, and I think, if
21 you listen to a few motorcycle organizations later today or
22 tomorrow, that you will hear that that 75, at least in
23 their views, is not possible.
24 In fact, even some of the levels that we're
25 proposing, they are going to tell us, probably, are not
26 possible, or at least, will be exceedingly difficult, and
(213) 437 1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 551-9400
-------
19
very costly.
Let me ask Mr. Kozlowski his opinion.
• MR. KOZLOWSKI: First, I'd like to say, it's a
. good way to get the hearing off, is to have someone tell us
r we're not doing enough. That is probably going to be
c unusual testimony. (Laughter)
o
_ First, you understand too, Mrs. Chatten-Brown,
that California can set its own opera-ing standards ...
MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Yes.
MR. KOZLOWSKI: ... as opposed to the kind of
standards that we're trying to establish.
12 You mentioned — and we have found in our
12 analysis and out study -- that tampering is the worst
problem in motorcycle noise, and I would suggest, and not
ic be argumentative, but would just suggest to you that it may
not matter all that much whether we are at 78 or 75 for the
new products standards, if you can cure the tampering
problem; or, conversely, if you can not cure the tampering
problem.
20 So, if one gets the major environmental benefits
21 from curing tampering, maybe 89 is almost as good as 75 --
22 which is just an opinion.
23 The modification of bikes can be -- literally,
24 even if you went down to 75, and someone takes the muffler
25 off, or 70, you're up five to twenty decibels higher than
26 you began with, as a result of that.
(113) 437-13:? MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)531-9400
-------
20
i I would like to ask you, however, you have done
o some prosecuting of anti-tamperers -- tamperers that have
3 run into prosecution. What are the major problems you found
4 in eliminating tampering of motorcycles?
5 • MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Well, we have not done any
g prosecuting, because people have always come in with
1 certificates of compliance, and avoid the fines.
g I think the major problem up until recently has
g been that, first of all, the vehicles being, obviously,
JO mobile, it is very difficult, when you get a citizen
11 complaint, to get an LAPD officer out there in time to do
12 anything about it, and citizens feel very frustrated, and
13 I have had experience trying to deal with other areas, such
14 as automotive air pollution emissions, where, you know,
15 people become justly enraged at violations of the law
16 when it oaerns impossible to catch that, and that's just part
17 of the problem when you have a vehicular source.
18 There are several things that the LAPD are
19 trying to do to better address that.
20 I think, xmtil recently, part of the problem
21 has been, yoxx know^ attitudes of officers. It is difficult
22 when you have officers that are on motorcycles themselves,
23 perhaps, to have the same degree of sensitivity as some of
24 the people that are being adversely impacted. We feel that
25 is changing, and there is a higher level of sensitivity --
26 at least now, I mean — in the Los Angeles Police Department.
(713) 4i; )J37 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. «ANT«, ANA. CALir. (714) 551-9400
-------
21
j We have a problem in Los Angeles in that it is
2 such a large area. In San Francisco, you may know, they
3 have a couple of — and I think one of them is here today --
4 noise control officers, but that's a restricted geographical
5 area.
g Several people have suggested to us, "Why don't
7 you have an Office of Noise Control?", which we would like
8 to have. Our office has supported that for the City, but
9 the City Council, so far, has not been willing to do that,
10 and have certain police officers responsible for enforcing
11 these laws. If you have three, or even five, you know, with
12 an area the size of the City of Los Angeles, that simply
13 would not work.
14 In terms of "what are the problems in court,
15 if we went to trial on these," I don't think we would have
16 any real problems, but right now they just go through
17 traffic — the traffic court — as citations, and we haven't
18 had any of them that have been contested at this point now.
19 If they begin imposing the fines as we requested, even
20 though there is subsequent compliance, I am sure we will
21 have some experience, and I will be happy to relate that to
22 you at that time.
23 I want to make one point- on your point about
24 we can still control our operators, it's the factual
25 situation that I just outlined, which leads me to believe
26 that that isn't a very effective remedy, certainly on the
(2)3)437-1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
22
1 tampering. We plan to go ahead and do everything that we
2 can to go ahead and get a more effective enforcement
3 program on the tampering.
4 But, setting operating levels that requires, at
5 least, to go into court with what we would be comfortable
g with, that would require a sound meter; and it just means
7 that the manufacturing levels where they can be tested at
8 the time of manufacture; and the modification laws are
9 really the only way to effectively reduce noise, I don't
10 believe, at least at this point, for us, unless we can get
11 a much greater number of sound meters out; and then, in the
12 noise cases, where we had -- where we have gotten into
13 court -- which haven't been motorcycle cases; but, in the
14 other cases, the questions about calibration, and the
15 degree of variance, and where you stood, and, you know,
16 which all would be compounded when you have a mobile rather
17 than a stationary source, leads me not to be optimistic
18 about getting any real reduction from the operating
19 standards.
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Okay; fine. Listen, I would
21 very much like to see your comments on the anti-tampering
22 portion of this program today, of this regulation. We would
23 appreciate that.
24 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Any questions?
25 MR. EDWARDS: Mrs. Chatten-Brown, we get many,
26 many complaints, as do you, on motorcycle noise, and in
(213) O7-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
23
1 many cases the people who are complaining do not make a
2 distinction between the kind of motorcycle so.urce that was
3 causing them distress. We are attempting, in these hearings
4 at least, what I am hoping to get out of this -- a clearer
5 understanding of exactly what is the motorcycle noise
g problem — mufflers; and one of the things we're trying to
7 get at is, how many of these complaints are caused by
g modified motorcycles, and how many are caused by motorcycles
9 that have not been modified,
]Q At least, by your comments, we should be getting
11 motorcycles quieter and quieter, down to 70 decibels, and
12 I would assume that you have a feeling, anyway, that
13 unmodified motorcycles are, indeed, too loud, right now, and
14 should be quieted further, and I appreciate the comment on
15 that.
lg But, beyond that, you know, many people complain
17 about motorcycle noise, perhaps not straight motorcycles,
18 but perhaps they are off-road motorcycles that are used in
19 your jurisdiction, like in a back yard, neighborhood lot,
20 or something like that, or perhaps it's in a wilderness area,
21 and perhaps you have some comments as to whether this
22 occurs in Los Angeles or not.
23 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: The off-road bikes are a
24 problem in certain areas of Los Angeles, the Palos Verdes
25 area, the Hollywood Hills. A number of areas are adversely
28 impacted, and only very, very recently did the LAPD start a
(211) 07 U27 MACAUUEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) SSI-9400
-------
24
] program that, hopefully, will, in some way, control that
2 problem.
n ' They found that they couldn't get anywhere using
A their current vehicles, and the people were always gone,
c or into another part of the property, or whatever they would
g decide to do then, so they got their own dirt bikes, and
7 they have them on a trailer, and they take them to an area
g where they know there are recurring problems, and they get
g off, and they're not dressed as LAPD -- like undercover;
JQ and they think that is a very, very effective program, and
11 they seem to be controlling a high level of off-road noise
12 in a number of areas.
12 In terms of your first question about, have they
14 distinguished between modified and unmodified mufflers:
15 Residents don't, but just hearing the areas of complaints,
15 I tend to think that there are a number of unmodified
17 vehicles that are amongst the culprits, and that's been --
lg a lot of them tend to be -- in the hills, in residential
19 areas, which are -- I'll be showing my own biases — but,
20 you know, very -- people without -- not with big Harley
21 Davidsons — they're people that are just -- you know, your
22 next door neighbor, who loves to drive up and down, and up
23 and down, and maybe, because of the geographical areas,
24 and the terrain, and all of the other things that can affect
25 the noise, that you get more attenuated problems there than
26 in other areas, but we get a high percentage of our
O13) 437-1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. BANT* ANA. CALIF. (714) 551.9400
-------
25
1 motorcycle noise complaints — are from people living in
2 the hills; and it's just my own kind of instinct that leads
3 me to believe that that isn't necessarily from modified
4 mufflers.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Just to clarify your first one,
g you said you referred to Hollywood Park area? Is this what
7 you said?
8 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Hollywood Hills.
9 MR. EDWARDS: Hollywood Hills area? Now, is this
JQ a place that is set aside for motorcycles -- off-road
11 motorcycles? Is it ...
12 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Oh, no.
13 MR. EDWARDS: . . . private property, public
14 property, or what is it?
15 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Well, there's a niche.
15 There's a large -- Griffith Park is very, very large park
17 in the Hollywood Hills, and there aren't any dirt trails,
18 but, you know, people do ride bikes around there, and
19 especially, I'm familiar with the western edge of it, and
20 there's a lot of dirt bike, and motorcycle riding, up there.
21 That's all public land.
22 But, where we get most of our complaints are
23 from residential areas that are private property, on the
24 public streets.
25 MR. EDWARDS: I thank you very much.
26 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Naveen?
(211) 437 UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 551 »*00
-------
26
1 MR. NAVEEN: Only one brief comment.
2 Unlike the California legislature, the US Senate
3 and House of Representatives don't set the standard for
4 each individual product that we should regulate; and,
5 because the Noise Act is very precise in some sense, and
5 in other senses is not so precise, it is natural we do our
7 mission by setting certain standards by a certain date.
8 Unlike the Clean Air Act and some other
9 environmental regulations and legislation that we're
10 concerned with, under the Noise Control Program we can not,
11 after a standard is set, make any exceptions or waivers
12 from the standard. It has to be met by a certain date. It
13 is not within our power to do that unless Congress, in the
14 future, decides to do it.
15 I appreciate your remarks about technology
16 forcing, and perhaps, setting a very strict standard with
17 a very, very long lead time, and then, maybe, relaxing it.
18 The approach that we think will be more effective is to
19 set the kinds of standards we have now, and then, maybe at
20 some certain date — uncertain date — on the future,
21 we'll take a look again, and if the technology costs and
22 considerations at that time warrant that we might consider
23 proposing any amendment to reduce the standard further --
24 but we think that's the proper way to go, not to be so
25 farsighted now.
26 As has been mentioned by the panel members, we
(213) OM3J7 MACAU LEY A MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) S51-V4C3
-------
27
1 don't think the evidence indicates, now, that we can set
2 tighter and tougher standards than the ones that we have
3 proposed. Maybe, in the comment period, we'll find
4 otherwise.
5 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Yes. I would hope you
g wouldn't prejudge any evidence, additional evidence, that
7 will come in. You know, that's the difference in philosophy,
g I think that the problem is so substantial that it warrants
9 your going as far "as you can. There isn't any question
10 but that you could modify a regulation once adopted if prior
jj to attainment date you determine that it wasn't appropriate.
12 MR. NAVEEN: At any time the Agency can consider
13 new information that comes into its hands, but we don't
J4 know what the new information might or might not apprise.
15 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: I an sure that if it really
lg turned out to be unattainable, that you're going to get a
17 lot of additional information.
18 MR. NAVEEN: And we haven't prejudged that
19 either. As the Chairman pointed out before, we are here to
20 obtain your views, and facts. I can assure you that none
21 of us have really prejudged anything. I don't know what
22 we are really going to do.
23 MR. EDWARDS: I have just one clarification to
24 ask.
25 If I recall correctly, the EIS, indeed, did
26 consider a 75 decibel standard, but did not consider a
(21)) 4JM3J7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) SSI 9400
-------
28
1 70 decibel standard.
2 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Okay. I can't remember. I
3 was really struck by no consideration of the 70 ...
4 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, the reason is, we don't
5 know how you would build a 70 decibel motorcycle and still
g keep it a motorcycle.
7 MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Okay, then we'll have to
8 try and get . . . (overlapping of voices)
9 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you very much.
IQ MRS. CHATTEN-BROWN: Thank you very much.
11 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr, Higgins, please.
12
13 THOMAS HIGGINS
14 Good morning, gentlemen. I haven't time to read
15 all the data. It's fairly extensive. And, this is the
16 first time I have ever testified. So, you will excuse me.
17 I'm not really an expert.
18 I live down in Carlsbad, which is about forty
19 miles north of San Diego, next to the hills. Our biggest
20 complaint down there is the off-road biking that's going on.
21 However, I have read the California statute, and
22 it describes the amount of decibels. It's been changed a
23 couple two or three times, I believe.
24 The CHP in San Diego and Orange County has one —
25 I believe it's called "decibel" — "decimeter" -- "decibel
26 meter" — a device to measure noise. The City of Carlsbad
417.))); MACAUUEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
29
1 has none. They recently bought one to try to control the
2 noise of boats in the lagoon.
3 I have talked to several police officers, and
4 apparently, it's very difficult to tell by earballing --to
5 use an expression -- 80 decibels from 90 decibels. They
6 would really have to be a consummate expert.
7 The way the statute is written, the police
8 officer can not monitor or check the bike at intersections,
9 at the beginning or end of a grade. It has to be, I think,
10 fifty feet from the center of the flow of traffic.
11 I'm trying to make a point here. The point is,
12 what I am concerned with, how are you going to enforce it?
13 When I came up here from San Diego, I drove between 60 and
14 65, which is illegal, and everybody is blowing by me, so
15 whether or not you're going to reduce it to 70 decibels,
16 or 75, or whatever, I think it's a great idea, great step,
17 but to me, the important consideration is, how is it going
18 to be enforced?
19 Most police officers that I spoke to, they don't
20 even like to try it, because they can't get a conviction.
21 It's very difficult to get a conviction, and that the DA
22 is reluctant to take it, because it's a very -- well —
23 unprecise, I suppose you would say; but I would think, now -
24 now, Miss Brown, here, she said she has not obtained one
25 conviction, and the law has been a statute, on the books,
26 for many years, and they haven't obtained one conviction.
(213) 070327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) SS|.»400
-------
30
1 I've talked to some of the kids driving bikes
2 near me and asked them how many are modified, and they tell
3 me about 95 per cent are modified, so I think the law is a
4 great idea. Now, 75 decibels is fairly quiet — I mean,
5 between 70 and 75, personally, I wouldn't be concerned. If
5 they were to enforce the statute as it is now, it would be
7 a big improvement, which is, I think, 82 decibels.
9 So, as I say, I think you are certainly moving
9 in the right direction, but the most important consideration
10 is, how are you going to enforce it, because you can put it
11 down to any decibel you want, but the point is, how are you
12 going to enforce it?
13 Well, that's the only point I was going to make.
14 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, you made your point very
15 well, sir. I have one question to ask you, Mr. Higgins,
16 if you will bear with me, please.
17 You have indicated that your biggest problem is
18 off-road bikes?
19 MR. HIGGINS: Well, yes, because I live up against
20 the hill. There's a lot of vacant property back there. And
21 the kids come up and ride on there over the hills. However,
22 they have to ride across the streets, and the motor bikes
23 don't even have license plates on them, and they're not even
24 enforced, for the reason is, the police are very realistic
25 and they think, "Well, it's very difficult to get a
26 conviction," so I would imagine, in my opinion, the way to
(111) 437-1127 MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 3S|.»400
-------
31
1 enforce it is like you do with a smog control device, the
2 mufflers are sealed at the source, rather than turning
3 thousands of people loose and trying to pursue them.
4 Now, in some countries, you have to take your car
5 in once a year for inspection, and it has to meet certain
g standards — brakes, lights, and whatnot; and we don't do
7 that here.
9 But, nevertheless, unless you can control the
9 source, it's all irrelevant. I mean, it's just academic,
JO or whatever the word is.
11 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Higgins, let me ask you
12 this; I have had some difficulties myself with the
13 enforcement issues, and it seems to me that one of the major
14 ways for controlling the off-road bike noise is, let's just
15 put the off-road bitces where there's not folks to be
16 bothered by them. In other words, let's provide a place
17 for the folks who enjoy those dirt bikes -- and they can be
18 a heck of a lot of fun — let's put them someplace where,
19 you know, they have to endure one another's noise, but the
20 folks that don't want to be bothered by it are not. In
21 other words, compatible land use.
22 Now, has your area, perhaps, looked into that, in
23 being able to set aside some region? It seems to me that
24 would be an easy thing to enforce. You're either on
25 somebody's land where you're not permitted to be, or you're
26 in a place that's sanctioned for it.
(213) 437 1317 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir, (714) S5I-«400
-------
32
1 MR. HIGGINS: Mr. Thomas, yes, there has been
2 some discussion down there, but the point is this: You don't
3 have to have that much noise for an off-road bike. It isn't
4 necessary.
5 Now, there's some sort of a formula, I believe,
g between the decibels and the amount of — what you call --
7 the resistance and the — that isn't the word -- in the
8 muffler, and when they take them out, the theory is that
g it's going to give them more horsepower.
JO Well, the people that manufacture motor bikes
11 have got some pretty good talent. They know what they're
12 doing. And these bikes that are modified, you don't have
13 to do that. What I'm against is the unnecessary noise. I
14 think riding a motor bike could be a lot of fun. I have a
15 bike. I bought a bike in Japan. But you can hardly hear it.
16 So, I get back, again, to the source!
17 Now, I noticed your proposed legislation. You're
18 not concerned with motor off-road bikes; is that correct?
19 You're not going to control them from the way they are?
20 MR. THOMAS: We are.
21 MR. HIGGINS: Oh, you are?
22 MR. THOMAS: Yes.
23 MR. HIGGINS: There was a story in the Wall
24 Street Journal that said it did not apply to the off-road
25 motor bike. Perhaps I misread it.
26 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: We'll correct that. The
(111) O7.t]?7 MACAU LEY A MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U> 551 9400
-------
33
1 , competition motorcycles will not be required to be quiet.
2 They need only be labeled as "competition motorcycles". Now,
3 off-road bikes will be required to be reduced in noise.
4 MR. HIGGINS: Well, that's fine, but nevertheless,
5 the point is that I think they can still reduce those —
6 perhaps not to 70 or 75 decibels, but they could now —
7 they must be now -- I don't know -- 90 decibels -- so there
8 again, the only point I would make is that, unless it's
9 controlled at the "source; and now, Miss Brown also made a
10 point, that she believed that the kids — the people -- have
11 two sets of mufflers, and I can believe that; but if a
12 person is to pay a fifty dollar fine for changing mufflers,
13 perhaps he wouldn't do it.
14 But, finally, I would say that, the motorcycle
15 noise can be controlled at the source without interfering
16 with their fun, and right to do it.
17 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Mr. Higgins, let me say that you
18 make a good point. We will control the noise of motorcycles
19 at the time of sale, so if the Agency promulgates final
20 regulations with the decibel standard, we will be able to
21 control that fairly well.
22 The major problem with this regulation is whether
23 we can prevent tampering, with the modification of motorcycles
24 So, that is a good point.
25 I guess one of the good things about this hearing
26 is that it will bring you and Mz. Chatten-Brown together.
C1J) 437-1127 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF.
-------
34
1 You cLn tell her your complaints and maybe she'll tell you
2 how to solve them, but we are relying -- the federal
3 government can not possibly get in and prevent every user
4 of a motorcycle from tampering with his exhaust system, or
5 with his bike, and making it noisier. It's going to be up
g to state and local agencies to do that.
7 Now, these regulations lay out a scheme whereby
8 that can be done, but it's going to take a tremendous
9 commitment on the local level, by law enforcment people,
10 and by the legislators, and by the citizens, to have that
1} done, but these regulations will, with the control of the
12 bikes as well as the exhaust system, set up a scheme whereby
13 you will be able to control modifications, but only if you
14 have the manpower and the desire to do it.
15 So, you know, we'll set up the scheme, but it's
16 going to be up to people like you to get the local law
17 enforcement officers to follow it up.
18 MR. HIGGINS: Well, thank you very much,
19 gentlemen.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Higgins, it's always a
21 pleasure to have somebody come in and talk like this who
22 hasn't stood up before a lectern of this nature and talked
23 before a federal government panel. We appreciate your
24 taking the time, and we think you have done a good job.
25 Thank's very much.
26 MR. HIGGINS: Thank you.
(113) 437-1377 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 55M400
-------
35
1 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Alan Girdler, please --
2 Cycle World.
3 ' ALAN GIRDLER
4 I'm a little surprised. I assumed all of the
5 press would be here. We lecture the government a lot, but
6 we never knew you were listening before. Now, at least,
7 I can look at you and see that you're here.
8 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: See a face behind the name.
9 MR. GIRDLER: Yes; yes. Mr. Edwards and I have
10 exchanged occasional semi-angry letters. It's nice to have
11 him here. We can holler in person.
12 I'm kind of a self-appointed, in the sense,
13 because, of course, I get the job, you know, through fast
14 talking. No one elects the editor. We have three hundred
15 thousand people who buy the magazine, and our studies show
16 that we've got something over a million readers. We're
17 one of the twenty-six, I think, motorcycle magazines.
18 So, it's a self-appointed spokesman when I come
19 in and say, "I'm talking to you for more than a million
20 people." I gave myself the job.
21 I've changed my testimony a little bit, the plan
22 i had in my head, I think partially because the people who
23 have been on before — The problem isn't enforcement, but
24 I was thinking of this because, of course, being a motorcycle
25 rider, a cow trailer, and a father, and this sort of thing,
2" and living down south.
(113) 07.1)77 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
36
I
1 Interesting problem with kids because, first of
2 all, the Carlsbad Police Department has dirt bikes. There
3 are laws against riding the dirt bikes, you know. The kids
4 driving -- anybody driving -- the dirt bikes in the public
5 land, there, behind where the houses are, the police have
6 bought a couple of nice dirt bikes to go out and catch
7 them. In fact, they bought them from a guy who also rides
8 out there, which puts him in a lovely position. And the
9 State of California has some very, very good -- I think,
10 fair — laws about the off-road motorcycle.
11 I suspect probably you gentlemen have done all
12 your research, and you know that there is a limit for your
13 public-land-off-road motorcycle which is reasonably quiet,
14 and it's not hard to reach, and it doesn't cost power, and
15 the manufacturers have been pretty good.
16 They do certify these bikes. In fact, I know
17 that, oh, in one case, Honda has just turned out a
18 sensationally good competition motorcycle. The first week
19 they were on sale I think I saw ten of them out in the
20 desert; and a week after that, I discovered that Honda has
21 come out with an optional silencer spark arrester so that
22 this particular competition bike can be certified, and
23 quieted, and put in for public riding in the public lands.
24 This is nice. I think they are doing a lovely job.
25 I think, on-the-road things, the same deal. I
26 can go into a store right now and buy replacement mufflers
4J7 1317 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)551-9400
-------
37
1 for my road motorcycle that are certified as meeting the
V
2 standard in effect now. I suspect they may even be --
3 because this is my road bike, it's a 1970 model, we're not
4 very well paid — I think I can probably have a quieter
5 motorcycle at half the cost of replacing the stock system.
5 This is not the problem. You know, making quiet
7 motorcycles, having companies cooperate whenever they can,
8 is not going to be the problem. I think the problem starts
9 with, in effect, two things. Now, a little snide remark.
10 I don't get to send out contractors to get facts for me,
11 so there is no way on earth I am going to come in, you know,
12 and say, "This study is wrong," and, "That study is wrong,"
13 and, "This one is outdated," and so on.
14 I think you have a noise exposure, the average
15 person which can be measured, you know, in a scientific
16 way, and averaged out, and I think you have an annoyance
17 factor. I don't thing they're the same. I live about two
18 blocks from the railroad tracks, and if I'm awake at 4:00
19 a.m., you know, when the midnight flier comes through, I
20 can hear it, and I sleep through it.every night normally.
21 So, I think what we have is noise, sound, what everybody
22 thinks we were teasing about that, you know, the difference
23 between noise and sound.
24 I think a lot of vibrations goes in ears, and
25 some of it is children at play, and some of it is dogs
26 barking, and some of it is trains, and some of it is
(113) 437 m? MACAULEY & MANNING. CANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) SSM400
-------
38
1 motorcycles, and this sort of thing.
2 As nearly as I can tell from the material you
3 gentlemen have supplied, the motorcycle is not that big a
4 separate source of sound, in terms of the traffic stream,
5 and this sort of thing. I think the motorcycle is a readily
g identifiable source. I think it's an annoying source. I
7 think lots of people don't like motorcycles. They can tell
g it's a motorcycle. They resent it.
9 So, when the scientific survey is done, putting
JQ a sound meter out somewhere and finding out what goes in,
11 that's one thing. When you send the survey team out and
12 say, "What drives you crazy?", you're going to get
13 motorcycles fairly high on the list.
14 So, I think this sets up the next step, which
15 is, that you gentlemen have been directed to takes steps
lg against what has been officially identified as a problem,
J7 and you're doing it. You have to do it. I can't see anyone
18 in good conscience objecting to your doing it.
19 My thinking is, though, you have three levels.
20 The first level would be, if every motorcycle was kept to
21 the level now in effect, and basically, I think, with some
22 exceptions, because the California law is -- California is
23 a big market -- the law is easily reached. I don't think
24 there are many manufacturers turning out bikes that are a
25 whole lot louder than the California level
26 If motorcycles could be kept to that level, I
(}13) 437.1)17 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
39
1 think even your studies show there would be an enormous
2 benefit in terms of volume of sound. I think there would be
3 an appreciable benefit in terms of people who call into the
4 police department to complain about noisy motorcycles.
5 The next level, the initial standard of halfway
g along the way, again, referring to your own material, if
7 that was achieved, there would be a very slight economic
g impact. This is something that most of the companies can
9 do without terrible hardship. I think it would be a level
10 that most people would keep it to, and there again, I think
11 the figure is something 70 to 90 per cent of the achievable
12 benefit, at what I think is a modest cost.
13 What I object to is the final level, looking at
14 this, and reading about the decline in the cost, of the
15 money invested in this thing, the decline in jobs, the
16 amount of money going the limit to motorcycle technology,
17 because, when you push technology one way, you're liable to
18 pull it somewhere else. There are other improvements that
19 could be made in terms of, perhaps, more efficient
20 motorcycles, cheaper motorcycles, better miles per gallon,
21 lower initial cost, all that sort of thing. You have noise,
22 and everything else goes by the board, because you're making
23 a quiet motorcycle. It may not be good, or safe, or
24 efficient.
25 The enormous cost of this 1 Again, in your
26 figures, in the terms of raising the prices, and putting
CU) 4JMJ27 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIP. (714) 55M400
-------
40
1 people out of work, limiting my choice as a consumer, I
\
2 don't particularly want to be protected most of the time,
3 but I would like to have some choice, and if 80 per cent,
4 or 90 per cent of the muffler manufacturers are driven out
5 of business, this takes away my choice.
g I know now I can replace my stock equipment for
7 half the cost as the factory wants. I don't know what it's
8 going to cost if only the factory can sell me those
9 mufflers. They have themselves a rather nice little market
10 in that sense, if they were the only ones what could afford
11 to certify a muffler -- they're the only ones that can
12 sell me a muffler, and they get whatever I'm willing to pay
13 to keep my motorcycle on the road.
14 The enforcement problem, I don't know how it's
15 going to work. I think a certification in terms of putting
16 the muffler — stamping the muffler -- I know, on my road
17 bike it is very carefully stamped, and it's got the maker,
18 and it's got the number, and all that sort of thing. This
19 was, I say, made in 1970. If I had a modified muffler,
20 they would have to simply look and say, "What the heck is
21 that?", and I'd say, "Oh, well, I bought it at the corner
22 store," and the guy says, "You're in trouble," if he wants
23 to.
24 I think that enforcement is going to be the key.
25 All I can then say is, if the replacement equipment was
26 stamped, and numbered, and everything, then perhaps, the
(2)3) 4JM327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S5I.«400
-------
41
police would have an easier time of it, and the people who
tamper with the bikes would have a harder time of it. We
could get a whole lot done without this incredible cost,
that seems to me you gentlemen have predicted, with this
final standard.
In short, I think it's too severe. I think the
cost is too high. And the benefits really not proven.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Girdler. I
appreciate your comments. I do want to ask you one question:
You heard testimony, I believe, earlier,
statements by Mrs. Chatten-Brown, representing the Los
12 Angeles City Attorney's Office, and she took strong issue
13 with us because our regulations do not even approach on the
14 level of 70 decibels that exist in the California statutes,
15 at this time, for the 1990.
16 What do you think about the California statute,
17 the level that's in it; and based on your knowledge of
18 motorcycles -- and I assume you have some expertise in this
19 area -- the likelihood of that level being achieved by 1990?
20 MR. GIRDLER: Two things here: One, the
21 legislature is -- they go their own way, they have their
22 own thinking to achieve, they do not need to worry about
23 technology. In fact, on some occasions -- witness the
24 lighting laws — they bought technology, they put down what
25 they think ought to be done. Another man will be speaking
26 later, and will probably tell you more about that. But, -':
(213)4)7.1)27 MACAULEY Oc MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CAur (714)5519400
-------
42
1 if the legislature has any scientific knowledge -- any
2 technical knowledge at all when they draw these things up --
3 I have not seen it displayed.
4 I believe these are people who introduced laws
5 to ban the internal combustion engine. If they know somethin
6 I don't know, I would sure like to see it, because I would
7 love to see — --
8 We have a sound meter. I have never actually
9 done this test. One of these days I would like to get a
10 real big Harley-Davidson and roll it down a hill at 15, or
11 20, or whatever the second gear thing would be, with the
12 engine off, because we have a sound meter. When we do
13 testing on after-market systems, and then we do report, in
14 fact, if it looks to us like it is too loud to be used on
15 the street, we say so.
16 My guess would be that a normal big road
17 motorcycle, with the engine off, rolling past, you know,
18 the 15 meters away, the standard California Highway Patrol,
19 or EPA test, I'll betcha that thing goes over 70 decibels
20 just in the chains and the tires, and the wind blowing over
21 the fins, and all these things. 70 is terribly, terribly
22 hard.
23 I think I've mentioned we have a sound meter.
24 I play with it in the office sometimes. People who like a
25 radio on when they work are doing more than 70 decibels.
2o 70 decibels is about the sound of sitting in the car with
437 13:7 MACAULEY & MANNING. §ANTA ANA. CAur. <7U) 5SS-7400
-------
43
1 the engine idling, for goodness sake -- not an economy car,
2 I shouldn't say that -- not a Rolls-Royce.
3 I don't see how they can do it. I don't think
4 they know how they can do it. I think somebody said, "Well,
5 let's put their feet to the fire, and it will sound good,"
g and they did. I think this is pushing technology beyond
7 the breaking point.
8 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I would just like to make sure
9 I understand what you're saying. You're saying that you
10 think the industry can go down to 80 decibels without any
11 problems?
12 MR. GIRDLER: Oh, dearl The industry is going to
13 beat me up as soon as I get out of the room.
14 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I didn't mean to put it so.
15 (Laughter)
16 MR. GIRDLER: I think, my prediction, knowing the
17 work that's done, I think 80 is achievable, and given a
18 fair enough lead time for the big road bike.
19 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And then, 78, you think, although
20 maybe achievable, is not cost effective?
21 MR. GIRDLER: Yes. Cost effective, in terms of
22 the public benefit, the other problems, no, I just think
23 it's too much.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And 75 would be technically
25 feasible but not cost effective, or not technically feasible?
26 MR. GIRDLER: Well, there again, now, we get
-------
1 into, I think, probably, there are one or two companies
2 that could do it to 75, and sell "a" motorcycle.
3 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And then, 70 would not be
4 technically feasible?
5 MR. GIRDLER: I can not imagine, again. I am
g speaking as a semi-expert witness. I've talked to the
7 people at R&D. I've been to the factories here and abroad.
g I would not want to say it can't be done. I have no degree
9 in engineering. 'I don't think it can be done. That's my
10 opinion.
11 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And once again, you focus on a
12 major problem that we've all talked about this morning, and
13 we've talked about a couple of years now, and that is that
14 even if you get the bikes quiet, do they stay quiet in the
15 field? You seem to think that the police could, and maybe
16 are already, keeping bikes fairly quiet.
17 Well, our experience has been contrary, and I
18 think at least one the witnesses, this morning, would have
19 said otherwise. How do we bridge that gap? Let's assume
20 that we come up with a quiet bike, where our after-market
21 regulations are in effect, what we are looking for, how do
22 we get the job done?
23 MR. GIRDLER: I should specify a couple of things
24 here. The police are not -- — I have a kid who lives up
25 the street from me. He's been going to school with my kid
26 since the second grade, a nice kid, good grades, you know,
(211) O7-U27 MACAULEY Be MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSi-9400
-------
45
I works hard in school, works down at the corner store after
9 school. He goes by the house the other night and I said,
o "I'm going to break your neck, Ronnie. I know when you get
4 off work," because he's put an exhaust pipe, he's put an
5 after-market pipe on this little bike he's got, and I said,
g "I can hear you coming down Main Street, turning the corner,
7 and shifting down and going up the hill, and I hope they
g write you up," and he says, "Yes, it's a funny thing, you
g know. The Sheriff did stop me the other night and he said,
IQ 'Kind of a loud bike, Ronnie. You ought to do something
11 about that,' and I said, 'Are you gonna?', and he said,
\2 'Oh, I don't know,' and he went home, and I saw him the
13 other day, we were down jogging on the creek, and he comes
14 whipping by, you know, and waves at me, and I shook my fist
15 at him, because he hadn't quieted it down."
lg You have a terrible problem in the enforcement
17 thing in the sense of, who does this, who is being enforced?
18 There are tickets given out. Most of the time these things
19 are not enforced. If anything, I would say — —
20 Well, let me break this in half a little bit.
21 First of all, the police departments do not spend a lot of
22 time enforcing the noise regulations. One of my sons had
23 my dual purpose bike out, and I had not told him that I was
24 working on the wiring and the lights weren't working, and
25 he was given a ticket for that, but no one noticed, you know,
26 whether or not the exhausts had been -- anything had been
(JU) 437-13:? MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUC. (7U) 558.7400
-------
46
1 done to it. They don't: worry about this.
2 Most of the time, the motorcycle rider who is
3 fairly intelligent, behaves himself. Generally, he is not
4 going to get written up because the police have better
5 things to do. They are running a radar, let's say. So,
g there is not a whole lot of effort for the average motorcycle
7 enforcement thing.
8 The next thing is, there are an awful lot of
9 people, motorcycle enthusiasts, who are concerned with this,
10 who do look out for keeping the motorcycle quiet, who do
11 not modify. I think, in fact -- I know the figures that
12 you gentlemen have supplied -- good studying is being done
13 in the sense of, at the same time, if the — if something
14 is like 25 to 12 per cent of motorcycles are modified, well
15 this means that 75, to 85 per cent, or something, of the
16 owners, do not modify the bikes.
17 Long before the EPA began doing this, you know,
18 the motorcycle organizing bodies, and the press, and
19 everyone, has a little thing that says, you know, "Less
20 sound, more ground." I'd like to think that most of the
21 bike people are concerned with the problem, and do not
22 modify, or take some steps to be nice and quiet.
23 In fact, we're going tomorrow -- the Bureau of
24 Land Management --as kind of a joint ride across the desert
25 looking at some petrographs, and things like that, and I
26 think that the word is out, bring your quiet bikes, guys,
(713) 437 m; MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAur. (714) SS».»400
-------
47
1 let's let the BLM know that we're not out there, you know,
2 to ravage the desert, and rip things up, and make a lot of
3 noise, and disturb other people. I'd like to think that's
4 the majority view.
5 Let me get back to Carlsbad again, on the other
6 view. The County of San Diego, or the people in San Diego,
7 were offered some sites for an off-road motorcycle park,
8 and they would not do it. They are not going to supply.
9 This was just within the last couple of weeks. They are
10 not going to take an area of compatible, that could be
11 compatible, and let these kids go out and ride. At this
12 stage, here you have, let's say, a 15, a 16, whatever, a
13 kid who has a motorcycle, and there's no place within 50,
14 60, I don't know how far, from his home, that he can
15 legally ride this motorcycle, so to tell him he ought to
16 have a legal muffler while he's breaking the tresspass laws,
17 is a little silly. If they are going to have him down in
18 Juvenile Hall anyway if they catch him, he might as well
19 have the loud exhaust as not.
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: You did mention one good
21 enforcement scheme. We hadn't thought about breaking
22 Ronnie's neck. I'm not sure we can get into that.
23 (Laughter)
24 MR. GIRDLER: I think, probably, that's a local
25 problem the EPA is not allowed to interfere with.
26 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you.
(7U) 437 li:7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAur. (714) 558 9400
-------
48
1 MR. PETROLATI: It seems like one of your major
2 concerns is to keep the after-market industry in the picture,
3 as far as the replacement exhaust manufacturers are
4 concerned?
5 MR. GIRDLER: Yes.
g MR. PETROLATI: All right. Is it your concern
7 that these standards are going to force the after-market
8 industry out of the picture? And, if so, which standards
9 are you talking about, the ones all the way down to 78?
10 Do you think they will be able to comply with the 80 and
11 the 83 dB standards?
12 MR. GIRBLER: This is something I think you will
13 probably have to get a really good answer later on. Frankly,
14 I had not separated this. It is a certification program, as
15 you know, but the manufacturer has to do this so that, I
16 suppose if it costs X-dollars to certify the replacement
17 muffler for the Honda 750 at 83, or 80, or whatever, the
18 certification is going to be all the same cost. It's going
19 to cost as much to hire the sound lab and do whatever it is
20 it takes to do. So, T suppose there isn't much difference
21 in that sense.
22 Now, the actual how much it costs to develop
23 these mufflers, and how much it costs to make, let's say,
24 a 78 dB muffler versus an 80 dB muffler, I'm sorry, you'll
25 have to ask someone who builds mufflers. I don't know.
