United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
                 Office of Noise Abatement
                 and Control (ANR-490)
                 Washington, D.C. 20460
December 1980
EPA 550/9-80-220
           Noise
&EPA
Docket Analysis for the Noise
Emission Regulations for
Motorcycles and Motorcycle
Exhaust Systems

-------
                                                               EPA 550/9-80-220
                               DOCKET ANALYSIS

                      FOR 1KB NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS

                FOR MOTORCYCLES AND MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST SYSTEMS
                              December 1980


                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                   Office of Noise Abatement and Control

                          Washington, D.C.  20460
Permission  is  granted to  reproduce  this material without  further clearance.
This document has been approved for general availability.  It does not consti-
tute a standard, specification or regulation.

-------
                           TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

                                                                 Page
Section

       1.  HEALTH AMD WELFARE

1.1        Extent of Impact on Public Health  &  Welfare            1-1
1.2        Accuracy and Sufficiency  of Health and  Welfare
             Statistical Data                                    1-4
1.3        Impact of Motorcycle Noise Reflects  Prejudices         1-6 —
1.4        Magnitude of Impact on Public Health and Welfare       1-7
1.6        In-Use Noise Levels                                   1-8

       2.  ECONOMICS

2.1        Evaluation of Benefits and Costs                       2-1
2.2        Inflationary Impact of Regulation                      2-3
2.3        Economic Impact on Motorcycle Manufacturers            2-5 —
2.4        Economic Impact on Foreign Motorcycle Manufacturers
             and U.S. Balance of Trade                           2-7 —
2.5        Unemployment Impact on Motorcycle  Manufacturing
             Industry                                            2-9 -
2,6        Impact on Existence of Aftermarket                    2-9 —
2.7        Sharing Technical  Expertise and Testing Facilities     2-12
2.8        Economic Impact on Dealers/Distributors               2-13
2.9        Economic Impact on Consumers                          2-14

       3.  TECHNOLOGY

3.1        Best Available Technology Definition                  3-1
3.2        'Not-to-Exceed1 Levels                                3-2
3.3        Use of Air-Cooled Engines                             3-3
3.4        Two-Cycle Motorcycles                                 3-4
3.5        Two-Cylinder Motorcycles                               3-4
3.6        Performance Loss                                      3-5
3.7        Header Pipes                                          3-6
3.8        Design Criteria for Mufflers                          3-6
3.9        Changes to Styling and Design                         3-7
3.10       Potential Increase in Tampering Due  to  Regulation      3-8
3.11       Lower Standards for Off-Road Motorcycles               3-9
3.12       Categories of Off-Road Motorcycles                    3-10
3.13       Lead Times                                            3-12

-------
                   TABLE OF  CONTENTS  (Continued)
       4.  TESTING

4.1        Motorcycle Compliance Testing                         4-2
4.2        Replacement Exhaust System Compliance Testing         4-7
4.3        Stationary Sound Level Testing                        4-10
4.4        Tachometers                                           4-14
4.5        Windscreen                                            4-15

       5.  LABELING

5.1        Simplicity of Label                                   5-1
5.2        Pre-1982 Product Labeling                             5-3
5.3        Exhaust System Label Obsolescence                     5-4
5.4        Stationary Sound Level Labeling Requirements          5-6
5.5        Placement of Label                                    5-6
5.6        Aesthetic Considerations                              5-7

       6.  ENFORCEMENT

6.1        Statutory Authority                                   6-1
6.2        Recall and Distribution Provisions                    6-1
6.3        Selective Enforcement Auditing                        6-3
6.4        Certification Requirements                            6-5
6.5        Stationary Sound Level Methodology                    6-8
6.6        Tampering                                             6-11
6.7        Penalties for Tampering                               6-14
6.8        Public Awareness Program                              6-14
6.9        State and Local Enforcement                           6-16
6.10       Federal Support                                       6-19
6.11       Sound Meters                                          6-20
6.12       State Standards for Competition Motorcycles           6-21
6.13       Amendments to Motorcycle Noise Rule                   6-21

       7.  AAP/SLDF

7.1        Need for AAP/SLDF                     ,                7-1
7.2        Legality of AAP                                       7-2
7.3        Computation of SLDF                                   7-3
7.4        Duration of AAP                                       7-4
7.5        Costs of AAP and SLDF                                 7-5
7.6        SSL and SLDF Relationship       .                      7-6
7.7        AAP as a Design Criteria                              7-6
7.8        AAP Alternative                                       7-7
                                   n

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
       8.  MOPEDS

8.1        The Legality of Regulating Mopeds                       8-1
8.2        Compliance with Moped Regulations                       8-2
8.3        Inflationary Impact of Moped Regulation                 8-5
8.4        Moped Testing Requirements                              8-5
8.5        Moped Noise Levels                                      8-6

       9.  GENERAL

9.1        Preemption of State and Local Noise Laws                9-1
9.2        Air and Noise Emission Coordination                     9-2
9.3        Follow-up of Regulations                                9-3
9.4        Effective Date                                          9-4
9.5        Safety Hazards                                          9-5
9.6        Regulation of All After-market Mufflers                  9-6
9.7        EPA Biased Against Motorcycles                          9-6
9.8        Competition Motorcycles                                 9-7
9.9        Spark Arrestors                                         9-9
9.10       Definition of Wilderness                                9-9
9.11       Background Document Outdated                            9-10
9.12       EPA's Authority                                         9-11
9.13       Definition of Modified Motorcycle                       9-12
9.14       Federal Motorcycle Noise Standards Unnecessary          9-12
9.15       Bonneville Speed Trials                                 9-13
9.16       Path Noise Control                                      9-14
9.17       Other Vehicles Should be Quieted                        9-15
9.18       Energy Efficiency                                       9-16
9.19       EPA Region V Officials                                  9-16
9.20       Obtaining Obsolete Replacement Parts                    9-17
9.21       Tamper-Proof Mufflers                                   9-17
9.22       Conciseness of Regulations                              9-18
9.23       Noise Control Act Section 6                             9-20
9.24       Measurement to Nearest Tenth of A dB                    9-20
9.25       Color Coding                                            9-20
9.26       Future Compliance Costs                                 9-21

      10.  PRIVATE CITIZEN COMMENTS/STATE AND LOCAL QUESTIONNAIRE

10.1       Private Citizen Comments                               10-1

               Table 10.1  Distribution of Comments
                           from Private Citizens                  10-1

               Table 10.2  Comments from Private
                           Citizens 1n Support of
                           Regulation                             10-2
                                  ill

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
               Table 10.3  Comments from Private
                           Citizens in Opposition  to
                           Regulation                             10-3
               Table 10.4  Comments from Private Citizens
                           not Indicating Support  or Opposition    10-5

10.2  State and Local  Government Questionnaire                     10-6

               Table 10.5  Distribution of Comments
                           from State and Local
                           Governments                            10-6
                                  iv

-------
                       1.  HEALTH AND WELFARE

1.1  EXTENT OF IMPACT  ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

Issue:   Criteria  for  identifying motorcycles  as  a major  source  of noise is
        questioned,  and it is contended that the health and welfare benefits
        do not justify the regulation.

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments
     Harley-Davidson,  Kawasaki  and Suzuki expressed concern that EPA has  not
established valid reasons for implementing the  noise  emission  regulation  and
has not proven that motorcycles  threaten the  public's  health  and  welfare.  At
most, motorcycle  noise is  viewed as an annoyance.

     Harley-Davidson  also claims  that,   at first,  EPA acknowledged that  new
motorcycles operating  at  the 83  dB  Tevel  are  not  loud,  and  then  proceeded
to display theoretical  calculations which totally ignore this point.

     Lastly,  Harley-Davidson points  out  that  motorcycles make  up only  1.7
percent of the  total  traffic stream  and account for  a  mere  1.2  percent of
total  traffic miles.   As a result,  the U.S.  population will  not greatly
benefit from  the  proposed  rules.   Suzuki  has stated that the general  public is
not greatly concerned  with off-road motorcycle noise either.

     Kawasaki  testified  that  new  vehicles are somewhat quieter than  the
analysis  shows,  and  that  EPA's estimation of  reduction in noise  impacts is
overstated.

     State and Local  Government Comments

     The California Office of Noise Control urges EPA to spend more funds on  a
better assessment of the adverse effect  of noise  on human well-being.

     Orange County,  California,  stated  that  because   noise  is viewed  as an
annoyance and an  inconvenience  rather than  a matter  of public safety,  it is
difficult  to  get law  enforcement officials  to   "crack down" on  the problem.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Spokane  Suzuki,  Honda of Ft.  Walton, and Maryland Cycle Supply  all
contend that  other vehicles  are noisier  than motorcycles.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     ABATE of Illinois  argues that  most motorcycles are used only six months
of the year in a  limited  fashion  and can not in  any way impact on the general
public's health and welfare.

     The BMW Motorcycle Owners  of America contend that the noise emissions of
unmodified motorcycles  are   "masked  by  the  sound of  other vehicles  in  the
traffic stream.   Unmodified motorcycles therefore  do not contribute  in  any
significant way to total traffic noise."


                                  1-1

-------
     ABATE  of  Michigan,  Freedom  Rider  MC, and  Cycle  World Magazine  contend
that motorcycles  make  up a small percentage of  the  total  traffic  stream  and
therefore do not contribute significantly  to the  noise problem.

     Private Citizens Comments

     Mr.  Bradford Sturtevant  stated  that the analysis  of the single  event
model  is  based on  a  long  string of  unproven assumptions  and calculates  ab-
solute  impacts  with no reference to  the  significance  of  the  Impact relative
to other equivalent noise sources.

     Blomedical  Community Comments

     While Ray  Lesser, M.D.,  supported  EPA's  efforts  to  reduce noise  pollu-
tion,  Dr.  John  Fletcher stated  in  public hearings  that there are  certain
levels  of  noise  which may be  only  annoying,  although  the  state-of-the-art
research  indicates that  annoyance  due  to noise  might  pose  other health
problems since  there are other non-auditory effects of  noise.  Again,  these
are  more  suggested  than very  strongly  proved.   There  are  also  scientific
studies which  rather strongly  suggest  that noise aggravates  existing  heart
conditions.   Because of the potential  damage from non-auditory effects coupled
with  the  very  heavily  and  well-documented auditory  effects,  Dr.  Fletcher
believes that  it  would be  foolish for EPA to  Ignore them.   Interruption  in
sleep 1s considered to  be rather significant not only from a health  standpoint
but from a physical well-being, quailty-of-Hfe  standpoint.  Dr. Fletcher  can
see no adverse  effect of  lowering the  standards.

     Mr. Karl S. Pearsons,  a manager of  a psychoacousties research  department
testified on the  adverse effects  of noise Including  hearing  loss and damage,
sleep and speech Interference,  and other effects such as on the cardiovascular
system.  Annoyance  was also mentioned as  an adverse effect  by  Mr.  Pearsons.

     Public  Interest Group  Comments

     Spokesmen  for the  National  Retired Teachers' Association and the American
Association  of  Retired Persons  expressed  concern  over noise and the inability
of the  elderly  to escape it.    These  two  organizations Indicated that  motor-
cycle noise  1s  a major  part of  the noise problem.

Response;

     While  83  dB is not as loud as  many motorcycles manufactured in the
past nor  as loud as most  modified motorcycles,  the 83  dB  noise level  is
considered  by  EPA  to  be very  loud for  a surface  transportation product.
Trucks are currently regulated  below  this  level  and  the  proposed regulations
for buses  are also less than 83  dB.

The Regulatory Analysis for the Final  Motorcycle Noise Emission Regula-
tion shows 1n detail EPA's  estimates of the health and welfare benefits  of  the
regulation,   and  illustrates  the basis upon which EPA made  the decision  to
regulate motorcycles.   The  data  contained  1n the Regulatory Analysis represent
EPA's best  estimate of motorcycle noise  Impact  and the  nation-wide  traffic
noise situation. EPA's health and welfare  analysis was meant  to be  a conser-
vative estimate of  the true dimensions of the motorcycle  noise  problem.  The
various assumptions made 1n the analysis  were consistently underestimated  so
that any error  would not  overestimate  the true problem.   It 1s quite possible
that the Impact  from motorcycle  generated  noise 1s greater than the  health  and


                                  1-2

-------
welfare  analysis assumes.   Nevertheless, 1t is  EPA's judgment  that this
regulation limiting noise emissions  from motorcycles  does afford a  sufficient
degree of protection  to public health and welfare,  and further that the
estimated benefits to be accrued fully  justify this  regulation of  motorcycle
noise.

     EPA's  definition  of health,  which  is  contained in  the Regulatory
Analysis,  Is  broad enough  to include  elements  other  than  simply physical
harm.  This  definition  1s commonly  accepted among the  scientific  community.
Health and welfare  are  not  separate entities but are considered as a whole.
Thus, EPA  has  not simply calculated health benefits seperately from welfare
benefits, but has calculated health  and welfare benefits. Thus,  the inference
that motorcycle noise 1s  viewed only as  an annoyance 1s an oversimplification.
Noise may effect hearing, Interfere  with sleep,  and cause basic  physiological
stress.    People's verbalized responses  expressing the  dissatisfaction they
feel  culminating from all  these effects may be  termed "annoyance."  The
reaction  of annoyance  1s  a  symptom of  the overall adverse effects  of  noise,
and thus annoyance does  constitute  or Indicate a  health problem.   The  health
and  welfare Impact  of noise  is therefore  related to annoyance.  Public
annoyance 1s the basis  of many noise abatement programs and was  the motivator
of legislative action to control noise  throughout  the  country.  To those who
are Impacted dally by motorcycle noise,  annoyance  1s a  real problem.   EPA  1s
responsible for  protecting the  public's health and  welfare  when it is dis-
rupted by noise.   Annoyance 1s a crucial component that needs  to  be  controlled
if EPA 1s to uphold its responsibilities.  Annoyance does constitute a  danger
to the  public s  health  and  welfare,  and  EPA is  proceeding  to regulate  as
required by the Noise Control Act.

      Limiting the noise  emissions  from motorcycles admittedly will not
eliminate all the noise pollution 1n our environment.  This  1s not  the  Intent
of this  regulation.  Rather,  limiting the noise emissions of  motorcycles will
contribute to a quieter environment  In the future.  Motorcycle noise standards
are but one set of regulations promulgated or planned by EPA to control  noise.
Trucks,   buses,  wheel  and crawler  tractors,  portable air compressors,  truck
mounted solid waste compactors,  and pavement  breakers and rock drills as well
as motorcycles,  have been or will be  regulated for noise control.   The total
effect of  these  regulations will  benefit the  public's health and welfare.

      Admittedly, motorcycles  comprise a small percentage of the total traffic
stream.   Also motorcycles are used only part of the year in many parts  of  the
country.   However, 1t does not follow that motorcycles are not a major  source
of noise.  Relative to other transportation sources,  motorcycles  are a  signi-
ficant contributor, especially 1n residential  areas,  where heavy  vehicles  are
not present.  Further,  off-road motorcycles used 1n urban areas  contribute  to
noise pollution outside the traffic stream.  Therefore, the  percentage  of  the
U. S. population exposed to  motorcycle noise Is greater than it would  be  if
motorcycles were confined to  the  streets.

     This regulation will prevent the production  of loud motorcycles and help
prevent owner modifications which will Increase noise.  The projected benefits
Identified in  the health and welfare  analysis are  expected  to  be realized.
                                    1-3

-------
1.2   ACCURACY AND SUFFICIENCY  OF HEALTH AND WELFARE STATISTICAL DATA

Issue:  Is the  statistical  data used  in the health and welfare analysis
        accurate and sufficient, and  are  the  assumptions made in  the  health
        and welfare analysis  reasonable?

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson felt that  the  analysis as  it stands, "provides no  link
from  the  theoretical  analysis  to objective measures  of  perceived  motorcycle
noise...  EPA's  health and  welfare analysis has  no basis  in  fact,  rests
on  a  substantially inadequate  data  base and if  adopted will not withstand
judicial scrutiny... The complete absence of any experimental verification  of
the model  seriously weakens its usefulness."   Further, estimates  in "Noise  on
Wheels" for future motorcycles  on the  road are exaggerated.

     Harley-Davidson also  contested  several  assumptions made  by  EPA.    To
Harley-Davidson, the assumptions on  acceleration  time  used in calculating the
Sound Exposure  Level  (SEL)  are inconsistent.  The SEL  should  be  recalculated
with  consistent  peak  noise levels  and acceleration time.   The analysis,
according  to  Harley-Davidson,  overestimates the  SEL  value by  at  least 3 dB.
Furthermore,   the  number of  accelerations  per  mile was  also questioned  by
Harley-Davidson in  that  motorcycle  acceleration  in traffic is  restrained  by
lead vehicles about 98  percent  of the time since they only make up 1.7  percent
of the traffic stream.

     Lastly,  Harley-Davidson  views  the estimate  for sleep interruption  as too
high  because  motorcycle  usage  is  reduced after  sunset  for  safety  reasons.

     Suzuki  states that EPA's projections  of  benefits are based on  "two
totally unproven assumptions."   First, that the exhaust system regulation  will
reduce  the  number  of  modified systems  by  one-half  and second,   that state
and local  enforcement  efforts  will  be  effective. Furthermore, according  to
Suzuki,  the projected benefit from the exhaust system regulation is completely
untested at this time.

     Lastly,   Kawasaki's  estimates   that the  number  of  modified  motorcyles
is  greater  than the 12  per  rent listed  by  EPA  in the  background document.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group  Comments

     Motorcycle Product News  challenges  the  validity of  the data used  in the
health and welfare analysis.   To them, the supporting documentation no  longer
reflects  the real  world.   Most of  the documentation  is based on studies
conducted  prior to 1975.  Motorcycle Product News also questions  the use  of a
15-year old  British study  to estimate public attitudes  towards  motorcycles.

     Road  Rider Magazine  took  issue  with  data  in  the  background  document
dealing with  the  number  of motorcycle miles occurring on highways and free-
ways.    Road Rider Magazine  suggests  that  EPA  perform a more  sophisticated
analysis of the different modes of  operation of  motorcycles  (touring,  commut-
ing,  pleasure  riding,  etc.)  and the percentage  of total miles in  each mode.
It should  then be determined  which modes of operation are most likely to annoy
people.

                                   1-4

-------
     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr. John  Viggers would  "like to  point  out  that  it seems  from casual
observation that the  noise  impacts  referenced  are based on a 'fleet' of 1975
model year motorcycles.   The distribution  of motorcycle  sizes and engine types
(2 or 4 stroke)  are based on averages.  The noise impacts of  this fleet are
then used  as  the  basis  for further noise impact calculations.   It would seem
to Mr.  Viggers that  because  of the  EPA's  own air  pollution  regulations  in
effect at the present time that the 1975 fleet  is  not representative of a 1982
fleet.   Three major  manufacturers,  Yamaha,  Suzuki,  and  Kawasaki  no longer
produce the large  number  of 2-stroke motorcycles  that in 1975 were the main-
stay  of their business.   This is  due to the  air pollution regulations and
possibly other causes and should result in a very  small  population of 2-stroke
motorcycles in the 1980's.  Because of  this certain change in the population
distribution of  motorcycles  with its resultant change in noise  impacts,
how valid are the results of noise  impact analysis?"

Response;

     In an effort  to update  and  revise the  Regulatory Analysis,  EPA has
modified the  health and  welfare  model to more accurately reflect how noise
levels  in  the community  will  change  as  a result of  this  regulation.   The
statistical data  for the revised  health and  welfare  model  (now called the
National Roadway  Traffic Model)  uses the most current  data  available,  in-
cluding  information with  regard  to   the  current motorcycle  population and
projected  sales  of  new  motorcycles,  based  on Department of Transportation
studies  from  1976  and  1977.   The  new model   provides  improved  estimates of
vehicle operation  and noise emissions,  and  provides a basis  for accurately
analyzing  the health and  welfare benefits to be derived from regulation.  The
data  base  used by the Model is  described in detail  in  the EPA Draft  Report,
National Roadway  Traffic  Noise Exposure Model.   The basic simulation of the
Model allocates national  average daily  traffic over  3.6  million miles  of U.S.
roadways.  Traffic is allocated according to mode  of operation, roadway types,
and population characteristics.  Further, for  single event analyses  the model
differentiates  between   daytime  and  nighttime traffic and  more explicitly
defines the population by types of  activity.

     The  model  relates  population distribution,  roadway configuration, and
vehicle  characteristics.    The  roadway-use  data  incorporate the  information
from  several  previous studies related  to national exposure  to traffic  noise
Including:    vehicle  noise  emissions,  vehicle  operational  characteristics,
roadway  and  traffic  flow  descriptions,  population and  population  density
distributions, traffic  noise  models,  noise  propagation,  and  national noise
exposure models.    A  separate  health  and welfare analysis is also  performed
for motorcycles not used on roadways.

     The model  compares  rather  well  with previous  national  studies  used to
verify  highway noise  and  uses  similar assumptions  as  other noise  models.  EPA
is ready to use any modeling tool for its analysis when  shown Its  superiority.

     The analysis  recognizes that  populations,  roadway  networks  and  traffic
conditions  on  the  nation's  roadways are not  static quantities.    Population
size, roadway  characteristics, and traffic conditions vary from year to year.
The  new health and welfare model   recognizes  these variations in  estimating
national noise exposure in future years.


                                    1-5

-------
     The model  does  not rely in  any way  on  surveys of attitudes towards the
noise  levels  of separate classes of motor vehicles.   Whether it is a motor-
cycle  or a  truck,  the impact is calculated the same way.  Although there may
be  some finite differences  in response  to  different  categories of  motor
vehicle, the health and welfare  analysis impact projections that  one presented
rely  on criteria  recommended for  general  impact  analysis,  consistent with
current practice.

     The Agency  does not view its estimate of  sleep  interruption as unrealis-
tic.   The estimate was  developed  from the  estimated  fractional usage of motor
vehicles at night.   The Agency  has no knowledge of any data to  indicate that
motorcycle  usage falls  off more  rapidly  than  other vehicles  (i.e.,  auto-
mobiles) usage at night.

     As  clearly delineated  in   the  Regulatory  Analysis,  EPA  estimates  the
exhaust systems  regulation will  contribute to  a noticeable decrease in motor-
cycle  noise.    EPA  is  confident that  manufacturers  will  comply  with  these
regulations  and that  the  incidence  of modifying  motorcycles  will  decrease
significantly.   However,  EPA recognizes that  Federal  regulations  alone will
not completely  solve  the problem.   Aggressive state and local enforcement is
also  needed and even  then  some  tampering is  still expected  to take place.
The assumptions used in the  health  and welfare  analysis  recognized  this by
estimating  12  percent  of  motorcycles   to  be   modified without  regulation,  7
percent with  Federal  regulation  only,  and  3  percent to be modified with both
Federal regulation and active state and  local enforcement.

     With regard to  Harley-Davidson's   comments,  calculations  of sound expo-
sure  levels  are not  based on acceleration time but rather  on  the period of
time  an individual  is  exposed  to vehicle pass-by.   (For  more details  see
Chapter 5 of  the Regulatory Analysis.)  The new model was expanded to consider
the cruise  and  deceleration mode  as  well  as  the  acceleration  mode.  The new
model   also  considers  the  fact that the average noise level  during an accel-
eration  is  several  decibels  less  than the peak  noise level  reached  at the
shift point.

     Furthermore,  as  indicated  by  Harley-Davidson, EPA's February,  1977
publication of  "Noise on Wheels" admittedly contained some incorrect informa-
tion on motorcycle noise levels.   "Noise on Wheels" was not  properly reviewed
prior  to Us  publication and  was Immediately  withdrawn when the inaccuracies
were discovered.  None of the data included in this  pamphlet were used in the
health and welfare  analysis.

     Finally,   EPA's  estimate that  12  percent of  motorcycles  are modified,
which   was  used  to compute  the  impact  on the public's health  and welfare,
was taken  from  a  national  survey of  motorcycle  owners conducted  by  Gallup
Organization,  Inc.  for the Motorcycle  Industry  Council.


1.3    IMPACT OF MOTORCYCLE NOISE REFLECTS PREJUDICES

Issue;  Are motorcycle noise impacts exaggerated since most people are biased
        against motorcycles?
                                    1-6

-------
Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson and  Suzuki  expressed  concern  that because  motorcycles
evoke negative  emotional  responses, motorcycle noise levels  are  exaggerated.
People may be justly annoyed at modified motorcycles,  but new motorcycles  are
quiet.

     MAICO and  Harley-Davidson pointed out  that  noise  impacts  are subjective
and affect individuals  differently.   The assumption that  all  people  are
annoyed by  noise  diverts attention from  the  more obvious manifestations  of
motorcycle irritation.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group  Comments

     The  BMW Motorcycle  Owners  of  America  said  EPA's  'single-event  noise
impact1  was  invalid since EPA  attempts  to measure impact  in terms  of  sub-
jective annoyance  factors which  measures  anti-motorcycle prejudices  rather
than actual motorcycle  noise  impacts.

Response:

     Some  people are undoubtedly  annoyed by  motorcycle noise for reasons which
have  little  to do  with  the  noise  emitting characteristics  of  the vehicle.
Negative  views  of  motorcycles may trigger  greater  sensitivity  to motorcycle
noise. This  does not  negate legitimate concerns regarding  motorcycle noise
although  part  of the  negative response  may  be an  outlet  for  more  general
adverse  reactions  to  motorcycles  or their  operators.  The assessment of
benefits from reducing motorcycle noise was undertaken from the standpoint of
the motorcycle  as only one  contributor  to the overall  traffic noise problem.
Thus  individual prejudices are not  reflected  in  the analysis.   To the extent
that any of the prejudices are aggravated  by the  presence of noise, additional
benefits  will  occur by  lessening the intensity and detectability  of  the
problem.  These additional benefits have not been accounted for in the health
and welfare  analysis,  and thus  overall  benefits  have  most likely been under-
estimated.

     Further, attitudes are  not the  only  variable considered in the health and
welfare analysis.   The  analysis  should  not  be  labeled  invalid  because some
anti-motorcycle sentiment exists  that is  not taken directly into account within
the analysis.

1.4  MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT  ON  PUBLIC HEALTH  AND  WELFARE

Issue:  Does the  health  and welfare analysis  accurately  and fully determine
        the noise impact of motorcycles?

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson stated that there was  no  justification for EPA's  failure
to  measure  the impact  of legal motorcycles at different regulatory levels on
the public.

                                   1-7

-------
     Biomedical Community Comments

     Dr. John Fletcher confirmed in the public hearings that motorcycle noise
is  "rather unique because  of  its temporal pattern  and its spectral charac-
teristics  (and) because  of  the transient nature of motorcycle pass-by noise,
it  poses  a very significant problem in quantifying and accurately predicting
response."

     Mr. John M. Gray, MD,  added that  motorcycle noise  pollution  is  extremely
irritating  and anxiety-provoking.    Research  in experimental  psychology  has
proven without  a  doubt that constant  or  recurrent loud noises can  aggravate
many neuroses.  EPA's  assumptions  made in the health and welfare analyses of
the adverse health affects of noise are endorsed.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     ABATE  of  Illinois,  ABATE  of Maryland,  and  the  Motorcycling Doctor's
Association  posed questions   concerning  the actual  hearing  loss   estimated
by  EPA  and would  like  EPA to  provide  valid data which  indicate hearing loss.

     Private Citizen  Comments

     Mr. Bradford Sturtevant would like to see the noise impact on the motor-
cycle rider more accurately  analyzed.

Response:

     The health and welfare analysis evaluated several  regulatory options for
street motorcycles.   These options  varied by  levels to which motorcycles would
eventually be regulated.  The  number of intermediate  levels prior to the most
stringent  level and  the length of  lead  time  for each  level were considered.

     As mentioned previously,  (see Issue 1.4),  the  model  only evaluates the
impacts based on the measured  noise levels of motorcycles.  Evaluation based
on  other noise characteristics  would be difficult,  if  not impossible to
correctly quantify  at this time.

     In regard to the  impact  of  motorcycle noise on  the hearing  capabilities
of  the  operator or passengers, it  should be noted that noise levels  at the
position of the operator's or  passengers' ear would be  reduced as a  result of
source noise  reduction,  and thus  some further reduction  in  impact would be
expected.   However,  because it  is very difficult to predict  or  measure the
noise levels  incurred  by riders,  due  to such  factors as wind-Induced tur-
bulence and the acoustic  effect  of safety helmets, we  deleted from  the final
analysis any assessment of the benefits to be experienced  by either  operators
or passengers.

1.5  IN-USE NOISE  LEVELS

Issue;   Do the noise  levels  measured in the acceleration test represent actual
        in-use motorcycle noise levels?


                                    1-8

-------
Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     According  to  Harley- Davids on,  motorcycles  realistically . operate  well
below the  maximum noise levels  and  the time-averaged noise level of unmodified
motorcycles is  substantially less  than  83 dB.   Unmodified  motorcycles  under
normal operations would have  noise  levels  of 71  to 77 dB, which are comparable
to passenger cars.  Further,  60 percent of independent noise studies indicate
that motorcycle noise  is  below  75  dB.   EPA is using erroneous logic to esta-
blish the  extent of  the public's exposure  to motorcycle noise.


     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC  contended that  "...there  is no  relationship  between  the  noise
propagation characteristics,  or use patterns,  in the off-road environment, and
the  acceleration  test  procedure  selected by  EPA...  Using the  acceleration
test  for  an  off-road motorcycle... is  not an  equitable  way to  judge  noise
levels  in  the  off-road environment.  [EPA is]  measuring the noise emissions
from a motorcycle that will be  used in vegetated areas, in soft dirt, in hilly
areas,  and so  forth.   Yet,  [EPA is] measuring that noise on a level concrete
surface that  would  reflect  more  noise than  actually incurred at  the place
those motorcycles are used."

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Since speed limits average 25  to  35 mph in  residential  areas, Cycle Sport
Unlimited  does not believe the  full throttle pass-by test accurately reflects
motorcycle use in residential areas.

     Motorcycle Interest Group  Comments

     Road  Rider Magazine and the  New England Trail  Riders' Association sug-
gest eTThliFTPT~undertaRe a  more  sophisticated study which would result in a
more  accurate  and  representative  means  of using the acceleration  test for
motorcycle noise testing.

     The BMW Motorcycle Owners  of  America  strongly disagree  with EPA's methods
of  determining  the  nature and  scope  of motorcycle  noise emissions and their
impacts.   There  are also problems   in identifying the noise generating mecha-
nisms on motorcycles.

Response:

     A  recent study  conducted by EPA indicated that  motorcycle  noise is
much greater than the  75 dB  suggested by  Harley-Davids on.   The study measured
several different makes and models of  motorcycles  under varying conditions.
The riders were unaware that  the observations  were being  made,and the measured
vehicles  were  unimpeded  by  other  traffic.    The vehicle  accleratlons were
measured  from  standstill  positions Urban commuting and  urban recreational
traffic situations were included.
                                    1-9

-------
     Without a doubt, motorcycles In normal operations are not as loud as the
noise of motorcycles under maximum acceleration.  The health and welfare model
takes  this  Into  consideration -and  analyzes  motorcycles  according to  four
operating modes:   normal acceleration,  deceleration, cruise,  and Idle.   Noise
emissions  are examined for  these four operating modes for modified  and
unmodified motorcycles.

     The test  procedure used  for  both  off-road and street  motorcycles  Is
representative of the different modes  of operation and their noise emissions.
The measurements derived from  the  testing  can  be extrapolated to reflect the
noise level  for any  type of  operation and environment.  Utilizing pavement for
the  testing  Insures reliability  and consistency and 1s  therefore  preferred
over testing In off-road conditions.

     A complete description  of  the  new health and welfare model as well  as the
new testing procedure 1s provided 1n the revised Regulatory Analysis.
                                 1-10

-------
                       2.   ECONOMICS
2.1  EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

Issue:     Are the costs of the regulatory levels for motorcycles justified by
          the projected benefits?

Comments:
     Manufacturer's Comments

     The comments  of  the manufacturers of street motorcycles  implied  support
of the 83 dB  level  as  the most  acceptable of the regulatory options.   Harley-
Davidson, Suzuki  and  Yamaha  questioned  the cost effectiveness  of the 80  dB
standard inferring  that  costs to attain that level far  outweighed  the incre-
mental benefits  of quieting.   Suzuki  contends  that  a reduction to the 80  dB
level from the 83 dB level would only increase benefits by 7 to 20 percent but
would increase costs by 300 percent.

     The 78 dB level raised substantial  concern within the industry.   Harley-
Davidson, Honda,  and Suzuki all  questioned  the  need  and cost-effectiveness  of
going to 78  dB.   Harley-Davidson stated  that  it does not know how the  78  dB
standard could  be reached  and therefore could not estimate  the costs  or
marketing impacts until  prototype  hardware  could  be developed.   Honda  feels
that  the 78  dB level  should  be  carefully studied  from the cost-effectiveness
point of  view.   It stated that implementation  of  a 78 dB  rule  would prompt
cost  increases of  approximately 10 percent.   Suzuki  stated  that the  78  dB
level  is completely  unreasonable  and cannot  be  justified  until all  other
transportation  noise  sources  are  made  much quieter.   It recited EPA's own
benefit and cost  projections  as  evidence against the 78 dB level.

      State and Local Governments

      The California Highway Patrol  suggested that  the 78 dB level be elimina-
ted  or  that  the  effective date be omitted  since  it  does  not  appear  to  be
cost-effective.   However,  representatives of local  governments in such states
as  Oregon,  California,  Minnesota  and  Florida  criticized  the 83  dB  level  as
failing  to  provide protection  from or amelioration  of  excessive motorcycle
noise.

      Trade Association Comments

      The  Motorcycle  Industry Council  (MIC) and  the Motorcycle  Trade  Asso-
ciation  (MTA)  support the  83  dB  regulatory  level.  This support  is echoed
through  the  testimony of  other trade  associations  and  motorcycle   interest
groups.

      The  MTA  stated  that  the   imposition  of  a more  severe  regulatory  level
could cost U.S.  industry  and  the economy over one  billion dollars.   This
 includes  the  loss  of  jobs,   a loss of business for manufacturers, suppliers,
dealers  and  sub-assembly suppliers, and  sales'  losses.   MTA pointed  out that
                                   2-1

-------
 other  indirect  costs to the American  economy  were absent from EPA's analyses
 such  as unemployment payments.   The Motorcycle  Industry  Council  views regu-
 latory options more stringent than  83 dB  as adding  significantly  to costs
 without achieving  significant  environmental benefits.

     Council on Wage and Price Stability

     The 83 dB regulatory option was  identified  by the  Council  on  Wage and
 Price  Stability  (CWPS)  as the level of regulation with the highest net bene-
 fits.   Therefore,  CWPS concluded, it is a misallocation of society's resources
 to  regulate to noise levels of 80  dB  or 78 dB since  net  benefits to society
 would  be smaller than at the 83 dB level.

     Motorcycle Interest Groups Comments

     The New England Trail  Riders' Association  indicated that  the  benefits
 vril1  far outweigh  the  costs  with  the  proposed  noise  emission  rules.   Its
 members  will be able to devote "the time, money, and effort now being spent on
 noise  control  activities  to other  programs  such  as  trail  planning and rider
 education."

     Other  motorcycle  interest  groups, however,  believe  that  the  costs  do
 outweigh the benefits.  Among  them:   ABATE of Illinois, AMA, AMA Great Plains
 District 33, Harrisonburg  MC,  Inc.,  Jennings  County MC, Sidewinders MC Earth,
 U.S.  Norton Owners' Association, Twin Shores MC,  Freedom Riders  MC,  Cycle
 World Magazine.  ABATE  of  Indiana,   and Jersey  Motorcycle Association,  Inc.

 Response:

     In  determining the  cost-effectiveness of a  regulation,  EPA  compares the
 costs  and  benefits of each  level  of the noise  emission  standards  in the
 regulation.   The  costs  are estimated  in dollars while  the  benefits  are mea-
 sured  using metrics  reflecting the  impact  on  the  public's health and welfare.
 If  the  agency  finds that  the projected  benefits  justify the costs, the regu-
 lation  is considered to be cost-effective.

     At  the 83 dB  regulatory  level,  the  costs for motorcycle  noise control
would  be minimal.   This  is due to the  fact that  nearly all  new street motor-
cycles  currently  sold  in  the  U.S.  have noise  levels  below the 83 dB  level.
The technology to  quiet  motorcycles to this  level  has already been developed
and is  available.    Also,  newly  manufactured  models with  noise  levels  higher
than 83 dB  are already illegal  in several states.

     Benefits associated with  the 83 dB standard  are  primarily  the result of
restricting consumer modification of  the  original exhaust system.   Consumer
modification takes  two forms:   (1)  replacement of the original equipment with
a louder exhaust  system;  or (2)  alteration of the muffler to make it louder.
These  benefits  are realized because the regulation  requires  that replacement
exhaust  systems must not cause the motorcycles for which they are designed to
exceed the  applicable noise standard.   Since  substantial  benefits are derived
with minimal  cost  penalties,  EPA has  determined  that  this  standard  is cost-
effective.
                                  2-2

-------
     For the  80 dB  level,  the  motorcycle  manufacturers  must begin  to make
changes to a  significant percentage  of  their models.   The marginal  costs and
benefits of moving from the 83 dB  standard are entirely associated with these
Initial design changes.   EPA analyses and  public testimony have shown that all
manufacturers can  meet  the 80  dB  level;  some manufacturers  with  only minor
model changes.   Further reduction (i.e., to 78  dB) which of  course  must be
obtained through  more  difficult  design  changes  is  naturally  more  costly.
Thus, the highest  benefit to  cost  ratio is  almost always at the least strin-
gent  standard.  However,  choosing  the  least stringent  standard does not
necessarily create an adequately quiet environment.