26 MR. PETROLATI: Okay.
(ii3) «7.m; MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. cAur
-------
1 CHAIRMAN THOMAS; Mr. Girdler, do you have a
2 fairly good relationship, or at least know your local
3 distributors and dealers of motorcycles -- motorcycle
4 dealers -- in, say, your hometown area where you live?
5 MR. GIRDLER: Yes; yes. I own two motorcycles.
6 My youngest son has one. And, I buy a lot of parts.
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Does he sell off-road bikes?
8 MR. GIRDLER: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Does he give any indication to
10 a prospective purchaser as to what the local ordinances are,
11 or where they can ride these bikes, or where they can't
12 ride them, to your knowledge?
13 MR. GIRDLER: As far as I know, they do. I've
14 overheard sales pitches being given. Now, how complete it
15 is, how comprehensive it is, I don't know. I don't even
16 know if the advice is taken. But yes, they do make an
17 attempt. In fact, you get to apply for the green sticker,
18 for example, on a public road -- a public land off-road
19 bike — right there, when I bought two bikes for my two
20 oldest kids. You can apply. They were there ready to give
21 you the advice, and hand you the pamphlet, and help you
22 register; the same way a car dealer will help you get your
23 car tag, these guys will help you get your green sticker
24 for off-road use.
25 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: True.
26 MR. EDWARDS: In these regulations, we're trying
(J1J) 4JMJJ? MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 5S»-»«00
-------
50
1 to make a distinction between competition motorcycles and
2 general purpose off-road motorcycles, and one of the things
3 we are trying to find out is whether this is going to be a
A workable system because we have had problems in the past
5 that people use moto-cross motorcycles in the off-road areas;
g and I was wondering if you could reflect on your local
1 dealer, is he selling lots of moto-cross bikes that you
g know darn well are being used out behind Carlsbad — behind
9 Mr. Higgins' home — or are these being used in competition
IQ events?
11 MR. GIRDLER: I would have to give you an answer
12 half way between the two. The moto-cross bikes that I know
13 of, very few of the hobby-play-ride off-road people in the
14 immediate areas buy these motorcycles. I can not recall in
15 my -- in a semi-residential area — seeing a genuine mini,
15 genuine racing bikes.
17 Now, you get out into the desert, where again,
18 the California law -- if you are required to have a spark
19 arrester, for example, and a certified silencer — there
20 are an awful lot of moto-cross bikes out there, I'm sorry
21 to say. This is play-riding.
22 The license sanctioning bodies, for example, that
23 have the desert races, which are, you know -- require
24 certain things, and the enduros -- do make an effort to
25 enforce this sort of thing; but an awful lot of guys buy
26 the race bike and take it out into the desert and just go
437-1)27 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551.9400
-------
51
1 whipping around on it.
2 MR. EDWARDS: You've given us your views on the
3 street motorcycle standards. Do you also have views on the
4 proposed off-road standards, particularly for the larger
5 bikes, which goes down to 82 decibels, but which is not
5 quite as quiet as a street, but yet . . .
7 MR. GIRDLER: I must say, I'm glad you make
g that distinction. 1 think whoever did this research knows
9 his stuff.
10 I think the 82 is achievable. In lots of ways,
1] the off-road bike is worse, in the sense that -- again, we
12 mentioned earlier, on the traffic stream, this sort of
13 thing -- you have to pick the motorcycle, sometimes, out of
14 the traffic stream, in terms of noise, but if you can't,
15 you know, if you are a rock hound, or fisherman, or
16 something like that, you don't have to work very hard to
17 identify the motorcycle out in the mountains and on the
18 trail.
19 I think the standards are needed. I think the
20 82 -- I think it can be done. There is one manufacturer
21 now who is putting out a powerful middle-siaeci enduro bike,
22 which is a public land sort of bike, and they say they're
23 getting 82. I think it can be done. I think that even
24 the two stroke, which is an unpleasant sound to the human
25 ear, incidentally, can be.
26 82 is, I think —I think — a workable thing.
(713) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSI•»tOO
-------
52
1 MR. EDWARDS: We have had it alleged before that
2 these standards, when you get products down so low, either
3 because you want to hear the sound, or you want to restore
4 what you perceive to be lost power, this is an incentive to
5 modify your product -- and I guess we're going backwards
g here -- I was wondering if you could comment. I think you
7 have spoken on that before, so if you could comment.
g MR. GIRDLER: Oh, dear! The sound, the tone, is
g a part of motorcycling. There's no question about it. Now,
IQ part of this may be — may be — what we're accustomed to,
11 you know, the older generation, this sort of thing. I know
12 what a motorcycle sounds like. It sounds like a Harley-
13 Davidson.
]4 My children don't see this. They wonder any time
15 I say something like this. They don't get it.
16 So, while the sound is part of motorcycling, I
17 am not equipped to say how much of that sound -- I happened
18 to ride up here today on a motorcycle that makes mechanical
19 noise and no sound at all. I enjoyed myself. It has no
20 character. It has no music. It has no tone. It sort of
21 just goes wuff, wuff, wuff, wuff, you know, and it didn't
22 bother me that much. I don't think it's going to be that
23 bad a thing.
24 MR. EDWARDS: I have one last question for you:
25 We had alleged, this morning, that perhaps some motorcyclists
26 have two different exhaust systems for their motorcycles as
(211) 437 1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 551.9400
-------
53
I a way of getting their compliance certificate. As one
2 experienced with the motorcycle world, is this a common
3 practice?
4 MR, GIRDLER: I don't think it is a "common"
5 practice. In other words, I don't think that out of this
g percentage of modified motorcycles that are out there, a
1 large number of them are prepared to do a quick change act,
g and go whipping between -- you know, bothering the neighbors,
g and fooling the DMV. I don't see it that way.
IQ It would not surprise me if there were guys who,
\\ let's say, had taken off the stock system and put on a loud
12 one, and had the stock one in back of the barn. I have
13 one sitting in my garage. I've got an ignition coil for a
14 car that I sold in '64, you know. So that people save things,
15 and if the guy was written up for it, and he said, "Got 'em,"
16 and put the stock back, I can see that happening, but I
17 don't think it would be a great conscious sport-wide
18 practice.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Girdler, thank you very much.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS. You have been very helpful,
21 Mr. Girdler. Thank you.
22 Mr. Alan Isley, please, of the Motorcycle
23 Industry Council.
24 ALAN ISLEY
25 My name is Alan Isley. I am the President of the
26 Motorcycle Industry Council, a national non-profit trade
(113) 4J7-UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir (7U) SS|.«400
-------
54
1 association representing motorcycle manufacturers,
2 distributors, and businesses allied to the motorcycle
3 industry.
4 At today's hearing, I am specifically representing
5 the views of our nineteen members who manufacture and
6 distribute approximately ninety per cent of the motorcycles
7 sold in the United States, and thirteen members who
8 manufacture and distribute approximately seventy-five per
9 cent of the motorcycle replacement exhaust systems sold in
10 the U.S.
11 The MIC, and its member companies, have long
12 recognized the public concern over excessive motorcycle
13 noise, and the industry, long before EPA involvement, has
14 reduced new motorcycle noise levels significantly.
15 We support the concept of uniform national
16 noise regulations if they are based on a demonstrated need,
17 are consistent with the principles of acoustics, are within
18 the limits of attainable technology at a reasonable cost,
19 and will solve the motorcycle noise problem for the public.
20 As you conduct these public hearings to demonstrat
21 the need for motorcycle noise controls, I would encourage
22 the hearing officer to solicit meaningful public comment
23 that can be put to use by the EPA, and the industry, to
24 reduce noise impacts.
25 Merely recording one hundred or one thousand
26 generalized statements about "noisy motorcycles," some
(213) 4)7.1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S5I.V400
-------
55
1 generated by erroneous EPA publications, holding the
2 hearings in noted retirement communities, or promoting
3 inflammatory newspaper articles, will not advance our mutual
4 efforts to silence excessively noisy motorcycles.
5 In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, you have
g segregated the motorcycle noise problem into on-road and
7 off-road elements, and recognized the differing impacts of
g stock motorcycles and owner-modified motorcycles.
9 We feel the public comment phase of the rule
]Q making can be most productive if specific comments are
11 solicited about the exact nature of motorcycle noise
12 impacts on the communities represented.
13 We would encourage the hearing panel to make
14 every effort to define, with precision, the problems to
15 be resolved; and, Mr. Thomas, I would like to compliment
16 you. I believe, in this morning's testimony, you have
17 followed this pattern.
18 MIC research, previously supplied to EPA's
19 Office of Noise Abatement and Control -- and indeed, EPA's
20 independent analysis — indicates that the vast majority of
21 individual motorcycle noise impacts on the public are
22 caused by owner modifications of originally quiet motorcycles
23 or quiet replacement exhaust systems.
24 .Yet, the regulations we are commenting on today
25 are totally out of balance with that documented fact, and
26 address technically difficult and extremely costly noise
(713) O7-UJ7 MACAU LEY * MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 556-9400
-------
56
1 reductions in new motorcycles, motorcycles which are already
2 relatively quiet compared to the exhaust-modified motorcycles
3 which are the reasons for the regulations in the first place.
4 We would strongly urge the EPA to adopt a more
5 balanced approach which would address both the user operation
6 aspects of the problem, as well as certification of new
7 prodcuts.
8 The motorcycle industry strongly objects to
9 passing on costs amounting to hundreds of millions of
10 dollars to all motorcycle purchasers, thereby increasing
11 inflation and decreasing the use of these energy efficient
12 vehicles, unless appropriate measures are insured to prevent
13 the small minority of irresponsible users from perpetuating
14 the exhaust-modified motorcycle noise problem.
15 In our opinion, the EPA should commit large
16 staff and financial resources to the task of assisting
17 community in-use enforcement activities prior to causing
18 large cost burdens on the responsible quiet-riding
19 purchasers of all new motorcycles, and quiet replacement
20 exhaust systems.
21 The EPA proposal contains an inappropriate
22 emphasis on technical compliance detail at the manufacturing
23 level, while virtually ignoring the sociological aspects of
24 owner behavior and lack of community enforcement activities.
25 The proposal is, in our opinion, a perfect
26 example of a regulation and enforcement policy that adds
(113) O7 1377 MACAU LEY & MANNING. CANTA ANA. CAUIP. (?U) SSI ?400
-------
57
1 significantly to the cost of production, but does not achieve
2 major environmental benefits, a subject about which Mr.
3 Robert S. Strauss, President Carter's special counsel on
4 inflation, discussed recently with EPA's administrator.
5 For the sake of brevity, I will summarize, today,
6 several of the issues which will be addressed more
7 comprehensively in a written submission prior to June 16th.
8 To the subject of "The Selected Regulatory Levels
9 for Street Motorcycles," because the standards are on a
10 "not to exceed" basis, requiring 2 to 3 decibels lower
11 design targets, reductions beyond the 83 dB(A) level will
12 be difficult, if not impossible, for smaller manufacturers
13 of both motorcycles and replacement exhaust systems to
14 achieve.
IS Because the test procedure measures motorcycle
16 noise under the extreme stress conditions of maximum
17 acceleration, and normal operation produces significantly
18 lower noise emissions, we believe that the 83 dB(A) level
19 is sufficiently quiet to eliminate noise impacts from new
20 untampered exhaust systems.
21 We do not believe there is a demonstrated need
22 for maximum acceleration sound levels below 83 dB(A) at
23 fifty feet. Reductions below that level impose increasingly
24 burdensome costs on the consumer, without significantly
25 reducting noise impacts on the public.
26 A reduction in maximum noise potential
(J1J) 437 1337 MACAULEY ft MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CAUr. (714) SSS-f«X>
-------
58
1 from 83 dB(A) to 80 dB(A) is barely audible to the human ear,
2 yet carries a significant cost burden -- four per cent of
3 the price of the motorcycle; fifty per cent of the price of
4 a replacement exhaust system. During normal operation, the
5 difference in noise level would not be perceptible.
6 The lowering of a motorcycle's maximum noise
7 potential from 80 dB(A) to 78 dB(A) is a grossly expensive
8 technical exercise, adding an estimated ten per cent to the
9 price of every street motorcycle, and over-doubling the
10 price of replacement exhaust systems. Yet, the 2 dB(A)
11 reduction would not be audible to the human ear either in
12 the maximum acceleration test mode, nor in normal operation.
13 Additionally, forcing technology that may
14 drastically affect the drivability or performance capability
15 in traffic may create safety hazards.
16 Inappropriate noise reductions may actually be
17 counterproductive to community noise reductions if owners
18 are tempted to regain drivability and performance by
19 illegally modifying the certified exhaust system.
20 We would suggest EPA specify only the 83 dB(A)
21 level until such time as in-field enforcement activity is
22 able to prevent owner modifications above that level.
23 On the subject of "The Selected Regulatory Levels
24 for Off-Road Motorcycles," there is no technical nor
25 operational justification for arbitrarily segmenting off-
26 road motorcycles into displacement categories above and
(213) 437-1317 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
59
1 below 170 cubic centimeters.
2 Weight and performance penalties associated with
3 the reduction of any sized off-road motorcycle below 86 dB(A)
4 will encourage owners to modify their exhaust system to try
5 to retain the perceived loss of performance.
g Cost penalties associated with replacement
7 exhaust systems certified below 86 dB(A) will encourage
8 owners to simply remove baffles, or entire mufflers, at
9 resultant noise increases of 20 to 30 dB(A).
10 By trying to force technology a few dB(A), EPA
11 will predictably be grossly increasing noise levels in the
12 most difficult to enforce areas of owner use, the off-road
13 environment.
14 We suggest an alternative noise measurement
15 method to simplify certification, and enforcement activities,
16 at a level equivalent to 86 dB(A).
17 The level for off-road motorcycles should be
18 set at 105 dB(A), using a twenty-inch stationary test
19 method for both certification and enforcement; and before
20 anyone in the audience relates 105 dB(A) to the numbers
21 we've been talking about so far, we're talking about a
22 measurement now only twenty-inches from the exhaust pipe,
23 and not fifty-feet from the exhaust pipe, as the other
24 levels that we have discussed previously.
25 Therefore, in our opinion, 105 dB(A) at twenty-
26 inches is the equivalent of 86 dB(A) at fifty-feet.
(213> 437 133? MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. <7U) $58 9400
-------
60
1 There is no relationship between the noise
2 propagation characteristics, or use patterns, in the off-
3 road environment, and the acceleration test procedure
4 selected by EPA.
5 In addition, safety hazards exist in maximum
6 acceleration tests of off-road motorccycles with specialized
7 tire tread patterns on concrete or sealed asphalt surfaces,
8 as required in the proposed EPA test method.
9 Greater consideration needs to be given to the
10 cost and logistical burdens placed on the replacement
11 exhaust system after-market manufacturers due to the
12 proposed certification testing and administration requirement
13 As we suggested for off-road motorcycle
14 certification, a twenty-inch stationary test method is
15 suggested for replacement exhaust system certification and
16 enforcement, with regulatory levels of 100 dB(A) for
17 street, and 105 dB(A) for off-road, replacement exhaust
18 systems.
19 This method of regulation would significantly
20 reduce the testing burden on the after-market manufacturers,
21 reduce personal injury laibility associated with acceleration
22 tests, make loan motorcycles more readily available for
23 testing, and eliminate the jeopardy involved in EPA's
24 proposal of certifying by the acceleration test method and
25 possibly failing an inspection by the stationary method.
26 As to "Lead Time," if future reductions below
(213) 07.1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALir.
<7U) 551-9400
-------
61
1 general technological capabilities are adopted, the lead
2 time should give recognition to the smaller motorcycle
3 manufacturers and the independent after-market manufacturers
4 so as not to create unfair competitive advantages to
5 companies which already dominate the marketplace.
5 Research and design facilities, sophisticated
7 instrumentation, and highly trained engineers, are not
8 widely available in the vast majority of companies being
9 affected by this regulation.
10 Regarding the "Acoustical Assurance Period,"
11 requiring the calculation of a Sound Level Degradation
12 Factor over a period of one year, or three thousand or six
13 thousand kilometers, is an unacceptable burden requiring
14 either an extra year of testing, or undefined guesswork
15 on the part of the manufacturer, with severe penalties for
16 noncompliance. The practical aspects of this part of the
17 regulation have not been adequately considered by EPA.
18 As to "Universal Mufflers," the individual model
19 testing and labeling requirements for replacement mufflers
20 effectively prevents the sale of a muffler which fits many
21 models, yet such a muffler is desirable when specific
22 mufflers are no longer available to replace deteriorated
23 mufflers on small volume motorcycles.
24 An appropriate labeling provision for universal
25 mufflers with submissions of a representative sample of
26 tests, or "worst case" model selection by EPA, would seem
(ID) 437.1327 MACAULEY flk MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSI »400
-------
62
1 to be a desirable alternative to unavailability of replaceraen
2 mufflers for obsolete or small volume motorcycles.
3 ' As to "Labeling," the model, and model year
4 designation, on replacement exhaust system labels creates
5 an arbitrary obsolesence of that product, even though"
6 compatability and sound level may remain within acceptable
7 limits on additional models for future model years.
8 Labeling of replacement exhaust systems with
9 model designations of their own, and specifying certification
10 compliance by written submission to EPA, would eliminate
11 costly stock obsolesent or inefficient, and possibly
12 inaccurate, relabeling of inventories.
13 Excessively wordy labeling copy, combined with
14 manufacturer, model, and model year information, on
15 replacement systems chat are certified for multiple models,
16 exceed a practical and aesthetic threshold of consumer
17 acceptability on a product as small and dependent on
18 attractive styling as a motorcycle exhaust system.
19 Labeling of exhaust systems intended for
20 unregulated motorcycles should not be required until the
2i effective date of the initial noise emission standard.
22 Without such an effective date specified, labeling on
23 exhaust systems for pre-1980 motorcycles would presumably
24 have to be accomplished immediately upon promulgation of
25 the final rule.
26 As to EPA's "Market Projections," the EPA
(213! 43703:7 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (71«) 551 »JOO
-------
63
1 projected two million new motorcycle unit sales annually,
2 from 1986 to 1990, in the absence of federal noise
3 regulations. Based on wholesale unit data from 1973 to
4 1975, the EPA projected annual increases of 14.97. and 14.0%
5 for 1976 and 1977 retail sales, respectively. Based on
g actual 1976 and 1977 data, substantiall smallers increases
7 of 11.8% in 1976, and only 2.97. in 1977, were achieved.
g For projections beyond 1977, the EPA failed to
9 consider the economic and technological burdens on
IQ manufacturers in order to comply with future federal noise
11 and exhaust emission regulations, which are expected to
12 severely retard the future growth of the industry.
13 The MIC feels that the EPA has overstated the
14 future potential growth rate of the market for new
15 motorcycles, and projects a gradual growth of motorcycle
IS sales to 1.3 million in 1981, with no further growth
17 expected throughout the 1980's should the NPRM be adopted.
18 As to the "Racing of Certified Motorcycles,"
19 the label on competition replacement exhaust systems should
20 be reworded to allow installation on. a certified street or
21 off-road motorcycle so long as that motorcycle is operated
22 in a closed course competition event, not necessarily
23 originally manufactured for closed course competition
24 events.
25 As to "Spark Arresters," spark arresters sold
26 separately should not be subject to certification as their
(313) 071337 MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551 »4
-------
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
function is not noise related, and is outside the authority
of EPA.
As to some "Legal Reservations," as this hearing
panel is aware, various legal questions involving the
authority of EPA under the Noise Control Act of 1972 have
been raised in the Case of Chrysler Corporation et al versus
EPA, Number 76-1569, in the District of Columbia Circuit
Court of Appeals. We do not think it is necessary to
reiterate those issues today.
We wish for the record, however, to incorporate,
by reference, on behalf of all MIC manufacturing members,
the legal arguments set forth in the briefs filed with the
Court in the Chrysler Corporation suit.
In addition to the legal arguments raised in the
Chrysler Corporation suit, EPA also filed amendments to
the truck noise regulations on December 5, 1977. These
amendments resulted from the Chrysler litigation, and were
designed to clarify and better define EPA's regulatory
authority under the Noise Control Act of 1972.
Our initial review of the proposed motorcycle
noise regulations indicates that not all of the amendments
agreed to for the truck manufacturers have been carried
over into the proposed motorcycle noise regulations. We
would, therefore, request that all clarifying amendments
set forth in the December 5, 1977, Federal Register notice
of EPA, be incorporated into any future motorcycle noise
(713) 417-1127
MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALir.
(7)4) 551-9400
-------
65
1 regulations.
2 We will, of course, identify the specific
3 regulations we are referring to in our written comments,
4 which will be submitted at a later date.
5 In summary, we believe the EPA has exceeded the
6 level of motorcycle noise emission standards "requisite
7 to protect the public health and welfare, taking into
8 account the magnitude and conditions of use of such
9 products, and the cost of compliance."
10 'We agree with the following EPA statements,
11 taken from their Federal Register notice:
12 "Much of the current impact from
13 motorcycles comes from owner-modified
14 motorcycles."
15 "When operated in a stream of traffic
16 dominated by other vehicles, new unmodified
17 motorcycles do not, at this time, contribute
18 greatly to overall traffic noise impact."
19 "Since motorcycles account for less
20 than two per cent of total vehicular
21 traffic mileage, reductions to overall
22 traffic noise levels and equivalent numbers
23 of people impacted due to Federal
24 motorfycle noise regulations are expected
25 to be relatively small."
26 "At regulatory levels below 80 dB(A),
CO) 4)7 1377
MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALir.
<7U) SS1.«400
-------
66
1 such penalties, as increased weight and
2 increased engine backpressure, may be
3 expected to have some appreciable impact
4 on vehicle performance characteristics."
5 "Excessive performance penalties
5 are associated with the level chosen.
7 This could increase the tendency of users
Q either to modify their off-road motorcycles,
9 or abuse the intended distinction between
10 genuine competition and non-competition
11 motorcycles by using uncontrolled
12 competition off-road motorcycles for
13 recreational trail riding."
14 "Although the removal of baffles
15 from a Federally regulated motorcycle
Jg exhaust system would constitute a
17 tampering violation of Federal law under
18 the provisions of the Noise Control Act,
19 this is and can be expected to remain a
20 major noise problem."
21 "Very few current models are
22 predicted to be able to meet the 78 dB(A)
23 requirement without substantial treatment
24 to all three major noise subsources,
25 those being exhaust, intake and engine
26 mechanical noise."
(JU) 437-1357 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. tANTA ANA. CAUir. (714) S5I-»400
-------
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"The Agency is aware that the
substantial redesign of current street
motorcycles necessitated by the 78 dB(A)
standard will make it difficult for
smaller manufacturers to reamin in the
U. S. market."
"Although smaller firms may have
fewer models requiring noise control
treatments to be made, several such firms
may nevertheless experience difficulty
in complying with the standards under
the proposed schedule of effective dates."
"Smaller manufacturers, which often
rely on superior performance for marketing
advantages, however, are expected to
experience difficulty in maintaining their
present positions at the proposed levels,
due to the considerable impacts to the
capabilities of current models. The 82
dB(A) regulatory level for large off-
road motorcycles is considered to be
technically achievable for almost all
current manufacturers without requiring
conversion to four-strokeengines.
However, the performance and cost impacts
of this level may make it unprofitable
(213) 437-1177
MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALIF.
(M«) 551 9400
-------
68
1 for some of these firms to remain in the
2 U. S. market.
3 "However, it is questionable
4 whether Bombardier, or many of the European
5 manufacturers, would continue exporting
g street motorcycles to the United States
7 with the establishment of a 78 dB(A)
g standard."
g "As with other smaller manufacturers,
jO the timing of the proposed standards may
11 be a significant factor in Harley-
12 Davidson's ability to manufacture motorcycles
13 at the proposed regulatory level."
14 "The proposed regulations are expected
15 to have a very substantial impact on the
15 replacement exhaust system industry. Of
17 the more than one hundred firms currently
18 in the market, most are small, low volume
19 enterprises, devoted exclusively to
20 manufacturing motorcycle exhaust systems,
21 with little or no capability for innovative
22 product design or development. Such firms
23 are not expected to be able to manufacture
24 exhaust systems for regulated motorcycles
25 which comply with these regulations."
26 "If demand reduction forecasts
4J7.UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 5SI-9400
-------
69
i based on historical relationships are
2 applicable, eventual reductions in
3 current U. S. motorcycle industry
4 employment resulting from the proposed
c Federal noise standards could range
c between three thousand and five thousand
n positions from future levels in the
g absence of noise regulations."
g Gentlemen, I submit that the regulatory levels
IQ and test methods that I have suggested, when coupled with
11 strong EPA leadership in community noise enforcement, will
12 protect the public health and welfare without the severe
13 inflationary costs, unemployment increases, and disruption
14 to the domestic market that accompany your proposal.
15 We strongly urge the EPA to adopt these, and the
15 other provisions of MIC's Model Motorcycle Noise Control
17 Program, which was provided to you in January of 1977.
18 Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and
19 I'll be pleased to answer any questions. I would particularl
20 like to answer a couple of questions that were brought up
21 about the California legislation with respect to motorcycles.
22 I was personally involved in those bills, and in the
23 legislative process, under which California's legislation
24 was developed.
25 First of all, to correct the record, California
26 accounts for some eleven per cent of motorcycle registrations
(211) 437.UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
70
1 not fifty per cent.
2 We did support the California legislation that
3 was passed in 1976. However, we did it only with the
4 confidence that EPA was moving on a predictable pattern of
5 passing preemptory regulations, at that time. We did not
g agree with the legislative levels which California passed.
7 The legislative process is one of compromise,
g not necessarily fact. Therefore, we compromised on the
9 long term level in order to stay in business until EPA
10 could preempt the California legislation.
11 The Legislature, if they would like to -- if
12 you would like to trace its history, developed these
13 standards originally with a panel that was convened in 1969,
14 which was given ninety days to come up with regulatory
15 levels for all motor vehicles in California, and that panel
16 did not include one person who was knowledgeable about
17 motorcycle technology.
18 (Inaudible comment from audience.)
19 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Got any more rebuttals you
20 want me to throw out there? (Laughter)
21 Thank you, Mr. Isely, for a very comprehensive
22 statement. We are always pleased to see proposals made to
23 us, as you have done here. You certainly have indicated
24 several items which we will have to reconsider in the
25 regulations on a technical basis.
26 I have several questions that I'd like to pose to
(J13) O7-1J77 MACAULEY A MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 551-9400
-------
1 you, as one of the major representatives of the motorcycle
2 industry. Let me first turn to my enforcement colleagues.
3 I know they have several.
4 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes. Mr. Isely, I guess that
5 the sum thrust of your argument for the adoption of
5 standards by EPA, to me, rather than ask questions and jump
7 to conclusions, is that you want EPA to preempt the state
8 and locals from adopting noise standards.
9 As I understand, the current level of motorcycles
10 is around the 83 level right now for street bikes, give or
11 take. It's a rough mean.
12 MR. ISELY: That's right.
13 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And your suggestion that we go
14 to an 83 standard merely codifies the current levels of
15 bikes on the street now, and effectively preempts any state
16 or local from coming up with any more restrictive regulations
17 MR. ISELY: Yes. We prefer a single, uniform,
18 national regulation, because of the manufacturing
19 consequences of a vehicle like motorcycles. We do not feel
20 that a special motorcycle for the State of California, or
21 Florida, or Oregon, would be economically justifiable.
22 Therefore, we would like noise rules to be uniform
23 throughout the United States.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes, but you'd like it to be
25 uniform at no cost to the industry at the current level,
26 no change at all, is what you're suggesting.
O7-1JJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. tANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 5SI-9400
-------
72
1 MR. ISELY: No, I would suggest that, if the
2 noise level of new motorcycles are identified appropriately
3 to be the cause of motorcycle noise complaints to society,
4 the industry would achieve, too, to drop the noise. The
5 industry has, themselves, dropped noise levels from a quite
6 common 92 or 93 dB(A) in the late 1960's to the current 83
7 dB(A) level.
8 What we are saying is, further reductions beyond
9 83 dB(A) seem to be inappropriate until either enforcement
10 activity or some kind of regulation which stopped owners
11 from modifying their motorcycles back up to unregulated
12 levels.
13 In other words, we are getting the cart before.
14 the horse. We are penalizing industry and consumers
15 cost-wise before we are addressing the major cause.
16 MR. KOZLOWSKI: But, if new bikes are not a
17 source of noise, then the Feds oughtn't to be involved in
18 regulating new bikes under the Noise Control Act. We should
19 only be in there, I would argue, if there's going to be
20 some health and welfare benefit to the public, and not as
21 a mechanism to provide protection for the industry on a
22 national basis from people and local areas who perceive
23 themselves to have a particular local problem.
24 MR. ISELY: No, I would submit that there are
25 some forty states right now that do not have new motorcycle
26 noise levels, and the Federal Government would be moving to
(211)417.132? MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA, CALIF. <7U> J5I-HOO
-------
73
1 protect those people to the same level that certain states
2 have initiated on their own.
3 ' MR. KOZLOWSKI: But there's no protection,
4 because the bikes in those areas are in the range of 80 to
5 83. Well, okay, without debating.
6 MR. ISLEY: Yes, as an industry voluntary
7 compliance feature.
8 MR. KOZLOWSKI: What kind of performance penalties
9 would you anticipate would be experienced as we went from
10 an 83 standard down to an 80 standard for street bikes?
11 MR. ISLEY: "Performance" meaning in terms of
12 horsepower loss . . .
13 MR. KOZLOWSKI: That's right.
14 MR. ISLEY: . . . and acceleration, ostensibly?
15 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes.
16 MR. ISLEY: I don't have that knowledge,
17 personally. I think it would be more appropriate to talk to
18 a manufacturer who has been testing in that area.
19 MR. KOZLOWSKI: But you did indicate that the
20 change in standards would incur performance penalties, so
21 you are knowledgeable there is some, but you don't know
22 what it is?
23 MR. ISLEY: That's right.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And I guess the same thing when
25 you go from 86 to 82 on a road bike? You would have the
26 same problem?
<2U) 437 13J7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUF. (714)5589400
-------
74
1 MR. ISLEY: This information, by the way, is
2 covered in your independent research also.
3 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I understand. I was asking for
4 your perspective too.
5 Why won't bikes last at the noise level for a
6 year?
7 MR. ISLEY: I didn't say that they wouldn't
8 last for a year.
9 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Then why shouldn't there be an
10 Acoustical Assurance Period for one year?
11 MR. ISLEY: Well, I'm saying, the Acoustical
12 Assurance Period does not provide a technically defensible
13 method for a manufacturer to respond to any enforcement
14 action. He either has to test it for a year and find out
15 what the degradation factor is, or he has to involve what
16 you call "engineering judgment," and I'm saying, this is an
17 unfair penalty to place upon a relatively unsophisticated
18 manufacturer to just say, "Well, I think it will last a
19 year, and that's my engineering judgment."
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: But you do think they will last
21 a year?
22 MR. ISLEY: Do I think? I don't . . .
23 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, does the industry think,
24 and you, as their representative?
25 MR. ISLEY: I don't think any testing has been
26 done on Acoustical Assurance or sound level degradation.
(713) 417-U]? MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 551 9*00
-------
75
1 It was a surprise in your regulations.
2 MR. KOZLOWSKI: So you are saying that you don't
3 know what the noise levels of the bikes will be over a
4 period of a year?
5 MR. ISLEY: That's right. But you are saying,
6 you would have the authority to stop a person then from
7 selling his products if his engineering judgment differs
8 from your engineering judgment. I don't think that's an
9 equitable way to enforce a regulation.
10 MR. KOZLOWSKI: That's not what the regulations
11 say.
12 You raised a good point on universal mufflers,
13 and you said you would give us more specifics on it later.
14 Would you give us more specifics on how we can regulate
15 universal mufflers consistent with the philosophy in our
16 enforcement scheme, but without requiring it be tested on
17 every bike?
18 MR. ISLEY: Certainly. We gave this to your
19 Office of Noise Abatement Control a year and four months
20 ago as part of our noise control program.
21 MR. KOZLOWSKI: That's all. Thank you.
22 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. You've got cost information
23 supplied here on different regulatory levels, and how they
24 would affect prices of replacement exhaust systems.
25 MR. ISLEY: I used the cost information that was
26 in your document. I did not develop new cost information.
(IUt 4)7 mr MACAULEY * MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551 9*00
-------
76
1 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Have your members, your
2 replacement exhaust manufacturer members, commented on
3 those price increases as to whether they are adequate and
4 reasonable to their industry?
5 MR. ISLEY: To my knowledge, several of the
6 after-market exhaust manufacturers will be commenting at
7 these hearings, or providing written comments. They were
8 not willing to share this cost information with their trade
9 association, so t'his will be independent submissions.
10 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. One question -- I guess
11 it's a misunderstanding on my part — what you propose for
12 the replacement exhaust system certification is that we
13 set two numbers, 100 dB(A) for the street motorcycle, and
14 105 dB(A) for the off-road motorcycle, using the twenty-inch
15 test?
16 MR. ISLEY: Yes,
17 MR. PETROLATI: We proposed something very
18 similar in our regulations. What do you see are the
19 benefits of your methods versus ours? I'm not sure I
20 understand your comments.
21 MR. ISLEY: Our method would use the same test
22 for certification as being used by enforcement. It's the
23 same test. And we would prefer a single uniform regulatory
24 level to be tested to, both for the purpose of certification
25 and for the purpose of enforcement, so that an after-market
26 manufacturer isn't placed in the position of performing an
(213) 437 UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. tANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SS«.f400
-------
77
1 acceleration test certifying to the EPA that they do meet
2 86 dB(A), and then having that motorcycle be inspected on
3 the street by a twenty-inch test and finding that, perhaps,
4 they exceed the original motorcycle manufacturer's
5 stationary level, which is going to be used for enforcement
g purposes.
7 MR. PETROLATI: All right. These numbers --
3 these standards — that were chosen by you, I guess, take
9 into account that any motorcycle that would pass the EPA 83
10 standard would also meet these levels?
11 MR. ISLEY: Not any motorcycle, no. It is
12 within a certain per cent of correlation ~ which I didn't
13 bring with me today -- but it's a relatively . . .
14 MR. PETROLATI: High competence level, in
15 other words?
16 MR. ISLEY: Yes. It is, in our opinion, an
17 acceptable level of competence.
18 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I guess, a further point:
19 We have put into a replacement exhaust system regulation
20 a Stationary Test Procedure very similar to the procedure
21 you're proposing to be used by the replacement exhaust
22 system manufacturer in showing us that he is complying to
23 the EPA standards. It is your envisionment, I guess,
24 taking this down the line, that the replacement exhaust
25 system manufacturer will not use that stationary test, in
26 determining his compliance, and will instead use the
(3D) OM3J7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 5SI-V400
-------
78
I acceleration test?
2 MR. ISLEY: Let's say you have given him the
3 test to use, but you haven't given him a level to certify
4 to. You delegate that responsibility to the original
5 equipment manufacturer.
g MR. PETROLATI: Correct.
7 MR. ISLEY: We do not feel that the original
g equipment manufacturer should have the authority to specify
9 exhaust noise levels for the after-market.
10 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I guess you're concerned,
11 then, that the after-market manufacturer wouHhave to meet
12 the original equipment level rather than the EPA standard
13 in that stationary test?
14 MR. ISLEY: That's correct.
15 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I understand. For the
IS off-road motorcycle, now, you proposed a 105 dB standard
17 for the off-road motorcycle because the acceleration test
18 is not appropriate for measuring noise from the off-road
19 motorcycle set, is my understanding?
20 MR. ISLEY: Yes. There are several problems in
21 using the acceleration test for an off-road motorcycle.
22 First of all, it is not an equitable way to judge noise
23 levels in the off-road environment. You are measuring the
24 noise emissions from a motorcycle that will be used in
25 vegetated areas, in soft dirt, in hilly areas, and so forth.
26 You are measuring that noise on a level concrete surface
(113) O7 U57 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 551-9400
-------
79
1 that would reflect more noise than actually incurred at the
2 place those motorcycles are used.
3 • Secondly, in performing the test, off-road
4 motorcycles have a much higher horsepower-to-weight ratio,
5 and therefore, the risk to the person performing those tests
6 is greater, as he attempts to accelerate at full throttle
7 on a hard concrete surface using knobby tires that are not
8 designed for on-road operation.
9 Thirdly, the conducting of an acceleration test
10 is far more expensive and time consuming than conducting a
11 twenty-inch stationary test. Therefore, there's a cost
12 burden associated also.
13 MR. PETROLATI: Okay, I guess to carry the point
14 a little further. The way I understand your statement is
15 that the stationary test being proposed has no relationship
16 whatsoever to the acceleration test. Consequently, the
17 acceleration test, first of all, should not be used, because
18 it does not adequately show the type of noise levels that
19 the off-road motorcycle will eventually more or less put
20 into the environment.
21 The stationary test you're proposing is more or
22 less not related in any manner to the acceleration test?
23 MR. ISLEY: Neither are related to off-road use.
24 MR. PETROLATI: I guess I don't understand, then,
25 why you would propose a stationary test, this same stationary
26 test, for the street motorcycle, in the replacement exhaust
(313) 437-1127 MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 551 9400
-------
80
1 system complex?
2 MR. ISLEY: Mainly as one of availability of
3 models for testing. The after-market manufacturer can
4 borrow from a local motorcycle dealer motorcycles for
5 testing as long as he does not accumulate mileage on them,
6 or run them through the risk of being spilled through the
7 acceleration test.