     The cost-benefit  analysis  performed by the  Council  on Wage  and Price
Stability concluded that the benefits exceeded the costs for the 83 dB and 80
dB regulatory  levels,  but  were  less  than the  costs for the  78 dB regulatory
option.  The  83 dB level  was shown  to  have  the  greatest  net benefit  and was
assessed as the "most proper"  regulatory alternative.

     EPA disagrees with the CUPS's  assessment.  A  review by EPA of alternative
costing methodologies to monetize the benefits of  noise regulation led to the
conclusion that all  present major  analytical problems.   EPA, therefore,  does
not  monetize  benefits  in its in-house  analyses,  but  Instead scrutinizes the
cost-effectiveness  of  regulations.   EPA  believes  that the  dollar  value of
benefits may  have been  grossly  underestimated in  the  CWPS  analysis  and, in
addition, points out that  the 83 dB   level is  essentially a  status quo  level.

     It  should also  be pointed  out that  any Federal  standards  regulating
motorcycle noise levels may in themselves  help  to  optimize  the cost efficiency
of motorcycle  manufacturing.   Proliferation of state  regulation can  force  a
division of  the manufacturing process  to produce  separate variations of the
product that conform with each separate  state regulation.   Setting one  uniform
nation-wide standard avoids the increased costs of  such a  divided manufactur-
ing process.

2.2   INFLATIONARY IMPACT OF REGULATION

Issue:  Is  the  proposed regulation inflationary  since  it can potentially add
        to the costs of motorcycles and  aftermarket products?

Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Honda  estimated price increases of  8   to 9  percent to  reach  the  78 dB
level.   Suzuki estimated price  increases of 5 to 10 percent with an  average
cost  Increase of  7  percent at  the  80  dB  level.   Yamaha predicted cost in-
creases of approximately 10 percent would be required  for  compliance at the 80
dB level.   The greatest costs will  come  with  the  large displacement  vehicles
and,  in the case of Yamaha its dual-purpose  line.

     Harley-Davids on  also  expects  significant price  increases  of 10  to 15
percent to  meet the 80 dB  level.  Kawasaki  also  stated price increases  could
be expected because of the longterm vehicle  noise levels.
                                    2-3

-------
     Yamaha indicated  that since  motorcycles  are  predominantly  leisure and
luxury items,  demand would decrease as  prices increased.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Kendrick  Engineering stated that the price of  their  product will increase
anywhere from 50 to 70 percent  during  the first year  of  rulemaking.  Kendrick
Engineering,  and Gemini  Tube  Fabrications  listed  those costs  which would
increase consumer  prices, such  as  the  costs  of  testing,  labeling,  report-
ing,  R&D, certification plus the decline in product demand.  Jardine Headers,
and Action Exhaust System warned of inflationary  impacts associated with the
noise emission regulation.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The following  dealer/distributors  indicated  that  the  motorcycle noise
regulations are inflationary and will hurt the economy.
         Kawasaki  Midwest
         Honda  of  Fort Walton
         West Valley  Cycle Supply
         Kelly  Bros.  Cycle Parts
         Performance  Sales Assoc.
         Harley-Davids on of Valdosta
         LeBord &  Underwood, Inc.
         Kelleys Cycle Shop
         Fay  Myers Honda
         Sarbus Yamaha, Inc.
         Harley-Davidson Sales, Inc.
         Regency Kawasaki
         C&E  Suzuki Sales
         Texas  Motorcycle Dealers' Assoc.
         Maryland  Cycle Supply
         Ohio Motorcycle Dealers' Assoc.
         TRI-ONDA
         Lewiston  Cycle & Marine
         Yamaha-Denver
         Honda  of  Ocala
         Ace  Cycle Supply
         Popoli's  Honda
         Honda  West
         Gary Surdye-Yamaha, Inc.
         Cycle  Sport  Unlimited
         Rich Budelier Company
         Action Kawasaki, Inc.
         Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers'
           Association
Canton Cycles
Honda of Terre Haute
Krouse Sport City
J&R Cycle Service, Inc.
The Cycle Company
Colbock Harley-Davidson Sales
Richard Landgren, Inc.
Joan's Sales
Penn. Motorcycle Dealer' Assoc.
Dizzy Daves Suzuki
Cleary Motorcycle Co., Inc.
Maryland Motorcycle Dealers' Assoc.
Boston Cycles
Idaho Motorcycle Dealers' Assoc.
All Seasons Sport Centre
AAW Cycle Center
Yamaha Cycle Center, Inc.
Carl's Cycle Sales
"KK"  Motorcycle Supply
Omaha Kawasaki
Buzz Chaney Motorcycles
Uhl's Idaho Bike Imports
Boise Harley-Davidson Sales & Service
Tramontin Harley-Davidson, Inc.
Gem State Honda
Sport Center, Inc.
Athens Sport Cycle Inc.
                                 2-4

-------
Response:

Inflation:

     EPA'  position  is  that  the proposed motorcycle noise regulations are  not
inflationary.   Using  the economic definition of  inflation,  inflation results
when a  product's  cost/price increases  but the product remains the same.   The
proposed  regulation, while  resulting  in increased costs, will also  result  in
essentially  a  different  product whose  greater  quiet  will  benefit the  public
health  and   welfare  in  measures  greater than  the  associated  dollar  costs.
Therefore the regulation is not considered truly inflationary.

2.3   ECONOMIC IMPACT ON MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS
Issue:    Is  the economic impact greater  on  some  motorcycle manufacturers  than
         on others?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson, MAICO and Triumph  all  contend  that  the regulations  will
seriously  restrict  their  sales  and  possibly  remove  them  from the  market.
MAICO, for instance, stated it may be limited to manufacturing only moto-cross
machines.  Triumph would be faced with considerable hardship if EPA legislates
Triumph's existing design out of the market.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     RC Engineering  contends  that if the 83 dB  level  is  lowered any further,
the American  built  motorcycle will  disappear from the  primary market  as  well
as the American aftermarket.

       Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The Laverda Owners Club reports that the Italian motorcycle industry will
decide to abandon  the U.  S. market.  Concern regarding the economic impact was
expressed  for Harley-Davidson  by ABATE  of Georgia,  ABATE  of  Illinois,  AMA
Florida District A,  Freedom Riders MC,  the  League of Women Motorcyclists, and
Motorcycle Product News.

     Road Rider Magazine  contends  that  the  question  of  Harley-Davidson's
ability to compete with Japanese manufacturers,  given their added costs
prompted by regulatory  compliance,  is not  adequately  addressed  and  should be
considered further.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Harley-Davidson  of  Valdosta,  Wisconsin  Motorcycle   Dealer  Association,
European Motorcycles,  Cleary  Motorcycle Co.,  Inc.,  Dudley Perkins Co.,  and
Phillip  Petersen,   a Harley-Davidson  dealer,  all expressed concern  for  the
continued  existence of  Harley-Davidson, and  thus  their   own  continued  exis-
tence, if noise proposals are promulgated.


                                  2-5

-------
Response:

     Some  manufacturers  have  invested considerably  more  time and  resources
into noise technology  than others. Notably, the Japanese  manufacturers  have
devoted  substantial  resources  toward creating  a  quieter motorcycle.    Other
manufacturers have  devoted little  resources  to  quieting their products.
Therefore, to meet the proposed  levels will  require  greater levels  of  effort
for  some manufacturers  than others.   The  economic  impact on  manufacturers
within the industry will,  as a  result, be different.

     A net reduction  in motorcycle  demand is expected as a result of  the noise
standards.  Forecasting based  on historical  price-demand  relationships  indi-
cates that the  demand  for street  and off-road  motorcycles combined would  be
about 2.1  percent below expected demand in  the  absence of noise regulations.
It should be noted however, that  this demand forecast would have  resulted even
in the  absence  of these  Federal  rules because  of  the  State motorcycle  noise
laws planned to  take  effect.  Significant shifts in historic market shares due
to Federal noise standards, however, are not expected to occur  among  the major
Japanese motorcycle  manufacturers.   Their  profitability is likewise not ex-
pected to  be  impacted  to  any  large extent since cost  increases  due to  noise
control   are expected to  be passed on  to  consumers.    Although  higher  retail
prices  will result in some lost  sales, total industry  sales in  terms of both
units and  dollars are projected  to significantly  expand in the  next decade.

     For AMF/Harley-Davidson  to achieve an 80 dB standard, major redesigning
of  their current large  engine types  incorporating  current  engine quieting
techniques would be necessary.   One attraction  of  Harley-Davidson motorcycles
is a uniquely  identifiable exhaust  tone that must dominate other  subsources  to
be heard.   Engine redesign  to meet  an  80 dB  standard could  change  tonal
characteristics  and cause  performance penalties that may reduce the demand for
Harley-Davi dson motorcycles.    At a 78 dB  level,  the economic impact  on
AMF/Harley-Davidson,  the  principal domestic  manufacturer,  would have  been
primarily manifested  in terms of  the  ability  of  the firm to manufacture large
displacement  motorcycles which would conform to EPA standards.   Harley-
Davi dson does  not consider compliance with a 78 dB  regulatory  level achievable
with modification to  current engine designs.  Complete  redesigns, in addition
to major exhaust  and intake treatment,  would likely have been  necessary for
Harley-Davids on  to meet a  78 dB level.

     AMF/Harley-Davidson  motorcycles  occupy  a  unique  position   in  the  U.S.
motorcycle market and have a  devoted following and are expected  to be  rela-
tively  insensitive to small price  changes.   Consequently, if engine designs
acceptable to  the consumer can be developed which meet the standards, the firm
would be expected to be able to  sell  the  new designs  at  little  sacrifice  in
profitability.

     The other North American manufacturer of street motorcycles  Is Canada's
Bombardier, Ltd.,  which manufactures high performance dual  purpose motorcycles
based on  off-road  and  competition models.    The remaining street motorcycle
manufacturers  predominantly are European firms which export large displacement
models  on a limited scale to the United States,  although  several  export
                                 2-6

-------
a sizable portion of  their production  to this country.   Most of these firms
are considered capable of producing motorcycles  at  an  80  dB  regulatory  level.
Bombardier and  some  of the European Manufacturers may or  may not have been
able to continue exporting street motorcycles  to the United  States  if a 78 dB
standard took effect.

     Although  AMF/Harley-Davidson  and  several  of  the   other  smaller manu-
facturers are  capable of  designing motorcycles that will   comply  with  the
standards, they argued,  during  the public comment  period,   that the proposed
lead time would make  it  extremely  difficult  or impossible  for them to pro-
duce motorcycles that  would  be  readily available to the public and yet meet
the  noise standards.   The Agency  carefully  evaluated these comments  and in
part extended  the effective  dates  in the final rule  to  allow  these manufac-
turers more  lead time  to  introduce new  motorcycles  in parallel with existing
products.

     Japanese  manufacturers of off-road motorcycles   are not  expected to
experience serious technical  difficulty  producing  off-road  motorcycles which
comply with  the noise  standards  since  the quieting  technology  is  well  under-
stood.  Overcoming weight and horsepower penalties to produce high  performance
motorcycles,  however,  will  be  a  challenge.  The smaller predominantly European
manufacturers,  which  often rely  on superior  performance  for marketing  advan-
tages,  are   expected  to  experience  difficulty  in  maintaining their  present
market positions at  these regulatory  levels, due to the considerable impact  to
the  performance of  current  models.  An 82  dB  regulatory level for large
off-road  motorcycles  is  considered  to  be technically achievable  for  almost
all current manufacturers without requiring conversion to four-stroke engines.
However, the performance and cost impacts of this level  could make it  unprof-
itable for some of the smaller firms  to remain in the U.S. market.

     Moped-type street motorcycles  will  be required to meet  a 70 dB standard.
No  design changes  will be required  because  all  mopeds   tested by  the  Agency
which  are being  sold in the U.S. easily comply  with  that standard.  The
costs of  compliance with  this level  for  these vehicles will primarily  be  the
administrative costs  of  certification  testing,  record keeping,  and labeling,
which are expected to be  minimal.

2.4   ECONOMIC  IMPACT  ON  FOREIGN MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURERS AND U.S. BALANCE  OF
      TRADE

Issues:   1. Does the proposed regulation  favor  foreign manufacturers?

          2. Does the proposed regulation  impact negatively on America's
             balance of trade?

Comments:

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Florida Cycle  Supply,  and  Action Exhaust  Systems claim the  regulations
favor  Japanese manufacturers.   RC  Engineering expressed  concern that  un-
necessary Federal  regulations will  decrease  the American  aftermarket which
currently equals the OEM in gross sales per year and will add to the imbalance
of payment problem.

                                  2-7

-------
     State and Local Government Comments

     Mr.  Ferris  Lucas,  Executive  Director  of  the  National  Sheriff's
Association,  expressed  concern  over  the adverse impact on domestic firms  and
the  Nation's balance  of payments deficit  implied by  the  adoption of  noise
proposal.

     Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

     According  to ABATE  of  Georgia,  EPA  is  supporting foreign  imports by
setting  standards  Harley-Davidson  cannot  meet.   Motorcycle Product  News,  Gulf
Coast  Sandblasters,  Inc.,  ABATE  of California,  the League  of Women  Motor-
cyclists,  and the  American  Motorcycle  Association Florida  District  A,  all
stated that  more control of the motorcycle market  would  go to  Japanese manu-
facturers.  BMW Motorcycle Owners of America concurred  with this view.

     Gulf  Coast  Sandblasters also contended that  more  stringent  motorcycle
regulations  will  decrease  the  number of  fuel  efficient motorcycles  on  the
road,  thereby increasing America's  dependence on  petroleum  imports  and  ad-
versely affecting the nation's balance of payments.

     The  Pennsylvania Trail  Riders'  Association also expressed  concern  about
the impact the regulations would have  on the balance of payments.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     European Motorcycles was concerned that the  Japanese  would obtain  more
control of the motorcycle market.  The Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers' Associa-
tion  reported that  the  Japanese  manufacturers  were   meekly  protesting  the
regulation in return for AMF's 'dumping suit'  against them.

Response;

     The  regulation  will require  manufacturers to  change their products as
necessary  in  order to  not  exceed the  noise  standards.  The  impact of  this
obligation will  logically be a direct  function of each  motorcycle's current
noise  level.   Nearly  half  of  the motorcycles  presently sold  in the  United
States already meet the 80 dB noise level.   Japanese manufacturers,  leaders in
the development and implementation of  quieting technology, account for most of
these  sales.   To  the  extent that American manufacturers have  fallen  behind
Japanese  producers  in   the  implementation  of  currently  available quieting
technologies, they may be more severely cost impacted.

     In analyzing  the  question  of the  impact  of the proposed  regulations on
the balance  of  trade it should be pointed  out  that 93 percent of the  motor-
cycles currently sold in the United States are imported.   However, motorcycles
constitute only  .67 percent of  total merchandise imported  by the  United
States.   If the  remaining 7  percent of motorcycles  sold were  lost to imports,
a proposition that  is  highly unlikely,  the United  States merchandise imports
bill would increase  by  only .042  percent.  Since Harley-Davidson is expected
to remain a  strong factor in the United States market,  any  increase in
Imports should realistically be assessed at far less than the already minimal
.042 percent  postulated  above.  Thus,  the  impact of importing  motorcycles on
the United States balance of trade/balance  of payments  is minimal.  In  regard


                                  2-8

-------
to United States exports,  the small  percentage  of AMF/Harley Davidson produc-
tion that is sent abroad is  not  expected to  significantly change as a result
of the proposed noise  regulations.

2.5  UNEMPLOYMENT IMPACT ON MOTORCYCLE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Issue;  Will the proposed regulation  result  in  a  large loss of  jobs for
        Individuals  currently  employed  in the   motorcycle  manufacturing
        industry?

Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson  estimated that the jobs of no  less  than 12,600 people
would  be  directly affected  if  Harley-Davidson were forced from  the market
place.   Those  affected would  be 3,400  Harley-Davi dson employees,  6,700
Harley-Davidson  dealers  and   their  employees  and  2,500  people  employed by
various other suppliers.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     Motorcycle Product News  inquired  "how  severe Is  the impact of 90 million
Americans exposed to  Ldn  55 compared with  the  Impact of  3000  to 5000 un-
employed?"

     Others  concerned  with  the unemployment problem  Included  ABATE of
Michigan,  ABATE  of  Illinois,  the  Pennsylvania Trail  Riders'  Association,
Freedom Rider MC, and  the League  of Women Motorcyclists.

Response;

     At the 83  dB level,  the Agency predicts a job loss of  30 positions.  It
1s  estimated  that an  80 dB  level will  cause a decrease  of 160 jobs.   At  a
78  dB  level,  a  decrease of 450  jobs would  have been  projected.  However, It
1s  EPA's belief  that projected growth  in the manufacturing Industry  will  more
than compensate for any employment losses that may  occur.

2.6    IMPACT ON EXISTENCE OF  AFTERMARKET

Issue;  Does the  regulation  threaten  to force  a large portion of the after-
        market exhaust system Industry out  of business?

Comments;

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Aftermarket firms were not  only concerned  that price Increases  would make
1t  difficult for them to compete with the OEM, but 1n addition,  expressed the
belief  that  the costs and   technical  difficulties  potentially  Incurred In
developing  and  producing  quieter exhaust  systems  could  actually drive  many
aftermarket firms out of  business.   The  comments  of  most  aftermarket  firms
reflected the  assessment  that regulations  would substantially Increase  cost,
making the economics  of continued production  marginal at best.   Jardlne Header


                                    2-9

-------
contended that all aftermarket firms will  not be able to remain  in  business  if
the  promulgated  regulatory level  were  to  be more  stringent than 83 dB.
Alphabets Custom  West  reported that it will  be forced to close if the  level
drops below 80 dB and was joined by Drag Specialties, Florida Cycle Supply and
Kendrick Engineering  in asserting  that re-tooling  and  re-designing costs are
prohibitive for  the aftermarket  industry  as a  whole.   Florida Cycle Supply
stated that it does  not  have the  resources  to re-tool  to the extent necessary
to  meet  the  proposed  standards.  RC  Engineering  estimated  that  job  losses
resulting from  motorcycle  noise  regulations could  reach 25,000  nationwide.
Hooker Industries assessed the effect of regulations on Southern California  as
causing the loss  of 282  positions; 76 percent  of which  are  currently held  by
minorities.