8 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Your point is, then, you
9 want a stationary test. My point is, why don't you have a
10 stationary test, or why don't you propose a stationary
11 test that relates more directly to the acceleration mode,
12 rather than the test that you propose, since it is the
13 acceleration noise of the street motorcycle that's being
14 concerned with?
15 MR. ISLEY: I'm saying the twenty-inch test
16 because it has a relatively high level of documentation,
17 both through our independent research and your research, so
18 far. If your ignition interrupt test at ten-feet proves to
19 be a feasible solution, we would probably support that, but
20 we are all waiting for more information to come on that test.
21 MR, PETROLATI: Okay. Thank you very much.
22 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Naveen.
23 MR. NAVEEN: Mr. Isley, I would like to go back
24 to the acoustical assurance period for just one second.
25 What are your views about EPA's suggestion that whatever
26 level we choose should be met for an appropriate period of
(2)3) 437-13); MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (7N) $51.9400
-------
81
1 time, assuming there is an appropriate level whatever that
2 time period might be? What are your views about that? And
3 I'm not trying to engage in a legal argument.
4 MR. ISLEY: We don't object to the concept of
5 some assurance period over a period of time. What we object
g to is the practical aspects of requiring an after-market
7 manufacturer to, by some unknown source, certify this to
8 you, and then risk his right to sell his product on whether
9 you do or don't agree on a non-specific test.
IQ MR. NAVEEN: May we disagree with the practical
11 aspects of requiring a manufacture to make, in our regulation
12 a good faith determination what an SLF is. I'm just curious
13 whether it's practical for us to think that motorcycles
14 should meet a standard for a certain length of time.
15 MR. ISLEY: That's not impractical at all. It's
1$ the method that is not definitive,
17 MR, NAVEEN: One last comment. As one of the
18 attorneys involved in the argument in the Chrysler case,
19 I want to assure you, and others here today, that we will
20 follow the mandate of the court however it works out, one
21 way or the other, and we will incorporate all comments and
22 arguments regarding the issues raised in those cases on
23 the truck and air compressor regulations, because they are
24 involved here, and we do recognize that there is an overlap,
25 and we are very sensitive to that.
28 That's all that I have.
(713) 437 13JT MACAULEY * MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSS-»400
-------
82
1 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Mr. Is ley, can I follow up on
2 the AAP? I think I heard an encouraging word, and I want
3 to jump on it.
4 If your basic disagreement with the AAP is how
5 we go about doing it, would it be acceptable to the industry
8 if we said that we'll postpone AAP for one year while the
7 industry is required — I shouldn't use that term -- while
8 the industry gathers the one year data, and then the second
9 year the regulation is in effect propose an AAP? Would it
10 be acceptable to the industry to require some sort of
H definitive testing program that a manufacturer could go
12 through to make his SL sound level degradation factor
13 determination, and then say, having once done that it's
14 okay, but you have to do the testing?
15 We took the approach that we thought it was
16 better for the industry to determine for the company, to
17 determine how best to make that determination. If he
18 didn't have to test, great. If he thought he wanted to do
19 the test, okay, as to come up with a definitive list.
20 What you're suggesting is that we ought to lay —
21 perhaps what you're suggesting, I'm not trying to put words
22 in your mouth — we ought to lay out a system, and then the
23 AAP would be acceptable.
24 MR. ISLEY: Either a system, and when you say
25 that, I hesitate to agree, because there are -- of course,
26 our costs associated and administrative burdens associated
mi> o; Hi; MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7ui 55$ »
-------
83
1 with any system. We do not want to tie the industry up in
2 further cost and in further administrative hearings, but at
3 a minimum, yes, time would be important, because it's very
4 difficult to accumulate the equipment of a year's use to
5 make an engineering judgment.
g I would certainly take some of these proposals
7 back to our Technical Committee. I am certainly not
g authorized to come here and negotiate test procedures on
g behalf of the industry to your hearing panel, I ...
IQ MR. KOZLOWSKI: I understand. I am just trying
11 to get a feel for what the industry thinks, through you.
12 That doesn't mean any particular person in the industry —
13 not what a person in the industry thinks, but, just a
14 feeling.
15 The other thing I might suggest now is that the
lg bikes are currently around the 83 decibel level. The
17 regulation won't go into effect until about a year or so.
18 And there is no reason why you couldn't, now, get that
19 information without having the Feds make the precise request,
20 and be ready on the effective date, if what you need is
21 that year's time,
22 I would appreciate it if the industry would
23 comment on those particular points.
24 MR. 1SLEY: Okay.
25 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you.
26 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Isley, your comments on the
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAur. (7U> SS§.»400
-------
84
1 standards that EPA has proposed, the 83 decibel-80 decibel
2 set of standards, am I stating your position correctly in
3 that, really, the motorcycle noise problem is almost
4 exclusively, right now, a tampering problem, that if we got
5 rid of the tampering problem, the current motorcycles at the
6 83 decibel level are not bothering people, and will not,
7 and, ..as we go into the future, are not expected to bother
g the people, and that EPA should be, essentially, spending
g all of its resources about worrying about tampering, when it
10 should hold the line at the status quo, if you will, at the
11 83 decibel level?
12 MR. ISLEY: It's not that black and white. I am
13 not saying that an 83 decibel motorcycle wouldn't bother
14 people if it were heard in a vacuum, if there were no
15 louder motorcycles than that.
16 What I'm saying is that we need to balance the
17 environmental effect being felt right now, the motorcycle
18 noise complaints that are being felt right now by the
19 excessively loud motorcycles, before we blindly go ahead and
20 start reducing to 80 or 78 dB(A) at- very high cost.
21 We feel we have documentation, and I think you
22 have documentation, that the motorcycles that are generating
23 complaints, as you heard earlier here this morning, in Los
24 Angeles, or Carlsbad, or anywhere, are above 83 db(A).
25 Therefore, if the motorcycles above 83 dB(A) are generating
26 the impact on society, why should we address lower and lower
(211) 4)7-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSl-9400
-------
85
1 very costly reductions below that level until we find a
2 way, together, to stop those that are 90 and 100 dB(A)?
3 MR. EDWARDS; I think there might be a problem
4 in all of our thinking about the subject of complaints.
5 People do write into us very often, they write to their
6 state and local folks, complaining about motorcycle noises .
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: And their congressmen.
8 MR. EDWARDS: And they write to their congressmen,
9 certainly.
10 ... and EPA pays a lot of attention to them.
11 But, you know, our biacoustical studies -- we can not just
12 look at where people are complaining. We have to look at
13 the sound emissions from the various sources that are out
14 there. And our studies show — and we are in support there
15 by our acoustical staff -- show that unmodified motorcycles,
16 as Mr. Girdler pointed oui before you, rather proudly --
17 "Gee, you know, most of these motorcycles out there are
18 not modified" — but it's a whole population of vehicles
19 out there.
20 If you want to get technical and perhaps give
21 it a different name, we have modified motorcycles and they
22 are all green, and we have unmodified motorcycles and they
23 are all blue, that are on the road, so as we look down into
24 the future, are these vehicles going to be bothering people.
25 Now, you are familiar, I am sure, with EPA's
26 proposed truck standards , . .
-------
86
1 MR. ISLEY: Yes.
2 MR. EDWARDS: . . . and with the recent proposal
3 on buses, and EPA's activities yet to come on light
4 vehicles and tires. Traffic noise, not just motorcycle noise
5 is a subject of great concern to the agency, not only from
g the complaint standpoint, but from the standpoint of our
7 studies as to where the noise is coming from, and how it
g is impacting people.
g Now, I think, as a representative of the
IQ manufacturers, you know how important lead time is to
11 manufacturers. They need a goal, a standard, set out in
12 front of them several years in advance so that they can go
13 through their design cycle and hit the target. Wouldn't
14 you agree that this is a very important thing to them?
15 MR. ISLEY: Lead time is important notice.
16 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. And, hasn't there been
17 experience in some states where standards have been put on
18 the books and taken away at some later time that have caused
19 havoc with motorcycle lead time design criteria, and so
20 forth?
21 Could you comment, then, on the appropriateness
22 of EPA's attacking the motorcycle problem, as a whole, at
23 this time, rather than going at it, perhaps, in a sequential
24 basis, as you suggested?
25 MR. ISLEY: I think, in a matter of priorities,
26 the EPA should have, perhaps, named modified motorcycles as
(213) 437.1127 MACAULEY fit MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S5I-9400
-------
87
1 a high priority, and unmodified motorcycles, in its proper
2 perspective, as two per cent of the traffic noise problem,
3 and'get on to naming cars, trucks, buses, trash compactors,
4 and other motor sources that generate more traffic noise
5 impact than unmodified motorcycles.
6 MR. EDWARDS: You think trash compactors are --
7 I don't know the statistics.
8 MR. ISLEY: That was a personal viewpoint, because
9 I live across from a supermarket.
10 MR. EDWARDS: The fact is, there are many, many
11 vehicles out there, but the motorcycles represent a greater
12 number of vehicles, even through they are a small number out
13 in the ttaffic stream, when they are in isolated situations.
14 An 82 decibel motorcycle is still a loud noise
15 source, and can cause all the biacoustical effects that we
16 are familiar with in dealing with noise.
17 Could you reflect further on the -- You said that
18 when you get down to 80 ...
19 MR. ISLEY: I might — if you want to count
20 numbers rather than percentage of traffic volume -- I might,
21 perhaps, name lawnmowers as being more volume-ess than
22 motorcycles are.
23 MR. EDWARDS: Okay, but I think, again, perhaps
24 it's a fallacious logic that we should only concentrate on
25 the products where there's millions of them, or billions of
26 them, out there, causing all these impacts.
(I1J> or 13J7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 55a-»400
-------
88
i If there is a produce that is making a lot of
2 noise that is bother certain segments of society, whether
2 it is, regardless of their numbers, if it is controllable,
A people are bothere by it. I think this is one point I
e was going to discuss with Mr. Girdler, the controllability
c of many noise sources that is the bothering part of it. If
* you hear a noise source like the children which perhaps is
o not controllable, it does not bother you as much as the
g knowledge that yours is a product that could be quieted at a
IQ reasonable cost, and that is part of the irritating factor
11 associated with hearing sound. Okay.
j2 On another subject now. You said that when we
13 get down below the 83 decibel level for street motorcycles,
14 and 86 decibels for off-road motorcycles, this will then
j«j cause a great tendency to have the owners irodify their
jg products; is that correct?
17 MR. ISLEY: Yes. I think, increasingly, as you
jg get below those levels, the owners are going to perceive a
19 loss of performance, loss of drivability.
20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Isn't it at least possible th
21 we're in a situation where perhaps the automobile industry
22 was in the 1950's, where power was the thing to have, and
23 the industry has somewhat matured, and now the people accept
24 quieter powerful vehicles, and I see a tendency towards that
25 in the motorcycle industry.
26 And again, like I said, we are looking a decade
(713) 437-13:7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAtir. (?U) 551-9400
-------
89
j down the road in and out of the motorcycle business continuously,
2 We are trying to do, set our regulations now, and go on to
3 other products. So, when we're looking at that decade down
4 the road, isn't it possible that the situation will mature
5 somewhat and people will accept quieter products, quieter
g off-road motorcycles and quieter street motorcycles, without
1 this increase in tendency to modify?
g MR. ISLEY: We.ll, that certainly is a possibility,
9 but again, it's a matter of degree. Perhaps, in looking a
IQ decase down the road, perhaps you should reserve the exact
11 level to be set until we see if the immediate efforts in the
12 enforcement field might not reduce the level of impact of
13 motorcycle noise.
14 I don't think there's anything magical about 78
15 versus 80. You know, and I know, if a motorcycle test were
lg being conducted in this parking lot right there, you couldn't
17 tell, and I couldn't tell, a motorcycle driving by at 78
18 dB(A) versus 80 dB(A). Two decibels is not perceivable.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. This is also a comment, a
20 statement that is made on noise regulations, and I think it
21 is equally applicable to many environmental regulations,
22 when you're trying to pick a point and saying, "This is
23 what is acceptable, and that is not acceptable." Obviously,
24 you're in a grey area. And the question of perceived
25 difference, at least to my mind, is not necessarily relevant;
26 or statistical surveys, we know that if you subject an entire
(JU) 07-13:7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAur. (714) 551-7400
-------
90
j population to 80 decibels, and the 78 decibels, there is
2 a tremendous difference, whether or not your ear can make
3 the distinction between 78 and 80, because, as an example,
4 there is another environmental area, the exposure to carbon
5 monoxide, which you can't detect at all, you can't tell if
g it's in the room, and yet, differences in the levels of
7 carbon monoxide are going to make a different impact on your
g body, so this differentialability, which has been brough up
g many times, which at least, in my opinion, is, perhaps,
IQ erroneously applied.
H MR. ISLEY: The only thing that you did not
12 discuss in that is the cost of two hundred million dollars
13 per year . . .
14 MR. EDWARDS: I understand there is a tremendous
15 economic difference, but all I'm trying to do is discuss
IS the concept that you feel that just because I can't tell the
17 difference between two decibels, therefore, it is not
18 something we should do. It's sort of a salami game. You
19 just cut off a little bit off the end until you're not
20 doing anything at all.
21 I've got just one other subject that I want to
22 touch on, and that was the small manufacturers that you
23 mentioned. As far as your membership goes, when you talk
24 about a small manufacturer now, are you talking about a
25 manufacturer with small U.S. sales, or a small corporate
26 entity?
(313) 07 UJ7 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 558-9400
-------
91
j MR. ISLEY: The manufacturers who belong to, and
2 whom I am representing here today, are represented through
3 their United States distributors. Therefore, I presume
4 their comments, incorporated here, have to do with their
5 United States availability of products.
5 Some of them, yes, are part of very large
7 international organizations. However, they are not large
g in the motorcycle -- even in the worldwide motorcycle --
9 market, much less, the United States motorcycle market.
10 MR. EDWARDS: I guess I did not understand your
11 answer, then. In other words, you're saying, when you say
12 "small manufacturer," you're talking about a small worldwide
13 motorcycle manufacturing capability?
14 MR. ISLEY: Yes.
15 MR. EDWARDS: Don't these manufacturers have to
16 respond to all the rest of the pressures on the motorcycle,
17 or the manufacture of any product, to stay competitive with
18 everyone else, which, in times of change in taste by the
19 consumer, involve a great deal of research and development
20 of new products continuously?
21 Noise is just one of the many things that they
22 have to fold into their R&D cycle, and this is very heavily
23 considered in the lead times that were put into these
24 regulations.
25 I think, perhaps, there is somewhat undue emphasis
26 on these smaller manufacturers not having the design
(713) O7.1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir (714) 551-9400
-------
92
1 capability to do it in time because we have, I think,
2 reflected quite well, the market lead times necessitated
3 by these so-called smaller firms.
4 MR. ISLEY: Well, my point is that without a
5 large benefit to the public, EPA is, perhaps, accelerating
g the demise of these small manufacturers from the U. S.
7 marketplace.
Q MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Is ley.
9 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I am the last one up. Got a
10 couple for you, if you will bear with us. You've been here
11 for about an hour. I appreciate it. You're an important
12 person in this industry, and we obviously value your
13 comments.
14 Would you tell me what you referred to as a "noted
15 retirement community"?
16 MR. ISLEY: St. Petersburg, Florida.
17 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Not Orange County?
18 MR. ISLEY: No. I think Orange County is a
19 rather middle-of-the-road environment.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Good. Just want to be sure
21 that we've got the middle-of-the-road folks you're talking
22 about in these regulations. Is Washington, D.C., a noted
23 retirement community?
24 MR. ISLEY: No. I was only referring to St.
25 Petersburg, which is a rather unusual place to hold a
26 hearing.
(?t3) 437-1J77 MACAULEY & MANNING. BANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSI 9400
-------
93
1 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, actually I Chink, it's
2 a very delightful place to hold a hearing. (Laughter) I
3 wanted Puerto Rico, but there was some questions about
4 taxpayers' money being spent for that. Obviously, I'm
5 being facetious.
$ What we've tried to do here is balance where the
7 hearings are held throughout the country. We even venture
8 into places such as Salt Lake City occasionally, as you
9 know, and EPA is not exactly persona grata there.
10 Some of the conservative views are held in these
11 respective environmental controls, so we try to balance
12 these out by holding hearings around the country so we can
13 get as broad as possible differences of opinion, how they
14 can be brought to bear on our regulations.
15 MR. ISLEY: Mr. Thomas, is it not possible that
16 the EPA representatives in St. Petersburg perhaps generated
17 some comments in support of the regulations by nature of a
18 newspaper article that has been brought to our attention?
19 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think that's probably true.
20 For the record, as you know, I have told your organization
21 already, those were unauthorized statements that were made
22 down there, and formal retraction to your organization is
23 in order, but, nonetheless, the point remains, we like to
24 hold our hearings where we can get as quite as possible
25 diversity of views, and retirement communities have brought
2" to our attention, in particular, their concerns about
(213) 4J7-UJ7 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
94
1 motorcycle noise, and we think they have a hearing right
2 as well. Some of those folks don't travel quite as much
3 as others do.
4 I want to talk to only two points here, sir.
5 Are you familiar with the recent hearings held in Washington,
6 D. C., by both the Senate Committee on Environment and
7 Public Works, and the House of Representatives committee,
8 both of those addressing the Noise Concrol Act?
9 MR. ISLEY: Yes, asking the EPA to accelerate
10 their efforts.
11 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Yes. I don't believe that
12 your organization has made representation to either of
13 those committees in their review of the existing legislation.
14 MR. ISLEY: No, we have not testified. We've
15 merely monitored the hearings.
16 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Fair enough, sir. I wanted
17 to bring your attention in here your comment that EPA should
18 commit large staff and financial resources to the task of
19 assisting communities in in-use enforcement activities.
20 Under present legislation, we are very closely
21 originally restricted for how much assistance we can actually
22 provide. We have no grant authorities under the Act, and
23 we're quite limited insofar as staff funds are available
24 for offering such assistance to the communities.
25 I would suggest, as opposed to bringing this to
26 EPA's attention, you make, you may care to direct this to
(713) 437 1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) JS».»400
-------
95
1 both houses of the U. S. Congress at this point since they
2 are actively considering revisions to the law.
3 MR. ISLEY: We would be glad to.
4 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Isley, what is your
5 organization doing to convince -- substitute the word
S "educate" -- motorcyclists not to modify their bikes to make
7 more noise?
8 MR. ISLEY: I could have brought probably a
9 fifteen minute slide presentation. Since 1970, we have
10 prodcued TV spots, radio commercials, public awareness
H programs for the industry in trade magazines. We actively
12 develop programs for state, county, local enforcement
13 activities. We have noise control programs for race tracks,
14 for enduro racing events, for motorcycle use facilities,
15 and the land use area. I would be glad to give you a long
16 list of activities we are engaged in.
17 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Would you consider those
18 activities pretty comprehensive?
19 MR. ISLEY: Yes. I think we have addressed
20 what we have identified as major noise problems.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Specifically, Mr. Isley,
22 addressing the motorcycle after-market tampering problem,
23 the modifications to exhaust systems. I take it you have
24 had an active program to educate, instruct, devise, help,
25 to reduce that problem?
26 MR. ISLEY: Yes, we've had an active program
(213) 4)7.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (7)4) S5I-»*00
-------
96
1 in providing public awareness materials. We have not had
2 budgets to educate law enforcement officers, to purchase
g media space — in this area has been public awareness or
4 public information.
5 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Isley, why haven't you
g had budgets to do those kinds of things?
7 MR. ISLEY: You will have to ask my board of
g directors that.
g CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I would like to ask them that,
10 at this time, through you.
11 MR. ISLEY: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Speaking on behalf of the
13 United Stages Government, you have nineteen members who
14 are manufacturers and distributors of approximately ninety
15 per cent of the motorcycles sold in the United States. You
IB have thirteen members who manufacture and distribute
17 approximately seventy-five per cent of the motorcycle
18 replacement exhaust systems sold in the United States. If
19 you and your organization were serious about this, and
20 these are very substantial firms in many respects, I think
21 you would agree. Some of them are quite small. But, where
22 is the budget, where is the commitment on the part of your
23 organization in attempting to solve- this problem, if I
24 may finish my editorializing . . .
25 MR. ISLEY: Surely.
26 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: . . . and then you've got your
(213) 4)7-1127 MACAULEY 8» MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALir. (714) SS« 9400
-------
97
1 shot here.
2 If, in fact, you were serious, let's don't get
3 the government into this business, let's let the industry
4 solve this problem first.
5 MR. ISLEY: I would agree with that. The
g government, however, is in this problem, and we are trying
7 to guide the government into supporting those issues that
8 we have identified as the major noise complaints.
g Yes, you can criticize that the industry has not
10 spent enough money to prevent tampering, but we are as
11 frustrated as you are as to an effective way to prevent
12 tampering. We think that the rules that you are proposing,
13 we are supporting the labeling, we are supporting the
14 identification of competition machines versus off-road,
15 we are supporting a great deal of what you are doing as
16 being a true assistance to the local enforcement community.
17 We will now, once your rules are in effect,
18 change our efforts over into more educational, along that
19 field, but we are probably as frustrated as you are about
20 how to, within our financial resources, influence human
21 behavior, when it comes to putting on seat belts or keeping
22 your motorcycle quiet.
23 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Isley, we certainly agree,
24 but I think, in dealing with this element of the population
25 that's causing, as we mutually agree, a substantial part
26 of the problem, they are more likely to listen to you, the
<2U) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SS8-»400
-------
98
1 people who manufacture the motorcycles, their products that
2 they are using and they're modifying, they are more likely
3 to listen to you than they are the folks with the little
4 green hats in Washington, D. C., speaking on behalf of
5 environmental protection. Wouldn't you agree? If you
$ can't convince them, how are we going to convince them?
7 MR. ISLEY: I don't know, and I think that's
8 something we need to address together. I don't think we
9 need to shout at'each other. I'm saying your program is
10 off balance. I'm not criticizing you for not recognizing
11 the problem.
12 If you need more authority and budget from
13 Congress to do this, we will certainly do our part and see
14 that you get it.
15 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I'd like to hope that at least
16 we get a matching fund program going there on behalf of
17 the industry, if you're really as concerned in your
18 organization as its representatives say they are. I'm
19 not saying they're not.
20 MR. ISLEY: Our industry, in recognizing another
21 problem area, that of motorcycle safety, has indeed created
22 a foundation that is spending a million dollars a year in
23 rider education. Our industry is not drifting along merely
24 selling products without recognizing the social implications
25 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: You would, therefore, be
26 prepared to address with your board of directors the
(III) 437 U27 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
99
1 question that I've posed to you here?
2 - MR. ISLEY: Absolutely.
3 ' CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you. I appreciate that.
4 Do you know, in your organization, after-market exhaust
5 manufacturers who market products which, if placed on, say,
g California motorcycles, would cause those motorcycles to
1 exceed the standard . . .
8 MR. ISLEY: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: ... the California standard?
10 MR. ISLEY: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: What have you done to get
12 these folks turned around?
13 MR. ISLEY: We have encouraged them to obey the
14 California law. However, our Association is one where they
15 participate voluntarily. We have no enforcement authority.
16 We have no authority to set standards for those people.
17 So, we are encouraging them.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Has it had any effect?
19 MR. ISLEY: Yes. I think the after-market
20 systems that are available today are notably quieter than
21 those that were available five years ago. I think the
22 after-market has responded with advertising, that I can
23 show you, that recognizes the importance of operating quiet
24 mufflers. I think they have changed, to some degree, their
25 advertising themes to that of styling, of fit, of performance
26 while maintaining quiet exhaust systems. There is a
(IU) 4J7-1377 MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
100
1 definite consciousness of the noise problem to the after-
2 market industry.
2 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Isley, you responded ably
A to my questions. I appreciate that very much. There were
5 many questions posed to you by the panelists here. I
c would call for a response from your executive board on the
1 questions I posed, and as far as receiving your comments
g on the formal record.
g Are there any questions from the floor? If
IQ you will bear with me a moment, please.
II MR. ISLEY: Surely.
12 (Whereupon, the page handed
13 Chairman Thomas a comment.)
14 We will place that question in the record.
15 (Question from Mr.. Chet Corners:
15 Isn't it true that engine back-
17 pressure becomes of some significance
18 only at high range speed? Then it stands
19 to reason that very little, if any at all,
20 performance loss will take place at normal
21 operating speeds. I can see a tuned
22 exhaust on a pro-bike used in formal
23 money competition, by why a facsimile for
24 a street bike? A rider, reasonably
25 obeying posted speed limits, would never
26 miss the small loss of H.P., since
O!3) 4J7 13J7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUF. (7)4)551-9400
-------
101
1 he/she is not, or should not, be racing
2 on city streets.)
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: All right. Thank you very
4 much, sir. We will take a ten minute break, please, at
5 this point. We will receive one more witness before the
6 luncheon break. The next witness after the ten minute
7 break will be Mr. Jack Swing, representing the State of
8 California.
9 (Whereupon, the hearing was in
10 recess from 11:35 o'clock, a.m., until
11 11:55 o'clock, a.m.)
12 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Ladies and gentlemen, we are
13 prepared to reconvene. We will hear from Mr. Swing, of
14 the State of California, please.
15 JOHN SWING
16 Well, it's our pleasure -- our pleasure -- to
17 say that I'm down here with Dr. Lucas, of our staff, that
18 I would like to refer any tricky questions to, but it's
19 our pleasure to be here, and we welcome the opportunity to
20 comment on these EPA standards. Actually, it's not only
21 our pleasure. We are required to be here by law, by State
22 law, (laughter) and what I should point out, Mr. Kozlowski
23 made the statement that he was pleased to see that some
24 people were here that would suggest that EPA do more,
25 because he thought a lot of people would come up with the
26 opposite viewpoint, and so he should be pleased with the
(IU) 437 U27 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
102
I statement I'm about to give.
2 I would also,-before I begin my semi-formal
3 comment, publicly compliment Mr. Girdler, and what I see
4 to be a very enlightened viewpoint on the part of the
5 Editor of Motorcycle Magazine, because I feel these types
g of opinions that he was expressing today will go far in
7 terms of promoting rider education in the right direction,
8 and I think it's excellent to see that type of viewpoint
9 being expressed. I would like to see more of editorials
10 in other magazines as well.
11 What I would like to do is not necessarily read
12 the statement that I've prepared but paraphrase it, in
13 some respects, and first of all, I would like to explain
14 exactly what it is my offices is supposed to do, and then
15 cite to you the law that has brought us down here, and
16 then you will understand a little bit more the comments
17 I'm about to offer.
18 But, the State of California passed the Noise
19 Control Act of 1973, which created an Office of Noise
20 Control, and our fundamental function is to assure that
21 California citizens have a peaceful and quiet environment
22 without the intrusion of noise, which may be hazardous to
23 their health and welfare. That gives us a pretty broad
24 flexibility, but then they made sure that there were few
25 specifics that we took care of.
26 One was, we were required to coordinate State
(213) 07-1127 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
103
j and Federal activities to a point that we were required to
2 study Federal noise regulations that have been proposed
3 pursuant to the Noise Control Act of 1972, and to that end,
4 we were required to prepare comments, evaluations, objection
5 or to use any other means to insure that the Federal
g Government considers existing in California noise control
7 statutes and regulations prior to the adoption of regulations
g in order to prevent the adoption of Federal noise regulations
g weaker than existing State standards.
]Q Now, I know, through studying the background
\l documents, the California regulations have indeed been
12 studied rather thoroughly. However, I do have some specific
13 points that I wish to make concerning the EPA record.
14 I would say, initially, that this office — my
15 office — generally supports the effort of EPA in developing
lg these proposed regulations, but we do, naturally, have our
17 share of concerns regarding the potential weakening of the
18 California noise standards through the inevitable Federal
19 preemption.
20 Now, I think we have already established the
21 fact that we're really talking about motorcycle noise in
22 two very gross categories, that of existing motorcycles
23 and future production units, and I will restrict the
24 majority of my comments to on-road type of motorcycles,
25 because the problems of competition, and off-road bikes,
26 are really another matter that we are very pleased to see
(113) 437-U27 MACAULEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
104
1 are addressed in the EPA standards, but I haven't really
2 specifically dealt with them in my comments.
•j . The one thing we had hoped, and we express these
A desires in future meetings, and we do again offer compliments
5 to EPA for the way they've interacted with the various state
g agencies, and other people, who have been involved with
7 noise for a while, but we had hoped that the Federal
g program would deal with both segments of the motorcycle
9 population; that is, the existing motorcycles, and the
10 future production units.
11 Obviously, the proposed EPA standards effectively
12 deal only with new products, and I think we find consensus
13 in the group suggests that the great majority of noise
14 offenses are caused by existing motorcycles, and to that
15 point, by modified existing motorcycles.
lg Now, the number of attorneys -- I have to say
17 this — the,- number of attorneys don't feel any qualms
18 about making engineering judgments. Therefore, as an
19 engineer, I feel I'm permitted to make a legal interpretatior
20 (laughter) and I've done this not on my own entirely but
21 with some counsel that the proposed -- a review -- a review
22 primarily by myself of the Federal Noise Control Act of
23 '72 suggests that EPA is not, indeed, prohibited from
24 establishing in-use motorcycle noise regulations.
25 Rather, EPA is not specifically required to
26 do so, so, in my mind, that is a subtle distinction, and
(213) 4J7-U27 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 55L9400
-------
105
1 I am sure you will hear other interpretations of that
2 shortly, in that, one of our points in so making the
3 statement — and I want to make sure I haven't left out
4 any cryptic comments as I go -- that we -- that in
5 identifying motorcycles as a major source of noise, that
$ has to be recognized that, indeed, this type of recognition
7 is really based on the existing population, and while Mr.
8 Isley and I may differ in a number of categories, I would
9 suggest that I really do agree with his concept, that
10 perhaps existing modified motorcycles could, indeed, be
11 identified separately, identified as a mjor source of noise,
12 and to this end, given a higher priority than the recognitior
13 of new motorcycles.
14 That distinction, by the way, is not made in my
15 paper. I felt obligated to suggest that.
16 When we look at the various statistics, and
17 we'll talk about the modified motorcycle problem, first of
18 all, because I'm concerned that I don't feel EPA is
19 adequately addressing that, and I've seen various statistics
20 that suggest from nine to fourteen per cent of motorcycles
21 have modified systems that may indeed cause these vehicles
22 to emit higher noise levels than did the original factory
23 exhausts.
24 Now, the paper that was put out by the MIC, or
25 at least had their blessing I presume, those studies
26 suggested that twenty to forty per cent of the observed
(213) 417-1327 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CAur. (714) SSI-9400
-------
106
1 motorcycles in these studies were of the non-stock
2 configuration. Today, also, I heard another number, of
3 twelve per cent. So, we're talking someplace in a range
4 of a significant percentage of the motorcycle population
5 is, indeed, modified.
6 A review of the CHP enforcement statistics —
7 and Ross Little is certainly more qualified to talk about
8 this than I am -- would suggest that numbers on the order
9 of fourteen, or greater, per cent of the noise violations
10 are of the motorcycles that have been monitored by CHP
1} enforcement teams, are in violation of the California
12 standards as a result of modified systems. So, we see,
13 that is a very significant problem.
14 As I suggest, we'^re down here — we're supposed
15 to comment when you weaken our systems but not necessarily
IS propose solutions at this time, so I don't really guaranty
17 I'll have the answers to all these statements I'm offering.
18 We suggest that one possible way of getting at
19 the modified exhaust system problem, as it were -- because
20 I think it's fair to note that these modified systems aren't
21 as noisy as they used to be, but some still -- indeed, I've
22 seen advertisements as well that suggest, "Within 2 dB of
23 required legal limits," and such, that do recognize that
24 they are going to be louder than the factory exhaust system -
25 which our laws, by the way, prohibit.
26 We feel that EPA could effect a solution to the
(1131 417-1327 MACAU LEY Ac MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) SSI-9400
-------
107
problems created by modified motorcycles by extending the
2 scope of their replacement muffler regulations to include
3 all after-market exhaust systems and not just those that
would be applicable to post-1980 motorcycles,
5 Now, we recognize that this is not a trivial
g task. I don't know if Ross will comment on this or not
when he speaks. But, there is a stationary certification
procedure in California that has a number of problems with
it. One of which is a lack of any correlation between
these test levels, as determined by the stationary procedure,
and the CHP, or SAE J-331a procedure.
12 Now, I contrast that to Mr. Isley's remarks. He
13 feels there is, indeed, a correlation, and admit, have not
14 seen, having seen a lot of data on that, but I'm concerned
15 about whatever level of correlation there is.
16 I would say, we are sufficiently concerned to
17 suggest that the presently proposed stationary procedure in
18 California is rather ineffective. There are just a number
19 of problems with that.
20 Therefore, naturally, we have to propose, EPA do
21 additional work. We would suggest that EPA refine their
22 stationary test procedure, and extend the coverage of their
23 labeling concept to the point that these would, indeed,
24 provide workable tools that could aid in the resolution of
25 the modified motorcycle exhaust system problem. Okay.
26 I would like to get off of that soapbox and move
437 n:r MACAUUEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. 1710 554.9400
-------
108
1 into the area of new motorcycles, at this point, and I have
2 presented in a tablature format the comparison of California
3 and EPA standards, and what I should do is simply highlight -
4 I presume that a number of people in the audience are
5 familiar with those numbers --a slide would have been
g better, obviously, but I'll just run down very quickly
7 the California regulations as opposed to the Federal
8 regulations.
9 These -numbers are based on a dB(A) fast
10 measurement of fifty-feet; California's run accordingly.
11 All the dates I will give are as January 1st of that year:
12 As of 1973, the California standard was 86. It
13 dropped to 83, January 1st, '75. There have been a number
14 of modifications in the legislation -- a couple, at least --
15 in the last year or two. So now, our next jump, our next
16 incremental decrease, is 80 decibels in 1981, followed by
17 75 in 1986, and 70 in 1990.
18 This is contrasted with the EPA standard of 83,
19 January 1, 1980 — that's five years after the California
20 83 standard was adopted, 80 in 1982 -- which is a year
21 past the California standard, 78 dB(A) in 1985 -- now that
22 gets more restrictive than the California standard. And
23 then, the Federal regulations stop there.
24 The available data that we have seen -- and we
25 have seen a fair amount at this point -- on new motorcycles
26 suggest; that most current production on road-only
CD) 07-1127 MACAULEY & MANNING. >ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSI 9400
-------
109
1 motorcycles, this would be possible and probable, with the
2 exception of Harley-Davidson, are capable of meeting 1981
3 California limits today.
4 What I'm saying is that the data I've seen suggest
5 that new motorcycles, the on-road variety, except Barley's,
6 yield emission limits under SAE procedure of around 80
7 decibels, today. This can not be said of many dual purpose
3 machines. We recognize that the weight penalties set for
9 those bikes presently are right around the 83 dB(A) limit.
10 For the moment, I want to talk about the SAE
11 test procedure, but without considering this difference in
12 the test procedure, would suggest that the EPA schedule of
13 compliance has to be interpreted by my office as being a
14 weakening of existing California regulations, and we would
15 like to suggest that the ultimate goal of 78 dB(A) be
16 further reduced. I am not in the position to support the
17 70 dB(A) level, at this time.
18 Now, we're talking about --a lot of people say,
19 "Well, when you compare California limits and Federal limits,
20 you're really comparing apples and oranges, because there's
21 a number of subtleties involved in the test procedures, and
22 the way EPA looks at these numbers," and I'd like to comment
23 on that because I do have some industry experience in
24 dealing with — causing vehicles to meet the California
25 limits, and some tricks we have played, as a matter of fact,
26 to make our high performance Mustangs to comply with the
(213) 4370327 MACAULEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558 »400
-------
110
1 California limits, and take all the advantages that
2 A-weighting has to offer.
3 But, the motorcycle background often presents
4 the case, and others have presented the case as well,
5 because the Federal standards are absolute; that is to say,
g 80 dB(A) means 80. There is no tolerance above that number
7 assumed. The same fact will yield motorcycles that emit
8 some two to three dB less than the specified standard, so
9 that, it's argued that an 80 dB Federal standard, indeed,
10 produces motorcycles with, say, mean levels on the order of
11 two to three dB(A) below that.
12 This approach has been contrasted to California's
13 enforcement policy of not citing a noise violator who has
14 exceeded the given standard by 2 dB with the types of
15 meters used in the California standard, a reasonable
16 measurement tolerance. It hasn't been postulated that a
17 California standard of 80 dB(A), in fact, means 82 dB(A).
18 We contend that, from our industry experience
19 dealing with automobiles and with people I know in the
20 industry, that this is not the case because, really, a
21 common engineering practice, a current practice, in these
22 industries is to design below che prevalent standard while
23 in the prototype development stage. This is the only way
24 you insure compliance with production vehicles, and as
25 proof of this, I have quite a lot of data on current
26 production motorcycles that show virtually all these models
(JU) «». 1JJ7 MACAULEY ft MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) SSI.9400
-------
Ill
1 to be at or below the 83 dB(A) California standard. They're
2 not one or two dB(A) above it, but they, indeed, are
3 complying, and some complying with flying colors.
4 So, my point that I'm making here suggests that
5 an 80 dB(A) California standard should not be interpreted
6 as an 82 -- 81 or 82 — because we have a measurement
7 tolerance built in.