     Trade Association  Comments

     The Motorcycle Trade  Association, the Motorcycle Industry Council,
Specialty Equipment  Manufacturers'  Association,  ANCMA,  and AESMC contend that
the  aftermarket firms will  be substantially hurt at the  expense of the  large
OEM manufacturers.

     ANCMA reports that  the 78 dB  level will require substantial modifications
in technology  and production which cannot  be afforded by small volume  manu-
facturers.   MTA reports  the cost  advantage which aftermarket firms currently
have over OEM will soon  disappear.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group Comments

     Concern was  expressed  that the aftermarket manufacturers  would  be  nega-
tively  impacted   by  the  implementation of  noise  regulations  by  Motorcycle
Product News,  ABATE  of  Illinois,  Freedom Riders MC,  ABATE of  Indiana,  F
Rider Magazine, Jersey Motorcycle Association,  Inc., Gulf Coast Sandblasl
Inc.,  Laverda  Owners Club, American  Motorcycle Association,  and AMA
Plains District 33.

     Road Rider Magazine  also contends  that  EPA did  not look  into the  indirect
effects of the proposed  regulations. "Specifically,  elimination  of  the current
exhaust aftermarket  firms  -- or governmental dictates  of  exhaust  aftermarket
design --  could  well  result  in  mufflers   and  other exhaust equipment  which
would prevent  use of a  large  variety  of  other aftermarket  equipment such  as
saddle bags, luggage racks and various  other touring accessories."

     The New  England Trail  Riders' Association expressed  concern about the
potential  adverse impact  of the regulation  on small  aftermarket  manufacturers.

ABATE of Illinois estimated that  the promulgation  of  noise  regulations  below
the 83 dB level  will result in job losses  between 5,000 and 10,000.

     Dealers/Distributor  Comments

     The following  dealers  and  suppliers   stated that  the  noise  regulations
will   result  in substantial  job  losses for  aftermarket  firms:   Performance
Sales Assoc.  Inc.,  Regency Kawaski,  Texas  Motorcycle Dealers' Association,
Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers'  Association,  Cycle Sport Unlimited, The  Cycle
Company,  and Dudley Perkins Co.


                                     2-10

-------
Response:

     The  regulations  are expected to  have a  substantial  Impact  on the  re-
placement exhaust system  Industry.   To meet the  80  dB  standard,  aftermarket
replacement exhaust system  manufacturers will  need to Incorporate relatively
sophisticated noise attenuation techniques Into the  design  of  their mufflers
and  exhaust  sytems.    Of the  more  than 150  firms currently  In  the  market,
most are  small,  low volume enterprises devoted exclusively  to  manufacturing
motorcycle exhaust systems,  with  little or  no  capability  for  innovative
product design or  development.   To  produce  complying systems  for  post-1983
(regulated) motorcycles,  these firms  would  be  expected to copy the designs of
other manufacturers,  a common  practice at  present. The  ten  to twenty  leading
firms in the industry  are expected to be able to design and produce their  own
complying systems,  although at similar price  and  performance  penalties  asso-
ciated with  replacement  systems sold by the  original  equipment manufacturer
(OEM).

     The  demand  for  non-OEM exhaust systems  1s  expected to  be severely  im-
pacted.   The price of  a  typical "4 into  1" or "2  into 1" non-OEM replacement
exhaust system would be  expected  to  Increase  by  20 to 25 percent  to meet  the
80  dB  motorcycle regulatory level.   The   difference  in  styling,  performance
characteristics, tonal  quality,  and noise  level between non-OEM and  OEM
replacement exhaust systems would also  be expected  to become less.   Since
an  exhaust  system  manufacturer's  success  is   very  dependent  on  the  special
styling,  performance,   and tonal  characteristics,  and  often  high noise level,
of  his  product,  the Impact  on demand of  changes  in these factors might be
extremely significant, perhaps  more  significant  than  the price  change.  Based
on  discussions with aftermarket manufacturers, a  25%  reduction  in demand  for
aftermarket exhaust systems would be forecasted by  the  year  2000 when  regu-
lated  motorcycles  at  the  80  dB  level  would  have  replaced most  unregulated
motorcycles in use.

     The  adverse Impact of the  regulations  on aftermarket manufacturers
should be  gradual  since  the standards could be phased  in over several  years
and since firms could  continue to product systems  for motorcycles manufactured
prior  to  the applicability of  the  noise  standards.   However,  in the longer
term, as unregulated motorcycles are  gradually  scrapped,  and as  the  demand for
complying non-OEM  systems falls,  many of the  small  volume manufacturers
could switch to  alternate product lines, or  could go out of business.   While
the revenue of the  ten to twenty leading firms  could also decrease as a result
of  regulation,   the  larger  firms could  continue  manufacturing  replacement
exhaust systems.   In fact,  although a net shrinkage in the replacement exhaust
system would  be  forecast,  larger firms could actually  experience increased
sales  as  other manufacturers  exit from the  market.   This  adverse  impact on
aftermarket manufacturers would not be projected  on the basis of technical
Incapability or the cost of compliance  testing  which would be a small fraction
of  total  price Increase.  Rather,  impacts  could result as the special charac-
teristics  of  Increased  performance,  gutteral  tone,  higher noise  level,  and
styling provided by non-complying exhaust systems  on which sales are substan-
tially dependent would be partially  eliminated by  the requirement to produce
quiet exhaust systems.

     The  expected impacts  are based upon  the  implementation  of a  successful
national  federal enforcement  program along  with  complementary  enforcement


                                     2-11

-------
programs  by  some  state and local jurisdictions to  identify  manufacturers who
continue  to  sell  loud  non-complying exhaust  systems  for  regulated motor-
cycles.   The fact that currently produced motorcycles will  continue  to  domi-
nate  the  total  "working" inventory  of motorcycles  for a number of years and
that  federal  regulations will enable  firms  to continue to produce  systems for
motorcycles  manufactured prior  to 1983 will allow  aftermarket firms  of  rela-
tively  less  financial wherewithal a  long transition period in which  to adjust
to the  new standards.

      EPA  believes that the sales  revenues of the  general aftermarket  products
and services  industry will  be affected only  slightly by regulations as long as
the number  of motorcycles  in use is increasing.    In  fact,  aftermarket  sales
may increase  in the  short run as  a  result of  regulatory  actions, since higher
prices  of new motorcycles resulting  from regulations could provide the incen-
tive  to repair and maintain older motorcycles for longer periods.  The effect
of the  regulations is likely to be a slight  reduction  in  the  growth of demand,
rather  than   a reduction  in the  level  of  demand over the  next five to ten
year  period.

2.7   SHARING  TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND TESTING FACILITIES

Issue:  Can  EPA  support  an  intra-industry  sharing  program to share  technical
        expertise and testing facilities?

Comments:
     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The New  England  Trail  Riders' Association would  like to see  "attention
paid  to the  idea  of  sharing technology,  possibly  through some  sort of EPA
program, so that no one would be forced out of the market simply because his
(the manufacturers) resources are too limited."

     Council  on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS)  Comments:

     CWPS commented that  EPA should investigate the  costs of setting up its
own central  facility for testing the replacement exhaust systems and  charging
a fee based on EPA's marginal costs.

Response;

     EPA does  not  have the  authority  to  establish  such  a clearinghouse for
information  on noise control  technology for manufacturers.

     EPA does not believe  1t  should get into the kind of business suggested by
CWPS  when  private  enterprise has  a  large  number  of facilities  across the
country that could serve that purpose with  likely greater cost efficiency and
better service.  In addition  EPA does not have the authority to establish such
a program under the Noise  Control Act.

     To minimize the burden posed by the compliance testing requirements, the
Agency will  provide technical assistance to small manufacturers in the testing
and certification  of  their  exhaust systems with  all  the provisions of the
regulation.    The Agency  will also  actively  support  manufacturers  in their
sharing of test facilities for compliance demonstration.


                                     2-12

-------
2.8  ECONOMIC IMPACT ON DEALERS/DISTRIBUTORS


Issue:   Will  the sale  and  supply  of  motorcycles  and accessories be adversely
        impacted,  straining  the  economic  viability of the dealers  and  dis-
        tributors?

Comments:
     Manufacturers'  Comments

     MAICO stated concern for its dealers  since  "70  percent of  (their) dealers
are small specialist  shops  and  rely on MAICO's  products to generate at least
50 percent of their business."   The additional costs needed to  meet future EPA
requirements would price MAICO's  products  out of the market.   The net result
would be  that these  three-and  four-man  shops  would go  out  of business,  not
only  creating  unemployment,  but  financial  disasters  for  their suppliers.

     Trade Association Comments

     MTA expressed concern that  if the noise  regulation  disrupts the  supply of
new motorcycles and related products sufficiently,  dealers  will not be  able to
meet  overhead  costs  and will be  forced  out  of  business.   MTA expects 2,000
retailers to be severely disabled or forced out  of  business.  MTA  predicts the
sales loss  for  new motorcycles  to  reach $473 million to $565 million,  includ-
ing  spin-off  sales from  the aftermarket,  by the third year  of  the proposed
regulation.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comment

     The Laverda Owners' Club contends that Italian motorcycle  dealers  will be
forced out of business by these  regulations.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Harley-Davidson  of Valdosta, the Ohio  Motorcycle  Dealers'  Association,
Honda West, Cycle Sport Unlimited,  the  Pennsylvania Motorcycle  Dealers'
Association,  and  the  Texas Motorcycle Dealers'  Association expect a decrease
in sales because of the regulations.

     Concern  was  expressed by  Regency  Kawasaki,   Texas Motorcycle Dealers'
Association, Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers' Association,  Munroe  Motors,  Western
Kawasaki, Cycle Sport Unlimited, European Motorcycles,  Pennsylvania Motorcycle
Dealers' Association,  and Dizzy Dave's  Suzuki,  about the  possibility of
dealers and distributors being forced out of  business.

Response;

     EPA  estimates  that level  of demand for street motorcycles will  increase
annually  through  1990.   Given  the quickly escalating  prices  of  gasoline  and
the  fuel  efficiency and low operating costs of  motorcycles  it is likely  that
the  increase  in motorcycle   sales will be very  significant.   By contrast,  the
overall  impact  of noise regulations on the  sale and supply  of motorcycles  is
expected to be  very small.
                                  2-13

-------
     The only aftermarket products  expected  to  be  impacted by the promulgation
of noise  standards  are replacement exhaust systems.   EPA estimates  that the
80 dB  noise  standard  could  cause a 25 percent reduction in demand for after-
market  exhaust  systems.   However,  it is believed  that  the  regulations  will
cause  no  significant  adverse impact on the economic  vitality  of the overall
motorcycle parts and accessories aftermarket industry.

     Since MAICO's  product  line is predominantly  large off-road and competi-
tion  motorcycles,  both  of which  have  less  severe standards than  street
motorcycles  or  are  not regulated at  all, EPA does not  expect  the  impact on
MAICO's dealers to be as  burdensome as was suggested in the docket submission.

     If the  78 dB level had taken  effect, Laverda along  with some other small
European  manufacturers might very  well had withdrawn from the  U.S. market.
However, dealers and distributors of such motorcycles would have had adequate
lead time to diversify their business  and reduce any impact of, for example, a
withdrawal by Laverda from the U.S. market.

2.9   ECONOMIC IMPACT ON  CONSUMERS

Issue:  Will  the  regulations affect the  cost  of buying, operating,  and main-
        taining a  motorcycle?

Comments:
     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Honda  reports  that  although  the technology  exists to  meet the  78  dB
level, decreases in  fuel  economy  are expected.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group  Comments

     ABATE of  Illinois opposed the regulation because it would  impact nega-
tively on fuel  efficiency.

     The New England Trail  Riders' Association was concerned with  the price
increases associated with motorcycles  meeting the 78 dB level.  However, they
also pointed out that consumers are already paying higher prices to cover R4D
work  on  engine and  suspension  development  rather than on  noise control.
Technology will not  be  static  in the future  and noise control will  be wprth
the  costs  since many of  its members already  spend time and money  quieting
bikes.

     Response

     The  regulations will  likely  mean  higher purchase  prices  for many  new
motorcycles, although  the amount of the increases will  vary  widely  from
motorcycle to motorcycle.   The  level of motorcycle demand, however, as well  as
the  total  revenues  of  the  Industry  are  expected to  substantially  Increase.
Operating  costs  for street  legal  motorcycles  have been  assessed as  being
virtually unaffected by the  regulations.    Given  a  80 dB  regulatory  level and
an average fuel consumption  of 47  m.p.g.,  EPA estimates  that 2,300  miles per
year  will  use  about one  gallon  more  gasoline each year as a result  of the
noise regulation.   EPA has estimated the  total annual Increase 1n maintenance
costs prompted  by  an 80  dB regulatory  level would  be  about five  dollars.

                                    2-14

-------
                         3.  TECHNOLOGY

3.1  BEST AVAILABLE  TECHNOLOGY  DEFINITION

Issue:     What is  EPA's  definition of  'best available technology1?

Comments:

     State and Local Government Comments

     The Oregon DEQ does not  support EPA's  rationale for  best available
technology.  The mid-point within the motorcycle industry should be used as a
measure  rather  than using  the least  technologically  innovated firm  as  the
standard.   Of  concern  to  the Oregon DEQ is  Harley-Davidson, which  "has
changed  (its  design)  little over the  past several  decades."   While agreeing
that it  is unfortunate for Harley-Davidson to suffer economic impact, the DEQ
does not believe  that  the  exhaust  tone should be  predominant  on any motor-
cycle,  no matter what place  it  holds in American tradition.

     Motorcycle Interest Group  Comments

     Road Rider Magazine charges that EPA skirts the issue of 'best  available
technology1.Because  Honda can support  a separate research  and development
corporation, it does not mean  the whole industry can.  The definition of  'best
available technology' should be carefully delineated.

     BMW  Motorcycle Owners  of  America contend the performance  should  be  a
consideration  in  best available  technology and that EPA is wrong in assuming
that performance  is less of a consideration  for  street motorcycles than for
off-road motorcycles.

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr.  John  Viggers  stated  that  "it appears that  the definition of  "best
available technology" adopted  by the EPA is that if it can be  done,  it  will be
done,  no matter what the cost.   This  is  absurd  at the very  least.   In the
EPA's  own analysis it  states that 70-90%  of the benefit of  the proposed
regulations can be  had  for  1/2 the  cost  if the 80 dB  level  is used  instead of
the 78 dB for street motorcycles.  Decreasing marginal returns are encountered
prior to reaching the 78 dB level.   It must  be remembered that,  unlike trucks
and  buses, motorcycles  are  a consumer  product  and that  the  buyer cannot
pass on his  increased  costs.    Best  available technology in  this  instance
should  mean  maximum  public gain  with  least  industry  disruption.   This is
clearly  not true at the  78 dB regulatory level."

Response:

     Section  6  of the Noise Control  Act  requires  that the regulation "reflect
the  degree  of noise reduction  achievable through  the application of the  best
available  technology,  taking  into  account the  cost of compliance."   For  the
purposes of this  regulation,  best  available  technology is  defined  as  that
noise  abatement technology  available which produces the greatest achievable,
meaningful  reduction in  the  noise  produced  by motorcycles.   EPA  considers
that  the  level  "achievable through  the  application  of the  best  available


                                  3-1

-------
 technology"  is the lowest  noise level  which  can  be  reliably  predicted  based on
 engineering  analysis of  products subject to  the standard that manufacturers
 will  be able  to  meet by the  effective  date,  through the application of cur-
 rently known noise attenuation  techniques and materials.   In order to assess
 what  can be  achieved, EPA has:  (1) Identified the  sources of motorcycle noise
 and  the levels to which each of these sources can  be reduced, using currently
 known techniques: (2)  determined  the  level  of  overall  motorcycle noise that
 will  result;  (3)  assured  that such techniques  may be applied to the general
 motorcycle   population;  (4)  assured  that  such   techniques  are  adaptable  to
 production line assembly;  and (5)  assured that sufficient time is allowed for
 the  design   and application  of this technology  by  the effective  dates of the
 standards.   The  regulatory  levels that were  selected were  based on not only
 the  availability  of technology, but also  in consideration of the anticipated
 cost  of utilizing the technology and the health   and  welfare benefits expected
 as a  result  of the regulation  to that  level.

      EPA's analysis  of  the best available technology  also considered off-road
 and  street motorcycles  separately.  Power,  performance, displacement, style,
 design,  and  the   applicability  of liquid cooling  were  among the  many  con-
 siderations  given to  both types  of  motorcycles.    The  resulting regulation
 reflects the different  considerations  given  to the  technical state of the art
 of each motorcycle type.

 3.3   'NOT TO EXCEED' LEVELS


 Issue;  Did  EPA consider that  in order to reach  the  proposed noise levels, 1t
        would  be  necessary to  design  from 2 to   3  dB below  the  levels, which
        adds substantially to the  compliance burden?

 Comments;

     The 'not-to-exceed' basis will require noise levels to be 2 to 3 dB lower
 than  the standards.   This raised  concern  and  opposition from a  wide range of
 commentors including  Harley-Davidson,  Honda, Husqvarna, Kendrick Engineering,
MIC,  MTA, ANCMA, and Road Rider Magazine.

     MIC indicated special concern for the small  firms, who would be una&Te to
 meet  such stringent standards.

     MTA claims EPA  has  underestimated  the technical  difficulties  that 'the
 proposed  regulation  will   create  for  manufacturers  and aftermarket  firms.

     Road Rider Magazine  charges  that  EPA's  setting  of a  78  dB level  is  a
 "subtle  and  deceitful  means of  adopting what  is  actually  a 75 dB  level."

Response:

     In order to meet the regulatory not-to-exceed  levels, EPA has anticipated
that manufacturers will have to design to 2 to 3 dB below the regulated level.
Each major manufacturer supplied EPA with estimates of manufacturing unit cost
 increases for  specific  models  to meet  the specified noise levels on a not-to-
exceed basis.   Since  EPA's  regulations are on a  not-to-exceed basis, manufac-
turing, design  and production must account for  the variation  of  noise levels
 associated with their products to assure compliance  with  the  standards.   The

                                  3-2

-------
manufacturers supplied  EPA  with data on  the  product  variations exhibited by
certain  models.   These  data  indicate that  the variations  in  motorcycle
levels range from  1.5  to  4 dB.  EPA looked at the design  levels to determine
the best available technology.  Also, the  costs of compliance were calculated
with design levels in mind.

     Thus, EPA did not  ignore  or attempt  to hide  the  fact  that  the technology
and costs  to meet a "not-to-exceed" standard  must  always be assessed taking
normal product  variation  into  account  at  a design  level which is lower than
the not-to-exceed number.   This is  a standard  regulatory assessment procedure.
Manufacturers are  expected to design   their  motorcycles 2  1/2 dB below the
final standards.

3.3  USE OF AIR-COOLED ENGINES


Issue;  Will the  proposed regulation force the demise  of  air-cooled  engines?

Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Liquid  cooling  will  be necessary  for Honda  to  meet the 78 dB  level  for
large displacement motorcycles.

     MAICO  reports that  to meet the proposed off-road  motorcycle standards,
water cooling will be  needed  for two-cycle engines.   The feasibility of  using
liquid  cooling on off-road   motorcycles has not been studied  and is  not
known.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The  Wisconsin Motorcycle  Dealers' Association  wants EPA  to  establish  a
uniform  noise  emission standard  that  is achievable by  large two-cylinder,
air-cooled motorcycles.

     Motorcycle Interest Group  Comments

     The  BMW Motorcycle  Owners of  America  contend  that  EPA  can not  outlaw
air-cooled engines, nor require that aircooled motorcycles meet the standards,
nor  require that  all  motorcycles  be  liquid  cooled.    Air-cooled  engines  re-
present a special  design  of motorcycles and considering numerous factors, they
represent the best available technology already.

     ABATE  of Illinois 1s also concerned  that the regulation will  force water
cooling.

     Motorcycle Product News resents the federal government's attempt to force
engine design onto the motorcycling public by  requiring liquid-cooled engines,
because it  restricts freedom of choice.

Response:

     EPA  is not  "outlawing"  air-cooled systems  or  requiring all  motorcycles
to  be liquid  cooled.    EPA  1s requiring that  all  new motorcycles  meet  the

                                   3-3

-------
specified  noise  levels.   Liquid cooling  is  one way  in  which manufacturers
could technically meet street motorcycle standards.   Liquid cooling represents
one  aspect of the  best available technology and does  not  represent "forced
engine design" onto the motorcycling public.

     In  the  case of  off-road  motorcycles,  water-cooling  is  not  expected to
be  necessary.   In  fact, as discussed  in  the  Regulatory  Analysis,  liquid
cooling is not considered feasible for off-road  motorcycles, due to the weight
involved  and  the effect of fragile  components  on  the crashworthiness of the
motorcycle.

3.4  TWO-CYCLE MOTORCYCLES

Issue:   Will   the regulation  adversely impact the continued  use  of two-cycle
        motorcycles?

Comment:
     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The League of  Women  Motorcyclists pointed  out that if four-cycle motor-
cycles are required, then it must be considered that they may be too heavy to
handle for the average motorcyclist.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The Ohio Motorcycle Dealers'  Association  expressed concern  for the
economic hardships on manufacturers  who produce  two-stroke machines.

Response:

     EPA's off-road  noise  standards  can be met by both large  and small two-
stroke engines.

     Street two-stroke motorcycles with displacement greater than about 170 cc
would have  difficulty meeting  a 78  dB level unless they  were  water cooled.
However,  there  has  been  a  steady  decline in the  number  of manufacturers of
two-stroke  street  motorcycles.   Currently  Yamaha is   the  only manufacturer
selling a  large two-stroke  street-only motorcycle. A  number of manufacturers
still produce dual  purpose  two-stroke  mid-sized engines,  but  these have also
suffered  a noticeable decline in  recent years.   Therefore,  EPA does not
foresee that any substantial hardships  will be placed on dealers who sell such
motorcycles.

3.5  TWO-CYLINDER  MOTORCYCLES

Issue:   Will  two-cylinder motorcycles be eliminated because of the regulation?

Comments:

     A private citizen expressed concern that the proposed rules would defacto
destroy American  sales  for  most two-cylinder motorcycles,  e.g., BMW, Harley^
Davidson,  Ducati,  and Triumph.
                                  3-4

-------
Response:
     Two-cylinder motorcycles will  not  be eliminated due  to  the  regulation.
However, at a 78 dB level, the large displacement two cylinder engined motor-
cycles would have   likely  required  water  cooling.   All  current manufacturers
of such motorcycles  are  believed to have the  technical  capabilities  if they
had been required to meet a 78 dB  level.
3.6  PERFORMANCE LOSS
Issue:  Will motorcycle performance losses result from the noise regulations?
Comments;
     Manufacturers'  Comments
     Honda, Kawasaki, MAICO, Suzuki, Triumph,  and  Yamaha state that perform-
ance loss is expected.  Honda  reports technologies are available to meet 78 dB,
but these  will  demand  performance penalties.   Yamaha contends  that an extra
amount  of  lead time may  allow  manufacturers  to  regain some of  the perfor-
mance loss.
     Husqvarna,  currently priced 35 percent above the market price of compar-
able models, "will no longer be considered an  outstanding  value if it becomes
necessary to reduce engine performance or increase its weight substantially,"
1n order to meet the proposed standards.
     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments
     Alphabets Custom West stated that to a certain extent performance can be
maintained with mufflers  as they are made  quiet.  However,  Alphabets questions
whether this holds true below 83 dB.
     State and Local Government  Comments
     The San Francisco Police Department Noise  Enforcement  team questioned the
need for so much power when the  maximum speed limit is 55 mph.
     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments
      The  New  England Trail  Riders' Association  contends  that  for off-road
machines,   there  have  been  substantial  decreases in  sound accompanied by
substantial Increases  in  performance.   Noise  abatement  is necessary for the
Association's continuation of  the  sport  of trail riding in  areas  like New
England with high population densities.
     However, Freedom  Riders MC, Gulf Coast  Sandblasters, Inc., Motorcycle
Product News, and AMA Florida District A, all  associate  performance loss with
the regulations.
Response:
     From the data submitted by  manufacturers,  it is apparent  that motorcycles
initially  may  suffer  some performance  losses as  they  are  required to meet
lower noise levels.   Liquid cooling can abate this trend  somewhat.   However,

                                  3-5

-------
this technique plus some  of  the other noise reduction methods and components
will cause some additional weight penalties.

     Several manufacturers indicated  that  with  proper lead time,  performance
can be regained.   Partly with this in mind, the  lead times for the regulation
have been extended.

3.7  HEADER PIPES

Issue:   Are exhaust header pipes to  be  regulated by EPA's  motorcycle  noise
        proposal   as  they  are   potential  contributors  to  continuing  noise
        problems?

Comments:
     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Nelson  Industries  reports  that since exhaust  header  pipes are  not
regulated, motorcyclists can  install the  pipes and  adversely affect  the
performance evaluation of a replacement muffler.   Knowledge or control of this
action would be impossible for the muffler suppliers.

Response;

     The use of different  header  pipes is not expected to cause any appreci-
able  increase   in  noise  emissions.   For  this reason,  Section  205.164(e)  of
Subpart  E  of the regulation  specifically  provides  that exhaust header pipes
sold as separate products are not  required to be  labeled.

3.8  DESIGN CRITERIA FOR MUFFLERS

Issue:    Should design criteria for mufflers be  established?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Suzuki contends that there 1s "little data  available which indicate  the
relationship of design criteria to noise  control performance,  including
durability, so  it  is  Impossible at this  time to evaluate muffler performance
by design criteria."

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Nelson Industries states that design  criteria restrict Innovation, reduce
competition  and foster  the  continuation  of obsolete   technology;  and  thus,
design criteria are undesirable.

     Tenneco Automotive believes it 1s not the prerogative of EPA to designate
design standards,  but only performance standards.
                                  3-6

-------
     State and Local  Government Comments

     The  Oregon  Department  of Environmental  Quality thinks  that  considera-
tion should  be given to  certain  design  features for mufflers, but  that  the
requirements should  be separate and  distinct  from the labeling requirements.

     Trade Association Comments

     The  Automotive  Parts and Accessories Association cautions EPA  to  focus
its  efforts  on  developing  performance  standards  and not  design  standards.

     AESMC  opposes  design criteria  in  principle  and also for technical
reasons.  The  design standard idea is also contrary to the explicit dictates
of the Noise Control  Act  of  1972,  Section  6(c)(l).

     Motorcycle Product News also  is  on record as  opposing the design criteria
concept.

Response;

     To deal with the potential problems posed by replacement exhaust systems
with removable  baffles  and  degradable  components, EPA  was considering a
program  by  which exhaust systems  would  be evaluated on the  basis of design
characteristics since conformance to design criteria rather than noise levels
might  ease  compliance to meet the  applicable  Federal  performance  standards
over  the specified  Acoustical Assurance Period.   However,  the  public  com-
ments  solicited  by  the  Agency did not  endorse  the  design criteria concept.
Based  on the  unfavorable  response and  on  further  analysis and  review of
EPA's  objectives and  resource limitations,  the Agency has  decided against
establishing design  criteria for  replacement  exhaust  systems.

3.9   CHANGES TO STYLING AND DESIGN

Issue:  Will unattractive design  and styling  changes  result  from the
        regulations?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davldson  and  Kawasaki  are concerned over the design changes that
will be necessitated by the regulations.  Harley-Davidson predicted possible
sales'  decline because of the styling compromises.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Jardine  Header  contends that  the cosmetic  nature of  exhaust systems will
disappear.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     Motorcycles  are attractive  due  to  their simplicity and  low weight.
Concern was expressed over the loss of these product design amenities by ABATE
of  Illinois,  Jersey  Motorcycle  Association,  Inc.,  Laverda Owners'  Club,  and
Motorcycle Product News.

                                  3-7

-------
Response:

     EPA  recognizes  that  styling  is  an important   design element.   Noise
reduction techniques which  have  an  adverse  effect on the style and design of
motorcycles  have  the potential  of  reducing sales,  independent of  costs  and
performance  factors.   The Agency has  taken these factors into consideration
on  final noise  standards.   The final  standards may  alter the styling of
motorcycles  slightly but  is not expected to  have a major negative impact on
styling.  Several  large motorcycles currently being  marketed incorporate many
of  the  design elements likely to be required with  a  highly successful ongoing
volume  of sales.   Further,  the cosmetic nature of exhaust systems may change
slightly, but is not expected to disappear.

3.10  POTENTIAL INCREASE IN TAMPERING  DUE TO REGULATION

jssue:  Concern  was expressed  that  reduced  noise levels,  poor  aesthetic
        design and  performance  loss will result  in  increased  temptation  for
        the owner/user  to tamper with  motorcycles.

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Kawasaki reported  that motorcycles produced  at  lower  noise levels will
suffer  an  even  greater  incidence  of owner modification  than  the 12 percent
estimated by EPA.

     MAICO and Yamaha attribute the expected  increase  in tampering to customer
efforts to regain  lost  performance.  Yamaha predicts,  however,  that if suffi-
cient time is given to regain the performance  lost,  then the expected increase
in tampering will  drop significantly.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Jardine Header and  RC  Engineering  report that anything below 83 dB will
encourage  tampering.    Hooker Industries  confirms this  and  feels  that  the
extremely  quiet  standards  would  increase  user  tampering enough  to grossly
increase the overall motorcycle noise levels.

     Levels below  83  dB  will  also allow black market manufacturers to emerge
with purposely loud exhaust systems,  according to Hooker Industries.

     State and Local Government Comments

     The California Highway Patrol's  testimony indicated that lower limits are
likely to  increase  the  temptation  for customers  to make  modifications in the
belief that more power will result.

     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC  also  contends that weight and  performance  penalties associated
with reductions  below 86 dB for off-road and 83 dB  for street motorcycles will
cause an  increased temptation to  tamper.   It is  also  MIC's  belief  that the
cost  penalties associated with replacement exhaust  systems  for  off-road
motorcycles may  cause users to remove the mufflers  entirely.

                                  3-8

-------
     Dealer/Distributor  Comments

     The Ohio and  Pennsylvania  Motorcycle  Dealers'  Associations  believe  that
the regulations will  encourage  owners  to tamper with  or  modify  their  motor-
cycles.

     Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

     Similar  fears  were expressed by  Motorcycle  Product News  and Rider
Magazine towards increased tampering. Motorcycle Product News advises EPA  that
it is extremely difficult to control human  nature  when temptations to  tamper
exist.

Response:

     The regulations are  likely  to increase  the temptation to tamper  to
obtain perceived losses  in performance or  aesthetic  design.   EPA's air emis-
sion  regulations  have  proven  this  fact.   However,  that is  not  sufficient
justification to  avoid  regulating motorcycles.    Rather,  the  solution is  to
reduce tampering.   A substantial  part  of the  regulation  is directed  toward
solving this problem.  First,  in addition to requiring  that new motorcycles be
quieter, replacement  exhaust systems must  be  suitably noise attenuating, and
be so  labeled.   Second,  the  regulation  will make it illegal for consumers to
tamper with  a motorcycle so  as to  cause  it  to exceed  the  noise standards.
Thus,  EPA  proposes  to  provide  "tools" to state and  local governments  to
control  the  consumer modification  part  of the  motorcycle  noise  control  pro-
blem.   It  is not  anticipated  that  these  regulations  will  solve  all  of the
problem, but  rather  only  a  part  of the motorcycle  generated noise problem
in  the  United  States.    Complimentary   state  and  local  actions,  especially
enforcement  actions   against  tampering,  will  be  essential  to  achieve  that
goal.

     Black market  operations  by their  very nature would  be in  violation of
Federal  law.  Since  it  is highly  likely  that  such  operations would not label,
test,  or certify  their products, the  Agency  will take legal action  upon
discovery of their existence.

     As  motorcycle  manufacturers  and aftermarket firms become more  sophisti-
cated in noise  abatement, they will be  able  to replace part of  any  lost
performance  which  will, in  turn,  decrease the temptations to  tamper.   The
public  is  also  expected to  become more  accustomed  to  quieter  motorcycles
and to the idea that  less noise does not  necessarily  mean  less  power.

3.11  LOWER STANDARDS FOR OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES

Issue:    Should off-road motorcycles have more  stringent  standards?

Comments:

      State and Local Government Comments

      The Florida Highway Patrol  and the  Oregon Department of  Environmental
Quality  both recommended treating off-road  motorcycles  similarly to street
models.   The  Oregon DEQ stated  that placing  less  restrictive standards on
off-road motorcycles does  not  adequately protect  the  public's  health  and
welfare.

                                  3-9

-------
     Off-road motorcycles were seen  as  the  'real'  problem by:  the Washington
Council of  Governments;  the Oregon  DEQ;  the California  Highway  Patrol;  the
City of El Segundo, California;  the Hillsborough County, Florida Environmental
Protection Commission; Jacksonville,  Florida,  and  the Orange County,  Florida
Pollution Control  Department.    Only the  San Francisco  Police  Department's
Noise  Enforcement  team did  not view  off-road motorcycles  as a problem since
San Francisco has  'dedicated areas'  for  off-road use.

     Public Interest Group Comments

     The  American  Hiking Society stated that off-road  motorcycles  should be
quieted to street  levels.   The Environmental  Law Society urged EPA to reduce
off-road  noise  levels  at least as much as  street  motorcycles.   If  the costs
are too high, additional  lead time is recommended.

Response;

     Although motorcycles  with off-road  capability  can  be built  at  levels
almost as low as street motorcycles,  such motorcycles  would suffer significant
performance penalties.  Weight,  power, and ground clearance are all of crucial
importance to off-road  motorcycles.   These factors, plus the  inapproprlateness
of applying liquid cooling to off-road motorcycles  has led to different levels
of best  available technology  for large off-road and  street motorcycles.

     Regulatory  levels stricter  than the proposed 82 dB  for  large off-road
motorcycles  were seriously  considered.    However,  the  performance  penalties
associated with stricter  standards would have  a severe Impact on the character
of the sport of off-road  motorcycling as it  is known today and could stimulate
excessive modification  of existing motorcycles.   The Agency believes that the
standard for off-road motorcycles  must be that level which minimizes the noise
impact from these vehicles and, at the same  time  does not significantly
alter the nature of the  sport.

3.12  CATEGORIES OF OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES

jssue;  Are  there  justifiable  reasons for  having  two categories  of off-road
        motorcycle regulations,  above and below 170 cc?

Comments:
     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Husqvarna, MAICO, Suzuki and Yamaha  all  contend  that there 1s no reason
for  having  two categories of off-road motorcycles.    Classification  by
displacement  is not  warranted because  of  the minimal  impact of off-road
motorcycles.

     Yamaha points out  that small  off-road  models will require the  same
technical improvements  1n  order to  comply with EPA  regulations.   Husqvarna
states that  the smaller the engine  size  the  harder  1t   Is  to  quiet  because
small motorcycles are  more  sensitive  to  additions in weight and work on higher
performance levels  than larger engines.
                                  3-10

-------
     State and Local  Government  Comments

     The Oregon Department  of  Environmental  Quality saw no  reason  to divide
off-road motorcycles Into  two  categories.  If EPA still wants  to  make such a
distinction, the Oregon DEQ recommends  225 cc as the dividing line.

     Trade Association  Comments

     MIC  and  MTA feel   that  the 170 cc  level  1s an arbitrary  figure and to
require lower levels  for small motorcycles will only encourage the purchase of
slightly larger models.

     ANCMA  feels that  a single fixed  standard of 86  dB should be considered
for off-road vehicles.

     Motorcycle Interest Group  Comments

     The New England Trail  Riders'  Association reports  that levels below 86 dB
are  obtainable  for  off-street  models  of  all  sizes  since  Its  members have
attained these levels.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Spokane Suzuki agrees  that off-road motorcycles are Indeed noisy  and that
they should be required to  meet 86  dB level.

Response:

     The  Agency's  proposal to  set different standards for  small  and large
off-road motorcycles was based  on  technology and cost  considerations.  Namely,
the  Agency  still  finds  that  small  displacement  off-road motorcycles  require
substantially different degrees of treatment to  reach reduced noise  levels,
with substantially lower costs and  performance penalties, than  large displace-
ment motorcycles.

     At the 80  dB regulatory level  for  small  off-road motorcycles,  the tech
nology  to  reach  these  levels 1s  available at  reasonable costs and with
minimum associated performance penalties.  In addition, the  Agency has  reason
to  believe  that small  off-road motorcycles, the  most populous class  of off-
road motorcycles,  are  more likely  to  be operated 1n  and around urban  fringe
areas where noise  level reductions would accomplish significant noise  Impact
relief. Although  some  small  off-road motorcycles already  meet the  proposed
levels, play-bikes  can range up to 86 dB and small displacement semi-compe-
tition models often exceed 90 dB.

     At an  82 dB regulatory  level  for large off-road  motorcycles, the tech-
nology 1s available at reasonable  costs with acceptable associated performance
penalties.   Studies  Indicate that  levels  stricter  than 82 dB  for large  off-
road motorcycles would exact severe performance  penalties  that would have  a
substantial Impact on  the  character of the sport of  off-road motorcycling as
It  1s known today.  Stricter levels could also Increase the tendency for users
either to modify their off-road motorcycles  or to abuse the  Intended  distinc-
tion  between  genuine  competition   and non-competition motorcycles  by using
uncontrolled competition off-road motorcycles for recreational  riding.