8 Now, the next thing I want to talk about is the
9 EPA proposed test procedure. Now, this differs from the
10 California procedure, and quite frankly, our commitments in
11 the Office of Noise Control have been such that, until very
12 recently, like last week, we didn't have much opportunity
13 to look at the proposed test procedure and give it much
14 analysis, so where I'm an engineer, and I deal with
15 engineering statistics quite a lot, what I'm about to tell
16 you violates all the principles of proper sampling and
17 proper test procedures.
18 Yes, we conducted some tests, one on a single
19 specific motorcycle, so we could develop a relative feel
20 for the nature of the EPA procedure, because inherently,
21 in reading it, there just seemed to be something that was
22 unsettling, and we wanted to attempt to run at least one
23 motorcycle and get a feeling for it. Hence, we ran one
24 high performance motorcycle through a series of tests and
25 attempted to evaluate the relative placement amongst the
2o noise levels produced by the EPA procedure as contrasted to
(2)3) 07 1337 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U> 551-9400
-------
112
j the existing California procedure as contrasted to the SAE
2 J-47 procedure, which is a semi-unsafe procedure that yields
3 a bit -- effectively squeezes the last decibel out of the
4 motorcycle that it's capable of producing.
5 Our concerns with the EPA procedure were that
g for large motorcycles, 676 cc's and greater, that the
7 maximum test RPM was only fifty-five per cent of that,
g fifty-five per cent of the max rated RPM -- I think I
g didn't make that - terribly clear. Let me say that again.
10 For large motorcycles -- we're dealing here with displacement
11 of 676 cc and greater — that the maximum RPM, the maximum
12 engine speed that would be used in the test, would be
13 fifty-five per cent of their max rated RPM, and that max
14 rated RPM, as defined in your standard, is that RPM in which
15 max SAE horsepowers achieve — and example is like a nine
16 thousand RPM super-bike, as it were, may achieve this max
17 rated RPM a thousand or so below that; so the test, the
18 max test RPM, in that case, would be fifty-five per cent
19 of eight thousand RPM, which is about forty four hundred
20 RPM, and it just didn't seem right, in reading this, that
21 you would have a bike with a nine thousand RPM capability
22 and only tested in the range of, say, forty four hundred to
23 five thousand RPM. It didn't match driving styles that
24 I'm familiar with.
25 And what we're concerned with, at this point in
26 time, we're not saying that that is not right, or that you
(213) 4J7 IJJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 558 9400
-------
a.13
1 screwed up -- let's just strike that from the record
2 (laughter) -- but we question that that is really a
3 suitable representation of what we would be concerned as
4 the highest normal noise produced under normal operations.
5 The results of our tests on a single motorcycle,
g terrible statistical sampling, would suggest that the SAE
7 J-47 procedure when compared to CHP procedure yielded results
8 about 4 dB higher, and that using the EPA procedure
9 relative to the California procedure, resulted in results
10 about 2 dB less. Now, with, effectively saying, motorcycle
11 models tested by EPA, and these are similar results that
12 were reported in Appendix "I", our concern is that we
13 wonder if the EPA procedures are too lenient towards the
14 larger motorcycles.
15 We can cite operational conditions where, I
16 believe, one would use higher than half of the available
17 horsepower, half of the available RPM range, accelerating
18 on a freeway on-ramp, passing maneuvers on the freeway
19 where one would downshift, and would probably obtain a
20 higher RPM level than half of what's there.
21 There seems to be, in the marketing statistics,
22 these days, or certainly in the marketing advertisements,
23 a real proliferation of the new generation super-bikes.
24 Everyone is racing to get a new thousand or eleven hundred
25 cc motorcycle with impressively high red line and we
26 question that these motorcycles won't be driven at over half
(213) 4J7 1337 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SS|.»400
-------
1 that rated RPM.
2 So, that's the nature of our concerns regarding
3 the test procedure. We would like to be shown that that
4 indeed is representative of this higher level of noise
5 emission that is possible in certain circumstances. Okay.
6 My next point pertains to your quality assurance
7 period. We think that's an excellent concept. I made note
8 of some of the discussions here today, and see that there
9 probably is a reasonable x*ay for that to be dealt with
10 without an undue burden on industry. However, we would
11 suggest that the duration of coverage for this quality
12 assurance period be extended to, let's say, nominally, ten
13 thousand kilometers or six thousand miles, because that
14 number is commensurate with current industry warranty
15 coverage.
16 I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the
17 manufacturers to replace that exhaust system if it does
18 get loud during the warranty coverage period.
19 That's a slight deviation in the plan proposed
20 by EPA but we think this QA, whatever it sounded like —
21 I don't remember the initials; I have trouble with ONC --
22 whatever that degradation factor is, we would like to see
23 it put into a workable format and used.
24 And finally, I'm sure you hear a lot of this
25 type of criticism from the local people that will speak
2" but we feel that, basically, this is a weakness in EPA's —
(213) 437-1337 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
115
1 in the Noise Control Act of '72. It didn't give EPA
2 sufficient funding, or staff, as a matter of fact, to
3 support these local programs in a manner that we think is
4 adequate.
5 We use the concept that EPA produces regulations
g that are unsupported, but you can read that as unsubsidized,
1 and we would like to see — well, we know you recognize
g these limitations, we have as well, and through recent
g discussions with a number of congressional representatives,
10 we have recommended to Congress that EPA be given broader
Jl authority and sufficient funding in order that EPA can
12 adequately resolve the problems of environmental noise,
13 and we think that the critical aspect here is this enforcement
14 end of these types of regulations.
15 Another thing, of course, my initial statement
16 was, extend your regulations to cover the present population
17 of motorcycles, especially those with the modified exhaust
18 systems.
19 And then, finally, a final editorializing is
20 that, we would like to see additional EPA funds spent
21 towards better assessing the adverse effects of noise on
22 human well being. I think funds spent in that direction
23 would certainly help justify the type of noise standards
24 that we are presently discussing.
25 Thank you very much for letting us express our
26 views . . . but we are here, and we will respond to
(113) 437-O77 MACAULEY Sc MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)5519400
-------
116
1 questions.
2 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Swing.
3 I would like to now ask if our lawyer here has any
4 engineering questions he would like to ask. (Laughter)
5 MR. NAVEEN: No role reversal today for me. We
g disagree about the -- I think we disagree about whether the
7 Noise Act would allow us to promulgate a new standard since
g it specifically tells us that we shall promulgate a
9 performance standard, and I think we should try to
10 accomplish that end here.
11 One other legal point I guess, to the extent that
12 you suggest that we have some role responsibility, or
13 whatever, concerning the current population of motorcycles.
14 Our Act, as you probably are aware, directs us to look to
15 the future to new products as they are built and distributed.
16 We do not have a role to play in regard to
17 problems existing in that current population.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Since he prefaced that by
19 "I think," I think when we get back to Washington we will
20 ask him to think further on this. We will ask for formal
21 review of the question.
22 MR. SWING: Our concern was that we know EPA is
23 under a bit of pressure these days from Congress and
24 others, and we have hac the concern that EPA was busy
25 trying to only specifically comply, as required, with the
26 exact letter of the law, without stepping one step beyond,
(J13) 437.1J37 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (7U) 551-9400
-------
117
I as it were, and we're just encouraging dealing with the
2 program, with the problem, in total.
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: We appreciate that, Mr. Swing,
4 and we have, from time to time, however, been accused of a
5 little regulatory frontiersmanship. Hence, the Chrysler
g case, that has been mentioned here earlier this morning,
7 on a half a dozen constitutional and other major issues,
8 which are, at present, in contention.
g Mr. Kozlowski.
10 MR. KOZLOWSKI: The only point I'd make, Mr.
11 Swing, is with respect to local support of subsidies. We
12 don't have that authority now, but there is some chance we
13 will be able to something like that in the future by an
14 act of Congress, but I don't know how likely that is either,
15 and I think everyone that is involved in noise control for
16 motorcycles needs to know that the major portion of the
17 reduction we're getting is going to come from the anti-
18 tampering program, and basically, state and local programs,
19 and I guess I wouldn't be overly encouraged if I were
20 sitting in your position and were depending on Federal
21 funds to support a local antirtampering program to make a
22 motorcycle program work. It is not fipt to happen, I think,
23 and clearly, it won't happen now, and it may not happen.
24 Congress may not change that.
25 Secondly, I guess I'd also like to say that I
26 thing, from my own personal point of view, this is a case
(213) 437 1)27 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
118
1 where, perhaps, local funds are more appropriate -- local
2 effort is more appropriate.
3 The modification problem is a localized problem.
4 It is done by the locals, as opposed to a national firm,
5 and it's probably more appropriately dealt with; and the
S locals can deal to the extent that they provide the
7 resources that they ill need.
8 MR. SWING: I'd like to offer a comment on that.
9 I'm sure we've all seen the J. C. Whitney catalogue --
10 otherwise known as Washowsky -- out of Chicago, and one
11 of the reasons we think it is really important to get a
12 Federal program on, it would have some effect on the
13 after-market sales for systems for existing motorycles --
14 is that we may, indeed, like CHP, go into a shop selling
15 illegal headlights, or these X-number of thousands of
16 candlepower eye burners, and remove them from the shelves,
17 and may clean up California, but it's not too difficult
18 to drive across to Nevada, or to order a system out of
19 some other state, and that really gets beyond our capability
20 to control that; and so, for that reason -- and others,
21 I guess -- I would like to continue to push for some type
22 of Federal approach to these systems.
23 MR. KOZLOWSKI: We will deal with that national
24 problem, the manufacturing and marketing of these systems.
25 i think it's more appropriate that the local governments
2o deal with the people who actually tamper with the bikes,
(713) 437 1377 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
119
1 make the modifications.
2 MR. SWING: It is probably unusual to hear
3 someone from the state asking for more Federal intervention,
4 but, in this case, it seemed appropriate.
5 MR. KOZLOWSKI: But not unusual to hear people
g ask for more Federal funds. (Laughter)
7 MR. PETROLATI: One point of clarification. You
g make the statement that EPA should refine stationary test
g procedures because of the lack of correlation. What do
JQ you actually see of the utility of the stationary test
U procedure? Is the stationary test procedure that you are
\2 talking about the one that the manufacturer uses to certify,
13 or are you talking about stationary test procedure, in
14 other words, that the State of California would actually
15 do continuous enforcement with?
IS MR. SWING: I can see both uses for the
17 stationary procedures. I guess one of my main concerns is,
18 we have had noise legislation on the books for a number
19 of years that pertain to motorcycles, and-if we could,
20 indeed, take a used motorcycle and run a test, a relatively
21 simple straightforward stationary type of procedure, and
22 from that have a fairly good idea of what its J^331a
23 performance level was, we could feel a lot more confident
24 in terms of the citation, or relating that to our existing
25 laws.
26 Maybe what I'm asking for is unique to California,
(113) 4)7-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir (714) I5S-9400
-------
120
1 and would serve our needs better than anyone else. We do,
2 indeed, have a lot of motorcycles in California, and they
3 do, indeed, get a lot of use here. But I can see further
4 refinement necessary to allow a lot of these programs to
5 go forward from the standpoint that we would at least know
6 what we were talking about relative to some fixed standard.
7 MR. PETROLATI: In other words, you want
8 something that's very correlated to the acceleration test,
9 the acceleration standard?
10 MR. SWING: Yes, I would find that very useful.
11 MR. PETROLATI: Thank you very much.
12 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Swing, I'm going to ask you
13 the same kind of question I asked Mrs. Chatten-Brown this
14 morning. Since your organization is supporting lower sound
15 levels for new motorcycles --in fact, considering lower
16 sound levels than even EPA is proposing, is this reflective,
17 or could you characterize, please, how you or how your
18 office receives complaints relative to modified motorcycles
19 versus unmodified motorcycles, and what is it that gives
20 you folks the feeling that unmodified motorcycles are such
21 a problem that we need to go down below the levels that EPA
22 has proposed?
23 MR. SWING: I sort of anticipated that. Let me
24 say that the majority of complaints -- we don't take that
25 many complaints directly. Whenever someone does call us
26 directly, we are very quick to refer them to someone else.
(71)) 437 1357 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 5$a-9400
-------
121
Typically, we support the activities of local health
2 departments and local police departments, and spend the
3 majority of our time doing that, so when we receive a
complaint, we will pass it on to that local entity, and
then, when they need further support, we help them out.
From the statistics I've seen out of both San
7 Francisco, that has a very active program of noise
g enforcement, and CHP, it would suggest that, indeed, the
g majority of problems are indeed associated with the modified
motorcycle. Clearly, that's the number one priority item.
I think I was reasonably careful in hedging,
12 when I talked about EPA standard as being less restrictive
13 than California's, but I didn't necessarily say our time
14 frame was the best, but we do recognize, as you do, that
15 with time, we are going to have quieter automobiles —
IS presently, the automobile on the highway typically emits
17 70 dB(A), 70-72; trucks are well beyond that — but we look
18 a little beyond this composite of the noise exposure, and
19 I think there was a point you were making, that I, personally
20 have been involved in a lot of analysis of single event
21 durations.
22 It doesn't take a high Leq or Ldn control by the
23 motorcycle population to cause annoyance to the community.
24 It only takes one or two pass bys at the right time of
25 night, and some of the metrics that are used in noise
26 analyses, and I have developed models for highway analysis,
i»iii Jij.njj MACAUUEY Ik MANNING. IANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SS» »<00
-------
122
1 and railroad analysis, using these Leq metrics, they are
2 valuable from rather a general standpoint in terms of
3 assessing — generally assessing the way people react to
4 noise; but, we've become very concerned about the single
5 event intrusions.
g Hence, my concern that, perhaps, the EPA test
7 procedure doesn't extract enough sound out of certain of the
g larger motorcycles. What may well be is that when they're
g on the freeway, you don't hear them above the trucks, but
JQ when they're cranking up the hilly roads, or in the middle
11 of a neighborhood late at night, it may very well be very
12 audible, so what we would suggest is a balanced approach.
13 The overriding part of the motorcycle problem
14 today is these modified motorcycles, that it may well be,
15 if we come up with an effective way of dealing with that
16 in the very near term, we'll be more concerned with the
17 stock motorcycles, and just where and when they are used
18 as being a function of how much annoyance they cause.
19 So, we see a need for a progressive reduction
20 in their noise emission, and suggest that that progressive
21 reduction do, indeed, be balanced with the effectiveness in
22 controlling the major part of the problem.
23 I have specifically not necessarily supported
24 our time frame in that statement, but I should point out --
25 I know people have mentioned this, referring to the record,
26 that California failed to consider cost and technology in
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551 9400
-------
123
1 considering their ongoing rather enthusiastic standard with
2 time.
3 But those were done in 1969, and there were,
4 indeed, people that had expertise in acoustics, on that
5 staff. Ralph Hillcrest, of General Motors, was on that
g committee that helped put together that report that
7 established the California regulations; Ross Little, of the
8 California Highway Patrol; a number of acoustical experts,
9 albeit not motorcycle industry representatives were there.
10 And, where specific dollars weren't necessarily
1] accounted for, it was anticipated that the time frame, when
12 they put together this schedule of compliance, represented
13 their best judgment as to what would be economically
14 feasible, and technologically feasible, in fifteen years
15 from the time those standards were presented, so, admittedly
16 now, we would never get away with that, and EPA is being
17 called to task to justify every dollar spent on noise
18 control.
19 In those days, we were breaking relatively new
20 ground, and could judge these things rather subjectively.
21 MR. EDWARDS: All right. So, is it fair to say,
22 then, that it is your analysis of the motorcycle as a
23 single event, looking into the future environment of other
24 quieter vehicles, is the reason behind your support of
25 lower and lower levels as we go into the next decade?
26 MR. SWING: Yes, it is.
(J1J) 437.1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. >ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) SSI-9400
-------
124
1 MR. EDWARDS: You said that your comments were
i
2 going to be directed principally at street motorcycles. Is
3 that because your office does not get into the off-road
4 motorcycle noise problem, or because you don't perceive that
5 there is one?
g MR. SWING: I think there definitely is an
7 off-road noise problem, and it's more a matter of the
g limited amount of time we really had no deal with preparing
9 our statement today, as opposed to the fact the we don't
JQ consider it a problem.
11 If I may comment on the off-road motorcycles
12 as they cause annoyance. I guess there are two schools of
13 thought. One is, make them all so quiet that no matter
14 where they are operated, and what time they are operated,
15 they don't cause an annoyance. I don't think that's a
lg realistic approach.
17 I think what is needed is as was suggested about
18 the Carlsbad situation, that there indeed be places provided
19 so that you're not that concerned about the level of noise
20 emitted by some of these machines, that they can be used
21 and enjoyed to whatever level people find reasonable, and
22 they don't offend anyone else.
23 So, actually, we find that the EPA regulations
24 on off-road bikes are more restrictive that California's.
25 They will be with time. They propose lower limits. And
26 we encourage you for that.
(713! 437-UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CAUF. (714) J5t 9400
-------
125
1 The question, "What do you do after that?", as
2 you continue to try to make them quieter, or work out more
3 viable programs for where they're used -- and I think the
4 latter is probably the more reasonable approach.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. One other area. You
g questioned some people's interpretation of the difference
7 between an EPA regulatory level and a State of California
9 regulatory level, and there are really two factors involved,
9 and you mentioned one is that EPA is absolutely not to
10 exceed limits which would require the manufacturer to
11 design several decibels below the limit.
12 The second is, as I understand your statement,
13 and understand that the State of California would add one
14 or two decibels on to their own standard for enforcement
15 tolerance; is that correct?
16 MR. SWING: I was trying to make a point, but
17 that really isn't the case in California, that 80 decibels
18 really means 82. From a practical enforcement standpoint,
19 if we went out to measure a series of motorcycles for
20 compliance, we would probably give them the benefit of the
21 doubt and use what we consider to be reasonable measurement
22 of tolerances.
23 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I think it's, as far, at
24 least, as EPA's background information goes, that we would
25 not ascribe a tolerance to the California situation. In
26 other words, if you say 80, you mean 80. The distinction
(313) 437.li:? MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) S5»-»400
-------
126
1 may be, however, EPA requires several products to be tested,
2 and requires that all -- say, ten of them -- that nine out
3 of the ten be below the standard.
4 Who in the State of California does whatever
5 testing is done to determine compliance with the State of
$ California's standards; and, is more than one vehicle
7 tested, or do you base your result on one vehicle test?
3 MR. SWING: Ross Little would have the specifics
9 on that. I don't believe the vehicles are specifically
10 tested by State staff. We take the data as applied by the
11 manufacturers, and that is one record, and with the CHP.
12 As a matter of fact, I think they have to get
13 clearance to the Department of Motor Vehicles before those
14 vehicles are registered.
15 I think that's the procedure, but I am not as
16 clear on that as I should be, and there is someone here
17 that can give that information to you.
18 MR. EDWARDS: I'll address ray questions to him
19 when he comes up here, but I think it may be reflective on
20 your own opinions as to the distinction between EPA
21 standards and the State of California standards.
22 That's all I have. Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I have a couple of questions,
24 Mr. Swing, from the floor, which I would like to pose to
25 you. You may want to refer these to one of your other
26 State colleagues, however.
(2)1) 4)7.1)27 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
127
1 All right. The first one is in three parts.
2 That is: "Are California Laws — in this case, the noise
3 laws — designed to protect the public health and welfare?
4 Is that the purpose of them?"
5 MR. SWING: Yes, they are.
g CHAIRMAN THOMAS: The second part of that, then,
7 follows on as an all-of-the-above sort of thing: "80
g decibels can be met, I think, as you suggested, by all
9 manufacturers, and I think you then added a caveat on there,
10 except, perhaps, Harley-Davidson?"
1} MR. SWING: Uh huh.
12 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: The third one is the zinger,
13 of course, and that is ...
14 MR. SWING: Was that a question? (Laughter)
15 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Presumed answered.
16 MR. SWING: Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: And the third one is the
18 zinger, which is: "Well, why, then, does California Highway
19 Patrol use Harley-Davidsons?"
20 MR. SWING: Fortunately, we have someone here
21 from the Highway Patrol. They do indeed use quite a
22 variety of motorcycles. They use Moto Guzzis, and Hondas,
23 and I don't know what the composition of the CHP fleet is
24 these days. I certainly know some of them, some of the
25 motorcycles they use, are relatively quiet, but I'm very
26 glad that Ross is here, and . . .
(111)4371327 MACAUUEY & MANNING. 8ANTA ANA. CALir. (7U) 551.9400
-------
128
1 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I Cake it you're deferring
2 that, the formal statement, then, to the representative
3 from the California Highway Patrol?
4 MR. SWING: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: All right. Fair enough. Then
S perhaps, the second question is likewise similar, and that
7 is: "What percentage of motorcycle citations involve sound
8 measurements as opposed to officer judgment?"
9 MR. SWING: Let me back up just a second because
10 there is -- I shouldn't leave Ross on the hook here. As
11 far as I know, the current production Harley-Davidsons do
12 comply with the existing California standard. They are
13 meeting 83 today. So, CHP, even if they had a fleet of
14 one hundred per cent of Harleys, shouldn't be criticized
15 for using illegal motorcycles. They are complying with
16 today's limits. Okay.
17 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think the thrust of the
18 question was, if there are quieter motorcycles available,
19 perhaps California should be using those.
20 MR. SWING: That's a good question.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: And the second element was:
22 "The percentage of motorcycle citations involving sound
23 regimens as opposed to officer judgment? Do you have any
24 feel for that in terms of responses?"
25 MR, SWING: I have a feel for it, and my
2" statistics may not be terribly accurate. I know some of
(313) 07-UJ7 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CAur. (7U> 551-9400
-------
I the San Francisco programs, and a lot of the CHP instructions
2 which is given.
3 In California, there are two ways to cite someone
4 with a noisy vehicle: Either by measurement, which identifies
5 that vehicle having been measured and exceeding the
5 applicable noise limit; or by citing that individual for a
7 violation -- citing that individual for modifying that
8 exhaust system so that it makes more noise than when new,
9 or as originally equipped; and, typically, the violations
10 follow both patterns.
11 It's good to give an equipment violation.
12 Otherwise, nothing has to be done if you just cite someone
13 for noise like a. speeding ticket. You haven't done anything
14 to the vehicle to keep it from speeding again. So, the
15 citations are typically either one or the other, but
16 generally involve a modification type of cite where that's
17 possible.
18 Now, by inspection, there are a number of
19 systems, Volkswagen's, Porsche Extractors, certain motorcycle
20 systems, that you don't need a meter for citing them on
21 an equipment violation, and the CHP noise teams will,
22 indeed, instruct local noise enforcement people on how to
23 make some of these determinations. .
24 They, indeed, aren't the refined technique, but
25 they will get the worst offenders, so in many cases, a
26 meter is not needed or incorporated in these citations.
>213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 551-9400
-------
130
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That is very good. Thank you
2 very much. I appreciate your comments, and obviously, we
3 will be talking to you again before these final rulings go
4 out on some of the technical questions you posed to us here,
5 MR. SWING: Thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Swing. We will
7 now proceed to break for lunch, about one hour. We will
8 reconvene at 1:40, and at that time, we will hear from Mr.
9 John Davidson, from AMF/Harley-Davidson Motor Company.
10
1} (Whereupon, the hearing recessed
12 for lunch at 12:35 o'clock, p.m., and
13 reconvened at 1:40 o'clock, p.m.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(213) 437-1337 MACAULEY & MANNING. CANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-7400
-------
131
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Ladies and gentlemen, if we can
4 reconvene, please.
5 As we indicated earlier this morning, if there are
5 any of those in the audience that are here who are not
7 scheduled to speak and would like to speak, please let the
3 receptionist know at the desk in the outer hall and we will
9 be happy to hear from you, as time permits, today.
10 We will now hear from a scheduled speaker, Mr.
11 John Davidson, representing AMF/Harley-Davidson, please.
12 I was commenting to Mr. Davidson, before he starts -- I
13 was commenting to him earlier today -- since his company
14 has been cited, or his product has been cited, I think at
15 least once, or probably more, by every speaker here, I
16 presume that he has at least ninety per cent of the
17 motorcycles riding out there.
18 MR. DAVIDSON: We have had some notoriety, so
19 far. (Laughter)
20 JOHN DAVIDSON
21 I'm here as Chairman of the Board of Harley-
22 Davidson to address the issue at hand. I think we are all
23 well acquainted with it at this point.
24 My remarks will center on several areas: the
25 noise standards themselves, the economic implications of
26 the standards, suggested time tables for compliance, and
(713)437.1317 MACAULEY ft MANNING. «ANTA ANA, CALIF. (714)551-9400
-------
132
1 also, I will address what we feel is the real problem, that
2 being modified vehicles that we talked about at some length
3 this morning.
4 First off, however, let me just give you a rather
5 brief overview of philosophy, and what has already been
6 accomplished in regard to motorcycle noise. Harley-
7 Davidson has been in the motorcycle business for seventy-
8 five years, aud we are currently the only surviving
9 manufacturer of motorcycles in the United States. In a
10 sense, I guess, the sport of motorcycling, and Harley-
11 Davidson, have grown up together.
12 I would not be appearing at this public hearing
13 had we not made commitments starting long ago to continue
14 to improve our products, and to anticipate future trends
15 and needs for the industry, since, obviously, marketplace
16 success depends on foresight.
17 We are keenly aware of what the consumer demands
18 from his motorcycle, and realize that we must meet these
19 demands if our company is to remain viable.
20 Moreover, we have not been insensitive to the
21 need for preserving the environment. Harley-Davidson has
22 been allocating a large portion of its research and
23 development budget to developing exhaust emissions and
24 noise control technology as an integral part of our stated
25 philosophy.
26 We have supported in the past, and we will
(70) 437 1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 551-9400
-------
133
1 continue to support, reasonable rules and regulations
2 relating to environmental and safety conditions when they
3 will result in a meaningful benefit to the public.
4 At the same time, these regulations have to be
5 realistic from the standpoint of overall cost. Being
g realistic on this point leads us to doubt the benefit of
7 proposing further noise reductions when major reductions
8 have already occurred without government intervention —
9 without Federal intervention.
10 At the same time, realism brings us to strongly
11 support Federal regulation for noise control, and other
12 environmental issues
13 Interpreting and complying with what I term a
14 "hodgpodge" of all state and municipal regulations leads
15 to unnecessary paper work and the consumption of resources
16 which could be better applied in solving related problems.
17 Thus, the unification of regulations will permit everyone
18 to focus on the real issues, rather than the busy work
19 that surrounds those issues. We compliment the EPA for its
20 efforts to this end.
21 At the same time, while providing necessary
22 unification, recent history indicates that many of the
23 provisions of the proposed regulations are not necessary.
24 In recent years, Harley-Davidson has focused
25 its attention to compliance with the most stringent of the
26 individual state standards, and we believe much progress
(211) 437 1)27 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
134
1 has been made.
2 In 1968, noise levels for production motorcycles
3 was as high as 92 dB(A). Today's unmodified motorcycles
4 are at a level either 83 or below. This represents an
5 eighty-eight per cent decrease in sound energy, and perhaps
5 a better measurement is, a sixty-five per cent decrease in
7 sound pressure. This, I think, is a truly significant
8 accomplishment.
9 Yet, efforts, to date, go uncredited, and
10 problems are magnified, by plainly erroneous documents.
11 We find as late as 1977, in an official EPA publication
12 entitled "Noise on Wheels" a statement that, "Pending state
13 legislation has encouraged manufacturers to reduce maximum
)4 noise levels to 92 dB(A)."
15 In effect, the EPA has totally ignored what has
16 already been accomplished. Not only does EPA fail to
17 give private industry credit for its accomplishments in
18 working with state regulations, but their statements in
19 this publicly distributed pamphlet are simply not correct,
20 and may have already caused unnecessary reaction in the
21 non-motorcycle owning public.
22 We firmly believe, a motorcyle manufactured
23 to an 83 dB(A) standard, and free from tampering or improper
24 substitution of noise control components, is unlikely to
25 be a source of annoyance to others, and as I already said,
26 the industry is already at or below 83 d3(A).
rt 4AMTA AWA
(714) 558 9*00
-------
135
1 • At this stage, as I have stated, the unification
2 at the Federal level of the many state regulations combined
3 with fine tuning and standardization of test methodology
4 are constructive changes to the process. But, while the
f
5 standardization of regulation is beneficial, the regulations
5 themselves mandate excessively severe controls, unrealistic
7 time schedules, and a whole range of other requirements,
8 few of which have been shown, in our view, to be cost
9 effective.
10 Let me now point out some of the major
11 shortcomings that we, as a company, see in the regulations:
12 The first point which I .shall address is that of
13 the noise levels contained in the proposed regulations.
14 Since the standards are wricten on a "not to exceed" basis,
15 the manufacturer must design a motorcycle substantially
16 quieter than the published levels to allow for uncontrollable
17 variations in production, and also, test measurements. Our
18 experience has shown that motorcycles must be designed at
19 least 3 dB(A), or for those who are not close to dB(A), a
20 a fifty per cent quieter situation than the published to
21 assure that the entire production run complies. Thus, in
22 order to meet the 83 dB(A) in the proposed regulations we
23 must design at the 80 dB(A) level to assure compliance.
24 Thus, it follows that the 80 dB(A) level proposed
25 for January 1, 1982, must, for all practical purposes, be
26 interpreted at 77 dB(A), and the 78 d3(A) level proposed
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY 8c MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIP. (7i
-------
136
1 in 1985 has to be interpreted as 75 dB(A) by the
2 manufacturer. In our view, the ultimate level — the 78
3 level — goes beyond the best demonstrated technology in the
4 industry.
^ /
5 We take issue with the proposed levels; believe
they are based on some incorrect assumptions. It is our
opinion that 83 dB(A), as applied today, constitutes a
reasonable sound level, and that further reductions are not
needed for new motorcycles,
•*
The EPA's background, and other documentation on
the subject, clearly suggests that the proposed regulations
12 are an effort to correct a perceived social problem rather
13 than a physiological one. In other words, EPA sees
14 motorcycle noise as an annoyance to people rather than an
15 actual hazard to hearing.
3
15 If the problem, as I have suggested, is a social
17 one, why then are the proposed regulations so severe? We
18 believe that the driving force was an environmental impact
19 analysis which consequent events have again shown to be in
20 error, and it was this type of analysis, an analysis which
.21 possibly gave rise to materials such as."Noise on Wheels" -.-
22 "Noise on Wheels" is the document that EPA published in 1977.
23 That documents states that in 1976 there were
24 approximately five million motorcycles on the road, and that
25 the number was expected to triple to fifteen million by 1985.
26 We believe this figure is grossly exaggerated. As a
(513) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) JJ8-9400
-------
137
i manufacturer -- as a gentleman who runs a motorcycle company
2 in the U. S. — I would be delighted to see fifteen million
3 motorcycles on the road in 1985, as it would mean a dramatic
4 increase in sales. But in my view, there is no way that
i
§ we're going to see fifteen million. In reality, the forecast
g show that the number will be, at best, ten million, so I
7 suggest that the EPA is off to the tune of some five million
g motorcycles.
g But, to get a better picture of the problem. I
in think it is necessary to look beyond mere numbers of
U motorcycles. It is essential to compare the number of
12 motorcycles to the total number of vehicles on the roads,
13 and even more important perhaps, the motorcycle miles ridden
14 compared with the mileage put on other vehicles.
15 According to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers
3
15 Association, and Motorcycle Industry Council statistics,
17 which were compiled for 1975, there were over one hundred
18 and thirty-two million cars and trucks on the road in that
19 year. There were only six and a half million motorcycles.
20 Thus, motorcycles accounted for four-point-seven per cent
21 of the total population, which I_think_is a small enough_.
22 figure indeed.
23 But the true significance lies in the percentage
24 of total miles. Although cars are driven almost ten
25 thousand miles each year, and heavy trucks almost fifty
26 thousand, motorcycles average only twenty-five hundred
U13) 437-1327 I^E^ULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. .. (714) 5S«-9400
-------
138
1 miles per year.
2 When multiplied out by the number of each type
3 of vehicle, we find that motorcycles account for a mere
4 one-point-two per cent of the total vehicle miles, and yet
5 the EPA has chosen to focus its attention on what amounts
6 to be a fraction of the total problem at a cost to the
7 public of millions of dollars. I would suggest that the
8 money might be better spent elsewhere.
9 On yet another front the EPA uses what we think
10 is an erroneous logic to establish the extent of public
11 exposure to motorcycle noise. The actual sound level that
12 one hears from a motorcycle in normal operation is not as
13 loud as the sound of a motorcycle under the maximum
14 accelerations conditions which are proposed for the motorcycl
15 noise test.
16 As it stands, today's vehicles must mtiet an 83
17 dB(A) level when measured during maximum acceleration.
18 Realistically, motorcycles operate well below this level
19 most of the time, and I would like to cite a study that was
20 conducted, rather recently, in Illinois, in 1974, the
21 Illinois Task Force on Noise was. charged with developing
122 motor vehicle noise standards applying to a typical urban-
23 suburban situation. They considered traffic at a standstill
24 waiting for a green light. Based on driver surveys, they
25 established that seventy-five per cent of drivers accelerate
26 to thirty-five miles an hour in the first hundred feet, and
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIP. (714)558-9400
-------
139
1 that this is accomplished in four-point-eight seconds.
2 Task Force conducted twelve hundred measurements
3 on motorcycles, which showed that the sound levels of
4 unmodified motorcycles continued to be in the mid to low
5 70 dB(A) range at these typical acceleration rates, which
5 is 5 to 12 dB(A) below the noise made during rapid acceleration.
7 The significance of these findings, I think, is
8 that they represent sound levels to which the greatest
g number of people are ordinarily exposed.
IQ For the purposes of health and welfare analysis,
\\ the Illinois Task Force approach would be more typical
12 than the maximum acceleration test which simulates freeway
13 entrance ramp conditions.
14 What it all boils down to in our view is that
15 the time-average sound level of unmodified motorcycles is
16 substantially less than 83 dB(A) .
17 The current problem in motorcycle noise is the
18 modification or substitution of noise control components,
19 that we have addressed at some length this morning. The
20 EPA agrees with this7 and I quote from the "Notice of
21 Proposed Rulemaking"i- "It-was. recognized at the ..time of
22 identification that much of the current impact from
23 motorcycles comes from owner-modified motorcycles,
24 particularly those with replacement and modified exhaust
25 sy terns."
26 - . And a little later again -- I'm quoting: "The
«»3) 437.1337 MAGAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 558-9400
-------
140
1 Agency studies have confirmed that controlling exhaust
2 system modifications is an essential part of any strategy
3 designed to lessen the impact of motorcycle noise on the
4 public health and welfare.
5 "The modification problem consists of two parts:
6 owner alterations to original exhaust systems, which is
7 termed 'tampering1, and the availability of replacement
8 systems with poor muffling performance. Motorcycles
9 modified by either method can be as much as 20 decibels
10 louder than motorcycles in stock configurations."
11 Clearly, this suggests that an overall reduction
12 in motorcycle noise requires the control of modifications,
13 and any overall solution to the current motorcycle noise
14. problem has to focus on that aspect.
15 We recognize that the EPA does not currently
16 have the authority to regulate existing modified vehicles.
17 However, we think that the enactment of the proposed
18 regulations with their anti-tampering provisions will
19 inhibit tampering, and reduce the motorcycle noise problem.
20 Thus, we again suggest that 83'dB(A), as a
21 nationwide standard for all motorcycles, would markedly
22 reduce annoying motorcycle noise.
23 We turn, for a moment, to the economic implicatiors
24 of what we are addressing today. EPA estimates that the
25 cost to the consumer for the proposed ultimate levels will
26 add an average of one hundred and forty dollars to the price
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
141
1 of each medium sized street motorcyle. The project the
2 total annual consumer cost at two hundred million dollars,
3 per year, by 1985.
4 Our analysis indicates that EPA may be significantly
5 understating the total impact of the proposed regulations.
6 We estimate that the proposed requirements would add two
7 hundred and twenty-two dollars to four hundred dollars to
8 the retail price of our heavyweight models. And I would
9 point out that these costs are expressed in today's dollars -j-
10 1978 dollars -- and don't account for the inflation that we
11 are currently living with.
12 To date, it has cost Harley-Davidson's consumers
13 only fifteen to thirty-four dollars per motorcycle to go
14 from 92 dB(A) to 83 dB(A). Since further reductions will
15 provide what we believe to be only marginal improvements
16 in the overall motorcycle noise problem, we question to
17 cost effectiveness of any lower levels.
18 Among others who, perhaps, would also call
19 this "cost ineffective" is Robert Strauss, who was referred
20 to this morning. He is President Carter's recently
21 appointed Special Counsel on Inflation. In comments that --
22 were made on April 18th, Mr. Strauss declared that the
23 government must set the pattern for sacrifice by curbing
24 its own inflationary actions. He stated that he was sure
25 that there were EPA regulations and enforcement policies
26 that add significantly to the cost of production but did
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 55S-9400
-------
142
1 not achieve major environmental benefits. We believe that,
2 perhaps, the proposed motorcycle noise regulations are
3 precisely the kind of regulation that Mr. Strauss was
4 talking about.
5 We turn, for the moment, to timing. The proposed
t
$ regulations, in our view, clearly underestimate lead times
7 required to achieve compliance with even the initial control
8 level.
9 Motorcycles don't have hoods!;: or bodies to cover
JO noise control devices. Since these devices are clearly
11 visible, they require major efforts to avoid design and
12 styling compromises, which may well bring about sales
13 declines.
14 Thus, each change must be carefully analyzed
15 for implications to total vehicle performance, styling,
16 handling, safety, and ultimately, customer acceptance.
17 This takes time. It also takes skilled people.
18 For motorcycles, the time can not be compressed by mandate,
19 since it involves a creative process infinitely more
20 detailed than that which is found on many other products.
21 Another area of concern is the failure of the
22 proposed regulations to recognize other manufacturing and
23 engineering lead times. Machine tool sourcing and delivery
24 currently requires about two years. And naturally, machine
25 tools can't be ordered until the design is firmly in hand.
26 Completion of the design effort can take even longer than
(213) 437-1227 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
143
1 it takes to get the tooling, depending on the magnitude of
2 the required changes.
3 Meeting the proposed standard of 80 dB(A) would
4 require extensive changes to Harley-Davidson1s current
5 products, changes that we sould equate to nearly designing
5 an entirely new engine.
7 For a totally new motorcycle, the overall lead
8 time, from concept to production, which includes the
9 certification phase, realistically takes five to six years;
1Q and for a multi-product line, an allowance must be made to
11 phase the redesign so that the limited human and economic
12 resources can be effectively applied.
13 So, what we have is a dramatic shortage of
14 necessary lead time, as we see it.
15 In addition, the proposed potpourri of labeling,
16 and auditing requirements, introduces complexities that
17 result in additional manufacturing costs, costs that I have
18 not included in the earlier estimate of two hundred and
19 twenty-two dollars to four hundred dollars per vehicle,
20 which is covering the hardware changes.
21 And all of this comes as an uncoordinated
22 addition to the emissions requirements which were imposed
23 upon us by the EPA effective January 1st of this year.
24 I think that we've shown that the motorcycle
25 industry has, within the last ten years, brought about a
26 major reduction in the overall noise from motorcycle
(211)437-1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. * (714)558-9400
-------
144
1 operation, and I think we have also demonstrated a sensitivity
2 to environmental issues.
3 . We feel that the EPA is not regulating the proper
4 source in its attempt to reduce the annoying motorcycle
5 noise. We believe that 83 dB(A) applied to all motorcycles
g nationwide would bring the noise related environmental
7 impact of motorcycles within an acceptable range.
3 Reductions below the 83 level, in our view, are
g not cost effective; indeed, we suggest that the cost
10 inefficiency is precisely the kind that Mr. Strauss suggests
11 that EPA should question when it establishes policy.
12 We encourage you gentlemen, and the general
13 public, to examine the issues we have raised, and to adopt
14 regulations that will preserve the environment without an
15 inflationary cost to our good customers.
16 I would be happy to answer your questions, or
17 do my best in trying.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
19 I would like to respond to one item which you
20 raised here, Mr. Davidson, in your statement. You properly
21 made reference to an EPA publication, the 1977 "Noise on
22 Wheels", in which certain data and statistics were presented.
23 That document was in error and has been recalled by the
24 Agency, and has not been reissued.
25 The document associated with this rulemaking,
26 I think, more properly presents the facts insofar as the
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 558-9400
-------
145
I volume of vehicles in suburbs is concerned on Che road today,
2 and the projections. We're not quite sure what the future
3 sales are going to be either, but they're certainly not in
4 the magnitude that we projected in that 1977 document.
5 MR. DAVIDSON: We are all, I guess, dealing with
g projections, and what is going to happen in the future, and
7 that is a very difficult thing to do.
g The point, however, that I was making was that
g the document was distributed, and EPA has subsequently
JO indicated that there were some inaccuracies in it, and I
j] think that the harm that that does is that the non-motorcyclijng
12 public can well have notions today which simply are not
13 true.. That is the point I was making.
14 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: And your point is well taken,
15 sir. We stand chastized and corrected, and we have done
16 what we could to correct it, but I'm not sure that's enough
17 yet, and I certainly accept your comments there.
18 Let me ask now if my colleagues have some
19 questions, please. Mr. Edwards?
20 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Davidson, you stated that you
21 think the 83 decibel level, I believe you said, is unlikely
22 to be a source of annoyance in the future environment.
23 You also said that you think the 83 decibels is a reasonable
24 sound level.
25 • I don't want to go through what I went through
26 with Mr. Is ley this morning, but, can you give us some basis
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
146
for your opinion, or Harley-Davidson's opinion, than an
2 83 decibel motorcycle in an environment with quieter trucks,
3 quieter light vehicles, however, things which will be
4 happening in the next decade, is not going to be a source
.5 of annoyance?
g MR. .DAVIDSON: Well, I'm not sure what's going
7 to happen in the next decade. I know there is a lot of work
8 going on with other sources of. noise. However, the problem,
g as we see it, basically is one which has been acknowledged
10 this morning, that of the owner tampering with what the
11 manufacturer is putting on there.
12 We also very strongly question the cost
13 effectiveness of going beyond where we are.
14 I am not an expert on noise, unfortunately. I
15 wasn't trained as an engineer. But I think that what we
16 need to do initially is address the problem that I think
17 practically ever speaker has cited as the real problem.
18 What we're talking about is, what are trucks and
19 buses going to be like in 1987. I know there is proposed
20 regulation now. How successful that's going to be, I don't
21 know. My reference point obviously can't be based on what
22 happens in 1987.
23 I know that you are projecting your standards
24 out that far, and the State of California even further,
25 but I don't think that we are attacking the proper problem.
26 MR. EDWARDS: No, we certainly acknowledged in
(213) 437-1377
MACAUUEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
our written documents that the modification problem is
certainly a severe one, and is probably one of the largest
sources of complaints that we receive right now.
My only question was directed as to whether you
had had any specific studies, or any other data or informatiojn
that we do not have in our grasp to show than an 83 decibel
motorcycle, even when it is operating at less than its
rapid acceleration under this test, we certainly acknowledge
that motorcycles do not normally operate this way, and we
take this specifically into account in our health and
welfare analysis.
I am just asking, perhaps in your written
comments later, to give us any additional data or analysis
that you have, or you think we should do, to put it in
proper perspective. I would be very happy to get it.
MR. DAVIDSON: I would guess that we will
address that point further, but I would point to the Illinois
circuit that I commented on.
My understand of noise is that if you are at
basically a 70 dB level, that that is not particularly
annoying, and that data done in Illinois would suggest that
in the real world rather than accelerating off a freeway
ramp, that that's about where we're at today, and I think
supports the position that the unmodified motorcycle --
and I can't repeat that enough — is not a source that
causes a great problem.
(213) 437-1327
MACAU LEY & MANNING. CANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
148
1 MR. EDWARDS: Okay; fine. You cited some cost
2 figures for possible modifications to Harley-Davidson
3 motorcycles to achieve the 78 decibel standard, and we will
4 set aside just for a moment your comments on the cost
5 effectiveness or desirability of that.
g You did make a point about the motorcycle
7 appearance having to be acceptable to the customer; and I
8 believe you also made some reference to Harley-Davidson's
9 unique position in the marketplace is from appearance and
10 other standpoints. In looking forward to these possible
11 requirements, which would cost from two hundred and twenty-
12 two to four hundred dollars, how will it effect the
13 appearance of the Harley-Davidson motorcycle and its
14 customer appeal?
15 MR. DAVIDSON: We would certainly hope -- and we
16 are certainly not, at the same time, done with all the
17 engineer views that are involved in this thing --we would
18 certainly hope at the "not to exceed 83" level, which we .
19 are suggesting is the appropriate level, that we could meet
20 that with basically the configuration that we have today,
21 but we would have to change, for example, gear covers and
22 other components, to sound deaden them, because the problem,
23 even though we've talked a lot this morning about the
24 exhaust systems, the problem to us as a manufacturer is not
25 the exhaust system, it's the mechanical noise, the chains,
26 the gears, that sort of thing.
(113) 437- U27
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 538-9400
-------
149
1 ' I think we addressed the exhaust system as being
2 the problem because, again, of the tampering, and the use
3 of uncontrolled mufflers, but the problem of Harley-
4 Davidson is not that. Our mufflers are well within the
5 standard, and we are now addressing mechanical noise, which
g is very much more difficult than putting a muffler on
7 motorcycles. That is where the cost comes in.
3 MR. EDWARDS: I understand. So, as you look
9 forward past, say, the 83, which is your recommended level,
10 but at the 80 decibel standard, or the 78 decibel standard,
11 have you some feeling as to possible reconfiguration of
12 the motorcycle which might detract from the appearance --
13 and I should point out that we will accept any kind of
14 information you have on future product models on a
15 confidential basis in your docket submission -- I am just
16 asking if there is anything you know of now that you could
17 state for these people here.
18 " MR. DAVIDSON: I would say, the 80, Scott, we
19 are dealing in an unknown world as to how far we will have
20 to go. We may wind up having to go to the extent of a
21 new engine. At 78, we simply don't think we can meet
22 what has been proposed, that our existing hardware is
23 obsoleted by this date.
24 MR. EDWARDS: I see. All right. Can I ask,
25 then, on another subject, does your company manufacture
26 replacement exhaust systems other than not identical to the
-- . .. _
(213)437.1327 MACAULEY * MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U> 558-9400
-------
150
1 stock systems?
2 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
3 MR. EDWARDS: How do they vary in sound level
4 from the identifical stock systems?
.5 MR. DAVIDSON: I think I would have to turn to ny
5 technician on that one thing.
7 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Could you put that in the
g record when you make your final submission?
9 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
10 MR. EDWARDS: I would appreciate that.
11 MR. DAVIDSON: What you're after is ...
12 MR. EDWARDS: I'm trying to find out, you know,
13 whether Harley-Davidson is in, more or less -- to what
14 extent you're in the replacement exhaust system business,
15 except as distinct from the identical stock systems.
lg MR. DAVIDSON: We do sell exhaust systems as
17 replacements beyond the standard system, and we will comment
18 on that.
19 MR. EDWARDS: I would appreciate that.
20 There are a couple of other technical areas
21 that I will not ask you specifically about right now, but
22 we highlighted in our preamble, and I was wondering if I
23 could just possibly bring it to your attention again, that
24 we are looking forward to the manufacturers focusing on
25 in their written submissions.
26 One is the subject of the testing methodology
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. 17U)'5Sa-»400
-------
151
1 that we have proposed, which is somewhat different than
2 existing procedures. Another one is the question of the
2 tachometer specification that we have included in the
j proposed rules which would allow certain vehicle tachometers
c to be used and not allow other vehicle tachometers to be
g used.- Another are is in the stationary labeling arena
7 where we have suggested a particular statistic on a
g distribution of stationary sound levels as the appropriate
g statistic to label on a motorcycle --on the frame of the
IQ motorcycle, and we're looking for comment on that particular
11 statistic that everybody thinks is most useful.
12 MR. DAVIDSON: We will have comment for that.
13 We had included some of that complexity in this statement,
14 and felt it was not ... ^
15 MR. EDWARDS: I understand. We don't want to get
lg into it right now.
17 One thing we are specifically looking for in
18 there, where we are deficient in data, is the distribution
19 of sound levels of nominally identical motorcycles on the
2Q stationary test. If you have that, we would appreciate it
21 very much. - - -~—-----
22 And the final thing is the question of the
23 structure of the effective date -- not 1980 or 1985 — but
24 whether it should be on a calendar year basis or on a
25 model year basis. This is another area that we're really
26 looking for comments from the manufacturers.
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714)558-9400
-------
152
1 MR. DAVIDSON: We will address tha ..
2 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Davidson, thank you very much.
3 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Mr. Davidson, we often find
4 ourselves, in these hearings, when we speak to members of
5' the regulated industry, pointing to other industries that
g were regulated first, and the problem is not trucks it's
7 motorcycles, and it's not buses it's motorcycles, and vice
g vers a.
9 MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
10 MR. KOZLOWSKI: We find ourselves in the same
H situation here.
12 I find it very difficult to articulate. People
13 question me about controlling noise. Now, we can control
14 trucks to 83 and 80 decibel levels, and buses to 83 and 80
15 decibel levels, and automobiles that are already down to 70,
IS and try to convince people that motorcycles can be reduced
17 below the level of 83. It's just very difficult for me to
18 articulate that to people. Now, that's a statement, an
19 internal statement, I guess, as opposed to a question.
20 It just appears to me that there ought to be --
21 granted that lead time and cost are important factors --
22. there ought to be some way, at least to keep motorcycles in
23 phase with these great big heavy duty trucks, as we regulate,
24 and it seems to me that we're not doing our job protecting
25 the public health and welfare if we can't.
26 Our goal, obviously, isn't 80 decibels for trucks.
(513) 437-1327
MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
153
1 We want a noise level that's down more near 65 overall,
2 and so, when you take trucks and motorcycles, and you talk
3 to the American public at large, if you talk noise, people
4 will invariably say, "When will you quiet the motorcycles?",
5 so I don't know how you value this annoyance to people, but
g it's widespread, and I say it's severe.
7 MR. DAVIDSON: If I may comment. I know that was
g a statement.
g I would have to say to you that we have recognized
10 as a company, that motorcycle noise is, indeed, a problem,
H and has been for many years.
12 One of the things that Harley-Davidson does in
13 its warranty policy, as an example, it voids warranty
14 coverage totally if a motorcycle is modified with a tampered
15 exhaust system, a noisy exhaust system.
16 This is not something new. I have been involved
17 in this thing for, I guess, eighteen or nineteen years, and
18 we have struggled with the noise problem for that many
19 years.
20 We think we are making progress, and I would hate
21 to leave this podium without having people understand that
22 we have done something. We, perhaps, can be accused of not
23 doing enough. But we certainly have recognized this as a
24 problem to the public, and also to the industry, for many,
25 many years.
26 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I won't accuse you of that, but
(213) 437 1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 553-9400
-------
154
1 let" me ask you a question, perspectively: Suppose EPA does
2 not regulate, or regulates on an 83 level, and the state
3 and locals did not regulate, do you see the motorcycles
4 getting quieter in the future in the absence of regulation,
5 or in a very limited regulation, one of the state of the
5 art at 83, for example?
1 MR. DAVIDSON: I guess I would be hard pressed
g to express myself on that.
g I think that, certainly, in any industry, like
IQ ours, there is continuing striving to improve the technical
\\ item that we're building, and if there is improvement
12 performance, whatever -- however you want to define that --
13 that would also lower the sound levels, I'm sure the
14 industry would go in that direction. But I'm not sure that
15 that tie-in exists.
16 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, again, let me editorialize,
17 and I don't get paid to editorialize, and that is:
18 Generally speaking -- I know not only with motorcycles —
19 but generally speaking, noise is not a marketable product,
20 and I guess I would jump to the conclusion that, in the
21 absence of market pressure, that you wouldn't see the
22 industry generally -- you wouldn't see the motorcycle, or
23 trucks, or any of those products -- get quieter voluntarily.
24 As a matter of fact, because of the cost
25 involved, and because with motorcycles some people associate
26 the bike with noise -- the power of the bike with noise --
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
155
1 you would probably see it going the other way, or at least
2 not getting quieter, so I guess the conclusion that I jumped
3 to is that motorcycles would not get quieter absent some
4 staged reduction, and we can argue cost and lead time, but
5 if you want to keep motorcycles in step with noise regulations
g generally where there is noise regulation, we think there
7 are already precedents for getting trucks, for example,
8 quieter.
9 You need, I think -- the Federal government
10 needs, or the state and locals need --to get involved, to
11 set standards for the entire industry, now has some sort
12 of even pressure applied to reduce the noise level.
13 MR. DAVIDSON: We would not disagree at all that
14 we need standards.
15 MR. KOZLOWSKI: So then, we're talking about
16 the quality . . .
17 MR. DAVIDSON: One thing, if I may.
18 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Sure.
19 MR. DAVIDON: One thing I would cite as it
20 relates to noise: In our view, the motorcycles that we are
21 producing today at the 83 level -- in some cases, down to
22 82%, 82 -- perform better than the motorcycle that somebody
23 tampers with, but the tampering, for whatever reason, still
24 exhists, and I again point to that as a basic premises.
25 MR. KOZLOWSKI: We're going to quote you on
26 that. That's beautiful. That's going to help us when we
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY Sc MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
156
i tamper with the tampering problems.
2 Let me ask a real question this time: If there
3 is no Federal regulation, how are you going to deal with
the California standards?
5 MR. DAVIDSON: At 70? 80?
5 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, they start at 83, as I
7 recall, 80.
MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I said earlier, but not to
exceed 78, which is your proposal--we don't see that we
10 can meet with our existing equipment, at this point in time.
MR. KOZLOWSKI: Does that mean that .
12 MR. DAVIDSON: At 70, I don't know what engine
13 meets that. I guess I would feel, as Mr. Isley felt this
14 morning, that we have long felt that the Federal EPA was
15 going to come up with a standard, and perhaps the MIC's
jg position in accepting the 70 was one of assuming that was
17 going to be preempted.
For the record, incidentally, we are not a
member of the MIC, so they don't . . .
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: You don't speak out.
21 MR. DAVIDSON: . . . speak for us.
22 MR- KOZLOWSKI: Well, I guess I get back to the
23 same statement I made to Mr. Isley: What you're proposing,
24 and what MIC proposed, basically is that EPA promulgate
25 a preemption regulation. That seems to be the net effect.
26 And I'm not sure that's the business EPA ought to be in.
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
157
1 We ought.to be in the noise reducing business. And, if
2 we're spending all our time and attention attempting to
3 develop a standard, a national standard, merely to protect
4 the industry, I think some other agency or some other
5- organization should be doing that. Again, that's an
5 editorial comment.
7 Let me jump. Is there -- and I probably know
9 the answer to this --is there any way that a motorcycle
9 manufacturer such as Harley can develop a tamper-proof bike,
10 noise tamper-proof?
\l MR. DAVIDSON: I think not. I don't know how.
12 MR. KOZLOWSKI: So, we're always going to be
13 faced with this pressing problem of people taking the right
14 part off and putting the wrong part on?
15 -MR. DAVIDSON: You have the same problem with
16 automobiles' emissions controls.
17 I don't know how you stop them. I don't know
18 how you make a "tamper-proof" motorcycle. We may have some
19 engineers in our organization that I haven't met yet, but
20 I don't know how.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Maybe he'll come forward,
22 then, (Laughtar)
23 MR. KOZLOWSKI: That's all I have. Thank you,
24 sir.
25 MR. PETROLATI: Just one question: I'm referring
26 to your information you supplied on the Illinois Task Force
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
158
1 Study, that found noise levels in motorcycles in the low
2 and mid 70's, and that being 5 to 12 decibels below the
3 EPA standard. If EPA does get into a position to recommend
4 in-use noise levels to state and local governments, for
-5 motorcycles, would you see this as the correct level to
g recommend a level 5 to 12 decibels below the EPA standard?
7 MR. DAVIDSON: I'm not sure that I would cite
g the Illinois Study as something that should be utilized as
g a standard. The point that I was trying to make is that,
IQ in the real world, people are exposed to a noise level of
\l approximately 70 dB(A), which, to my limited knowledge of
12 noise, is certainly not damaging to hearing, and probably,
13 is not particularly noisy.
14 Would I subscribe to that as an in-use standard?
15 I don't know. I think we would have to review thatquestion,
16 and provide comment on it, before I would want to say yes
17 or no.
18 MR. PETROLATI: Thank you very much.
19 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes, we have a question from the
20 floor from Mr. Is ley. He wants to know: "Is Mr. Kozlowski's
21 statement about a long term EPA target of 60 dB(A) and
22 other vehicles by implication accurate?" The answer is,
23 no. My tongue got caught in my eye teeth and I couldn't
24 see what I was saying.
25 What I was saying is that the goal of EPA is for
26 an Ldn of 55 or perhaps 65, a marked reduction in the general
(21*3) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
159
1 noise level, and to that end, we're reducing trucks down
2 to 80, and then some future level, and for motorcycles the
3 same, and for buses the same program.
4 We need to look at the problem as a whole, and
5 we're shooting for 65 or 55 Ldn. That doesn't mean every
g product will be in that "not to exceed" level. I'm sorry
7 about this error.
g CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Davidson, I'm saving a
g few questions for last, if you will bear with me. You have
10 been with us for almost an hour. These are rather
11 straighforward questions, but I'm not so sure you can give
12 me, necessarily, a straightforward answer to them at this
13 point. I would at least ask you to consider them in
14 comments that Harley will subsequently provide to this
15 rulemaking.
Ig The first of these questions is: Can Harley-
17 Davidson produce, by the effective date produced in these
18 regulations, motorcycles across your product line that will
19 meet an EPA 80 decibel level?
20 MR. DAVIDSON: We will comment'.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: The second question is: Can
22 Harley-Davidson produce a motorcycle across its product
23 line that meets EPA's 78 decibel level at any time in the
24 future, and if so, by what date?
25 MR. DAVIDSON: I would answer that probably we
26 could, but it will obsolete our current heavyweight product
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
160
1 line. I would not want to try to give you a timetable at
2 this point for I think that needs some study, but I think
3 that it would be possible to do so.
4 You may end up with a product that you can't
,5 sell, and again, I go back to my point about the automotive
6 industry having an easier chore because your noise control
7 components are buried, they are under hoods, they are under
8 bodies, and in the motorcycle business, the look of the
9 motorcycle, we found, is damn important to the consumer,
10 and while you may be able to design something that's totally
11 covered, you may not be able to sell it, so, in essence,
12 the regulation would put us out of business, in that vein.
13 Do I think it's possible? Well, we've seen it
14 done in other things. We build golf carts, for example.
15 I believe the noise levels are 68 to 70 dB(A). You wouldn't
16 sell too many to the individual motorcycle consumer that
17 goes down the freeway in Los Angeles. That is the problem.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think I can appreciate that.
19 Mr. Davidson, it has been suggested to EPA by
20 a number of individuals during the development of this
21 rulemaking that if EPA holds the effective dates that we
22 have published in this proposed rulemaking, and those
23 noise levels, that Harley-Davidson will not be able to meet
24 those levels by those dates, and effectively, the United
25 States government will have removed the single remaining
26 U. S. manufacturer of motorcycles from the market. We
(213)437-1327 "MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
, 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
161
would appreciate your comment specifically on that in your
comments to this ruling.
We also find that that is something unique, since
' it is the opinion of EPA that there is merit to what I have
just said, and that, in fact, these regulations, if adopted
and finalized, as proposed, could well remove Harley-
Davidson from the U. S. market. I think we would find that
somewhat unique among most of the industrialized countries
of the world, at this point, if the government would be
looking at its last remaining manufacturer of a product and
effectively be removing it from the marketplace.
I would like to turn to a different line, at
this point, and that is, I would like for you if you would,
please, to comment as to what Harley-Davidson has done to
bring the noise problem — tampering modifications problem --
to the attention of its dealers, distributors, and to the
extent that it can, purchasers of its product.
MR. DAVIDSON: I mentioned one thing that I
certainly think has strong impact on the user, our warranty
policy, where we void the warranty regardless of mileage
if the individual tampers with the exhaust system. That
is widely known to the user because it appears in the
owner's manual. It is widely known to our dealer organizatioh
I believe it's a provision in the franchise contract that we
have with our dealers, that you will not do this tampering.
We also have published that policy in various
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 558-9400
-------
162
1 promotional documents that we have. I believe that if I
2 went into a research project, I could find that we have
2 written articles over the years in a publication that we
A circulate to owners. I think the circulation today of
c that publication, which is called "The Enthusiast", is one
c hundred and sixty thousand owners. We have made them aware
7 of our views.
g We strongly support the American Motorcyclist
o Association, of which I am currently President. This is
1Q an organization representing motorcycle. They, too, have
11 addressed the issue of modifications, and have very strongly
12 suggested that, from the standpoint of the industry, and
13 from the standpoint of the individual user, modification is
14 bad and we're going to all suffer over it, and that is not
15 a new posture, that goes back to the history of it.
15 I think we have, certainly, taken some strides
17 in making people aware of our position on that subject.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Some of your competitors
19 market, at least in their advertising, quiet, or less noise.
20 Have you ever taken a position, or do you'take a position
21 now, with respect to your advertising, and the material that
22 is representative of Harley-Davidson that appears in the
23 press under your symbol and name, positions with respect
24 to noise, or exactly, the kinds of things that you have
25 said here? Has Harley-Davidson taken out advertising, or
26 presented information formally, that says, "Don't modify
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
163
1 your bikes. This is bad. It's bad for motorcycling. It's
2 bad for our business. This is the kind of thing that should
3 be a no-no."?
4 By the same token, have you ever looked at
,5 advertising -- do you use any advertising -- that says,
5 "We market," or "We produce a quiet bike," or "quieter
7 bikes," anything with respect to noise?
8 MR. DAVIDSON: I think our advertising has been
9 more skewed to safety issues. We strongly recommend the
10 use of helmets, for example.
11 Where I talk advertising, I think I have to
12 define it. It's a printed ad in a publication, Cycle
13 magazine for example, versus our Enthusiast, that I alluded
14 to earlier.
IS That also is cost, and that also could certainly
16 be postured as advertising, and in chat document we indeed'
17 have talked tampering, but perhaps, as I think you're
18 suggesting, we haven't done enough of that in our present
19 advertising.
20 That, I guess, is a constant conscious decision
21 that we feel, perhaps, the safety issue is one that needs
22 more attention than the noise issue, other than the
23 tampering piece of the noise issue.
24 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, this is the question, or
25 my editorial comment, that I add to, and I will do so with
26 each representative of the industry that speaks before us,
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
164
1 and that is, if we mutually agree that a significant part of
2 the problem of motorcycle noise has to do with modifications
. 3 and tampering, what would you recommend the industry do for
4 its part, about helping to correct or solve this problem,
5 and what would you propose that the Federal government do?
g MR. DAVIDSON: We will address that.
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I would appreciate that, sir.
g Thank you.
9 Any other questions? (No response from panel
10 members.)
11 I do have one question from the floor, and the
12 question is this, and I'll read it as given to us in here:
13 "What is Harley-Davidson doing to restrict the sale of the
14 old 92 dB(A) mufflers in volumes which indicates they are
15 being installed on new machines?"
16 I guess that's a statement of fact, that you are
17 selling old dB(A) mufflers in volumes which indicated they
18 are being installed on new machines, and what are you doing
19 about it?
20 MR. DAVIDSON: I don't know who the gentleman is
21 that asked the question. I could not address the volumes.
22 We do sell an exhaust system which is for a racing motorcycle
23 and it is clearly stated that that's the way it is to be
24 used.
25 I would acknowledge at the same time -- and I'm
26 damn sure -- some people use them on street motorcycles,
(213) 437-1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 558-9400
-------
165
1 and- we need to address that as a company.
2 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you very much, sir. I
3 appreciate it.
4 MR. DAVIDSON: I appreciate the forum, and the
5 opportunity to meet with you publicly. Thank you.
5 . CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Jerry Jardine. The next
7 individual we have is Jerry Jardine, from Jardine Header
g Company.
9 JERRY JARDINE
10 Okay, I'm Jerry Jardine. It's been a long
11 wait back there. It's been really interesting to me and
12 it's -- I'll have to go along with John Davidson about a
13 hundred per cent on all of his comments.
14 I manufacture exhaust systems for just about
15 all the motorcycles out there -- not "all" of them but
16 mainly the big four, all the Japanese bikes -- a lot of
17 replacement exhaust systems, replacement mufflers that are
18 sold strictly as a replacement muffler, no performance
19 increase basically.
20 When a guy goes to buy a new multi-cylinder --
21 four cylinder Honda replacement system we have a muffler
22 that will cost him about half the price he will be paying
23 for a ... That's a big part of our sales.
24 They'are at 83 decibels now -- I had a speech
25 here I was going to try and go by but I don't think --a
26 lot of these points have been gone over so much already --
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
166
1 mainly to get a system that really qualifies at 83 dB(A)
2 we're, actually looking at a system that tests at -- you
3 want to make sure it's usually 81 to 82 -- at least we
4 have that, you know, to make an honest 83, because test
t
5 conditions vary so much it's -- you just can't say --
6 some days we have gone out and tested and we have conceded
7 we had better not go on testing today because the stock
8 system is not even close to what it should be — there is,
9 you know, a little too much wind, or a lot of little
10 problems.
11 Anyway, bikes have gotten a lot quieter in the
12 last few years, and there's still a lot of noisy ones
13 around. There's a lot of systems being made that aren't
14 legal, not even close to it. New manufacturers every day
15 that I don't even know where they come from. It looks like
16 it's easy to get into the market.
17 I have been in the basic exhaust system market
18 for twenty years, ever since I was out of high school --
19 and I have grown; and some of my competitors have grown
20 more; some have gone over the hill, and upside down;
21 But I've stayed in there -- but, trying to make really a
22 decent product that's applicable to, you know, popular
23 demand, basically.
24 I was going to go over the meeting the 80 dB(A),
25 if you have a new motorcycle that comes out, this will go
26 under 80 decibels, a muffler — it's going to cost us quite
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY 8t MANNING. 8ANTA ANA. CALir. (714)558-9400
-------
167
1 a bit more to make an 80 decibel muffler, but I'm sure,
2 with tooling and stuff, we — roughly, to do the whole
3 line, we figure maybe seventy-five to a hundred thousand
4 dollars on basic tooling just to start with, which --it
5 isn't a lot, but yet it's one jump at one time.
5 We're really a small business. We do around
7 two million dollars gross sales a year, which isn't -- you
g know, we're not big time. But I think that Trendex survey
g shows that the total exhaust system market in the United
10 States, '76 through '77, that mid-year there, is close to
11 forty million dollars, and that includes the Japanese
12 replacements or the direct 0-wing replacements, and all
13 the American made replacement mufflers, you know.
14 The biggest problem in enforcing the law: We've
15 got — I got .-- I used to make some real nosy stuff -- and
16 it's very popular to make noisy stuff. That's what the --
17 not all -- I would say, ten to twenty per cent of the
18 riders like noisy stuff, and those are the bikes that are
19 going to get noisy, and no matter what they say of the
20 stock system, they'll just -- you know, they can drill
21 holes in the end of it, or cut it in half, or -- you know,
22 there's a lot of ways of making it noisier.
23 The biggest problem there is enforcement. These
24 guys really can ride anywhere with a noisy exhaust system,
25 and maybe they get a ticket -- like the gal said this
26 morning, they get a ticket, so they go and put the stock
(213)437032? MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
168
system back on -- put a quiet system on, and it doesn't
cost them any money -- a little labor -- they're all
mechanics, the ones that are making the noise — come back
the next day with another system, maybe make it another
year, six months, or several thousand miles with a noisy
system. Those are the motorcycles the people hear.
I'm sure that people don't even know that it's
an 83 decibel bike going down the road because, if it's
under acceleration, it's making 83 decibels, he can be cited
for speeding real easy because it's just -- you know., speed-
II time gesture, or acceleration. There is absolutely no
12 place a guy can do that legally, unless he's absolutely
13 out off the road.
14 Other than that, the major part of the American
15 motorcycle industry is Harley-Davidson and the after-market
16 that manufactures racks, bearings, helmets and exhaust
17 systems. Exhaust systems are rated up in the top three
18 of the after-market products.
19 And there definitely has to be some control
20 over people that ride noisy bikes, and I don't think it's
21 right to go in an lower everybody down to abnormally low
22 levels, down to 78, or even 80, really, when the bikes that
23 are causing the problem are probably running up in the 90's,
24 the mid-90's, I would say.
25 In fact, if you would just do your own survey
26 when you're driving down the road, look at the bikes :":./-
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 358-9400
-------
169
1 that you noticed -- try to notice all the bikes -- and the
2 ones you really notice are the ones that usually have the
3 mufflers cut off, or the straight pipes on them -- most of
4 the time, no muffler at all.
, 5 Even in our systems, we use the — see that
5 system over there on the bottom (indicating the rendering
7 on display) -- our replacement mufflers are double reverse,
g and when we install it, it is riveted in. A guy cut drill
9 the rivets down pretty easy. We can weld them, but they'll
10 just cut the welds off. They'll take those apart, pull
11 them off and saw them in half and only use one reverser.
12 Well, then they're back to, you know, a lot louder bike.
13 I don't have too much more to say. I'm sure you
14 will hear more from some of the other manufacturers. I
15 was trying to say, in the market itself, with my sales,
16 I think with the MIC's "Less Sound, More Ground," basically
17 came out for the dirt bikes. It's helped the whole
18 industry, riders and everybody, dealers back east. It's
19 really gotten hot. To only just sell stuff that they're
20 sure that the guy isn't going to come back and say, "Hey,
21 the cops gave me a ticket and I want my money back."
22 Dealers will order noisy systems on order, but they won't
23 really stock them.
24 But anyway, I'll send in a written comment to
25 you, and some more figures. If there are any questions?
26 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Jardine, we're fortunate
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
170
1 to have you here today. Since you're in the after-market
2 business, you're one of the folks we want to talk to. I
3 hope that some of your colleagues -- I note that there are
4 one or two others who have asked to speak before these
5 hearings, and I hope several others will join us later.
g I am very sorry, as a matter of fact, that we
7 are missing some folks that I would like to see talking to
8 us. I don't see any dealers and distributors, for example,
9 who have come forward and asked to speak, those kind of
10 folks.
11 We're also missing some motorcyclists themselves.
12 We were looking for a little bit of the rest of the segment
13 of the market, in here, that would be involved with this.
14 I think you have laid out, quite candidly, what
15 some of the problems are. Have you got some solutions in
16 your mind what we ought to do to take care of some of
17 those problems?
18 MR. JARD.INE: Well, I don't know. I think,
19 really, the enforcement on the street is one major deterrent
20 to -- usually, it's the younger guys, the young kids, that
21 will like to hear, you know, when they're going fifty or
22 sixty miles an hour and they're getting a rush of air if
23 they're wearing a helmet. It takes about 86 to even really
24 hear the exhaust system on a lot of those bikes. It
25 depends on where the outlet is. But, to hear it over the
26 air rushing through their ears, thatls what they want to
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
171
1 listen to, basically.
2 It's really the younger guys. If they got a
3 few tickets and had to pay some money, Im sure it would
4 really help to cut down on the noise. You know, most all
jj of the bikes now have enough power. I'm sure they can't
5 measure, you know, seven or eight horsepower extra on the
7 street. If they're out on the drag strip and they're in a
g racing unit, it's different then. They don't have to run
9 any mufflers at all.
10 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: So, tougher enforcement, higher
11 fines.
12 MR. JARDINE: I think that would help, rather
13 than trying to lower all the levels to new motorcycles.
14 831 Have you guys ever used sound meters, or played with
15 them?
16 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Qute a few, yes.
17 MR. JARDINE: Yes, well, personally, you can
18 get a bike in the low 80's, it's fairly quiet, and it
19 cruises right down in the low 70's. A noisy chain will
20 bring it up. Quite a few of the mechanical noises will,
21 loose brackets floating around.
22 . CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think Mr. Kozlowski has got
23 a few questions he'd like to ask you.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Mr. Jardine, my solution to the
25 automobile pollution was to route the exhaust system into
26 the driver's compartment. I figured that would stop it.
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
172
1 (Laughter) Perhaps we should have the exhaust system up
2 close to the driver's seat of the motorcycle. Then, they
3 wouldn't tamper: with it.
4 . Tha-t brings us to the question, now. We've
J5 talked about "a" major problem being the tampering of the
6 bike's exhaust system. Why do people tamper if, in fact,
7 it is true — and I guess we would tend to support this
8 statement by Mr. Davidson -- you don't get performance
9 improvements because you tamper with the bike? Why do
10 people tamper with bikes?
11 MR. JARDINE: Well, you know, it's not a lot of
12 the guys that ride motorcycles, but that small percentage
13 that do, stand out because they're noisy, but the reason
14 they tamper with them is basically more noise. You stated
15 earlier that noise wasn't a marketable product. Well, it
16 really is ...
17 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes, yes.
18 MR. JARDINE: ... it really is, right now,
19 with no controls on it. The State has some laws, but they
20 don't seem to enforce them on the manufacturer. I've had
21 tests run on my system. They've been, you know, laughed at,
22 because they were quiet, and a little low on horsepower.
23 That was a few years ago. And it was hard on business.
24 I've come back, honestly, right now, to make some noisy
25 systems, and they're selling like hotcakes. (Laughter)
26 But, there's no restrictions on them other than the State,
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
173
1 you know -- and I guess I'll hear from them tomorrow, or so.
2 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: You may hear from them this
3 afternoon. I think there's a couple of them in the audience.
4 MR. KOZLOWSKI: What I mean was, quiet was not
5 a marketable product.
g I assume that you've gone through our regulations,
7 our enforcement scheme, and actually, any debate over what
8 the standards should be. I likewise assume, because you
g haven't commented adversely, that you don't have any
10 particular problem with the labeling of the after-market
11 systems, with the general compliance and enforcement scheme,
12 and the testing schemes, that are laid out in the regulations
13 MR. JARDINE: Well, the labeling, I believe, is
14 a little extreme, as far as how much has to be on there,
15 and the size of it. A lot of systems are sold for styling.
16 In fact, I would -- you know, right now, it's hard to really
17 break the market up and find out what everyone sells for,
18 but styling costss and performance -- there's a lot of
19 people out there that buy my systems because they are
20 quieter, I know that for a fact.
21 It's hard to buy a good system that, you know,
22 a guy can ride and really not get in trouble all the time.
23 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Do you intend to provide written
24 comments?
25 MR. JARDINE: Yes.
26 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I am asking you to comment
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. <7U) 558-9400
-------
174
1 specif:sally on the enforcement procedure, the labeling,
2 and the testing scheme. We would like to hear from people
3 like you.