                                  3-11

-------
3.13  LEAD TIMES

j^ssues:  Considering technical and economic constraints,  are the proposed lead
         times sufficient?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson contends that the lead times are clearly underestimated.
The  regulations  fail to  recognize manufacturing and  engineering  lead times
such as machine tool sourcing and delivery.  The  short  lead times do not allow
Harley-Davidson to  introduce products  in  an  evolutionary way and meeting the
proposed 80 dB level will  require extensive changes,  comparable to designing a
new engine.

     MAICO  states  that EPA's  lead  times are not  acceptable.  More  time is
needed to  develop  high  performance engines and  six  years are needed to meet
the  86  dB  level  for off-road  bikes.   The time  needed  to reach  82  dB is un-
known.  For 1980,  MAICO proposes  90 dB for off-road  and by 1986 down to 88 dB
for off-road motorcycles above  249 cc.

     Motocicletas  Montesa  reports that it can meet  the  1980 level  of 86 dB
for  large  off-road motorcycles, but at substantial  costs.  For  off-road
motorcycles under 170 cc,  longer  lead times are  needed  and January 1985 would
be the earliest date Motocicletas can meet the 82 dB  standard.

     Triumph stated that meeting the 80 dB level will be  difficult and possi-
bly unattainable.   The 78  dB level is undoubtedly impossible.

     Since the  regulations  can  not  be  finalized in time  for the  1980 model
year, Suzuki  recommends delaying  implementation until  1982.   If  EPA forces
manufacturers  to   incorporate  new noise  control specifications in  the 1981
model year, this  will  result  in a change to  exhaust emission specifica-
tions as well.   This will  cause  Suzuki  to  recertify  its  1981 model street
motorcycle at $80,000 per  engine  family.

     Suzuki should  be able to incorporate  the off-road standards into  its 1981
model year  and  will be  able to  meet  street  noise  levels for  1981,  if nine
months lead time  exists  after final issuance of the noise  standards.

     Yamaha recommends  that the  86  dB  standard  become  effective  in 1982 at
the earliest,  in order  to  provide  ample  time  for  cost  cost studies and the
development of technology.   The  levels for  off-road  motorcycles below 170 cc
are  too  stringent and  performance loss can be  expected  to  occur  should
these standards be  established.

     Trade  Association Comments

     BPICM contends  that  the  targets  set by  EPA  are  impossible  to  achieve
because the proposed lead  times are inadequate,  BPICM proposes 83 dB for 1982
and a drop of 1 or  2 dB  for  1985,  if technology and economics permit.
                                  3-12

-------
     MIC  and  the  Specialty  Equipment Manufacturers'  Association  expressed
concern that  small  manufacturers,  especially those in the  aftermarket  cannot
meet the  standards  with  the proposed lead time,  since they lack  research  and
development  ability.    The  Specialty  Equipment  Manufacturers'   Association
further points out that the rapid changes  demanded of the OEM by these regula-
tions will in turn disrupt aftermarket design efforts.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The  New  England Trail Riders'  Association  states  that the  lead  time to
meet the  1980 standards look very generous  since many  manufacturers  already
meet these levels.

     Public Interest Group Comments

     Citizens Against Noise Trespass propose the following lead times:  street
motorcycles -  83  dB by 1979,  80 dB by 1980, and  78  dB by 1981.   For off-road
motorcycles, 86 dB should be reached by 1979 and 82 dB by 1980.

Response:

     The  Agency has  reviewed  the  lead  times originally  proposed,  and  has
extended  the  lead times.   The  standards  can be  achieved by the four  largest
manufacturers  in the  industry (all  Japanese  — accounting for 90% of the U.S.
market)  on an  orderly basis.   The standards  are  achievable by the  smaller
manufacturers  provided  they are willing to  make  the necessary investments in
research  and  development to redesign their  engines.   For these  manufacturers
the  extended  effective  dates  should allow  them  sufficient time to develop,
retool, and manufacture  their redesigned,  complying products.

     It  is revel ant that  several  States,  with more  stringent standards than
the  Federal  standards,  have given  the motorcycle industry notice that  quieted
products  would  be  required by in the near future even assuming Federal stand-
ards were not  issued.   Thus,  the industry has known  for  several  years  already
that increasingly more stringent noise levels would be required in the  1980's.
                                  3-13

-------
                         4.   TESTING

     Comments received concerning  the  test  procedures proposed in the motor-
cycle noise  emission regulation  were  extensive  and  detailed.   In  order to
facilitate understanding  of  the  issues  involved in  the selection  of  test
procedures a brief overview of each of  the test  procedures originally proposed
and the  intended  purpose of  the  test  procedure is provided in the following
paragraphs.

         The three test procedures are  to determine:

         o  Motorcycle Compliance

         o  Replacement Exhaust System  Compliance

         o  Stationary Sound Level Label  Value

     Motorcycle Compliance

     The test procedure originally  proposed for determining  the  compliance of
newly  manufactured  street  and  off-road  motorcycles  with  the  not-to-exceed
standards was  a  F76 pass  by test procedure  developed by EPA.   This test
procedure  is to be  used  by  motorcycle  and moped manufacturers  to meet produc-
tion verification  requirements  and will  be  used  by EPA  enforcement  officials
to  verify  compliance.   A slight  variation  of this test  procedure is  used to
determine  moped compliance.   Comments  received  about  the moped test  procedure
are discussed in Section 8 of the Docket Analysis.

     Replacement Exhaust System Compliance

     As  originally proposed, aftermarket manufacturers  would be  required  to
test a  newly manufactured replacement  exhaust  system  on the motorcycle  makes
and models for  which the system was designed  to be used  in order to determine
compliance.   The  standards  for replacement  exhaust systems  are  stated in the
regulation  in  terms of  the  pass-by test procedures  (same test  and  levels  as
for motorcycles.)

     To  ease the  burden of  compliance,  aftermarket  manufacturers were  per-
mitted  to  use the  F50  stationary test for certification purposes  instead  of
the  pass-by  test procedure.   The replacement  exhaust system  would  be consi-
dered  to be  in  compliance  for a  particular  make and model of  motorcycle  if
when tested  using  the  F 50  stationary  sound  level test procedure  the  noise
emission  levels were equal  to  or no more than  three  dB below the stationary
sound level  label  value  for  that  particular motorcycle.

     If  the replacement  exhaust  system  did  not  pass this test, the after-
market  manufacturers could  then  test  the motorcycle  and replacement exhaust
system  with  the pass-by test procedure to determine compliance with the noise
emission  levels as stated in the  motorcycle  replacement exhaust system regu-
lation.  If the  test values  did  not exceed the  noise emission  standard then
the replacement exhaust system  would be considered  to  be  in compliance.
Therefore,  although it was  not necessary to  test using the pass-by test, the
noise  emission  standards for replacement exhaust systems stated  in  the pro-
posed  regulation were  in  terms of this  procedure.   Thus,  under the proposed


                                   4-1

-------
rules,  the  governing  or  ultimate  factor  in  determining  compliance  of a
replacement exhaust system would have been the test  values of the pass-by test
procedure.

     Stationary Sound Level Label Value

     The  test  procedure originally proposed  to  determine the stationary sound
level  label  value  was  the F  50 stationary  test  procedure.    A  label  which
includes  the SSL value determined by the F 50 test procedure was to be affixed
to  all  newly  manufactured  motorcycles  and mopeds.    This  test procedure was
also  intended  for  one  that use by  state  and local  enforcement officials to
control motorcycle noise in conjunction with  the Federal Standards.

     Comments  received  about  each of  the three test  procedures  and  the EPA
responses  to  the  comments are  presented in the  three issues  that  follow.

4.1  MOTORCYCLE COMPLIANCE TESTING

Issue;  Is the test procedure,  as   proposed, the  best possible for  EPA and
        manufacturers?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     MAICO favored  the  use of  a stationary test rather than the acceleration
test and would like to  have the test  procedures  simplified.

     "Suzuki  supports development of a high  correlation stationary test which
can be used in place of acceleration  testing.  Such testing could simplify the
manufacturer's task  in  certifying motorcycles,   and  would  simplify  test  site
requirements.  Such a test would obviate the  need for additional test sites as
we currently envision."

     "Since stationary testing  would help Suzuki,  we  are willing  to  support
EPA's efforts  to  develop   a  high correlation  stationary test.   Suzuki  has
pointed out in  previous  submissions  some  of  the  problems  which must be
overcome  before  the test  can  be used for  either  certification or  in-use
enforcement (please refer to our  letters dated February 24,  1978 and March 6,
1978).  So far, ignition disable equipment is not available for all models, 1s
not durable,  and  may not be as  accurate as desired."

     Suzuki,  like  Kawasaki, reported  that the   J331a  test  was  simpler  than
the F76a  procedure and requires  less  time with lower costs.   The J331a is
supported  by Suzuki  because of  its  efficiency and  repeatability.   Suzuki did
acknowledge,  however  that the  J331a procedure is subject  to gearing and
sprocket  changes,  although any  shortcomings  of the J331a  are likely to be
reduced  or  eliminated   by   the  revision  of  J331a  currently being  developed
by SAE.   Suzuki  does not  foresee  any  major  problems  with a  10m minimum ac-
celeration distance.

     In  regard  to off-road  motorcycles,  Suzuki does not believe the complexity
of the acceleration test is justified because  of  the  high incidence of modifi-
cations  and small  relative  impact  of  off-road  motorcycles.


                                  4-2

-------
     Harley-Davidson  reported  that  the  substantial  difference  in  results
between the  F76a at  60  percent,  the F76a  at  55 percent, and  the  SAE  J331a
tests, made  it  difficult  to respond to  the proposed rulemaking.   However,
Harley-Davidson  does  favor  the  F76a test as  it  offers better repeatability,
minimizes variability, and offers improved potential for correlation with the
stationary or  engine dynometer testing method.   For  motorcycles with  a
displacement over  675cc,  Harley-Davidson expects  EPA to  use the  F76a  test
with  a 55 percent  endpoint.    Harley-Davidson  further contended that  it  is
undesirable to continue to use  a test method  where results are so dependent on
gear  ratios.  The test procedure  should  specify the  selection  of  the lowest
gear that requires an acceleration distance of ten meters.

     Harley-Davidson  also commented that consideration should be given to the
weather,   production  scheduling  and the  general  difficulties associated with
the pass-by test during  winter.   Finally, Harley-Davidson stated that provi-
sions  should  exist  to allow for  future  improved methods  of  testing as their
value  is demonstrated.

     Honda found that the  F76a  procedure measured  noise from  the  250cc and
less  displacement  street motorcycle class up  to 3  dB  louder than  the J331a
procedure.  However, other classes were  comparable.   Honda suggested a closing
rpm  of 90 percent  for the F76a  test  for 100 cc  motorcycles with  a sliding
scale  down to 55 percent for the 675 cc  motorcycles.

     Safety  hazards  prevented  Husqvarna  from  obtaining  any  test consistency
and therefore Husqvarna found it virtually impossible to obtain  valid  data for
discussion.

     Kawasaki  stated that  the  J331a test  procedure has provided  it with  a
satisfactory test which is repeatable, easy to perform,  and takes  less time to
conduct  than the  acceleration  procedure  recommended by  EPA.    Kawasaki  is
unsure that  EPA's  recommended  test will  provide  any significant  advantages
over the  J331a.

     Yamaha  commented that,  "If  a  stationary test  procedure has a high cor-
relation  with the proposed  acceleration test procedure, and  it  is possible to
minimize  standard  errors in the  measured  values,  it can be  then substituted
for  the  proposed acceleration test procedure.   In  reality,   such a practical
stationary test  procedure is not presently available.  This  matter should be
considered  as  a study subject.   We are in agreement with Appendix 1-2, Sta-
tionary Noise Emission Test  Procedure,  as a  field  check test on In-use motor-
cycles,  provided that  at least  a  5  db  test-to-test  variance  is taken  into
consideration.   This  deviation in  test results  is  as recognized by the
International Standard Organization in ISO/DIS 5120."

      Yamaha  opposed  the  10 meter minimum distance because:  (1)  a gear  higher
than  second  gear would have to be  used;  (2)  speeds  will  need to  be increased
raising  the  necessity  for longer courses; and  (3) for motorcycles whose
acceleration  distance  is  very  close  to the  proposed   minimum  acceleration
distance,  the  gear  to be selected may  need to  vary,  resulting  in  discrepan-
cies  and  poor repeatability.

      Yamaha contended that  the proposed acceleration procedure presents
serious  danger to the  rider  for personal injury, as  well as raises  problems
with  insurance  premiums  and workmen's compensation.

                                  4-3

-------
     State and Local Government Comments

     The California Office  of  Noise Control  contended that EPA's test proce-
dures are too  lenient with  regard  to  the  larger  motorcycles.  The maximum rpm
test would only test motorcycles over 675 cc  at  55  percent  of capacity, which
does not accurately reflect driving styles.

     The Oregon  DEQ commented  that the proposed EPA acceleration  test does
eliminate the biases and  inequities  of the SAE  J331a.  The EPA  test also
appears simple enough  to be performed  repeatedly with  accuracy.   It 1s also
important that the acceleration test coordinate well  with the stationary test
and  be  flexible  enough  so enforcement  officials  can  set  1t up  in varying
locations.   However,  the Oregon DEQ does not  think it  1s  necessary to adopt
standards for both acceleration and stationary tests  and warned that any test
which required  a  95  percent maximum  rpm is  risky  and will  expose testing
authorities to liability.

     The Maryland  State  Police  commented  that  the  F76 test requires too much
space and hampers enforcement.   The  City of Eugene, Oregon likewise opposed
the  use  of  the 50-foot  moving test and favors  the 20-inch stationary test.
However, the  San  Francisco  Police  Department Noise Enforcement team believes
that the drive-by test 1s the only  way to  accurately test.

     The California  Department  of  Health found  the proposed test  Inadequate
for  larger motorcycles.   "It  appears  that the EPA  procedure does a  satisfac-
tory job on  the  smaller  motorcycles but tends to indicate emission  levels of
larger motorcycles that are approximately  on  par  with their  55 mph steadystate
cruise  levels, hardly a  maximum noise  producing mode of  operation.   The 55
percent maximum rated engine rpm test cut-off point  is Inadequate for  larger
motorcycles  and that compliance with such a procedure will  result 1n a severe
degradation  in  the  progress  that  has  been  made   1n motorcycle  quieting  in
California."

     The Maryland  State  Police  reported that  the acceleration test 1s highly
restrictive for actual  enforcement  because of  site constraints and the type of
equipment needed.   "Additionally, by proposing the  utilization of percentages
of  rated  horsepower  revolutions  per  minute,  the  officer would  be further
encumbered by  requiring  him to have immediately available voluminous litera-
ture concerning the rated horsepower of  each motorcycle."

     The California Highway Patrol  was concerned  "about the phrase 'the
throttle shall  be  smoothly and fully  opened1, and 'the   throttle  shall  be
smoothly and  fully closed1  used  in  the measurement procedure.    The  other
standards for  motorcycle noise testing as  well  as  1n  other vehicle testing
require  the vehicles'  throttle  to   be rapidly  and  fully opened.  'Rapidly and
fully opened' appears  to  be  more definite  and  meaningful  than  smoothly
opened.

     "In order to achieve the rapid acceleration necessary for the test to be
repeatable,  the  throttle must  be rapidly opened.  The  throttle  could be
rapidly and smoothly  opened but the requirement to be  smoothly opened alone
leaves the rate  at which it 1s  opened  at the discretion  of the  rider.  One
test rider  could   smoothly  and  slowly  open  the throttle  while  your testing
agency  could  smoothly and  rapidly open the  throttle and  result  1n  a con-


                                 4-4

-------
siderable difference  1n the  sound  level  data  measured  on the vehicle,  even
with the fixed end point which is near the microphone.  [The California Highway
Patrol] suggests that the word  'rapidly'  be  added  before  smoothly  to make the
phrase now read 'rapidly and smoothly'."

     The California  Highway Patrol  also  would like  to  see provisions for  a
deceleration test when deceleration noise proves to be a problem.

     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC urged the continued use of the SAE J331a procedure since it takes
less time to  administer  and the testing technicians are  already familiar with
its use. SAE  J331a also  has  a large historical data base.  The MIC/ E-76 test
procedure has  also  shown more  correlation  to the  acceleration test than the
EPA proposals.

     The MIC  believes that  the acceleration  test is far  more  expensive and
time-consuming than conducting the 20-inch stationary test.

     The MIC  also warned of  problems with  testing  off-road  motorcycles with
specialized tire patterns.

     Motorcycle Interest Groups

     Road Rider Magazine  stated that "EPA should  not  require  use  of F76 only
but should allow the use of F76 or SAE  J331a test  procedures.

     The  Pennsylvania  Trail  Riders'  Association  views  the  proposed moving
sound  test  as totally  "outrageous."  The safety  risks  are very high.   Since
local  authorities will  most  likely establish  static tests  for  enforcement
purposes, EPA should also use a static  test.

     Private  Citizen Comments

     Bradfort Sturtevant  states that the 0331 a test 1s  preferred  to the more
complex  F-76a test  and  that motorcycles with automatic  transmissions will be
difficult to  test.

Response:

     The  pass-by test required  by the Agency  to  demonstrate compliance with
the  regulation  1s based on typical  motorcycle accelerations,  as such it 1s a
good Indicator of community noise  Impact  resulting from motorcycle operations.
However,  the performance of  a pass-by test  is generally expensive and time
consuming.   As a result  of  the comments received  and  1n order to  reduce the
testing  burden  of a pass-by  test  requirement  and enhance the State  and  local
enforcement  efforts,  the Agency undertook a comprehensive  reevaluation of the
testing  schemes proposed  in the  regulation and mentioned  in the  supporting
background documents.   The goal  of this reevaluation was  to determine 1f  there
existed  or  could be developed  a  simple stationary test  which correlated with
the  proposed pass-by  test that  could be  used  as a compliance  test  and/or
enforcement  test.   The results of this reevaluation were encouraging,  but the
Instrumentation  for  this test  procedure  required further  refinement to  be
useful to  small  replacement  exhaust system  manufacturers and to State  and


                                   4-5

-------
local enforcement  efforts.   In addition, several the motorcycles  in  the  test
program  were  not  compatible  with  the  instrumentation  for  this  procedure.
Therefore,  until  such time as these problems  can be resolved the use of  the
pass-by test procedure to demonstrate compliance will be required.

     It was  also  determined during this evaluation  to  eliminate the  proposed
F50 stationary testing requirement for both original equipment and  aftermarket
manufacturers. This  requirement  has been deleted since public comments  indi-
cated  and subsequent further analysis has shown  that the results of  the
stationary test are  not  adequately correctable to  the required pass-by  test
used to  determine  compliance  with the regulation, and  therefore would not be
suitable for an enforcement and compliance program.

     Section  205.154 of  the  motorcycle regulation  allows  manufacturers  to
certify their  products  using  a test procedure different  than the  F76b proce-
dure,  if  they can  demonstrate that the procedure  which they use correlates
with the F76b test.  The Agency encourages further work  toward the  development
of  a suitable short test  by manufacturers or manufacturer associations.
The Agency would consider  adopting  such  a  short  test procedure  in  the future,
in  addition  to or in lieu  of the pass-by test  procedure for motorcycles  and
replacement  exhaust  systems,  if  adequate correlation can be  demonstrated  and
the test is compatible with all types of motorcycles.

     EPA believes  that  the proposed pass-by  test is not overly complex  than
test procedures such  as J331a, is  essential  to  ensure that  the test procedure
is  both  accurate  and equitable to'those who must comply  with the  regulation.

     The procedure results in many off-road motorcycles  being  tested in third
and even fourth gear.   Even  in these  higher  gears,  many  off-road  motorcycles
may exhibit  front  wheel  lift-off  under  rapid throttle  opening.  However,  the
procedure  specifically  requires   that  the throttle  opening  be controlled  to
avoid excessive wheel slip  on lift-off.   Lift-off,  however,  is not  hazardous
with these  vehicles  when  operated by an experienced  rider; it is,  in fact, a
normal  operational  mode,  used widely  in the  traverse  of obstacles  in  rough
terrain.

     Tests conducted  in  the course  of  this  study show that  procedures  which
call for attainment  of  a  specified condition of power  and rpm at  a specified
location  in  relation to  the  microphone are relatively  insensitive  to  gear
selection.    The  relative  insensitivity  to gear  selection  in the test  shows
that a  change in  sprocket ratio  will  have -little  effect  on measured  noise
levels.

     Concern was raised over  the  repeatability of the  pass-by test  procedure
as  specified  by  the rate of  throttle  opening.   The requirement is only  that
the throttle be wide open  when the  vehicle reaches  the closing rpm  specified
in  the  test procedure.   Therefore,  the noise  measurement  is  unaffected  by
how rapidly the throttle  is opened.   The repeatability of this test  has  been
shown to be at least  as good  as that being  demonstrated by the use of the  SAE
J331a test.  Therefore,  repeatability is not  expected to be  a  problem.

     Concern was  expressed  that the test procedure proposed did not adequately
reflect motorcycle operations. In  constant  speed and accelerating modes,  the
smaller motorcycle will  usually be operated closer to their maximum  potential


                                  4-6

-------
than will  larger  motorcycles.   This  is  not only because of  available  horse-
power,  but also, in the small machines characteristically the torque  curve  is
steep,  favoring operation at high rpm, whereas in the large  street  motorcycles
(675 cc  and greater) the  torque  curve is  relatively  flat, resulting  in
acceptable performance at lower rpm's.  This  concept  was  the  basis from which
the test  was  developed,  and has  been verified by observations of motorcycle
operations.

     Concern was expressed  that compliance  with  this  regulation would degrade
the progress that  has been  made in quieting  motorcycles on a State and local
level.    This  in fact will  not  be  the case.  Compliance with this regulation
will in actuality enhance State and local  efforts in noise control.  This will
be  accomplished by the  labeling  and anti-tampering provisions  incorporated
into the  regulation.   The  issue of  State  and local enforcement  programs  is
discussed in section 4.3.

     Motorcycles with  automatic transmissions  are more  difficult  to test than
those  equipped with  manual transmissions.    Care  must  be  exercised  during
testing that the motorcycle does  not  shift  while in the test  area.  The shift
point can be determined  by  a few runs prior to testing to avoid the automatic
shifting  in  the test area.   The  J331a test does not have  any  provisions for
testing motorcycles  with automatic transmission,  whereas the F76b  test does
make provisions for motorcycles equipped with automatic transmissions.

     State and local  authorities have expressed concern  over possible safety
hazards  of  the pass-by test.   The use of  a pass-by test, which  having some
risk,  does not  pose  a  significant  safety  hazard.   Manufacturers  have been
testing  using  the SAE J331A test,  a  pass-by test, and are familiar with the
ramifications  of such a  test.    The  use of  the F76b will not  introduce any
additional  safety risks,  beyond  those  encountered  now  with  the  SAE J331a
test.  To further  reduce this  liability the tests should only be  performed by
an  experienced rider  and  therefore,  is  not recommended for State and local
enforcement programs.

     The  CHP  requested  provisions  be included  for  a deceleration  test when
deceleration proves to be a problem.   We do not anticipate deceleration noise
to be a salient problem when motorcycles and  exhaust systems  are in compliance
with these rules.  Therefore,  no provisions for a deceleration test have been
made at this time.

4.2    REPLACEMENT EXHAUST  SYSTEM COMPLIANCE  TESTING

Issue;  Can  the procedure  for testing replacement  exhaust  systems be  simpli-
        fled?

Comments:

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Gemini  Tube Fabrications stated that,  "The aftermarket  manufacturer can
use the  stationary test  for certification if the replacement system  meets the
OEM exhaust  system stationary  test level.  However, the certified OEM  system,
using the acceleration test procedures, will  most  likely  be well below  Federal
standards.   Therefore, the  aftermarket replacement system would be  certifying


                                  4-7

-------
by the  use  of  the stationary test to a dB(A) level that would correlate with
the lower OEM sound level rather than the  Federal  standard.

     "For the  aftermarket manufacturer  to  design  and  manufacture to this OEM
lower  sound level would  be costly  on  both  an  equipment requirement  and  a
production  basis.   Consequently,  in  most  cases,  the aftermarket manufacturer
will attempt to design to meet  EPA standards.  The EPA  standards, however, are
defined 'in terms  of total vehicle noise  as  measured  according  to  EPA's
acceleration  test  procedure. '  To  verify to EPA standards,  the  proposed
acceleration procedures (fly-by test) must be used to  demonstrate compliance.
The procedure  is costly for  the small manufacturer who normally does not have
such a facility to perform this testing."

     EPA needs  to  incorporate  a simple stationary test which can  be used by
manufacturers and enforcement personnel.   Therefore, Gemini proposed using the
20-inch stationary test.   This test  will  also  reduce  costs,  which are espe-
cially  crucial  to the  aftermarket  industry if  it  is  to  survive  with  these
regulations.

     Jardine Header  favored the  use of  the MIC/E-76 test  for aftermarket
certification  and  recommended  the use  of a Type  2  sound level meter  as an
option for aftermarket exhaust  certification.

     Kendrick  Engineering  reported  that they prefer the  MIC  half-meter test
since it provides good correlation and expressed concern over the safety risks
associated with the acceleration tests.

     Dunstall Power preferred an acceleration test  similar  to 1048/Article 10.
This  test  procedure,  accelerating  from  30mph  at full  throttle,  accurately
reflects  the circumstances under which noise  pollution normally occurs.
However, Dunstall Power was  against  the use of  any stationary test procedure
because running a motorcycle in a stationary condition at  a set proportion of
maximum rpm  bears  no  direct  relation to the noise,  excessive  or otherwise,
that the motorcycle may make when  it  is  under  load.                          *

     MCM Manufacturing  and  RC  Engineering  both  favored  the  use of  the MIC
20-inch stationary test.  Both of these firms also stated  that problems exist
with ignition  disabling  testing.  MCM Manufacturing suggested  the possibility
of having the  motorcycle  manufacturers  provide  connections which would allow
for a simple plug arrangement without special wiring.

     RC Engineering  commented that problems  will  develop  with workmen's
compensation and liability when the acceleration test is used.

     MCM Manufacturing  further pointed out  that  safety  problems  exist when
testing dirt bikes with  nobbed  wheels which  can  cause the bike to "stand-up"
on pavement.

     RJS Engineering  recommended correlating data  to a  fixed noise test rather
than an  acceleration test.   However,  Nelson  Industries   commented  that the
problem of  correlating  stationary test results to  acceleration  test results
has been given  extensive study  with little success.
                                 4-8

-------
     Nelson  Industries  found it  difficult to  understand  the role of  the
stationary test  since  the acceleration  procedures would  be  the  governing
procedure.   "The  muffler  supplier will  have to test  and design to  the  ac-
celeration procedure since this  procedure will  control  and since correlation
between stationary tests and acceleration tests is not good."

     Hooker  Industries  commented  that  the   test  procedure specified by  the
simulated F76a appears  to  show great promise for  establishing  a static test
which correlates  with the F76a moving  vehicle tests.

     Alphabets Custom West  supported  the 83 dB level static test developed by
the MIC.

     Alphabet Custom West,  Gemini Tube Fabrications, Jardine Header, Kendrick
Engineering,  and MCM Manufacturing all  reported  that  it is difficult for the
aftermarket  firms  to  obtain  motorcycles to conduct the  acceleration  test.
Jardine Header and  Gemini  Tube Fabrications  reported  that it is logistically
difficult to  obtain the test   facility  and  the  costs of purchasing accelera-
tion test time is high.

      Motorcycle Trade Association Comments

      The Specialty Equipment Manufacturers' Association prefers the use of  a
stationary test for determining exhaust  system noise.

      For  replacement  exhaust system certification, the 20-inch  stationary
test method  is endorsed by MIC.    This  will  reduce the testing  and financial
burden on the  aftermarket  industry.   This test method will  also eliminate the
possibility  of certifying  by  the  acceleration test and possibly failing the
product by the stationary method.

      Motorcycle Interest Groups

      Road Rider  Magazine  believes that the stationary test proposed by MIC
would enable aftermarket manufacturers to compete in the market  place.

      Response:

      A  review of the  comments  indicated  that  although the pass by test was
not  required for certification of replacement exhaust  systems,  many  manufac-
turers  would need to  use  this test   since  it  is the governing  procedure and
noise  levels between  it  and  the  F50 stationary  test  do not correlate well.

      As  discussed in the previous section the  pass by test will now be
required to  be  performed by replacement  exhaust system manufacturers to
demonstrate  compliance with the regulation.

      The provisions  in the regulation  for  allowing aftermarket manufacturers
to  certify replacement exhaust system using the F50  stationary test  has  been
removed.   This provision was   eliminated since the  results of stationary  test
were not correctable  with  the  pass-by test  used to  demonstrate  compliance
with the regulation.   Many of the aftermarket  manufacturers indicated that  it
would  be  necessary  to  test  under the  pass-by  test procedure anyway.   The
estimated difference  in  cost,  on  a yearly basis,  to  a  large aftermarket


                                   4-9

-------
manufacturer of  using  the pass-by test versus  a stationary test for R&D and
compliance testing  is  $2800 and $1200 respectively  (estimated  costs are for
the 80  dB  requirement).   This  in  turn translates  in to a differential price
increase of 0.9%  and  2.Q% for large and  small aftermarket manufacturers
respectively.

     A provision has been added to the replacement exhaust system requirement
which will allow manufacturers to certify  their  product  using  a different test
procedure than that proposed,  if they can  demonstrate that the procedure which
they use correlates with  the  F76b test.   This is the same provision which is
incorporated into the motorcycle regulation.  The inclusion of this  provision
will allow the  development  of a suitable  stationary test by  manufacturers or
manufacturer associations which may see  potential cost  savings  in doing
so.

  Concern was  also raised  by replacement  exhaust  system  manufacturers over
possible safety hazards and repeatability  of the pass by test  procedures.  The
use of  a pass by  test,  while, having some  risk,  does not  pose a significant
safety  hazard.   Manufacturers  have  been  testing, using the  SAE J331a test,
a  pass  by test procedure, for  some  time  and are familiar  with the  ramifica-
tion of  such  a  test.   The use of the F76b, will not  introduce any additional
safety  risks,  beyond  those  encountered  now  with  the  SAE  J331a test.   The
repeatability of the F76b test has been  shown to at least be as good  as that
being demonstrated by the use of the SAE J331a test.   Therefore,  repeatability
is not expected to be a problem.

4.3    STATIONARY SOUND LEVEL TESTING

Issue:   What is  the  best program for state and local  enforcement  purposes?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson submitted several possible  stationary test  schemes  using
a  variety  of motorcycle  models  which showed good  correlation  with the F76a
test.    Harley-Davidson  found  that  the  Federal stationary  test correlated
poorly with F76a.  Harley-Davidson stated  that the stationary  sound test  needs
to  correlate  well with  any  pass-by  test or difficulties  will  develop with
in-use enforcement.

     Basically, Suzuki found  the stationary test to be far  simpler and  less
expensive than the acceleration test. Further, the stationary  test facilitates
in-use enforcement. Suzuki also does not  foresee  any difficulties in perform-
ing 30  stationary sound   level tests  per  day.   The  stationary test  is  suffi-
ciently  related to off-road  motorcycle   sound  levels to control excessively
noisy motorcycles.

     Suzuki does  recommend  against the use of  ignition  disabling enforcement
testing.  First  of all,  compared to the  1/2 meter test, it requires a larger
test site and large test  sites  are hard to  find.   Second, compared to  the 1/2
meter test, the disabling test is far more complicated and subject to failure.
                                  4-10

-------
     Further,  the 1/2 meter test will allow for the continued use of existing
tachometers.   Auto-meter tachometers  are extremely unreliable.  Third, even if
ignition-disabling equipment  is  made  more reliable, field personnel may not be
capable of using the equipment properly.  Experience has proven that even with
the simple 1/2  meter  test,  it  is difficult to train individuals to be profi-
cient at  performing  the test.    This  problem  could  be  greatly exaggerated if
enforcement personnel are not properly and thoroughly trained.  Inconsistency
and inequities  will  develop  with in-use enforcement.   Fourth,  until uniform
equipment standards  are adopted  for ignition-disabling  equipment,  it is
premature to adopt this concept  for enforcement.

     The  McDonnell  Douglas testing which  used the ignition disabling testing
reported  a very  high  correlation between the  simulated  F76a test  and  the
moving F76a test,  yet  it did not provide  any data  to  substantiate this con-
clusion.

     In  addition,  Suzuki does  not think  it  is  possible to develop a method
where  a  signal  which gives  accurate  rpm  information can  be obtained on  some
models.   In summary,  Suzuki  favors  the 1/2 meter test since it is  far easier
to use and understand and will  be suitable  for enforcement  since it  is equally
as  effective  as  the  ignition-disabling test  in detecting excessively noisy
motorcycles.   The  1/2  meter test will also  present  cost savings,  simplify
replacement exhaust system testing procedure, and will present a test proce-
dure which matches the certification  test  procedure.

     Yamaha  commented  that  the  microphone  location  designation  should be
modified  so that it is  at an angle of 45*  + 10* with the "direction  of the gas
flow"  in  lieu  of "line of  travel."" Yamaha believes that this will  avoid
potential  microphone  malfunction which  may be caused by the  proposed method-
ology.   Harley-Davidson also commented that  the  position  of the  microphone
needs to  be more precisely defined.

     Kawasaki  commented that,  "Effective  enforcement  will  require a  quick,
easily  performed  noise test  that is  capable  of  discriminating  against  motor-
cycles  that have  been modified in  such  a way  as  to  significantly increase
their noise  level.  For this  purpose it is not  overly  critical that the
enforcement test  have a direct correlation to the  acceleration test used for
new  vehicle certification.   Kawasaki believes that the ISO  stationary test,
the  MIC/E-76  stationary test,   and  EPA's  Appendix 1-2 stationary test all
provide  sufficient discrimination of  noisy exhaust, with  roughly  equivalent
ease  of performance.    The  ISO  standard does  offer the advantage of interna-
tional  standardization.

      "When use of a stationary  test actually becomes   reality for local
enforcement,  it will  most likely be  used  to  identify  those controlled  motor-
cycles  which  are  significantly louder than  their manufactured  level.    The
proposal  offered  by the MIC, involving  calculation  of  a stationary equivalent
to the regulatory  level,  and  providing this level  on  a label  on the vehicle
could  provide  a  single  stationary   level  for  each model  which would  apply
equally to OEM,  aftermarket,   or  owner modified  exhausts.   Kawasaki  whole-
heartedly urges EPA  to consider the MIC's mathematical regression  stationary
sound  level equivalent  proposal.  Kawasaki does  not believe it is necessary to
obtain  an absolute  correlation between a  stationary and  an acceleration
                                  4-11

-------
procedure  in  order  to  have effective  enforcement against  increased  exhaust
noise.   MIC proposal would  allow  the use of  the simplest test  (no  ignition
disable devices, etc.) with a single enforcement limit per model."

     State and Local Government Comments

     As proposed  by EPA, the  stationary  test  has some  problems  according  to
the  Oregon  DEQ,  and EPA should adopt  the 20-inch  stationary  test since  it
works  well  and  is  preferred by police  agencies.   The  California Office  of
Noise Control  stated that  problems exist with the California stationary  test
as it  does  not correlate with the California  Highway  Patrol procedure  or the
J331a method.   More study  on stationary tests are needed.   The  San Francisco
Police Department Noise Enforcement team believes stationary tests are  no  good
since people can cheat with them.

     The Florida  Department  of Environmental  Regulation  recommended that the
test  site  clearance requirement for  the  stationary  noise test  procedure  be
changed from  five meters to three meters since this  allows for  easier field
enforcement and is  the current method of  operation in  California and Florida.

     Trade Associations Comments

     "AESMC  agrees  with the  EPA  rationale for  establishing  a stationary
vehicle sound level test procedure  for state and local  enforcement activities.
The Technical Committee of  AESMC established a stationary sound  level  measure-
ment  procedure  in  early  1972.   This stationary  procedure,  with  rather  simple
adjustments  in  microphone  distance and  sound level,  is the basic  procedure
now  in  use  in the  States  of California and Florida and  other  jurisdictions.
The  major  concern with  the  AESMC  stationary  procedure  expressed  by  various
state agencies and officials was that the  stationary procedure  result  did not
correlate directly  with  the SAE-type  acceleration procedure results.   AESMC
felt  then,  as now,  that a  direct  relationship  was  not  necessary and  that  a
practical correlation did exist  although  there would  also  exist  a chance for
some overlapping between the two test  results:  some good  exhaust systems would
fail   and some  bad exhaust  systems  would pass; however,  the stationary  proce-
dure would successfully screen out  the gross offenders.  AESMC notes,  however,
the  high  degree  of correlation  between  this rationale  and  that  expressed
by the agency  in  the proposals'  discussion of  stationary versus  acceleration-
type measurement procedures."

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The Wisconsin  Motorcycle Dealers'  Association  suggested  establishing  a
stationary  test  with  a  given  percentage of  rpm to  facilitate  enforcement
efforts.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group Comments

     The AMA  and  the AMA Great Plains District  33 recommended  that EPA adopt
a close range static test.   It is the  experience of the AMA that at a distance
as close as twenty  inches, tests can be  administered  which are  simple,  effec-
tive, and correlate well.
                                  4-12

-------
     Road Rider Magazine  stated  that  "a reliable  stationary  test, as proposed
by the  MIC, would  permit better  enforcement  as well  as  enable aftermarket
manufacturers to compete  in the  market place."