4 A different subject: Will your mufflers last
3 more than one year?
g • MR. JARDINE: Oh, yes. I run a lot of tests.
7 On the current muffler we make right now, on the replacement
g mufflers, the interior is a mechanical diffuser, or chamber,
g that goes across it, just the same little close thing to
10 what Honda, and Kawasaki, and everybody else uses -- Harley-
11 Davidson, it's all steel, no fiberglass. Yes, it will
12 outlast a lot of factory systems.
13 MR. KOZLOWSKI: So, you have no problems with
14 acoustical assurance?
15 MR. JARDINE: No, not as long as we don't have
15 to get back into glass, fiberglass or one of those components
17 that will deteriorate.
18 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Thank you very much.
19 MR. PETROLATI: At the standards that are being
20 proposed, are you going to lose your ability to sell a
21 different style muffler at a lower cost than the original
22 equipment manufacturer?
23 MR. JARDINE: It's going to be -- It's hard to
24 say. You know, if you have to make a bike quieter, there's
25 a lot of things other than a muffler that contributes to
26 the noise, as John Davidson stated.
(213) 437-132? MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
175
1 MR. PETROLATI: Well, you're more or less going
2 back. You have to assume the fact that you're getting a
3 motorcycle that is meeting that standard. The only thing
4 that you have to do is maintain that standard with your
5 exhaust system.
6 MR. JARDINE: Yes.
7 MR. PETROLATI: Consequently, are you still
8 going to be able to add those styling characteristics
9 that you, as an after-market manufacturer, are supplying
10 now?
11 MR. JARDINE: Well, I'm sure it's going to
12 increase the price, and it's also going to increase the
13 bulkiness of mufflers. When you get into really tuning
14' mufflers -- little tiny mufflers -- there's just not enough
15 volume in that to take care of any noise, you know. It's
16 just like -- I don't know -- you know, if you go to 78,
17 it really just -- I can't imagine really what would happen,
18 then, at that level. I know if you go to 80, we're going
19 to have to be at 78 and 79, basically. That's the way you
20 just about have to figure. You have to go under whatever
21 the level you set in this. You know, if you say 73, or rathejr
22 83, and you give a 2 decibel lead, well then, there's a
23 whole bunch that is — you know, it's hard to say. I
24 haven't done a lot of testing further than the 80. Of
25 course, you get into other things, like you take a 70, or
26 say, an early Honda, when they had the first four cylinders
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. IANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
176
1 and they had a big air box, we can put a muffler, one of
2 our replacement slip-on replacement mufflers will go on
3 there, and the bike was what, an 86 or 88 on one of the
4 California drive-by tests.
5 You take that same bike and put a late model air
g box on it, it will drop it down to 83. That's why a muffler
7 has a real bearing on the noise. It's the air intake on
g acceleration. As long as the valves, you know, are loose,
g and the chain is right, and the motor's fairly tight, so
IQ there's a whole lot of tuning the bike down. When you get
\\ down to the fine numbers, you know, it's hard to say.
12 We do make some low end stuff now for Kawasaki.
13 We.design stuff for them, a little bit of stuff, not much.
14 Most of it comes from Japan.
15 'MR. PETROLATI: Okay. I think my basic question
16 was, if you knew how the regulations were going to affect
17 the demand for the after-market exhaust system, and listening
18 to your answer, I guess it's still the big question in your
19 minds.
20 MR. JARDINE: Yes, really. I'think a lot of the
21 systems are sold on style, I'm sure. You know, getting
22 back to your first, I really don't think the motorcycle,
23 the motor bike, the 80 decibels, or the 83, is a big noise
24 problem, you know. It's the rider that just keeps insisting
25 on running a noisy system, or running a modified quiet
26 system. You'know, they've got hacksaws, and the only thing
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
177
I to do is, you know, like you f lid, highly tamper-proof
2 completely, or could you make a tamper-proof bike. It's
3 physically impossible, you know, on any kind of a product.
4 MR. PETROLATI: Would you say that most of the
•5 after-market industry, that if the standard, say, remained
5 at 83, would still be viable; in other words, no real effect
7 by the regulation?
8 MR. JARDINE: No. I think there's a lot of guys
9 that wouldn't. To qualify the 83? No. A lot of bikes
10 can make 83, I'm sure. A lot of my competitors are.
11 Getting under that? I don't know; I don't really know. I
12 think that maybe quite a few of them. There's a lot of
13 small shops around that don't even make their own stuff.
14 They're selling a few systems here, and a few there. They
15 don't really care. You know, quick money. They sell
16 products. That's going to be the hardest thing to control,
17 if you ever get into it. That goes back around to the
18 state and highway patrol and stiffer enforcement of the
19 law, those things.
20 Are you familiar with the German tooth test they
21 have over there in Germany? Have you heard of those guys?
22 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, we have.
23 MR. JARDINE: I don't know what they call them
24 here. Anyway, it is pretty hard to sell a system in
25 Germany antil you pass a test over there, and that takes a
26 lot of politics, and a lot of money. (Laughter) But, in
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
178
1 talking to guys that ride bikes over there, those are the
2 guys that a lot of them have two systems, and it's a heavy
3 fine if you get caught with the system on, so you see,
4 most of the bikes don't hardly have any modified systems
5 because there is a big fine if you're caught with your
g system. That is what it comes down to.
7 MR. PETROLATI: Thank you very much, Mr. Jardine.
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Jardine, I've got one
g question that I want to pose to you now -- you may not be
ig able to answer it now, but perhaps you could consider it
U further and submit written comments to the Agency. I'd
12 like your comments on them.
13 We have considered and talked with the Europeans,
14 talked with the Common Market people. We have talked to
15 the Germans. I was over there last year and talked with
16 government people on their regulations on motorcycles.
17 We have considered setting regulations that
18 would ban, literally, the manufacture of inadequate
19 mufflers and exhaust systems in the United States. There's
20 a little ticklish problem associated with it, though, and
21 that is, we don't know quite how to do it. We've got the
22 law, and we could write such a regulation, and we can
23 remove from interstate commerce in particular, postal
24 service, etcetera, the sale of the bad straight pipes,
25 pseudo-muffler systems, but we've got a lot of motorcycles
26 out there right now that we don't know the noise levels of,
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
179
1 older bikes, and if we were to severely restrict the sale
2 of after-market exhaust systems other than just label them
3 as we're doing right now in one respect, how would we write
4 such a regulation, how would we determine which bikes, as
5 it were, which mufflers, should, in fact, be sold, and which
5 ones should be removed from the market?
7 Would you consider that, please, and if you and
g your colleagues can come up with an answer for us, since
9 you obviously do manufacture at least some systems that will
10 work well, we would be interested in your views.
11 Mr, Edwards?
12 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Jardine, I'm very happy to
13 see you here today. We have yet a lot to learn about the
•14 after-market muffler manufacturers. If you can do me a
15 favor -- you've been up here a long time but you're the
16 first after-market muffler manufacturer that we've had, and
17 I've talked with you on many occasions and I am somewhat
18 familiar with what you do, but many members of the panel, and
19 in particular, when I have talked to people from the press,
20 and other people interested in this business -- when you
21 start talking about muffler manufacturers, they get sort of
22 a glazed look like, "Gee, I don't really know what you're
23 talking about. I never heard of these people." These are
24 people who are not associated with the motorcycle industry,
25 and I was wondering if you would be willing to give us just
26 a little run-through on what happens when a new motorcycle
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
180
1 model comes out that you want to build a muffler fol. In
2 doing so, we can get some idea how big your company is --
g not really dollars and cents but how many people you have
4 who do the designing. How do you get the motorcycles to
5 do the testing on? Do you use a test strip to run a
c J-331a? Do you own it? Do you go out someplace in the
7 street? That kind of detail would be something that would
g be very helpful, I think, to members of the panel, and
g other folks listening in.
IQ MR. JARDINE: Well, right at the present time
H we work -- I employ, roughly -- oh, it must be close to
12 forty-five people. I have, basically, two people that work
J3 in design, and prototyping, and testing systems, fit checking;
14 and a couple of more guys that work in production that
15 handle -- one, welding, to make sure welding jigs fit
16 all right, and another guy in hydraulic sledging, where we
17 form stuff.
18 In prototyping, well, we buy new bikes every so
19 often, and we try to borrow one. It's tough to borrow one.
20 We do a lot of tuning on -- we'll get two -- we'll buy one
21 or two new bikes every year. This year, we bought a new
22 eleven hundred, and we're going to buy a new Suzuki, I
23 think, one that actually has smog, California smog, on it.
24 Anyway, we have laid out systems. We have a
25 dynamometer there. I have a bike I rode over here today,
26 it only shows fifty, seventy niles on it, or sixty miles,
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
181
1 maybe, now, but it's probably got I don't know how many
2 miles on the dynamometer, you know, running noise tests,
3 horsepower tests, chrome tests, pollution tests, paint
i
4 tests, a lot of things like that, making sure the product -- ;
•5 you know, what we sell -- is going to hold up.
g . Horsepower, and horsepower increase, along
7 with the noise controls, are primary things we're working
g on. Also, producing something that is going to last.
g MR. EDWARDS: In the design of the product, do
10 you rely basocially on sort of your experience with past
\l products, and then build prototypes, and then, sort of
12 go through several iterations? Is there somewhat of a
13 science or an art? How do you go about doing that?
14 MR. JARDINE: Well, bikes are designed with a
15 lot of obstacles to get a new system on. We'll make a
16 muffler system, say, using the factory head pipes. we
17 don't sell a lot of those at first. We'll sell a few on
18 just for styling. A lot of guys want to change the style.
19 We have a turned-out muffler and a built-in
20 muffler that we use a double reverser in, and, you know,
21 very good on noise control, maybe in the 83 area; you know,
22 a little longer than some models that just ride around in
23 the area. We will design those to go with factory head
24 pipes. And then, we'll design our four-to-one. And there
25 is the styling, really, the styling muffler, the way the
26 megaphone hangs on there, and the way it looks.
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (7U) 553 9400
-------
182
1 It's a styling change, basically, for the guy
2 that buys it, and it's up to him if he wants to make a
3 lot of more noise. He can easily modify it. Or else, there
4 is the factory system.
£ MR. EDWARDS: Okay. In looking forward to a
5 possible 78 decibel requirement, I believe you manufacture
7 replacement systems for the FL-1000, is that correct?
8 MR. JARDINE: Yes.
9 MR. EDWARDS: How loud do they compare to the
10 GL-1000 original equipment system?
11 MR. JARDINE: The original 1000 system? I don't
12 know, in terms of numbers. It's pretty close to 80, I
13 thought, or 78. I think we ran some of those in that
14 McDonnell Douglas test. I can't remember — I believe we
IS did, yes.
16 MR. EDWARDS: How did they compare in price to
17 a replacement of the GL-1000?
18 MR. JARDINE: Oh, they were about half the price,
19 if I remember, of the original. I haven't priced the new
20 model. The new model has a little different muffler than
21 last year. It has a little more chrome around it. I don't
22 know what the price is.
23 MR. EDWARDS: I don't want to put words in your
24 mouth, but going into the below 80 dB range is not totally
25 virgin territory for you. You have looked at quieter
26 motorcycles, and designed products in that area?
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
183
1 ' MR. JARDINE: Oh, yes.
2 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Have you had to get into
3 using a double wall tubing at all?
4 MR. JARDINE: No; uh uh.
'5 MR. EDWARDS: Do you foresee that as something
6 you will have to get into?
7 MR. JARDINE: I don't, not right off, no. I
8 really believe that on the Gold Wing Honda, the whole bike
9 was designed a lot quieter, you know, everything. There's
10 a shaft drive, there's no chain on it, so in the drive-by
11 test you don't have to worry about a loose chain, or, you
12 know, just a worn chain. The intake system is quiet, and
13 the whole bike -- the cam timer is back a little bit, and les
14 cam time, so they just don't make that much noise. So,
15 it really isn't that tough to make a muffler. But, you
16 know, I don't know what's going to happen down the road,
17 if any of the other bikes will be able to come that close.
18 The whole bike was redesigned to be quieter.
19 MR. EDWARDS: Mr. Jardine, thank you very much
20 for coming here today.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Jardine, what's your lead
22 "time to produce a new muffler exhaust system?
23 MR. JARDINE: I don't know. It depends. Right
24 now we're just getting ready for a new run for one of our
25 automobiles for the next year, and we hope to be in
26 production by, I think, September, and we've got just a few
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY fle MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAL.IF. (714) 558-9400
-------
184
1 minor changes, and that will probably take — that's just
2 minor changes — it will probably take three months to
3 do that.
4 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: So, it could take up to a
5 year?
g • MR. JARDINE: Well, if we had to go way down,
7 yeah; if we had to get into something drastic.
8 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: But otherwise, three to six
9 months? Six months?
10 MR. JARDINE: Yeah.
11 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: However, again, I don't want
12 to put words in your mouth. I just want to get a sense of
13 it.
14 MR. JARDINE: Well, we can -- say, if you just
15 came out with a brand new bike, and we have to design a
16 whole totally different muffler -- a lot of our designs,
17 now, they're at say they are at 83 — getting into 80, it
18 isn't usually too hard. We can change tooling diameters,
19 and, you know, a few little refinements. Sometimes you
20 can get them right down to there.
21 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I would like to ask you a
22 couple of questions about your business. If any of this
23 is proprietary or confidential, please don't answer at
24 this point, until you're obligated to.
25 Do you do the majority of your business by sales
26 to individuals, or to distributors and dealers?
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
185
MR. JARDINE: We sell through distributors, and
they sell to the dealers.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Through distributors, and
through dealership chains. Do you sell to individuals
directly?
MR. JARDINE: Just a few local guys; nothing,
you know; maybe one a week. That would be about it. If
a guy calls in from some isolated area, and he smashed in
.a muffler, or one pipe, we'll ship him the pipe, so the
dealer won't have to order through the chain of distributors.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Now, I'd like for you to
educate me on something, if you would, please.
MR. JARDINE: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: How do your dealers or your
distributors relate to you with respect to the noise
attenuation of the system you produce? Now, that's a lot
of fancy words; let me put it another way.
Essentially, if they're going to sell a product,
are they looking at all, in your view, from what you can
tell, are they looking at all as to whether the system
that they're going to buy from you is going to give, when
installed on a given machine, is going to give a given
amount of noise attenuation or noise reduction? Do they
come to you at all, or do you provide information to them
of any technical nature, that says, "This is the dB level.
Whatever the machine is, in here, you can use this system
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
186
1 on'it and get this noise leve, but you can't use this
V
2 one," or, "you can't use that one." Is there any of this
3 interplay between you, with your products, and your
4 distributors and dealers?
.5 MR. JARDINE: Most of our stuff is handled --
g has been handled through trade shows, a lot of direct
7 contact between myself and the salesmen at trade shows,
8 with dealers that come to us. We don't sell to dealers.
g They buy through our distributors. Education of our
IQ distributors' salesman, so that when they talk to their
\l dealers they can rely -- you know, relay the message on.
12 In the last three years, since Ross Little
13 made us really get quieter, our sales have gone up
14 considerably in replacement muffler systems, and slip-on
15 mufflers, and the low dollar cheapie stuff -- it's not
16 "cheapie stuff" it's quality, but it's a lot cheaper than
17 the factory stuff. It's roughly half the price.
18 The average guy that's got a 350 or a 500 Honda,
19 or one of these bikes with four big mufflers, and is
20 probably riding it just for transportation, and a little
21 bit of pleasure on weekends, maybe he doesn't ride it very
22 much, the mufflers on a lot of those bikes would rust out
23 really quick, and our primary sale is right to that guy,
24 and he wants a muffler that will ride quiet and still run
25 good and look decent, you know. He looks at the chrome
26 quality, and sound doesn't enter into the picture.
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
187
1 Really, your noise problem just comes from a
2 small group of people that just want to hear noise, usually
3 a lot of the younger guys. You hardly ever see a real young
4 guy try to ride a quiet bike. It's a surprise when you do
-5 see it.
5 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Jardine, do you see these
7 regulations, as they are implemented, as reproposed, helping
g your business or hurting your business?
g MR. JARDINE: I think it can hurt the industry
10 considerably. It could help my business a little in some
11 areas, but it's also going to raise the price of my
12 product. It would be a lot of record keeping, and a lot
13 of extra testing that we don't do now. We know, we do our
14 own basic testing coming in. When something goes into
15 production, you know, jigs are permanent, they can't change
16 the manufacture, hardly, once the tooling is made and
17 everything is running. Things pretty much stay at the
18 same noise level, you know, if the gap inside the muffler
19 is changed or separated.
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I just want to follow up with
21 another request I had earlier. I'd like to see or hear
22 your comments on our test procedure, our compliance procedure
23 If you know a better way to test, a cheaper way to test,
24 we would like to hear about that and take it apart.
25 MR. JARDINE: Well, I haven't tried your tachometer
26 deal yet. I was too busy, too busy worrying about what we
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714)558-9400
-------
188
1 were going to do, you know. It's coming up right away in
2 the future.
3 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Jardine, you have been
4 very helpful. Thank you for taking your time and coming
•5 here today.
6 . MR. JARDINE: Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you.
8 I would like to hear next from the Honorable
9 Ralph Clark, Supervisor from Orange County, please.
10 HON. RALPH B. CLARK
11 Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to
12 speak with you today. I am Ralph Clark, member of the
13 Orange County Board of Supervisors. And I am also Chairman
14 of the Orange County Transit District Board of Directors.
15 I would like to extend greetings to you, and
16 complement you on your decision to visit our fine County.
17 I hope your stay here will be a memorable one.
18 The problems of urban noise, and particularly
19 the problems caused by excessive motorcycle noise, have
20 long been pet peeves of mine, and if you suffered the brain
21 blasting experience of having some character roar up and
22 down your residential street on a motorcycle with a
23 defective muffler, then you know exactly why I want to do
24 something about motorcycle noise.
25 So, as an initial comment, I want to commend
26 you on the Environmental Protection Agency Noise Emission
(213) 4370327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
189
1 Standards for transportation equipment, motorcycles, and
2 motorcycle replacement exhaust systems. While the
3 regulations are not yet perfect, they do recognize many of
4 the problems of modified motorcycle mufflers.
5 Also, I believe you have taken a major step
5 towards balancing the rights of motorcyclists who should be
7 allowed to select any means of transportation they choose,
8 and the rights of citizens who- do not want the mind numbing
9 noise of motorcycles intruding in their homes, their
10 businesses, and their life styles.
U Gentlemen, you were wise in selecting Anaheim as
12 a principal location for your hearings because of our fine
13 weather. Southern California is a nationwide center for
14 motorcycle use. According to the County Health Department,
IS Orange County has seventy eight thousand seven hundred and
16 fifty motorcycles registered here. There are three thousand
17 four hundred and fourteen on-road vehicles, twenty two
18 thousand and seventy-five off-road vehicles, twenty six
19 thousand two hundred and sixty-one combination vehicles.
20 Most of these motorcyclists are responsible,
21 reasonable people. Most of them are considerate and law
22 abiding. But a group of these motorcyclists -- unfortunately
23 too large a group -- enjoy making noise just for the sake
24 of making noise. They remove their baffles, use straight
25 pipes, or do anything they can do to make their vehicles
26 noise makers. These people are obnoxious, and I'm not sure
(213) 437-1327
MACAU LEY & MANNING. HANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) S51-9400
-------
190
1 these fine regulations will do very much to handle these
2 noisy outlaws.
3 We wanted an ordinance with real clout, an
4 ordinance that would do the job, but we ran into a major
.5 problem because the State of California preempts the County
6 on noise issues involving traffic and motor vehicles, a
7 major source of urban noise.
8 According to information generated by the
9 California Highway Patrol, about fourteen per cent of the
10 motorcycles tested in this State were found to be in
11 violation of the State noise standards. Using the State
12 generated percentage, we can estimate that there are about
13 eleven thousand motorcycles in Orange County today which
14 are violating State standards, and as you beef up the
15 regulations, more and more vehicles will be in violation
16 of the law.
17 Our problem, then, is one of catching the
18 lawbreakers. You, at the Federal level, may set the
19 standards, but it's the people at the local level that must
20 enforce these laws. So far, we haven't been entirely
21 successful.
22 Here, in Orange County, we've been trying to
23 quiet down the urban noise problem. Beginning in 1970, we
24 initiated community noise control regulations. In 1973,
25 the Orange County Board of Supervisors enacted one of the
26 nation's first local noise ordinances, and eleven Orange
(213)437-1327 MACAUUEY 8t MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
191
1 County cities followed the County government lead, and they,
2 too, enacted noise ordinances.
3 The County regulations have served us well in
A dealing with stationary noise sources, like the sounds of
c factories, or sand and gravel operations. We even have had
c some success in using our local ordinance to combat some
~ motorcycle noise,
g The County's Environmental Health Department has
a investigated, and in some cases actually closed down, overly
JQ loud organized off-road motorcycle park vehicle race tracks.
11 In one court case, the District Attorney was able to use the
12 County ordinance to obtain an order quieting the roar of
jo motorcycle engines at the El Toro Raceway.
14 But, in spite of our success, we have not been
15 able to hit the problem of motor vehicle noise. In that
jg area of vehicle noise, we have been preempted by the State.
17 Now, with these new regulations, you, at the Federal level,
18 will be preempting the State.
ig The method of solving this problem is getting
20 further and further away from local control, and that, I
21 believe, is going to lead to some enforcement problems.
22 Although we are all aware of the health problems
23 caused by excessive noise and defective mufflers, the
24 problem of motorcycle noise is perceived as a matter of
25 annoyance. It is seen as an inconvenience rather than a
26 matter of public safety. And because of that perception,
(2131) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
192
1 will be hard to get local law enforcement to really crac c
2 down on those few motorcyclists who just love to hear the
3 deafening sound of their own engines.
4 Loud noise just is not a top priority of local
5 law enforcement officials, and when compared to major crimes,
g or enforcement of regulations involving public safety, like
7 ticketing speeders, I am not sure local law enforcement
g agencies are arranging their priorities properly compared
g to more serious crimes, including crimes which endanger life
in and property. Noise emissions control just doesn't have
11 that great an impact. Please perceive that ticketing a loud
12 motorcycle is a way to deal with a nuisance, and that's a
13 fact of life.
14 However, we, at the County level, have tried to
15 underscore "the problems of motorcycle noise. In the past
15 two years, I have successfully introduced regulations calling
17 for our local sheriff to crack down on noisy motorcycles.
18 Some city councils have followed our lead. Some law
19 enforcement officials have cooperated and done the best
20 they can do to get something going. But if you want to do
21 more than put another meaningless unenforceable law on the
22 books, you are going to have to do more than just hold these
23 hearings. You will have to dramatize the problem of noise
24 pollution for law enforcement. You will have to assist
25 local agencies, particularly local police, by providing
26 technical information, model enforcement guidelines, and
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
193
I educational programs. You will have to put more emphasis on
2 how these rules will be enforced on the front lines, on the
3 streets,
4 In California, where there is an active State
5 noise control program, EPA assistance could be administered
g and coordinated by the State Office of Noise Abatement and
7 Control, and the California Highway Patrol.
g You should also explore the possibility of
g Federal grants to stimulate the creation of local noise
IQ control programs.
11 It is clear that your regulations, particularly
12 the labeling requirements, are well drafted, and could be
13 enforced by a field enforcement officer with hand held
14 sound meters. Now that you have the regulations, you must
15 find a way-to get the noise meters in the hands of educated
16 knoledgeable local law enforcement officers, and if you, at
17 the EPA, furnish the meters, that would be one way to get
18 the enforcement program going.
19 Now, these next two areas that I want to address
20 briefly -- I have been asked to include from the County
21 Health Department wishes in here -- and they are two techtticui
22 issues that I would like to raise, and they feel that this
23 could undermine the enforcement value of Section 205.158.
24 First, Section 205.160.2b allows ten per cent of
25 a test batch of motorcycles to exceed the label stationary
26 noise value. It would seem, then, that anti-tampering
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
194
1 citations issued to motorcycle operators by State or local
2 enforcement officers, could easily be contested in court.
3 All a defendant would have to do is refer to the EPA
4 regulation itself, which allows one out of every ten new
5 motorcycles to exceed this stationary standard as it comes
5 off the assembly line.
7 The second weakness they wanted to point out is"
g the stationary noise level labeling requirement that relates
9 to the acoustical assurance period of street motorcycles of
]0 only one year or six thousand kilometers, as specified in
11 Section 2051523. Such a short AAP would seem to encourage
12 the manufacture of a short-lived inferior product which
13 would soon exceed label noise levels, and place an unfair
14 burden for correction on the purchaser, if he is cited.
15 -Also, a person receiving a citation for a noisy
16 motorcycle, which has gone beyond an AAP could, we believe,
17 use this fact as a successful defense in court.
18 The problem with the AAP, we believe, is the
19 six thousand kilometer value. It would not be at all
20 uncommon for that distance to be traveled 'in as little as
21 six months, in California, or even less.
22 We think that a reasonably well built vehicle
23 and/or exhaust system should be warranted for a period of
24 one year or twelve thousand kilometers.
25 I Gentlemen, allow me to close by saying that I
26 support the concept behind these regulations. I applaud
1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(7U) 558-9400
-------
195
1 your efforts in what you are trying to do, and I stand
2 willing to assist you in any way possible.
3 Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak
4 to you today, and I would like to respond to any questions,
,5 if you might have any.
g CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Clark, for a
7 very comprehensive statement. You certainly touched upon
g some problems with the regulations at the Federal level,
9 and it is intriguing to hear your comments about preemption.
10 Normally, we hear only the state governments telling us
11 about the Federal preemption. It is intriguing to hear the
12 city and county talking about state preemption. Okay.
13 You're right. Keep rolling along there.
14 You mentioned the point of Federal grants to aid
15 local communities. Earlier today, another spokesman
16 mentioned the same type of concern. At the present time,
17 the Federal Noise Control Act does not permit grants, it
18 does not include a provision such as exists for air and
19 water programs, for permitting Federal funds to be used
20 in a grant mechanism.
21 Over the last month and a half, both the United
22 States House of Representatives and Senate have been
23 reviewing the Federal Noise Control Act, and several
24 representatives from state and local governments urged the
25 amendment of that Act to incorporate the grant authority.
26 I might suggest to you, since you have raised
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
196
1 the point here, that perhaps either you or Orange County may
2 decide to make their views on this known to the United States
3 Congress directly.
4 The question on the standards which could be
' 5 exceeded: I might indicate there that we do not permit the
g manufacturer to exceed the noise levels when the Federal
7 standards become effective. I would let my colleagues in
3 enforcement speak more specifically to that, but these are
9 absolutely not to exceed the standards, and manufacturers
10 would not be permitted to introduce into commerce any
11 products that exceed those standards.
12 However, there is a sampling plan which we have
13 as to how we go through testing these products, and whether
14 or not to sample more or less, depending on what the noise
15 levels are. Perhaps Mr. Kozlowski would like to speak to
16 that.
17 MR. KOZLOWSKI: That's right. I'm not sure your
18 question was directed towards the manufacturer, but it is
19 right, at the time of sale, no motorcycle manufacturer can
20 market any product that exceeds the s tandards. What we are
21 doing with the AQL is saying that we will not issue any
22 remedial orders if under our statistical sampling scheme you
23 meet the AQL, which is ten per cent.
24 Now, I'm not sure that your comment was directed
25 towards that. i
26 MR. CLARK: What we are concerned with is the
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558 9400
-------
197
fact Chat this could be used in the successful defense of
the fact that they have been cited for making noise.
MR. KOZLOWSKI: Are you referring to the labeling
program, the 90 per cent labeling program?
MR. CLARK: Ten per cent of what comes off of
the line, as I understand from our Public Health Department
that asked me to call this to your attention, that they
8 allow for — that they can point to that rule themselves,
that the defendant would do if he was defending his case
10 there, and refer to the regulation that allows one out of
11 every ten vehicles to exceed the stationary standard as it
12 comess off the assembly line.
13 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Okay, you're talking about the
i
14 | labeling value. That's a good comment, and one that the
15 Agency is looking at now. We appreciate that. That's a
16 good comment.
17 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: We obviously haven't solved
18 that one yet. This whole labeling scheme is a new ball
19 game, and still has got some holes in it, and I think your
20 staff, or whoever prepared that textbook comment, knew what
21 they were doing, they certainly did.
22 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I have one statement, rather
23 than a question, Mr. Clark, and chat is, the Agency is
24 currently working on a noise training program for enforcement
25 officers. It will be ready probably within six months.
2S It's our hope that we'll get this into a training program
(213) 437-1327 MACAULE" & MANNING, SANTA ANA, CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
198
for all police officers nationwide. It's done by the police
2 union, and I forget what they are called, the Benevolent
2 Association, or something like that, and if we can work
that into that program, almost every police officer in the
country who gets any formal training will become somewhat
familiar with the noise enforcement program, the noise
enforcement techniques. That's a long range program, and
that may not have any effect for a couple of years, maybe
ten years, but we are working on it at this time.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Edwards?
MR. EDWARDS: Supervisor Clark, you place a
12 great deal of emphasis, I think rightly so, on modified
13 motorcycles, and the Federal government's assistance to
14 sustain local governments to help deal with that problem.
15 On the other side of the issue, we are also
lg proposing to regulate new motorcycles to make them quieter
17 than they are today.
18 We've had suggestions from Mr. Davidson, and
19 others, this morning and this afternoon, that EPA should
20 just set an 83 decibel standard, and then concentrate all
21 of its efforts on getting rid of the tampering problem.
22 This is a very serious suggestion that we have to address.
23 I was wondering if you had some comments on
24 whether EPA should be requiring new motorcycles be quieter
25 over the next several decades, whether we should set the
26 83 decibel standard that is recommended, or whether EPA
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
199
1 should not regulate new motorcycles at all, and in the case
2 of the State of California, you will have the California
3 law?
4 MR. CLARK: To the technicality there, it is
5 pretty difficult to address myself, but what I can tell you
6 is that, I know that we regulate the building area around
7 an airport to 65 CNEL, and this is really because it is
g such a danger to health, and so forth, to have to live in
g this area, and when you are talking about moving into an
10 allowable area of 83, well, I'm scared that we might just
11 be talking about -- you know, if one motorcycle goes down
12 the street, you look at him, and all of a sudden he's gone,
13 you know, but if forty of them are coming down, and every
14 one of them is going along at this -- this particular --
15 and exercise his rights as an American to blast this little
16 bit of noise out, whatever it might be, but if you figure
17 everyone doing the same thing, well, it would just be to
18 where we can't live with it, and I can't understand it
19 because I have friends -- friends of my son -- and actually,
20 a father of one of the friends of my son is a motorcyclist,
21 and they've got some beautiful equipment, and it just
22 doesn't make a bit of noise. They can just drive right up
23 and park it and then take off an go anywhere they want to,
24 and they enjoy it, and they are wonderful people, and I
25 just can't understand why we can't build motorcycles like
26 that, that are going to operate in cities in competition
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
200
1 with the. automobile, which has the mufflers that make it so
2 that you can live with them, and I can't understand why
3 they have to use such a high decibel rating as being
4 acceptable to me. I think that they should be held down to
;
5 at least automobile noise because there's no reason why they
6 have to have that noise. I've seen the equipment, and I've
7 listened to it, and I have watched it operate, and seen
8 people getting enjoyment out of using this, so I don't know
9 why it's -- someone just has to have noise in order to
10 enjoy a product.
11 MR. EDWARDS: Okay, thank you very much.
12 Now, you addressed most of your comments to the
13 street motorcycle situation, but you cited that Orange
14 County has got a great number of off-road and combination
15 motorcycles.
15 Now, are these motorcycles operated in Orange
17 County, or are they taken out to the desert?
18 MR. CLARK: Well, we have motorcycle areas that
19 they can ride in. We try to keep it under control, up there,
20 and if we're not getting any problems with the people that
21 live in the surrounding area, and we've had to close down
22 one of them because of a traffic problem in the small canyon
23 road that serviced the area so that people couldn't get
24 up there to their own homes, so there's all kinds of
25 problems that get generated from it, but we tried to live
26 with it, and to allow it, and encourage people to enjoy
CJ13) 437-1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
201
1 their equipment, but not at the expense of others.
2 MR. EDWARDS: Supervisor Clark, thank you very
3 much.
4 MR. NAVEEN: Let me speak briefly, sir, for a
5 second, about possible ...
g MR. CLARK: I beg your pardon.
7 MR. NAVEEN: Let me speak for a moment about the
g possible defense that might be raised in enforcement actions
g if a motorcycle enthusiast is stopped and eventually
JO ticketed for a problem.
\l I don't think that he can point to our regulations
12 and claim that that protects him in some way because ten
13 per cent of the new bikes of his style-or class that are
14 out on the street are allowed to exceed the Federal standard.
15 As was noted a few seconds ago, there are a
16 number of testing schemes that we have in the regulations to
17 assure ourselves that the manufacturers are manufacturing
18 quiet products and are selling them, selling quiet products.
19 That is the intent of the law.
20 However, the law also states that if any one
21 vehicle, any one new product is sold that exceeds that
22 standard, it is a violation of the regulations and can be
23 enforced appropriately, that enforcement action can be
24 taken, appropriate enforcement action.
25 The enthusiast who is out there, it seems, will
26 only be enforced against if he has tampered in some way
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
202
1 with the new product that he has bought. If he has removed,
2 or injured or inoperated some of the noise attenuation
3 devices placed on that vehicle or product in compliance with
4 our regulations, then he may be subject to an enforcement
5 action, and we believe that the labeling scheme, and other
g awareness techniques that we have got in the regulations
7 will help their enforceability.
8 I do not think that the problem you raised will
9 be a real one. We will investigate it and look at it a
10 little further. I appreciate your concern. We certainly
11 don't want that to be happening. We do believe that the
12 only way this regulation will work, and the motorcycles
13 will be quieted, is if the Federal government, and the
14 state and local governments, can work together, and it is
15 important to have the state and local governments enforce
16 actively, and well, and we don't want to impede their
17 efforts in any way, so we will check this out for you
18 further. We don't think, offhand, that you've got the
19 problem that you raised.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Mr. Clark, the point that you
21 have raised about the enforcement element is obviously a
22 valid one. We don't believe that these regulations will be
23 effective on the modification and tampering without active,
24 perhaps even aggressive, state and local action, and
25 especially, local. So, in that regard, unless there is
26 that complementary program at the state and local government
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CM.IF. (714) 558-9400
-------
203
1 level, the benefits which we would otherwise expect to see
2 will be illusory.
3 One of the comments made earlier today by a
4 spokesman here, somebody in the motorcycle business, is
5 that the fines that are levied are inadequate to really
g cause the person who has modified that motorcycle to really
7 take this whole matter seriously.
8 It has been suggested that some folks, that
9 relatively small percentage, but nonetheless, demonstrable
10 percentage, that modify these motorcycles, permit them to
11 make unacceptable noise levels, perhaps even have two
12 exhaust systems, two mufflers, one of which they put on to
13 go show that they are in compliance if they get a ticket,
14 but the other one, which is the fun and games one, which
15 is the one they normally keep on.
16 Does Orange County have the authority under its
17 statutes that are complementary to the State statutes, do
18 you have the authority to set the fines that would be
19 imposed for violation, or subsequent violation, repeat
20 offenses, on such things as noise?
21 MR. CLARK: Oh, yes. I would say yes, because
22 when we make an ordinance, we can automatically make the
23 sentencing go with whatever it is. If it's a misdemeanor,
24 for example, it's assessable by six months in jail or five
25 hundred dollars fine maximum. That is set by law, and, of
26 course, any violation of this would be a misdemeanor at the
(213) 437-1327 MACAUUEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. J714) 553-7400
-------
204
1 most. So, consequently, I could say that that could be
2 levied.
3 Now, what the courts do with this when it does
4 come in, that makes a little bit different story, but I
5 really feel that where we have the problems in the enforcement
g is that not enough of them are being stopped, and the reason
7 is, because there are other priorities that are in the
g field that the officer now is involved in to fulfill his
g duties on his shift, and until the time would come when
IQ there would be a noise meter, a simple gadget, that he could
11 have, that is available, that he could utilize in doing
12 this, I really don't think that the desire is there for
13 them to be involved in that part of a program, and I think
14 that is why I was talking along the lines of this Federal
15 grant area, and the training, so that they are more
16 comfortable in this, because they're not noise experts, so
17 to speak, they're trained in law enforcement, and apprehending
18 people, it's a wrong society, but in this area it is
19 something that I think we do need, some education and some
20 help in there.
21 There's a lot of Federal grants that are coming
22 in to all types of police programs, and I see no reason why
23 this couldn't be included.
24 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: You wouldn't, perhaps -- and
25 I don't want to put words in your mouth, sir -- but I would
26 read from what you said, that perhaps it would be more
(213) 437.132? MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
205
1 appropriate for the County, for example, to have officers
2 designated specifically to handle noise problems, as opposed
3 to burdening, as it were, duly constituted police authorities
4 who also have complementary responsibilities in such things
5 as criminal actions, speeders and the like.
5 • MR. CLARK: Well, I think it would be a little
7 difficult to agree with that because of the fact that, to
8 have a specialist out in the field doing this when there's
9 many other things that a law enforcement officer could be
10 doing. This is like radar that they use now quite commonly
11 in all police departments. It could be very well that their
12 noise could be made as simple as radar in order to enforce
13 that and then they wouldn't be hesitant about doing it
14 because, of they can't be held as a fact that they're not
15 technical enough to really understand the decibel violation,
16 and so forth, and I just feel, your point on education is
17 a very good one where you could incorporate that in there
18 to help any of these officers, but also some simple type of
19 equipment that could be utilized, that could be made
20 available, for the departments to use, I think would be a
21 big boom.
22 ' CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I think we can address that one,
23 and I will discuss that one further with my colleagues back
24 in Washington on the equipment issue in particular.
25 I appreciate your taking the time to come in and
26 speak with us today. Thank you.
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2Q6
MR. CLARK: It was my pleasure. Thank you kindly.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: At the moment, we have scheduled
to hear from Mr. Ross Little, California Highway Patrol,
later, and Mr. John Hector, of the State of Oregon has also
asked to speak today.
May I ask, at this time, if there are any others
in the audience who would care to make comments other than
Mr. Little or Mr. Hector, this afternoon? (No response
to the question from the audience.)
All right, we will take about a fifteen minute
break at this point, please, and when we return, we would
like to hear from Mr. Hector, representing the State of
Oregon.
(Whereupon, the proceedings were in
recess from 3:55 o'clock, p.m. until 4:12
o'clock, p.m.)
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Ladies and gentlemen, we will
reconvene, and at this time, will hear from Mr. John Hector,
representing the State of Oregon.
JOHN HECTOR
Gentlemen, thank you for getting me on at this
time. I am anxious to get out of the Los Angeles basin.
I am John Hector, representing the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, headquarterd in
Portland Oregon.
Our agency has sjtatewi&e responsibility for air
I
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
207
and water quality, solid waste management and hazardous
2 waste disposal, and noise pollution abatement and control.
3 We regulate within these areas under the authority of the
4 Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, a panel of five
5 citizens appointed by the Governor. The Commission adopts
administrative rules, and sets policies within the legal
guidelines established by the Oregon legislature.
Let me give you some background on Oregon's
efforts, current efforts again, in the motorcycle regulation
of noise: In 1971, the Oregon Legislature charged the
Commission with the control of excessive noise emissions.
12 By 1974, as part of our developing state noise program, the
13 Commission adopted noise emission standards for new
14 motorcycles sold in Oregon.
15 The standards prohibited the selling, or
16 offering for sale, of new motorcycles which would exceed
17 a specific noise level, the different sizes and intended
18 uses of the motorcycles notwithstanding.
19 It was the view of the Commission that equally
20 stringent standards for all non-racing motorcycles were
21 reasonable and necessary.
22 Off-road motorcycles are a major source of
citizen complaints in Oregon. The distrubranee caused by
24 a loud street motorcycle is momentary. The vehicle approaches,
25 and then travels out of earshot. Off-road motorcycles may
26 be operated in back yard areas for hours at a time, causing
(213) 4370327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
208
1 continuous annoyance to nearby residents.
2 When off-road motorcycles are operated in
»
3 recreational areas, the low ambient noise level increases
4 the annoyance factor of the loud motorcycle.
5' The Commission felt that, had the technology
6 been available, more stringent standards for off-road
7 motorcycles would have been appropriate. Although the
8 Commission agreed, in 1976, to allow manufacturers more
9 time to meet Oregon's noise standards, the Commission has
10 refused to approve rule modicications that would distinguish
11 between off-road and street motorcycles.
12 I will briefly go over our present standards so
13 you get an idea how they set up with EPA's proposed
14 regulations.
15 We operate under Effective Model Years rather
16 that the manufacturers' basis, in Oregon. In 1975, we
17 started out at 86 decibels, down to 82 decibels in '76,
18 the period '77 through '82 81 decibels, 1983 to 1987 78
19 decibels, and after 1987 75 decibels.
20 Oregon administrative rules exempt racing
21 motorcycles from noise standards provided that:
22 " a. Racing motorcycles are operated
23 only in sanctioned racing events.
24 b. Prior to sale, the prospective
25 purchaser files with this agency an
26 affidavit of Intent to Use the motorcycle
(213) 437-1377 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
209
1 • only in sanctioned races.
2 c. Any display or advertisement of
3 a racing motorcycle includes a disclaimer
4 nothing the conditions of use and purchase
_5 of such vehicles .
5 Manufacturers are required to certify compliance
7 of their products with the noise regulations before retail
8 sales are permitted in Oregon.
9 Complementing in-use standards have also been
10 adopted. These standards are included in Oregon's statutes
11 as part of the Motor Vehicle Code, and utilize both a
12 fifty-foot moving operational standard, and a twenty-inch
13 exhaust system equipment standard.
14 A land use standard prohibits the recreational
15 operation of motorcycles on private property if an ambient
16 limit of 60 dB(A) is exceeded.
17 The 1974 version of the Oregon rules exempted
18 non-certified racing;"; vehicles only if it could be adequately
19 demonstrated that those vehicles were used exclusively in
20 sanctioned racing events
21 The manufacturers, and Oregon dealers, however,
22 felt that all off-road motorcycles should be exempt as
23 "Racing Motorcycles." After long negotiation with Oregon
24 dealers, and the Motorcycle Industry Council, it was agreed
25 that an affidavit of intended use, executed by the purchaser,
26 would be adequate demonstration, under the rules.
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
210
1 A prospective purchaser would be required to
2 swear that the uncertified motorcycle, or racing^ motorcycle,
3 he purchased, would be operated only in sanctioned races.
4 The rules were later amended to reflect this compromise.
5 After sale of a non-certified motorcycle under
6 the exemption provision, it is difficult to determine whether
7 the purchaser abides by the terms of the affidavit. We
8 are therefore concenred that increasingly large numbers of
9 non-competitive off-road motorcycles are being sold as
10 racing motorcycles under this exemption.
11 In 1976, three-point-one per cent of the motorcycles
12 sold in Oregon under the affidavit provision were non-
13 competitive or non-racing motorcycles; that is to say,
14 enduro and trail types. In 1977, this number rose to
15 fifteen per cent, and then, in 1978, thus far, it's risen to
16 slightly over twenty-four per cent.
17 It is suspected that many purchasers do not ever
18 intend to ride competitively,-but falsify an affidavit to
19 obtain an uncertified bike.
20 In-use enforcement has become exasperatingly
21 complex, and we feel that much of the problem is a result
22 of motorcycle manufacturers distributing uncertified
23 motorcycles to dealers within Oregon aware that a purchaser
24 must circumvent DEQ's administrative rules to effect a
25 purchase.
26 If Oregon's experience is indicative of the
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
211
I cooperation that EPA can expect from the motorcycle industry,
2 regulation of competition motorcycles will be a necessity
3 before significant control of off-road use can be gained.
4 DEQ operates a motor vehicle air emission
5 inspection program in the Portland metropolitan area through
6 which a motor vehicle must demonstrate compliance with
7 departmental air emission regulations before the license
3 plate of that vehicle may be renewed. We are now phasing
9 a noise emission element into the air emission test stations,
10 and hope to complete the process by mid-fall.
11 A twenty-inch stationary test works well at the
12 tests stations, and police agencies around the state also
13 seem to prefer this test of a long distance operational
14 test,
15 In-use enforcement programs are expensive to
16 initiate and maintain, and Oregon is now committed to an
17 enforcement procedure centered around a twenty-inch
18 stationary test. DEQ would support any rule by EPA that
19 would assist our in-use enforcement or would help validate
20 a stationary twenty-inch test.
21 Now, some comments on the proposed rules,
22 concerning best available technology:
23 Proposed standards for street motorcycles will
24 require that new motorcycles manufacturerd after 1985 emit
25 no more than 78 decibels, but even motorcycles that meet
26 this standard will be the loudest transportation-type
437-1377
MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
212
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
vehicle In most residential settings.
The amount and degree of motorcycle noise impact,
even with 78 dB(A) new motorcycle standards and active
in-use enforcement, will exceed the impact from other
residential-type traffic.
EPA envisions that even medium and heavy trucks
will emit no more than 75 dB(A) by the year 1985. EPA rules
should look toward an eventual reduction in motorcycle noise
beyond the levels now proposed.
Oregon does not support EPA's rationale for
defining best available technology, nor the conclusions
that derive from that rationale. EPA's definition of best
available technology should focus upon a mid-point within
the motorcycle industry, and the engineering capacity that
has been demonstrated by some manufacturers.
Technological capacity is not standard throughout
the industry, and the least innovative of the makers should
not be used as a standard.
It is certainly true that major engine modifiction
will be necessary for Harley-Davidson to meet the standards
as proposed. It is worth noting that Harley-Davidson --
their design has changed little over the past several
decades. It is unfortunate that this firm might suffer
economic impact by updating its new models to meet proposed
standards, but we do not believe that the exhaust tone
should be predominant on any motorcycle, no matter what
(213) 437-1327
MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
213
1 place it holds in American tradition.
2 Regarding the test procedurel the acceleration
3 test proposed by EPA for ensuring compliance with new
4 motorcycle standards appears well designed. The test
'5 obviates many of the inequities of the SAE J-331(a) , such
5 as bias for certain gear structures. The EPA proposed test
7 also appears to be simple enough to be performed accurately,
8 and with repeatability.
9 It is, of course, exceedingly important that the
10 acceleration test finally adopted pursuant to the proposed
11 rules will correlate well enough with a stationary test
12 procedure to allow local promulgation of in-use test
13 standards without fear of overlap or inconsistency with
14 Federal acceleration test standards.
15 It is also important that the test be simple
16 enough to be administered accurately by personnel with
17 limited training.
18 The test must be flexible enough to be performed
19 in varying locations, without the necessity of complex
20 set-up or equipment.
21 - - We do not think it advisable for EPA to adopt
22 standards for both acceleration and stationary tests, nor
23 do we feel that any enforcement test that requires a
24 motorcycle engine to approach ninety-five per cent maximum
25 rated RPM is acceptable. Any procedure that requires
26 over-revving of in-use vehicles will expose testing
(213) 437-1327
MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
214
1 authorities to great liability.
i
2 DEQ agrees, in main, with EPA's proposed labeling
3 requirements, but believes that labeling requirements
4 should extend to mopeds. In Oregon, mopeds are considered
5 motorcycles, and will be tested under a stationary test.
5 If EPA were to require moped manufacturers to
7 place labels on mopeds giving stationary test dB(A) and
8 RPM, in-use enforcement would be facilitated.
9 The ninetieth percentile value suggested by
10 EPA as a labeling norm should be acceptable, but any
11 statistical distribution information gathered by either
12 EPA or the manufacturers would make in-use enforcement with
13 the labeled value more effective and fair.
14 EPA has suggested that the ninetieth percentile
15 dB(A) and RPM should be stamped on each manufactured frame
16 as an aid to in-use enforcement. The dB(A) value would be
17 the ninetieth percentile of that model, and the RPM value
18 would indicated the engine speed at which the dB(A) value
19 is determined.
20 These measurement parameters are entirely
21 unrelated to EPA's new product standards, and will be used
22 only to assist in-use standard enforcers in determining a
23 general trend in deterioration from the brand new quality.
24 These parameters will have been determined by a stationary
25 test that measures primarily exhaust noise.
26 Thus, the value stamped on the motorcycle frame
(213) 437-13J7
MACAUUEY & MANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
215
1 is really an indicator of the original equipment muffler
2 on that bike. Once the muffler is replaced, the utility
3 of the dB(A) number stamped on the frame is lost.
4 Each muffler, whether original equipment or
5 replacement, should be manufacturer-labeled giving the
6 ninetieth percentile dB(A) value, and the RPM, and the
7 motorcycle model, for each motorcycle for which the muffler
8 is intended. Pertinent information would be available for
9 in-use enforcement, even when the motorcycle's original
10 exhuast system has been replaced.
11 A motorcycle exhaust system is designed to be
12 easily modified. Without a labeling system linked to the
13 exhaust rather than bike frames, in-use enforcement will be
14 a hopeless morass.
15 'Categories of mufflers by design rather than
16 noise output should not be adopted. Consideration should
17 be given to requiring certain design features for mufflers,
18 but these requirements should be separate and distinct
19 from the labeling requirements.
20 One factor that should be considered is whether
21 or not mufflers can be designed so that cleaning is not
22 necessary during the AAP. If it is necessary to dismantle
23 some mufflers during that period, perhaps the mufflers
24 should be designed so that if baffles are not replaced,
25 the muffler becomes completely ineffective. Violators
26 would be so noticeable that enforcement would be facilitated.
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA- ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
216
1 ' It is not necessary, for our purposes, that
2 tachometers meet specifications concerning lag, but in-use
3 enforcement would be much easier if all motorcycles have
4 tachometers that have a steady-state accuracy of plus or
5 minus three per cent.
6 • If EPA determines that this requirement not be
7 adopted, information on the reliability and accuracy of
8 original equipment motorcycle tachometers would be of
9 value to the Oregon program.
10 Regarding categories and control, the proposed
11 rules set a break point between large and small off-road
12 motorcycles at 170 cubmic centimeters. DEQ does not feel
13 that any differentiation between groups is desirable, but
14 if distinction is made, a more reasonable dividing line
15 can be drawn at 225 cubic centimeters.
16 Many manufacturers have models close to the
17 170cc size, and a regulation centered around this point
18 might encourage modifications that would take advantage of
19 the larger less restrictive category.
20 Proposed EPA standards do not place restrictions
21 on noise emissions from racing motorcycles. Oregon has a
22 serious problem with racing noise, and may want to place
23 new product restrictions on competition motorcycles sold
24 within the state.
25 We request that EPA specifically address the
26 issue of Federal preemption of new product standards,
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY 8c MANNING. tANTA ANA, CALIC. (714)558-9400
-------
217
1 and state whether or not, in its opinion, Oregon can place
2 new competition motorcycle noise emission standards on
3 manufacturers.
4 In summary:
,5 1. Oregon regulations of motorcycle
6 noise were adopted to protect public health
7 and welfare considering cost and technology.
8 EPA's proposal is less stringent than
9 Oregon standards, and therefore, are not
10 adequate.
11 2. EPA's decision to place less
12 restrictive standards on off-road motorcycles
13 than street bikes does not adequately
14 protect public health and welfare.
15 . 3. Many states already have in
16 effect noise standards that require off-
17 road bikes to be quieter than 86 decibels.
18 EPA's decision to use that standard as a
19 starting point for control is disfavored.
20 4. Standards for motorcycles of
21 any category do not go far enough. In
22 ten years, motorcycles will still be the
23 noisiest vehicles on the road. A long
24 term standard no less restrictive than 75
25 decibels should be adopted,
26 5. All muffler systems, whether
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. »ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
218
1 original equipment or after-market, should
2 be labeled with the ninetieth percentile
3 values and RPM levels obtained during
4 stationary one-half meter testing, if
.5 effective in-use enforcement is to be
6 achieved.
7 Could I answer any questions?
8 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Hector, You
9 have raised several points that we're going to have to think
10 about further. I have two items that I would like to ask
11 you about, please.
12 I don't know for sure the answer to this. You
13 have suggested that EPA, or ask EPA to specifically address tjhe
14 issues of Federal preemption of new product standards, state
15 whether or not, in our opinion, "Are you going to place new
16 competition motorcycle noise emission restrictions on
17 manufacturers?"
18 We've proposed two programs here. One is the
19 labeling program, and the other has to do with emission
20 s tandards.
21 I will presume -- and I assume counsel will
22 correct me if I am in error here -- that you would be
23 preempted from labeling, because the labeling sections of
24 the Noise Control Act state that you must have regulations
25 only that would be ...
26 MR. HECTOR: Any non-identical labeling.
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
219
1 . CHAIRMAN THOMAS: ... on labeling, but since
2 we have set -- and we do not propose to set noise emission
3 limits on new competition motorcycles, you would be free
4 to set whatever standards Oregon thought were appropriate.
5 Is that a fair reading?
5 MR. NAVEEN: That's a fair reading. The only
7 problem is that there's no way that the U. S. government
g can stamp its imprimatur on a certain opinion, that is the
9 case, and can give you the kind of protection that you
10 might like to see before you go ahead and promulgate wrong
U state standard.
12 You may also, I believe, wind up with somebody
13 claiming that your standards are preempted, but that's
14 going to be a battle between Oregon and whoever the
15 petitioner -is. But you have the problem . . .
16 MR. HECTOR: I hope that the record states that
17 EPA has an opinion on this matter.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, I'll hold my question
19 until later. Mr. Kozlowski?
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Mr. Hector, how is Oregon
21 currently enforcing the 81 standard; i.e., how many
22 manufacturers are, in fact, meeting the Oregon standard
23 in the marketing of their products?
24 MR. HECTOR: Manufacturers have to certify
25 directly to us, and I brought a list with me of all the
26 manufacturers' models that are currently certified in
(713) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
220
] meeting that standard.
2 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Would you give that to us for
3 the record? Would you briefly skim over some of the names
4 of manufacturers so that we might ask them if they are
5 going to testify here in the next two days?
6 MR. HECTOR: BMW, I think, has all of its
7 models. There's quite a few here that none of the models
8 have been certified, although this list is not up to date
9 completely.
10 MR. KOZLOWSKI: I am asking those that are
11 certified.
12 MR. HECTOR: Harley-Davidson had about approximately
13 fifteen models, Hodaka had a few, Honda had twenty-five,
14 Husqvarna had four, Kawasaki twenty-five or more, Moto
15 Guzzi had three, Suzuki had a whole bunch, Triumph had a
16 few models, Vespa . . .
17 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Are these generally large bikes,
18 small bikes?
19 MR. HECTOR: Yamaha has quite a few, the small --
20 the larger bike here, 650, 750, here's an 1100, plus the
21 smaller ones down to 80, lOOcc. Pretty much the full range
22 of, I think, almost what they market in most places. I'm
23 sure there are some that are not sold in Oregon.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Would you submit that for the
25 record?
26 MR. HECTOR: Sure.
(213) 437-13J7
MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
221
1 " MR. EDWARDS: I just have one thing.
2 John, are there any models of the real large
3 manufacturers which are not certified for sale in Oregon?
4 And the question would be, do you know, for a fact, that
5 they are not, indeed, selling them in Oregon?
5 • MR. HECTOR: I don't know off the top of my
7 head if there are models that are being manufactured. I
8 don't have that information. But we do attempt to make
9 field checks through the dealerships to make sure that the
10 bikes that are sitting on the floor are on this list.
11 Occasionally, we find that there are bikes
12 sitting right there that are not on the list. There is
13 a continual enforcement problem in that regard.
14 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Second question: How do you
15 enforce in-use? What are your enforcement practices for
16 in-use?
17 MR. HECTOR: We're just starting to get into
18 some somewhat comprehensive enforcement for in-use. The
19 legislature, this past session, took the administrative
20 standards that were adopted and put them in the Motor
21 Vehicle Code.
22 • Now, all the stations, and other places, work
23 from the Uniform Motor Vehicle Code, and those numbers are
24 there, so they're not looking toward us for explanation
25 what those standards mean, to provide technical assistance
26 and training, and we're hoping to get quite a bit of local
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
222
1 enforcement.
2 We also have the Air Emission Program in the
3 metropolitan area. That's about forty per cent of the motor
4 vehicle population of the state, in that area, and we think
5 we can phase in most types of motor vehicle testing into
6 those stations. Right now, it's limited to automobiles
7 only, but we think that motorcycles can be brought into
8 there for testing.
9 MR. KOZLOWSKI: More specifically, outside of
10 Portland, would you run stationary tests, twenty-inch tests?
11 MR. HECTOR: That's the test that we like the
12 best, that we think that the law enforcement people can
13 work with the best. It's an equipment standard.
14 We think that most of the noise violations are
15 equipment modifications. It's not primarily an operational
16 problem. Most of the law enforcement agencies would
17 rather identify potential violators subjectively, and then
18 run them through a stationary test to determine whether or
19 not the equipment is good, rather than monitor fifty feet
20 on the side of the road all day and catch a few people.
21 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Were you here for Mr. Clark's
22 testimony?
23 MR. HECTOR: No, I was not.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Well, I'll try to reconstruct it.
25 I'm not sure I can, but -- In the labeling scheme for
26 after-market systems, we have the technique whereby the
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
223
manufacturer labels the ninetieth percentile. Now, you
indicated that you approved of that technique. That would
work.
Mr. Clark indicated that his staff said that it
would not work because ten per cent of the bikes would be
over .that labeled guide at any one time, by design, by law,
and I think he said it is impossible to enforce.
3 Would you comment on that?
9 MR. HECTOR: Why, I agree with him that there is
10 the legal possibility there's going to be ten per cent in
11 excess of that, and certainly, more statistical information,
12 I am sure, will be coming down the line if these proposed
13 standards are adopted, but the number that's stamped in that
14 bike, those RPM numbers, can be used by us by adding the
15 fudge factor on top of that, and whether we need a fudge
16 factor to cover the statistical distribution, or a fudge
17 factor to cover the test procedure of the equipment,
18 etcetera, doesn't make any difference to us. If you've
19 got that information, I'm sure that everything will be
20 okay.
21 MR. KOZLOWSKI: And you think, at least, your
22 enforcers could use that fudge factor, reasonably?
23 MR. HECTOR: I don't see any problem.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: There's one other question that
25 came from the floor, from. Alan Isley. It says, "Isn't it
26 a fact that Oregon administrative rules allow 2 decibel
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
224
1 testing variance thereby equating Oregon's 81 decibel
2 limit to EPA's proposed 83 decibel limit?"
3 I guess the question is, do you have a 2 decibel
4 variance?
5 MR. HECTOR: That's true, and there's a number
g of models in this list that use that 2 decibel tolerance,
7 and we had to use it liberally in the case of Harley-
g Davidson or they wouldn't be selling any bikes in Oregon,
g so you can look at it, our standards are up to 2 decibels
10 above the numbers that are printed.
11 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Very good. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Vic?
13 MR. PETROLATI: John, one point here that you
14 make that isn't clarified to any extent, you say that EPA
15 should not adopt standards for both the acceleration test
16 and the stationary test. Why do you state that, especially
17 for the stationary test?
18 MR. HECTOR: We don't see how the stationary
19 test can help us. We don't see any benefits for in-use
20 enforcement from the stationary test, and the way the
21 proposed rule is laid out, it appears to us that EPA would
22 certainly encourage us to use that as an enforcement
23 mechanism, and I see too many problems with that test as
24 an enforcement mechanism.
25 MR. PETROLATI: You're talking about the twenty -
26 inch test now?
(213) 437.1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
225
1 MR. HECTOR: I think we're talking about the
2 IMI, or the high RPM stationary test, which was proposed to
3 be, possibly, in addition, or substituted for the acceleratioji
4 test.
5 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. The fudge factor that you
5 would add on to the labeled value so as not to enforce on
7 ten per cent of the motorcycles that would naturally exceed
8 that labeled value because of the requirement, how would you
9 determine that fudge factor? Would this be from, hopefully,
10 the data the EPA would supply you of the statistical
11 distribution of the manufacturers' model lines?
12 MR. HECTOR: I think so. That is the way I see
13 it. You can take a wild guess and say, "Okay, let's stick
14 2 decibels on there; that would cover our testing procedure,
15 our instrumentation," and so forth, and wait for the rest
16 of the data to come up. I am sure that EPA is not going
17 to have good statistical data for a while, so ...
18 MR. PETROLATI: Right.
19 MR. HECTOR: . . .I'm sure we're going to need
20 that to assure ourselves that we're not failing products
21 that do, indeed, meet the Federal standards.
22 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Another statement that
23 you made is that the dB(A) value stamped on the motorcycle
24 relates only to the original equipment muffler, and that
25 you would not enforce on the motorcycle if the did not have
26 the original equipment muffler. In other words, you would
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
226
1 not use that stationary test to enforce against replacement
2 exhaust systems?
3 MR. HECTOR: No, I don't think that's what I
4 tried to get across. I said, there's a real danger in
5 labeling only the frame because the frame is tied to the
6 0AM exhaust muffler, and that's what we're talking about,
7 mufflers, and we're saying, you should take that label off
8 the frame and stick it down on the muffler, and then also
9 require your after-market muffler manufacturers, that part
10 of the regulation should also display the dB(A) level, and
11 the RPM level, on to the muffler, so the label is always
12 there, rather than just on the frame.
13 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. In your scenario, the
14 replacement exhaust system manufacturer would still have to
15 use the same number that the motorcycle manufacturer put on
16 that motorcycle; isn't that correct?
17 MR. HECTOR: No. He doesn't have to use the
18 same twenty-inch RPM and dB(A) line. He has the option to
19 run the acceleration test. But, no matter what he does,
20 whether he tests it under the stationary provision or he
21 tests it under the acceleration provision, he has to label
22 his muffler with the appropriate dB(A) and RPM.
23 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Thank you very much.
24 MR. NAVEEN: Mr. Hector, you, and others in the
25 state, have taken us to task at various times with respect
26 to various regulations, about how we view technology, what is
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
227
1 best, what is worst, what fits in between. Would you expand
2 a little bit regarding your comment on page 5, that the
3 State of Oregon does not support our rationale for best
4 available technology. I would like to understand a little
5 bit better what you mean.
5 • MR. HECTOR: Well, it appears to us that EPA has
7 used the "current best available technology" as what the
8 most non-innovative, or the least technically competent, or
9 whatever phrase you want to use, to establish that as your
10 base line, and we feel the best available technology should
11 be, at least, in the mid-point there.
12 I'm not saying that all the motorcycle manufacturers
13 should be looking at the Honda GL-1000, whatever that water
14 cooled bike is, but to use the, basically, Harley-Davidson
15 design as best available technology, as testified.
16 MR. NAVEEN: There is one point. I was thinking
17 that, perhaps, your complaint was that our standard might
18 not -- I know you're upset that our standard may not be as
19 tough as you would like, and there may be some difficulties
20 in Oregon compared to what you've got now.
21 My concern was whether you were taking us to
22 task for that, which is really, EPA determining, because of
23 what technology is, and what the costs of compliance are, tha:
24 this is the kind of standard that we should propose.
25 I gather that you are focusing away from the
26 cost item and simply on to technology, and after we get to
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
228
1 the point where you. are with technology, then we plug in our
2 costs.
3 MR. HECTOR: Yeah, I'm another one of those dumb
4 engineers, and I'm not going to play attorney today.
5 (Laughter)
6 MR. NAVEEN: No comment.
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That never stops our attorney.
8 (Continued laughter)
9 Okay, I think we have got that straight. EPA has
10 said that, best available technology, as we define it now,
11 we believe would permit the motorcycle manufacturers to
12 meet a 78 decibel not-to-exceed noise level, which says
13 that, in effect, we would assume that motorcycle manufacturer
14 would have to design and build motorcycles in the 75, 76
15 decibel range. That's what we have said. It's not only
16 the best available technology but takes into account costs
17 of compliance as well.
18 Now, if I might follow that up, I see from the
19 data that you've presented -- the information that you've
20 presented, for 1987, Oregon, for example, has a 75 decibel
21 standard that would take effect.
22 Now, we heard from the State of California
23 representative earlier that with respect to their noise
24 level, that there's is likewise a not-to-exceed maximum
25 not-to-exceed noise level, and we would presume, then, that
26 manufacturers would be manufacturing, for example, their
(213) 437-1337 MACAU LEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
229
1 75 decibel level to take effect in 1986.
2 Now, we would presume, based on the statements
3 made by the California representative that motorcycle design
4 to be sold in California would be certainly no higher than
5 75 decibels, and perhaps a couple of dB lower than that.
6 ' Would the same hold true for the 75 decibel
7 level for Oregon?
8 MR. HECTOR: No, not necessarily. We do have a
9 2 decibel tolerance on top of these standards. We do allow
10 manufacturers, if need be, to use that tolerance. We
11 believe in the overall noise level of the population of
12 new bikes sold in Oregon certainly should be standard, but
13 there is also some combination type of bikes that are
14 certified, and they are above the. printed number by no more
15 than 2 decibels.
16 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: So, on that basis, except for
17 the split where we have different levels for off-road bikes,
18 then would you be suggesting that the EPA 78 decibel level
19 in 1985 would really be not much different than what the
20 75 decibel level would otherwise be for Oregon in 1987?
21 MR. HECTOR: I would say that that is probably
22 very close.
23 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: But except for the difference
24 where you are comprehensive in your coverage in the off-
25 road bikes . . .
26 MR. HECTOR: Uh huh.
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
230
1 ' CHAIRMAN THOMAS: . . . and we're not. Okay.
2 MR. EDWARDS: Just so I can understand the outcome
3 of that last go around, does that mean -- do you still hold
4 that EPA should be proposing or establishing standards for
5 street motorcycles according to our testing procedure and
6 our enforcement protocols; that is, a lower number than
7 that 78 decibel standard that we are proposing?
*
8 MR. HECTOR: That is a sensitive area, but I
9 agree with the little thing that hangs just right there,
10 but when you look at our 75 decibels, and you look at your
11 proposed 77, there is probably not going to be a great deal
12 of difference between the two.
13 - But, we still do not believe those standards are
14 adequate to protect public health. We don't believe that
15 the motorcycle should be noisier than any other vehicle
16 that is used in the urban-suburban area.
17 In fact, the director of my agency said to say
18 something about buses, if I had a chance. Now is the time.
19 All of those classifications.
20 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Let the record show, John, that
21 we once again have the State of Oregon on record as wanting
22 lower noise levels for buses. I've heard repeatedly from
23 Congress to get on this subject. Thank you. (Laughter)
24 MR. HECTOR: Yes; yes.
25 MR. NAVEEN: That was the reference I made a few
26 seconds ago when I was referring to Oregon buses.
C13) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
231
1 ' MR. HECTOR: Jack Swing, I thir<, mentioned,
2 today, that we can't play this noise business strictly on
3 the cumulative noise constrietures, the LEQ, the Ldn,
4 etcetera.
•5 When the motorcycle goes by us, you know that's
g a bike, there is no question about it, and so, the single
7 event, that intrusive noise level, is the thing that causes
8 problems, and wreaking public health effects, but as that
9 information becomes more and more available, I think we're
10 going to find out that we are not going to be able to place
11 all of our marbles on the Ldn, and philosophically, we've
12 got to get all those vehicles down about to the same
13 operational level. They may not be all the same SAE
14 acceleration test level under operational conditions,
15 depending on where they're operated.
16 I'm not saying you're driving a semi-truck down
17 the neighborhood street, but these vehicles that are
18 operating in that area certainly should be all at the same
19 operational noise level.
20 MR. EDWARDS: I think that is one of the tenets
21 that-is-evidenced in*the. documentation that we have
22 provided, that we have at least made the claim -- and you
23 may dispute it — that at the 78 decibel level under our
24 rapid acceleration test procedure, that the operational
25 level under acceleration, normal acceleration, in the urban
26 environment, you will find that the motorcycle is no louder
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
232
1 than a passenger car is today, and we're looking at the
2 kinds of levels that we're focusing on for heavier vehicles
3 like trucks and buses.
4 If we want to go down lower than that, I think
5 that we're going to have to, at least, face the question
Q that Mr. Girdler posed this morning, that if you take certain
7 current models of motorcycles and rolled them down a hill
g with the engine off but with the drive train engaged, we're
g getting down to a pretty darn low number, and that's a
10 reasonably high number in comparison to numbers we're
11 talking about, and that's why we have to focus on the best
12 available technology, as you pointed out earlier.
13 You noted in your statement that the affidavit
14 system that's going on in Oregon right now may not be as
15 effective as you would hope, and you seem to be getting an
16 awful lot of -- Could you please explain it. Am I correct
17 in understanding that there seems like there is an awful
18 lot of racing -- a lot more racing motorcycles -- or at
19 least motorcycles that claim to be racing motorcycles --
20 sold now than in the past, and possibly, in violation of
21 your regulations?
22 . MR. HECTOR: It's hard to get a handle on total
23 numbers. We're not sure that every non-certified bike sold
24 in the state we will receive an affidavit on. We receive
25 a heck of a lot of affidavits. But, the percentages that I
26 quoted are comparisons between what we evaluate as a
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
233
1 competition bike, a moto-cross type bike, in relation to the
2 non-competition type bikes, the enduros, etcetera, and
3 that appears that that portion is growing.
4 MR. EDWARDS: Have you had cases where you have
5 found motorcyclists operating a non-certified bike in an
5 area where he should not, and you took enforcement action
7 against them?
g MR. HECTOR: We have never taken enforcement
g action. We have had some cases where we suspected that the
10 one staff bike is off the showroom floor. Those vehicles
11 are not registered in Oregon. Therefore, you can't trace
12 it by a license plate. It becomes very difficult to
13 determine whether or not that bike sold under the affidavit
14 procedures.
15 MR. EDWARDS: Do you have any suggestions for
16 EPA specifically in the area of off-road motorcycles,
17 particularly in the distinction between what is a competition
18 and what is not a competition motorcycle, and any other
19 provisions that we can add, which will ease your problem of
20 making sure that the motorcycles here are used in the right
21 places?
22 MR. HECTOR: It's a difficult problem, it really
23 is. I agree with your concept that the enduro bike, and
24 some of the others, are not really competition bikes, and
25 there's no reason at all why they should meet your off-road
26 standards, but the full-out competition bike is a real
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
234
1 problem, and we are promulgating standards in Oregon to
2 control racing events, and we will probably do it by the
3 emissions standards on the individual vehicles rather than
4 a property line ambient type of standard, and it may become
5 as direct for us to regulate at the manufacturers' level.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you very much, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: I've got one last question
g for you, Mr. Hector: You state that categories of mufflers
g by design rather than noise output should not be adopted,
10 consideration should be given to requiring certain design
11 features for mufflers, but these requirements should be
12 separate and distinct from the labeling requirements.
13 Now, EPA has -- Federal EPA has --no authority
14 to set design standards for products. We can only set
15 performance standards for products. I'm not sure whether
16 you make that distinction here or not.
17 MR. HECTOR: The way I read your proposed rule
18 making, it appeared that EPA was at least conceptually
19 considering the idea of a design standard, and maybe that's
20 a mistake on our part to make that interpretation.
21 MR. EDWARDS: We foreshadowed a possible use of
22 design standards in the muffler area, particular as regards
23 to the AAP requirement that EPA put out. We asked for
24 specific comments if it was at least technically feasible
25 to establish design criteria which would allow you to
26 determine whether or not the muffler would comply with an
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
235
I AAP requirement without having to do a year's work of
2 testing on the product.
3 . CHAIRMAN THOMAS: All right. There should be
4 no doubt about this. The EPA wants the straight pipes, the
•5 bad mufflers, out of business, and we intend to do everything
g we can to get those out of interstate commerce, and off
7 the shelves, and we intend to get those people out of that
g business if we can find a way to do it. We haven't found
g a good way yet. That's what we're searching for here in
10 this muffler --
11 MR. HECTOR: Well, would you?
12 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you very much. Any
13 other questions? (No response to the question.)
14 Ladies and gentlemen, it is 5:00 o'clock. We
15 are supposed to take a break at this time for dinner, for
16 those that call it that in these parts of the area. In
17 consideration to my home state, we're going to take a
18 break for supper, right now. We will be back a 7:00
19 o'clock this evening to hear -- 7:30 — 7:30, to hear,
20 at that time, from Mr. Ross Little, representing the
21 California Highway Patrol, and any others who would care
22 to speak after that hour.
23 Thank you.
24 (Whereupon, the proceedings were in
25 dinner recess from 5:00 o'clock, p.m.,
26 until 7:35 o'clock, p.m.)
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
236
1 PROCEEDINGS.
2
3 • CHAIRMAN THOMAS: We will reconvene at this
4 point. It is 7:35. Mr. Ross Little, representing the
5 California Highway Patrol.
6 ROSS LITTLE
7 Thank you. It is really my pleasure to be here
8 and address the audience and the EPA, and I want to begin
9 by giving you a little background of California's noise
10 laws and regulations, and give you a feel from where we're
11 coming from.
12 The California legislature became concerned,
13 in the early 40's, about vehicle noise, which resulted in
14 the purchase of a sound level meter, and attempts to use
15 that meter'for noise enforcement didn't go over. We couldn't
16 use the meter because there were actually no methods
17 established for measuring vehicle noise, and in the 50's,
18 the American Trucking Association established one hundred
19 and twenty-five sones, and all vehicles, heavy trucks, were
20 supposed to have complied with one hundred and twenty-five
21 sones at that time. One hundred and twenty-five sones is
22 roughly 85 dB(A) at fifty feet, and during this same
23 period, the legislature considered, but rejected, two bills,
24 which would have required the approval of mufflers.
25 In 1961, the California legislature enacted a
26 law requiring the California Highway Patrol to develop
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
237
1 measurement standards for maximum permissible noise; and in
2 1963, considered and rejected a bill incorporating the
3 limits for vehicles based on the data that we had gathered.
4 The legislature then directed the Department to
5 study the feasibility of enforcement officers using sound
6 level meters for measuring noise produced by vehicles on
7 the highway.
g The Department purchased three sets of sound
9 measuring instruments in 1965, and gathered a group of
10 data, and submitted it to the legislature.
11 In 1967, the California legislature adopted
12 maximum permissible noise limits for vehicles operating on
13 California highways, and maximum permissible noise limits
14 for new vehicles offered for sale in the State of California.
15 At this time, there were no vehicle noise
16 testing procedures, there were no set methods of measuring
17 vehicle noise, and the A-weighting network had not yet been
18 established as the proper function to measure vehicle
19 noise.
20 The California Highway Patrol's Engineering
21 Section worked with the vehicle manufacturers and the
22 Society of Automotive Engineers Sound Level Committee to
23 develop the present vehicle noise test procedures as used
24 by the California Highway Patrol.
25 The SAE went on and developed them into the
26 present SAE procedures, J-986, J-331a, J-47, and some of
(213)437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
238
1 the other procedures.
2 During the regulation development process, the
3 Department experimented with several means of measuring
4 noise, and decided that we would adopt the standard A-
5 weighting network for all vehicle noise measurements. Since
6 then, this method has become the preferred method of
7 measuring vehicle noise throughout the United States and
8 throughout the world.
9 On-highway noise enforcement was first started
10 by the Highway Patrol in 1968 under an experimental
11 program upon which the Department built its present noise
12 enforcement program.
13 . Then, in 1969, the Department started noise
14 enforcement using sound level meters on a Statewide basis
15 using six trained noise teams, and the Department has had
16 noise enforcement teams in the field ever since.
17 Based on the full time noise enforcement teams
18 the Department's beat officers enforce against the vehicles
19 with loud exhaust systems, by ear. The Department now has
20 thirteen people that work throughout the State in noise
21 enforcement. To enforce it besides this, the normal beat
22 officers take enforcement by ear and not with a sound level
23 meter.
24 The California Highway Patrol has a total of
25 nine enforcement teams spread out throughout the State who
26 are equipped with sound measuring equipment, and who spend
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
239
1 the major portion of their time measuring noise from the
2 vehicles operating on the highway, and we will have one of
3 the team members tomorrow to testify for you.
4 In 1975, the teams measured an excess of one
5 million two hundred and seventy-five thousand vehicles. Of
5 these, eleven thousand and sixty-four were motorcycles.
7 Fourteen per cent of the motorcycles measured were in
3 violation.
9 Of the one thousand and fourteen vehicles
10 receiving enforcement action, seventy-eight per cent were
11 reported to have modified exhaust systems, twelve per cent
12 were reported as having defective exhaust systems, and
13 ten per cent were reported as having inadequate exhausts.
14 We suspect that this ten per cent really should be
15 included with the modified exhaust,
16 At any rate, the figures show that ninety per
17 cent of the vehicles were producing noise created from
18 the problems caused by the operators themselves.
19 This background on the noise enforcement program
20 has been presented to give you, the audience and the EPA,
21 a better understanding of where our comments are coming
22 from.
23 I have been involved with the Department's
24 noise program since its inception, and responsible for the
25 present regulations and enforcement program.
26 The one thing that, when we -- this part isn't
(213) 437-1327 MACAUUEY 8e MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
240
1 in the notes -- but we of the Highway Patrol feel that the
2 manufacturers really do need one local agency, the Federal
3 government, to have -- to develop standards, so they can
4 make one vehicle for the whole United States, but we were
,5 very apprehensive of EPA's program when they first started.
5 But, Mr. Scott Edwards and his noise group are
7 to be complimented on their efforts to take existing
8 programs and build upon them. The Highway Patrol Engineering
9 Section has been involved with them and their contractor
10 in developing the present proposed motorcycle noise emissions
11 test procedure in Annex I of their proposed regulations.
12 We do have some specific comments on portions
13 of the regulations. However, we are very pleased, and wish
14 to publicly express our appreciation to the Environmental
15 Protection Agency for their efforts in developing a good,
16 strong, workable motorcycle noise program.
17 The main item of concern to the Highway Patrol
18 is that the enforcement personnel in EPA, or whoever takes
19 over the program after the regulations are adopted, may
20 not continue to work closely with the enforcement agencies.
21 We are aware, as is the EPA, that without enforcement, the
22 noise program will be of no value.
23 We feel sure that the fine work that Mr. Scott
24 Edwards has done will result in him receiving a promotion
25 and transfer to bigger and better things. I can see it
26 coming. (Laughter) His replacement, or whoever picks up
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALir. (714) 558-9400
-------
241
1 the program -- picks up the reins of the program -- may
2 forget all about the cooperation that has preceded, and
3 manufacturers and individuals with specific problems will
4 no doubt present them to EPA, and this fine cooperation
5 will be forgotten, and changes will be made in the
6 regulations without consulting the enforcement agencies.
7 Therefore, we strongly urege that the EPA's
8 enforcement arm, or whoever is -responsible for the
9 regulations after they are once adopted, consult with, and
10 communicate with, the Highway Patrol and other enforcement
11 agencies that will be responsible for making the motorcycle
12 noise program workable.
13 The EPA program specifically builds upon the
14 Highway Patrol's noise enforcement program with the
15 proposal of a muffler certification program, and with the
16 requirement that vehicles be permanently identified with
17 sound levels, and with their intended use.
18 One of the serious problems in California, and
19 other states, is with individuals buying motorcycles
20 designed strictly for closed-course racing and using these
21 vehicles off the highways, or even on the highways.
22 To digress a little bit from the notes:
23 California just dealt with this in requiring noise tests
24 on these vehicles, and we list the vehicle not acceptable
25 for on-highway use in one of our manuals.
26 V7e find many of these off-highway -- like my
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
242
1 next notes say -- fire-breathing monsters with license plates
2 fastened on the side of them, and so forth, and they are
3 operated on the highway as well as out in the woods.
4 These fire-breathing monsters, as least in
-5 California, have been responsible for the closure of much
5 of the off-highway riding areas, and many, many complaints
7 from the citizens about the noisy motorcycles. The
8 complaints that Jack Swing talked about earlier are referred
9 to my office.
10 The proposed marking requirements should greatly
11 assist in the enforcement by permitting the officer to
12 easily determine if a vehicle or exhaust system is improperly
13 used.
14 The problem, of course, will be the older
15 motorcycles, with their replacement exhaust systems. This
16 problem will have to be settled by the State regulations.
17 I strongly feel that; the after-market muffler
18 manufacturer should be required to develop a muffler which
19 is as quiet, or quieter, than the vehicle's original system.
20 Where the after-market muffler manufacturers put little or
21 no research into the problem, they generally merely make a
22 good looking pipe which sits on the vehicle, that carries
23 its exhaust gas out from the engine out to the end of the
24 tail pipe without actually doing any or very little noise
25 testing. That isn't true of all of them, but with many of
26 them, that's the case.
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA .ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
243
1 One of the specific comments we have is Annex I
2 to the proposal. It contains a new innovative test
3 procedure which is designed to remove many of the variables
4 from the present SAE procedure, which is basically the
5 California procedure, and removes some of the hazards from
5 the SAE J-47, which was developed as a method to determine
7 maximum vehicle noise, and one ommission from the procedure
8 is a deceleration procedure, and we recommend that EPA
g adopt the procedure that is described in SAE J-47, in
10 Section IV.3.1.
11 Performing the deceleration procedure on most
12 highway machines is not necessary, and rarely would be
13 used. Our regulations call for the deceleration procedure be
14 used only when it is determined that the acceleration,
15 that the deceleration noise is excessive.
16 However, the off-highway machines, particularly
17 those with compression releases, or those fitted out that
18 compression releases can be installed, should have
19 deceleration procedures run, because the compression release,
20 in some cases, increases the vehicle noise significantly.
21 In off-highway operation, this racket becomes
22 a very irritating element, and results in individuals
23 objecting to the vehicle's noise.
24 Again, let me express the fact that the Highway
25 Patrol Engineering Section, who is responsible for the
26 vehicle noise program in California, is very pleased with
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
244
I the work done so far by the Environmental Protection Agency's
2 motorcycle group with this proposed regulation and procedure.
3 We have only a few specific comments which have
4 been submitted to the docket. Most are related to some
'5 grammatical problem, and the lack of the deceleration
g procedure, which was discussed.
7 We would be quite pleased if the procedure
j
g were adopted "as is" and we could live quite nicely with it. i
g The important point that I would like to stress is the
10 importance of EPA's continued work with the Department.
11 I am sure that our goals are the same, and that is, to
12 result in the quiet vehicles operating on the highways.
13 I think I skipped a page. I did.
14 The EPA's proposal suggests the motorcycle
15 limits descend -- back to page 6 — descends to 78 dB(A).
16 I believe — or we believe — that this, at this time,
17 does not appear to be a cost effective level.
18 New street motorcycles, at least in California,
19 must comply with the 83 dB(A) test under a somewhat
20 different procedure. However, they are barely noticeable
21 in the flow of traffic unless their exhaust systems have
22 been modified.
23 Lower limits are likely to increase the
24 tendency for customers to make modifications in the belief
25 that more power would be the result.
26 Now, all of this gets back to the key issue of
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
245
i enforcement, for a law that is unenforced is worse than no
2 law at all. We suggest that the 78 dB(A) be omitted from
3 the standard, or at least the effective date be omitted.
A A survey of the noise from motorcycles operating
c on the highways in four different localities should be
c undertaken; probably in California, and maybe Florida, and
7 maybe Texas, and Michigan. That would be two states with
Q laws, and two without.
g Data should be gathered from two states with
in enforcement noise laws, and two without specific enforcement,
H The survey should be conducted now, and then again, during
12 the same measuring period, probably 1983. Data from this
13 survey could be used to determine if the lower new vehicle
14 limits have affected noise from motorcycles in operation,
15 and if lower limits should be adopted for 1985.
15 The effects from the previous noise programs --
17 in other words, the 80 dB(A) -- would indicate if future
18 lowered noise limits should be enacted.
19 That's really all I have. I do want to say
20 again, we, at the Highway Patrol, really do appreciate the
21 close cooperation we have had from the EPA. The EPA is
22 not going out to reinvent the wheel and come up with a
23 whole new program, but build upon the program which we
24 have had.
25 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you very much. Your
26 comments are — obviously, we will take under advisement,
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
246
1 the recommendation with respect to Mr. Edwards (laughter),
2 depending on how the final regulations do come out.
3 The position you have taken on behalf of the
4 California Highway Patrol differs somewhat from the position
• 5 taken by the Department of Health of the State with respect
6 to what noise levels the Federal government should institute,
7 I presume, of course, that yours is -- and I
8 understand them, in here, the context is really the
9 enforcement elements; but they are also suggesting that --
10 the Department of Health is suggesting in their earlier
11 tatements that the Federal government has not gone far
12 enough, and I would quote, specifically, from the testimony
13 given by Mr. Swing, that says that, "We think the ultimate
14 goal of 78 dB(A) should be reduced further," whereas you
15 are suggesting in here, "I do not believe that reducing the
16 noise limits for new motorcycles to 78 dB(A) is at all cost
17 effective."
18 Admittedly, you looked at cost. Perhaps Mr.
19 Swing was looking more at the health effective side. But,
20 do I understand, that here the CHP is taking a somewhat
21 different position than the Department of Health?
22 MR. LITTLE: Yes, we are. These comments were
23 prepared, and I am not really permitted to establish the
24 State policy. However, the Commissioner -- these were
25 reviewed by our own Department, so they know the stand that
26 I have taken. Now, I do know that our position, which I
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-7400
-------
247
1 have stated, differs from the Department of Public Health,
2 and when the bill was in before the legislature, it was set
3 recently, which modified our limits in California.
4 The limits that are in there now are the ones
'5 that I believe the Public Health presented. I objected to
5 those limits at that time. I believe —
7 Let me go back a little further. The noise
8 limits in the California law were adopted originally with
9 one number for each class of vehicles, motorcycles, trucks
10 and passenger cars, and every year, the legislature would
11 open that up again and put out to try to reduce the limits,
12 and that's when this committee was. put together to try and
13 make a schedule for people, and those numbers in California
14 law, if you go back to the Vehicle Code, Section 26310,
IS they were "devised very carefully a very in-depth data one
16 morning while shaving (laughter), they weren't based on
17 anything excepting as goals that were — that may or may
18 not be possible to meet.
19 We suspected, at the time they were suggested
20 that the — that they wouldn't be reasonable. The passenger
21 car people have come before our legislature, and have
22 presented data, and very good information, and the legislatur
23 accepted the data and dropped off the descending limits to
24 80 dB(A). Trucks are dropped also at 80 dB(A).
25 I had the hope that the motorcycle -- that the
26 data -- the motorcycle people presented the same type of
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
248
1 data, but somehow or another, it got lost, or got mixed up,
2 downtown, and I don't know about all of this and somebody
3 else will have to explain that to you.
4 I believe it would have been a lot better if
£ it had stopped at 80 with everything in it. I firmly believe
6 that manufacturers of motorcycles can meet 80 dB(A). Of
7 costs? I really don't know too much about that, but I
8 believe they can do it.
9 I have a hard time believing that under a test
10 procedure which we use, which comes fairly close to
11 measuring maximum noise, but motorcycles should be allowed
12 to make more noise than other vehicles -- other classes of
13 vehicles. And that's primarily where I am.
14 I believe that they probably can go to 78, but
15 I don't believe that it's right to make the new vehicles go
16 down to 78, or anything less than the 80, until something
17 very substantial is done with the on-highway noise problem,
18 because even at 83 dB, it's very acceptable in the flow,
19 even under a lack of flow.
20 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Yes. Mr. Little, I have a
21 number of questions, but I would like to follow up on that:
22 If modifications is the major problem, and that's
23 what you said once again -- we've heard a number of people
24 say that, the same thing, in different ways, and if the
25 motorcycles are currently at 83 decibels, even though
2° sound carries, why should the Federal government regulate?
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 551-9400
-------
249
1 MR. LITTLE: The only reason they need the 83
2 dB(A) throughout the whole U. S. is because of the efforts
3 in California. I don't intend to break my arm patting, but
4 that's the way it is.
5 It isn't economically feasible for a manufacturer
g to develop a special motorcycle for California, so that any
7 motorcycle -- most motorcycles, as far as I know, introduced
g into the U. S. market, comply with the California noise
9 limits. There are one or two that are sold only on the
10 east coast that do not, and the ones -- there are some
U off-highway vehicles that don't comply with California
12 noise limits, but --
13 No, I think it is important for EPA to regulate
14 it, the government, for a nationwide --
15 MR. KOZLOWSKI: But why? If the people on the
16 east coast want those noisy bikes, or if Oregon wants
17 this, whatever levels it wants, 83, 81, maybe 82, or
18 whatever, and California, in fact, has a standard which
19 sets the pace such that industry generally complies, why
20 should the Federal government enter into what could be a
21 relatively massive program duplicating what California alreadjr
22 apparently successfully has done, if, in fact, modifications
23 are --
24 As a matter of fact, you might take it a step
25 further. Why go from -- and you seem to say this -- why go
26 from 83 to 80, if modification is the major problem?
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALlf. {714} 558-7400
-------
250
1 MR. LITTLE: Well, as far as California is
2 concerned, we would be perfectly happy if you didn't enter
3 into the picture, but because you've cooperated with us,
4 and you're building upon our program, you've done a real
5 good job.
6 Our present procedure, which is basically 331,
7 has some problems with it. You have improved that with
8 this, with your S-76 program.
9 Well, I can't really answer why you should get
10 into the program, with the present amount of on-highway
11 noise enforcement in California.
12 And, let me take a step a little bit away. It's
13 done primarily by the Highway Patrol, and'we have fourteen
14 people throughout the State that are doing noise enforcement.
15 .The legislator that spoke here a minute ago,
16 like most all of them, have a copout. They want to write
17 their own laws, and won't enforce the State laws, which
18 really bothers me. Very few cities enforce the noise
19 program.
20 The City of San Francisco -- Mr. Bodisco is
21 going to speak. He can show that his program is better,
22 and pays for itself, but police are busy enforcing against
23 robbers, and whatever else they do, and noise has a very,
24 very low priority.
25 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Now, let me get off that subject
26 again. I would like to assure you that I think we will pick
(213) 437-1327 MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
251
I where Scott left off. We certainly intend to cooperate with
2 the State of California. We don't want to reinvent the
3 wheel. And you've been there, and we would like to borrow
4 from you, so we will make avid efforts between now and
.5 final promulgation, should, we finally promulgate these
5 regulations, and after that, enforcement, to make sure that
7 we learn from your experience, so I can assure you that we
g will have continued cooperation with the State of California
9 Highway Patrol in particular, and the Federal Environmental
10 Protection Agency, 1 think,, and, that's just necessary, I
11 think.
12 As you know, as the regulations pointed out in
13 the preamble, that the major -- one of the major problems --
14 the major problem that you pointed out today — the
15 modifications to the bike is basically going to remain a
16 local function, a state and local function, that the Federal
17 government just can not muster enough resources to go about
18 checking every motorcycle to see that it has not been
19 modified, but we would hope to provide some national
20 guidance, quote, unquote, with maybe some other types of
21 training tactics to support the State law, what we can
22 learn, perhaps, to support you in your program.
23 MR. LITTLE: Thank you.
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI: Oregon is using, or intends to
25 use, an airfield, for I think the F-50 test, although I'm
26 not sure. They're stating a twenty-inch measurement
(213)4370327 MACAU LEY ft MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUF. (714)558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
252
stationary test. Mr. Isley suggested a stationary standard
at one hundred and five de
I guess, once again, the
not real clear on that —
and I have no problem witt
the data that it revealed,
cibels measured at twenty-inches;
-50 test for the exhaust systems.
Would you comment on that?
MR. LITTLE: May I, please. What Mr. Isley has
suggested, and what apparently Oregon has done -- and I'm
the test, does not at all
acceleration tests, and as
number, or a number established to each vehicle, as you
are proposing --in other
manufacturer will establi
is to establish this F-50 test,
the test at all, excepting that
does not -- as generated from
correlate with any of the full
, long as you have a flexible
words, if the new vehicle
;h a dB(A) level at that procedure
for that vehicle -- I havs no problems with the program.
But, the minuts you establish a single number,
one hundred and five, ninaty-five, ninety, I don't care
what, for the existing vehicles, then we're in a heap of
trouble.
We now have on
"program that has suddenly
the junk -- excuse me --
the books in California passenger
vehicle noise -- or, an exhaust system certification
become a license to allow all of
all of the straight through
performance exhaust systems that have been illegal for
years, they are now legal
legal to sell, the manufa
, they are now certified, they are
cturers have certified them
(213) 437-1327
MACAU LEY
-------
253
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
decibels.
ninety-five dB(A), and I c.m go buy ere and put it on my
wife's car, and increase tie sound level by fourteen
It is illegal tD drive the car, but the muffler
is legal to sell, and that
trap that you're going to
this present procedure.
Now, I do know
I guess -- is working with
fs what you'll get, that's the
get into with a fixed number under
that Vic s group -- your group,
an ignition cutoff. I don't
know what you call the procedure. I'm very . . .
MR. KOZLOWSKI:
MR. LmLS.5 I'
Yes.
m very hopeful of that procedure
coming about. I'm not sure how it would be used in
enforcement because of thss difficulty of putting an ignition
interrupt on to the motorcycle on the road, but for a
muffler certification, maybe muffler shops, I think it would
be a real workable thing because it correlates with the
numbers we have.
But any time y
new program with a new se
serious problems.
MR. KOZLOWSKI:
has been working on that
)u take a -- you introduce a whole
t of numbers, we're in real
Incidentally, the whole Agency
program. Vic has done a lot of
good work in it, but so has Scott, and Hank, and Ron, and
me, and everyone. It's been an Agency effort.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: If that's right, does that
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY Ji MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558 9400
-------
direct
when
1 mean we all get a promot
2 MR. LITTLE.:
3 MR. KOZLOWSKI
4 well, let me be more
- 5 the California Highway P.
5 do they only have to fix
7 MR. LITTLE:
8 type of citation, and we
9 more clearly, but let me
10 We have an on
11 speed law, which says, "'
12 Very few citations are w
13 numbers from that, and
14 they stop the vehicle and
15 has a modified, a loud,
16 has been modified from s
17 other sections which say
18 or, "You shall not modify
19 for that, and then, and
20 that the individual repa
21 it does result in a fin«
22 Now, it's
23 and Mr. Hanson can tell
24 MR. KOZLOWSKI
25 or generally is, a fine?
26 MR. LITTLE:
i.onV
254
hat's right. (Laughter)
have you enforced, do you --
-- when you cite someone -- when
trol cites someone for violation,
the bike, or are there fines levied?
'ell, it depends entirely on the
11 let Mr. Hansom answer, tomorrow,
give you a brief rundown.
highway noise law which is like a
'ou will drive the vehicle quietly."
•itten under that. They take the
a vehicle exceeds those levels,
inspect it, and most always it
ijioisy exhaust system on it which
ock, so then they use one of two
, "You have an inadequate muffler,"
it," and they cite the individual
hose, and that citation requires
r the exhaust system, and generally,
handled
in different judicial districts,
ou more thoroughly on that.
But in those cases, there may be,
"hat's true. There most always is
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY
MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C E R
I HEREBY CERTIF
numbered from 1 through 26
and accurate transcription
at the public hearing of
at the Anaheim Convention
DATED this 10th
TIFJCATE
Y that the foregoing pages,
8, inclusive, represent a true
of my stenographic notes taken
the Environmental Protection Agency
Center on Friday, April 28, 1978.
day of May, a.d. 1978.
269
ARTHUR SPRING, reporter
OFFICIAL SEAL
ARTHUR SPRING
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
PIVErSIDE COUNTY }
My ccmm. expires AUG 25. im |S
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY 8t r»< ANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
statewide
1 a fine.
2 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
3 cent of the cases, then,
4 MR. LITTLE:
'5 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
6 or just a slap of the wris
7 MR. LITTLE: Th
8 Very seldom -- It depends
9 fines. There is no
10 on the wrist, and some are
11 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
12 that, if they fine the i
13 thought that would get the
14 of course, agree with that
15 the only solution is enfor
16 MR. LITTLE; I
17 enforcement stands us in g
18 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
19 Thank you very much.
20 MR. LITTLE: Mai
21 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
22 ' MR. LITTLE;
23 about off-highway vehicle
24 recall who that was.
25 MR. KOZLOWSKI:
26 MR. LITTLE: Nd
individual
255
And that's about seventy per
too?
Yes.
Very interesting. Heavy fines,
t?
ey're just slaps on the wrist.
Different courts set their own
standard. Some are just slaps
significant.
Mr. Jardine made a point earlier
substantially, chat he
attention of the people, and we,
, and we've found that to be true,
cement, but — Well, okay.
agree with that too. I think our
ood reason.
Okay, fine. That's all I have.
y I make one more comment?
Yes.
Solmeone made a comment this morning
testing on pavement. I don't
Was it a member of the panel?
, it was one of the people who
<2U) 437-13J7
MACAULEY &
MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 553-9XOO
-------
1 spoke.
2 We've tested
3 highly skilled and lowly
4 Patrol, among other thin
' 5 off-highway motorcycles
6 not designed to be drive:
7 to turn it too sharp bee
8 you, but on the pavement
9 complete control test, ar
10 testing on the pavement.
11 them only out on the lawr
12 but you can't make the t
13 MR. EDWARDS:
14 my end of the bargain anc
15 your boss. (Laughter)
16 MR. LITTLE; }
17 years, but he won't list
18 MR. EDWARDS:
19 morning with Mr. Swing as
20 to a California standard
21 asked of him that he
22 manufacturer, right now,
23 California that it's in
24 specifically, how many di
25 do you have some examples
26 certified for use in Cal:
mferred
256
lot of new vehicles. I am the
paid test engineer for the Highway
s, and I have tested many, many
n the pavement. I agree, they're
on the pavement, it wasn't made
use they'll slip out from under
is the only way you can run a
d I strongly recommend we continue
Sure, they would like us to run
somewhere, a noise absorbant area,
st on the vehicle.
Mr. Little, now I have to uphold
recommend you for promotion to
've been recommending it for many
to me.
I got into a discussion this
to how the EPA standard related
and one of the questions that I
to you was: How does the
go about showing the State of
Compliance with its rules, and more
fferent products do they test, and
of vehicles that have not been
fornia, and how far from the
(J13) 437-13J7
MACAULEY
MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
1 standard were they?
2 MR. LITTLE:
3 information. That's one o
4 Number one, veh
.5 certify their vehicles in
6 sells the vehicle, signs a
7 vehicle complies. We have
8 on a catch-as-catch-can ba
9 when they notice a new veh
10 and we go out to measure i
11 we do -- the last one we
12 second or third time, we
13 California. And then, the
14 seems that the production
15 prototype, and Yamaha reca
16 And we took the ban off.
17 We should reall
18 do. We don't really have
19 in engineering that work
20 far as new vehicles go. W
21 small as yours, with the p
22 But, we find
23 sell is rather significant
24 generally, one month, when
25 vehicles and just measure
26 last year, we measured a
257
.1, I can give you all that
: my responsibilities:
icle manufacturers do not have to
California. The dealer, when he
statement that says that the
had new vehicles in Sacramento
sis.. Our noise teams tell us
icle that is excessively loud,
The last one was -- well, what
measured was a Ferrari. For the
forbid the sale of Ferrari's in
re was a Yamaha motorcycle. It
nachine had been modified from the
lied them. Ferrari did the same.
measure more vehicles than we
the time. There's only two of us
time in the noise program, as
2 have a skeleton crew almost as
oblems we have.
the threat of forbidding to
Every year we set aside,
we go out and randomly select
:hem, and the last time we did,
whole group of off-highways, and
th.it
(J13) £37-1327
MACAULEY &
IANNING. «ANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9X00
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
there were serious consequ
we just don't measure ever|r
MR. EDWARDS:
all. We, in EPA, know all
to do everything that ever
guess- my question is: If,
a whole different series o
that is 84 decibels, do yoju
or do you say, "Gee, I gue
bad. We'll go out and tes
258
inces from that. But, as a rule,
vehicle.
m not trying to be critical at
about not having enough people
fbody wants you to do, but I
in your program, your are testing
f vehicles, and when you find one
say, "That's not good for sale,"
as this particular one is not so
t another vehicle." What do you
do?
MR. LITTLE: If
decibel, over the limit --
depends on how much over
two decibels or more over
and stop the sale immediat
write the manufacturer and
which we will test, and if
a decibel, or one decibel,
refit.
We do not apply
tolerance allowed for the
Now, for on-hig
story. We do apply a tole
MR. EDWARDS:
MR. LITTLE:
it's one decibel, or a half a
Well, let me step back. It
the limit, on what we do. If it's
the limit, we write the manufacture
ely. If it's less than that, we
have him bring us another model,
that's over the limit by half
then we make them recall and
a tolerance. There is no
vehicle manufacturers.
iway enforcement, that's a differen
ranee there . . .
understand.
. but not in the regulations,
(213) 437-1327
MACAUUEY &
ANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 5JJ-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
but it is in our operating
259
procedure.
MR. EDWARDS: But if it's sort of on the
borderline, then you essentially revert to additional
testing?
MR. LITTLE: We
to pick one car which was
revert to additional testing,
yes, and have the manufacturer -- well, it could be an
error which we make, and wauld like to be sort of responsible
with, and well, the Ferrari, for instance, we just happened
over the limit, and they
brought three other vehicles which were all well within
the limit. That particular vehicle they sold out in
Sandusky, I guess, because
(Laughter), but no matter,
the manifold, and all, and
it was illegal in California
even changing the exhaust and
the intake manifold, they
couldn't bring the noise level down. Ferrari now has a new
complete set of sound measxtrements, but we do make them
make corrections
The Yamaha was Less than 2 dB over, but we made
the manufacturer -- Generally, with the major manufacturers
you don't have to stop sale
MR. EDWARDS: In
All you have to do is tell
them, "Look, you're in trouble," and they do a real good
job of policing themselves.
another area, if someone in the
State of California was knowledgeable that, say, a
motorcycle dealer, or service shop, was routinely tampering
with the products brought in, whose authority is it, and
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
260
whose responsibility, in t
California — is it to go
MR. LITTLE: It
Motor Vehicles. However,
started in our office, and
present it to the DMV --
he State of California -- in
after someone like this?
fs really the Department of
in the action, it is generally
we generally gather data and
Department of Motor Vehicles --
or to the Attorney Generall's Office. But generally, it's
handled through the Department of Motor Vehicles.
MR. EDWARDS: Do you ever initiate your own
studies -- I am not trying
ever initiate your own studies, reports, on dealers or
service organizations, or
MR. LITTLE: We
never have done that. If
certification program -- w
we have been waiting until
to be critical -- but do you
do you work on a complaint basis?
work on a complaint basis. We
-------
wo.thi.n
I appropriate. You may not
2 specifically at this time.
3 data available, we would c
4 And I will also back this
5 these questions again.
6 . I think the fis
7 of motorcycle citations ir
8 to officer's judgment,
9 MR. LITTLE: A
10 judgment. I can't give yo
11 you that data. Now, wait
12 officer is at liberty to,
13 against noise emissions,
14 and that's one thing we ha
15 program, that we don't
16 little black box. That ju
17 We do have a fe
18 that do have sound meters,
19 not done with meters. The
20 just rove around, and some
21 just stop noisy vehicles.
22 I would say tha
23 enforcement is done by ear
24 CHAIRMAN THOMAS
25 stopped for enforcement ac
26 then in a citation, and co
261
•>e. able to answer the questions
If you do happen to have the
preciate receiving it later.
up with a letter to you citing
t of these is: "What percentage
volve sound measurement as opposed
the CHP?"
/ery high percentage is officer
u the percentage. I could get
a minute. The normal beat
and does take enforcement actions,
nd they do not have sound meters,
re to be careful of in the
every officer to have a
3t absolutely does not work.
a officers throughout the State
but all of their enforcement is
, on a rainy day, they will
vehicles that are noisy, they'll
req uire
the major portion of their
Now, when the vehicle is
ion by ear, does this result
Id this, or have you experienced
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY &
ANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
1 in these types of citation
3 the violation, do you have
262
3, presuming a citation is issued,
2 having to go to court to substantiate the noise level, or
difficulty, in other words, in
4 convictions, on normal enforcement by you?
5 MR. LITTLE: We normally don't have trouble with
6 convictions. However, if it's all right with you, Mr.
7 Hanson can answer that specifically tomorrow, because that's
8 primarily his job.
9 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Thank you. We will hold
10 those questions for him tomorrow. Then, that's fine.
11 I have one more question if you will bear with
12 me for just a. minute.
13 . MR. LITTLE: I'm paid for the month, and the
14 month isn't up yet. (Laughter)
15 'CHAIRMAN THOMAS: In your statement -- there are
16 two questions, I guess, I have gotten out of here -- in
17 your comments earlier you made a statement that, "Lower
18 limits are likely to increase the tendency for customers to
19 make modifications in the belief that more power would be
20 the result."
21 Now, my question is this: In your experience in
22 the State of California with motorcycle noise, can you tell
23 us what you have seen in terms of efforts by manufacturers,
24 dealers or distributors, to get to, inform, educate, any
25 of the above? Motorcyclists are not tampering or modifying
26 the systems on those motorcycles for noise control purposes.
(213)437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA-ANA. CALIF. (714)558-9400
-------
263
1 . Let me say that again: In your experience, what
2 have you seen or experienced from motorcycle manufacturers,
3 distributors, dealers, in trying to educate or inform
4 motorcyclists buying their products, using those products
5 in this State, not to tamper or modify muffler exhaust
6 systems?
7 MR. LITTLE: Well, I have seen very little from
8 the manufacturers themselves. Some motorcycles have a
9 warning label on them. The mufflers have warning labels on
10 them. MIC has done a pretty good job with their "Less
11 Sound, More Ground", and they have done a pretty good job
12 with that, and I think that really has paid dividends.
13 Dealers? I have not seen anything at all. We
14 had a real serious problem with a dealer selling closed
15 course racing motorcycles for off-highway operation.
16 The manufacturers have developed kits, or did
17 develop kits, a few years ago, for these vehicles. This
18 year, Yamaha and Honda elected not to provide kits for
19 them, the racing motorcycles. They're going to leave
20 racing motorcycles. But dealers stiJl insist on selling
21 them for trail riding. So, I don't know whether the
22 dealers don't know, or they are not interested, or they are
23 just interested in the sale, but I don't see any efforts on
24 the dealers' part.
25 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: In other words, in your view --
26 and I don't mean to put words in your mouth but I am going
f»131
-------
264
1 to try to I guess -- are you seeing, then, motorcycle
2 dealers, in your experience, as being part of the problem,
3 not part of the solution here, on this modification of
4 exhaust system problem?
-5 MR. LITTLE: Some of them are, yes. Lots of
6 them are. There's a dealer right across the street from
7 our office who is pretty conscious of us (laughter), there
8 are other dealers -- every once in a while I walk over
9 there, and he knows me quite well -- there are other dealers
10 in town, one particular one that I don't think he sells a
11 motorcycle out of there with the stock exhaust that's been
12 on it -- I'm not sure what he does with the stock systems,
13 but the major new motorcycles that he sells, I see on the
14 streets, with modified systems on them, and we have a real
15 serious problem of enforcement, or lack of enforcement,
16 with the city PD, and that's the case there where the
17 city police are just not interested.
18 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, it seems to me -- and I
19 may be a little naive in this business, I haven't been
20 around motorcycles that long yet, this side of it at any
21 rate --it seems to me that if these dealers are representing
22 manufacturers selling their products, servicing their
23 products, that the manufacturers themselves probably hold
24 the most persuasive power over these dealers to influence
25 them.
26 Do you see, or have you seen, any of this
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
265
kind of influence being exerted by the manufacturers of
these products, in the State of California?
MR. LITTLE: No, I have not. I really haven't.
I think it's partially our fault too, because we have not
taken the enforcement against the dealers. We're just
starting to do something with this off-highway thing.
But I do believe that if we were to take some
enforcement action against a few of the dealers, to make
it very unprofitable for them to do so, that we would get
the dealers and the manufacturers support, and I believe
there are court cases -- the lawyer here can back me up --
that has something to do with kangaroo shoes, and selling
of Studebaker mufflers.
I think we can show that the manufacturers who
sell great quantities of the older mufflers to dealers
would be pretty obvious -- there aren't that many of these
older vehicles around — it would be pretty obvious that
these mufflers were being installed on the newer vehicles,
but we have not gone out and made that kind of a protest.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That's very informative. You
indicated, and you singled out two companies who are not
offering kits this year, that I presume, if I understand
you correctly, would have permitted their bikes to have
been modified, in some form, to permit them to operate on
the streets, but marginally so.
Would you go back over that again, please?
(213) 437-1377 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
266
1 . MR. LITTLE: No, these are off-highway bikes.
2 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Off-highway bikes; right.
3 . MR. LITTLE: Yamaha -- most manufacturers; I'm
4 not picking on one in particular -- Yamaha and Honda, this
-5 year, with their closed course racing motor-cross bikes,
c do no supply silencing kits.
7 Now, last year, and I believe the year before,
g they elected to supply silencing kits for them.
g We don't really care if the vehicle is designed
IQ for racing, or what, as long as it is out in the woods when
11 it's off-highway rated, and it meets the noise requirements,
12 and I don't like -- I think it's improper for the manufacturer
13 to not inform the dealer -- and I'm not sure that the dealer
14 isn't -- but I think if they are selling racing bikes to
15 the dealer-, he should be informed that they are racing
16 bikes, and that they are not originally approved.
17 Now, I don't know what steps Yamaha and Honda
18 has done to inform the dealers on the problem, but I know
19 they decided, this year, and I think very wisely, that the
20 vehicle should not be ridden off the road — off-road --
21 away from the race track, even if they do install -- the
22 operator does install some kind of a kit on them.
23 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Well, I presume, from your
24 statement, since you've singled out two companies, that
25 you don't know whether the others have withdrawn these
26 kits, or, in fact, to your knowledge, they are still
(213) 437-1327 MACAULEY 8t MANNING. SANTA ANA. CAUf. (?U> 558-9400
-------
267
1 offering this kind of an option?
2 MR. LITTLE: Well, Suzuki, with their RK
3 model, which is a moto-cross bike, I believe they do
4 provide silencing kits, which is perfectly acceptable. Once
•5 the kit is on, it is not with the muffler, it's a muffler
6 as well as dampers in the fins, and air intake manifolds,
7 and all of this. (Speaker barely audible)
8 Once the kit is installed, if it stays on,
9 the motorcycle is perfectly acceptable off-road. It does
10 meet California's 86 -- and by the way, I think your 32
11 dB(A) limit is fabulous. I think it should be the same
12 as highway. That wasn't too popular with the manufacturers, j
|
13 I kind of feel myself that these closed course
14 racing motorcycles that you're proposing to identify should
15 remain closed course racing motorcycles. If somebody wants
16 to ride it out in an enduro event, or if they want to go
17 out trail riding, I believe they ought to have a trail bike
18 and not a closed course racing bike.
19 CHAIRMAN THOMAS: That's very helpful, Mr. Little.
20 We appreciate your comments very much indeed. They are
21 obviously straight to the point, resulting from an awful lot
22 of experience in this business, probably more so than
23 anybody we have talked to, from one who has had the
24 responsibility for enforcing these kinds of regulations, and
25 establishing regulations that are enforceable, and also,
26 determining what doesn't work, and of course, that's what
(213) 437-1327 MACAUUEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400
-------
268
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
we're interested in more than anything else, what doesn't
work.
I think that the experience of California, and
yours, are invaluable to us, and of course, that's part of
the reason why we have cooperated so well with you, is that
we have learned an awful lot from you.
Thank you very much.
MR. LITTLE: Thank you, and thank you for coming j
here so we could comment.
CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Are there any others in the
audience who would care to speak tonight, who have not
indicated so far? (No response to the question.)
Going once, twice. Ladies and gentlemen, this
hearing will now recess until 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning,
when it will reconvene. Thank you.
(Whereupon, the hearing was
recessed at 8:25 o'clock, p.m.)
(213) 437-1327
MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.
(714) 558-9400
-------
------- |