Response:

     State  and  local  governments,  under  subsection 6(e)(b), retain authority
to control products by all other available  means.  This  subsection states that
nothing  in  this section  precludes or denies  the rights  of State  or local
governments  to establish  and  enforce  controls  on  environmental  noise  and
sources therof  through the licensing, regulation,  or restriction of the use,
operation or movement of  any product  or combination of products.

     Thus,  although a  local  government may not enforce  a non-identical local
law regarding  the  noise   level  of  an  EPA-regulated  new  product which  affects
the manufacture or sale of such  product,  the local  government may  regulate the
product  noise   impact  through  regulations  enforceable  against the  owner or
operator of the product  by  providing, for example,  maximum noise levels for
operation, curfews on operation, prohibition of use  in a residential neighbor-
hood or  hospital  zone, or requirements  for periodic inspection and licensing
of the product.

     There  are  essentially three approaches that State  and  local governments
can use to  address a motor vehicle noise  problem:

     One  approach  is  the  street  noise standard.   This  usually consists of  a
not-to-exceed  level measured  at  curb side  or some  specified  distance  from the
roadway.  The  specific  not-to-exceed  level  may be different  for  various
roadway  situations.    For example,  in  several  states  on  streets with speed
limits  less than  35 mph,  it  is  illegal  for a  motorcycle to  exceed one speci-
fied noise  level,  and  on streets with speed limits  greater  than 35  mph, it  is
illegal  for a  motorcycle to exceed  a  different  and  higher specified noise
level.   Some  jurisdictions  differentiate  between streets  with less  than  1%
grade  and  streets  with  more than 1% grade  with regard  to allowable noise
levels.  As provided  the fundamental  difference  between this type of  standard
and  a  stationary  standard is that the way a motorcyclist operates  his motor-
cycle  (i.e.,  whether he  accelerates  rapidly  or slowly) strongly affects the
street  level measurement.   By  contrast,  the stationary standard  is  an equip-
ment  standard   as  opposed  to  an  environment  standard  and  is unaffected  by
whether  a particular motorcyclist may be  more aggressive or  less  aggressive
in  operating his  motorcycle  than  the norm.   Thus,  it  is possible for a  per-
son  with a very loud modified  motorcycle  to operate his motorcycle  in such  a
way  as  to  pass the  street  standard even though he would certainly fail  a
stationary  test.   Likewise,  it is possible for a complying motorcycle to  be
operated so aggressively  as to  violate a reasonably stringent street standard.

     A  second  approach available to  State  and  local  jurisdictions is  to adopt
and enforce the Federal  labeling  and anti-tampering provisions provided by the
final  regulations.   For  example,  competition  exhaust systems  are required  to
be  labeled as   illegal for  uses other than sanctioned  competition events; all
other exhaust systems  intended  for regulated or unregulated motorcycles
must  be labeled as  such.   State  and local jurisdictions will  thereby have a
means  of keeping  the competition  type exhaust systems  off  the street and out
of  noncompetition events in  off-road  riding,  and of keeping unregulated
exhaust  systems off of the quieter regulated motorcycles.

                                   4-13

-------
     The  third  approach  is the in-use equipment standard, be  it  a  stationary
test standard  or a pass-by test standard.   The  pass-by test  established
by  this  regulation  is intended  for  use by  manufacturers.    Because  of  its
complexity  and  expense,  it  is  not  generally  suitable for  State  and  local
enforcement  purposes.   The simple stationary tests usually offer such a poor
correlation  that they would  seem  to be  highly ineffective  in  actual  use.

4.4  TACHOMETERS

Issue:  With the wide  range of variability and reliability of  tachometers,  can
        the proposed testing procedures be considered  valid?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     According  to  Harley-Davidson,  tachometers may  measure  the true  average
rpm  or  the instantaneous angular velocity  or something "in-between."  While
rpm  represents  the  revolutions over a  period  of time,  the  angular  velocity  1s
an instantaneous measurement at some point  in  time.  The two can be  different
and  will  affect the sound measurements recorded in  any testing. "An  Ignition
cutout  device  sensitized  to angular  velocity will  cutout  on  peak  angular
velocity  within an  engine cycle  rather than when the  engine  reaches  the  true
rpm.  Engines with  poorer speed regulation  would tend  to cut out early, since
peak angular velocity  is  always higher than average  rpm.   An engine  with  [an]
unbalanced firing pattern (Harley-Davidson) would also tend  to cut-out early.
This problem can  be minimized  by damping the system,  but this slows the
response  time;  an  important consideration  in  stationary acceleration  tests."
Problems  also develop when  use is made of  digital circuitry  or pulse  counter-
type tachometers.

     Harley-Davidson also reports that there  are problems  associated with the
auto-meter tachometer.   However,  the Electro-Tach may  prove  feasible  since  it
is not  subject  to  vibrations,  shock, mounting orientation, and  ignition
noise.  Reset is also automatic.

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA and  BPICM both commented that tachometers sophisticated enough  to
be accurate  within three  percent  are too expensive.    A tolerance  of  five
percent is therefore supported.

Response;

     The  wide  range of  variability with  tachometers  does  pose a minor but
solvable  problem with  testing motorcycles.   Those  tachometers which do not
have a  steady  state  of  accuracy  of  within  three  percent  of  actual engine
speeds between  50  percent and 100 percent  of  peak  power  rpm cannot be used.
In such cases an external  tachometer  will  be  required to  test the motorcycle
noise emissions.   The  vehicle tachometer can  be used  1f  1t meets  the steady
state accuracy criteria discussed  in the test  procedure methodology.

     The  expense of obtaining an  accurate  tachometer for  testing purposes  is
not  considered  to  be  overly high.   Relative  to other  testing  costs, only  a
small one  time capital  outlay is required to purchase a tachometer.

                                 4-14

-------
     Federal enforcement personnel  will  utilize  a  separate accurate tachometer
so that consistency can be maintained while testing different motorcycles and
to decrease the uncertainty as to which motorcycles have less accurate tacho-
meters.

4.5  MICROPHONE WINDSCREEN

Jssue:  Is a microphone windscreen  needed  to  assure  accurate measurement while
        testing?

Comments:

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr.  Ralph  Hillquist, P.E.  stated  that  "some  test work conducted  on a
small  sampling  of windscreens has  shown  that  the  insertion  gain of typical
units  can easily exceed  the  broader tolerances of the  SAE  documents.   Con-
sequently,  the  requirements within  the  proposed regulations  for windscreen
performance will  mandate individual calibration  and  selection  of acceptable
units, obviously resulting in added  test  expense.   And  the  question of
windscreen  degradation with  time   and  handling has  not been  satisfactorily
addressed thus, the  windscreen  requirement  should be deleted from the proce-
dures  of Appendix 1-1  (a) and I-l(b)."

Response:

     Microphone  windscreens  have  no detrimental  effect  on  the testing
procedures  and are preferred by many for reasons of  microphone protection.  As
such,  EPA will retain  the windscreens in the testing procedure.
                                  4-15

-------
                      5.  LABELING

5.1  SIMPLICITY OF LABEL

^ssue;  Is 1t necessary for the label to contain so much Information?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Kawasaki contests  the  need to  put  the model  year on the label and states
that  the  Identification of the manufacturer,  date of  manufacture,  and  model
year  are  already on  the EPA  air  emission labels.   Items such  as  corporate
trademark  serve no  purpose and a  separate noise  label  on all  street  bikes
is unnecessary.  Kawasaki contends that the Stationary Sound Level information
is the  only  information needed and  urges  EPA  to  recognize that space limita-
tions make 1t important to  avoid requiring excessively wordy labels.

     Suzuki  "recommends that  the  proposed labeling requirements be simplified
extensively.    The  motorcycle exhaust  system  need  only be labeled  with the
manufacturer's  name  or unique trademark, the  exhaust system  model  number,
and  the EPA  symbol.    Other  marking  requirements would  be  superfluous, and
hence,  unnecessarily  costly.   Month and year  of manufacture is a  particularly
burdensome requirement.   Likewise,  the  motorcycle Itself need only be labeled
as  complying  with  EPA regulations and warning the  owner  about  tampering
prohibitions."

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Alphabets  Custom  West  was  concerned  about  the  amount  of information
designed to  be  on the label,  especially the listing of  applicable  models  which
exhaust systems might  fit.   Alphabets  also  suggests  putting  the  law  1n  a
catalog or instruction  booklet rather than on  the  label.

      Pre-1982  labels  should state "not to be used  on  any motorcycle  in produc-
tion  after 1982."   For those mufflers  designed  for post-1982 use, Alphabets
Custom  West  would prefer a label that  contains a number  corresponding to  the
test  data  reported  to EPA and the wording "EPA Approved."

      Dunstall  Power recommended that the  labeling  requirements  be  similar to  a
system  used  in  France.   French  authorities test and approve products  and  issue
Homoligatlon numbers which are cataloged for  enforcement officers.    Dunstall
deals in the  international market  as  well as the  domestic  market  and  would
like  to see labeling kept  simple  so  that it  would  be possible  to  label  all
products  in  the same manner and not incur higher  inventory costs.

      Trade Association Comments

      MTA states that the labeling  1s too  wordy and  should contain the follow-
 ing:    makers  name,  part  number,   and  the statement "Certified  to  U. S.  EPA
Regulations."    Anti-tampering  guidelines and  other  information  can  be  given
on  a separate  sheet  to customers.   "Catalog  entries could also  properly link
part  numbers and motorcycle models."
                                   5-1

-------
      "Stationary  sound  level  labeling would require motorcycle and replacement
 exhaust  system manufacturers to determine the noise  level  of  each  motorcycle
 using a stationary test  procedure.   [The APAA] rejects this  proposal  on  the
 basis that it would reduce  industry's ability to  effect  cost-savings  through
 parts consolidation.  The consolidation practices currently  used  in  the
 automotive trade  allow one design to be  used on  several  different  applica-
 tions.   The  accepted  practice reduces  the  costs  of  production,  cataloging,
 and  additional engineering, while not  increasing  the dB level any more than
 does  the  use  of  one muffler  design  on several different  automobiles  during
 production.

      Dealer/Distribution Comments

      The Pennsylvania, Texas,  and Ohio  Motorcycle Dealers' Associations
 support  the  concept of labeling which can be  used  to inform  the  customers of
 the law  and discourage the  sale of illegally loud exhaust systems.

      The Pennsylvania Motorcycle  Dealers'  Association contends, however, that
 the model  year should not  be included  on the label.   Requiring the  model year
 will  create  inventory  problems  with  existing  mufflers when  new model year
 motorcycles are introduced.

      State and Local Government Comments

      The Illinois Environmental  Protection  Agency,  the San Francisco  Policy
 Department's  Noise  Enforcement  Team,  the  Hillsborough County Environmental
 Protection Commission,  the California Highway Patrol, the  Florida  Department
 of  Environmental Regulation, and  the City  of Jacksonville,  Florida  are
 all on  record  as  supporting  EPA's  proposed  labeling procedure, because they
 will  facilitate enforcement,  alert  the public,  help control sales people  and
 spur  industry  competition.   The  Illinois EPA also  suggests putting a  warning
 about potential hearing loss on the labels.

      Public Interest Group Comments

      The American Association  of Retired  Persons and  the National   Retired
 Teachers'  Association   supports   labeling  because   it will  facilitate  local
 enforcement.

 Response;

     Since  EPA has  eliminated  the  requirement for  motorcycle manufacturers  to
 conduct F50 stationary  tests  in  the final  rule, motorcycle manufacturers  and
 exhaust system manufacturers will not be required to  include stationary sound
 level   information on the  label.   To  respond  to comments  that the proposed
 label  needed  to  be  simplified,  the  Agency  also substantially condensed  the
 label  wording.

     The final rule  will   require  motorcycle  manufacturers   to  label their
motorcycles  with  a  compliance  statement  which will  include  the following
 information:    model year,  model  specific code,  serial number,  the   applic-
 able  noise emission  standard,  the motorcycle's closing  rpm,  and  a tampering
warning.   The model  specific code will be  a  simplified  system  for designating
the motorcycle manufacturer,  motorcycle class, and   advertised  engine dis-


                                  5-2

-------
placement respectively.   The  code will be  limited  to  ten  spaces which will
Include three spaces  for the manufacturer's abbreviation,  three spaces for the
class Identification, and  four spaces  for  the  advertised  engine  displacement.
The  three  letter  manufacturer abbreviation  will  be  assigned  by the Agency.
A list  of  such abbreviations 1s Included in the  labeling section  of the
regulation.

     The Agency will  also  allow motorcycle  manufacturers to consolidate the
labeling requirements of  this regulation with  the  labeling requirements of
other  governmental  agencies on  one  or more labels provided  the  labeling
provisions  of this regulation  are  met.

     Original equipment  and replacement exhaust  system manufacturers will be
required to label their  products with a compliance statement which will
include  the  following information:   the manufacturer's  name, product  serial
number,  the  applicable  noise  emission standard, and  a  list of  model  speci-
fic  codes  for motorcycles  that the exhaust system  is  designed  to fit.  The
model specific code on the label  of any exhaust system that is installed on  a
Federally regulated motorcycle must be  Identical to the model specific  code on
the  label  attached  to  that  motorcycle.   This  labeling scheme provides  a
way  for  federal,  state, and local  enforcement  officials  to  determine  whether
the  correct exhaust system  has been installed.

     The Agency evaluated  other  suggested labeling  schemes  such as  Homoliga-
tlon numbers  and  cataloging,  but  believes the  present  labeling  scheme  is the
most feasible.

5.2  PRE-1982 PRODUCT LABELING

Issue:  Will  the  labeling requirements for replacement exhaust systems
        designed for use on pre-1983 motorcycles  prove burdensome?

Comments:
     Trade Association Comments

     The  MIC contends that  labeling of  exhaust  systems intended for  unre-
gulated  motorcycles  should not be  required until  the effective  date of  the
Initial noise emission standard.

     ANCMA proposes the following  words:   "For  use on  vehicles produced before
December  31, 1981," for  exhaust  systems  designed to be  used  on motorcycles
manufactured before January 1, 1982.  ANCMA  also believes  that it is necessary
to fix a  reasonable delay time 1n  order to allow manufacturers to sell out all
existing  parts built for motorcycles made  prior to the regulation.

     The  Specialty  Equipment Manufacturers'  Association  stated that  only
exhaust  systems  for  non-regulated  motorcycles produced  after  the effective
date of  the  regulation should  be  required to be labeled.  Replacement exhaust
systems  manufactured prior  to the  effective  date would already be in  the
distribution system.
                                  5-3

-------
 Response:

      EPA has  changed the applicability section of the motorcycle regulation so
 that the labeling of  replacement exhaust systems  designed for use on pre-1983
 motorcycles will  be required for those exhaust systems  manufactured after the
 effective  date of  the  first noise emission  standard,  January 1, 1983.   The
 proposed regulation required that such exhaust systems be labeled effective on
 the publication  date  of  the final  rule  In  the Federal Register,  although
 replacement exhaust systems manufactured prior to that date would  already  be
 In  the  distribution system.   With the  effective date  changed to January  1
 1983 exhaust  system manufacturers and  dealers  should have more  lead time  to
 deplete  most  of   their  present  Inventory  of  unlabeled replacement exhaust
 systems.

 5.3  EXHAUST  SYSTEM LABEL OBSOLESCENCE

 Issue;   Can the requirements for Information on  the exhaust system label  be
         changed to eliminate arbitrary  obsolescence  on  future  motorcycles
         even  though the  exhaust systems may  fit and  still  comply with  the
         noise emission standards?

 Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Kawasaki and  Yamaha  stated that,  under EPA's proposal, completely  Iden-
tical  exhaust  systems  from two model years  can not be Interchanged.  Yamaha
suggests  a  labeling scheme where  the  label  for  the  muffler would contain  a
simple certified number to match a control  number on  the motorcycle.  Kawasaki
suggested that  a  code,  which  the muffler and motorcycle would have  to match
be  placed on the  labels  rather than the  model year.  Suzuki  objects to  the
requirements for  Including the model year on  the exhaust system label  since
the muffler could be used for several years.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Kendrick Engineering,  MCM Manufacturing,  Jardlne  Header,  Hooker Indus-
tries, and  Gemini  Tube Fabrication  all  expressed concern  that  the labeling
requirement for Including  model year will  build In obsolescence and the cost
of  replacing the  labels would be excessively burdensome.   Storage and Inven-
tory costs will  also be high.

     Hooker Industries  and Jardlne  Header suggest using  the manufacturer's
catalog to  label  exhaust  systems by using codes matching the manufacturer's
name and Identification number. These catalogs  could also contain Information
regarding the exhaust system's applicability  with Federal law.

     Gemini  Tube  Fabrications  suggests  an  approach  which would  label  each
exhaust system with a model number and specify  product  compliance through  the
product verification report process.

     Nelson  Industries  commented that "a  superior approach would be to develop
a procedure for determining the  effectiveness  of the exhaust system required
In  terms  of the exhaust  noise contribution  on  the  motorcycle.   Replacement


                                 5-4

-------
exhaust systems  would  then  be  required to  meet  this performance  level  and
could  be  used  on  any  past,  present,  or  future  motorcycles requiring  that
degree of silencing."   The proposed regulation regulates the exhaust  system
"in terms of the motorcycle noise which is produced with that exhaust system.
This is inappropriate for a number of  reasons:

    "1)   From  a technical  point  of view,  it is  a very
          insensitive measure of  exhaust  system  effec-
          tiveness.The exhaust  noise  contribution  of
          modern motorcycles  is often only a relatively
          small   portion  of the  total  noise.   Thus, large
          changes  in  exhaust  system  effectiveness will
          have only  (a)  small  effect  on the overall  motor-
          cycle noise.

    "2)   In  addition,   small  changes in  other  sources
          on  the motorcycle may offset significant  changes
          in  exhaust noise.   Thus,  evaluation of  exhaust
          system effectiveness  will  be  very  imprecise
          and dependent on other sources remaining  constant."

This  would  eliminate the problem  of  relabeling  exhaust systems  for  use on
motorcycles brought  out  in  suceeding years that have  only changed  slightly or
not at all.

     Maremont Research  and Engineering, a manufacturer of automotive  exhaust
systems,  expressed   concern  for  exhaust system obsolescence.   Maremont  men-
tioned  the  difficulties  which  will develop when  muffler  numbers  have to be
revised each year for new models.   Inventory problems will  intensify.

     Trade Association Comments

     AESMC  and  MIC  expressed concern  for identical mufflers which  can not be
used on different model years solely because they have different dates  labeled
on them.

     MIC  states that "labeling  of  replacement  systems with model  designations
of their  own  and specifying certification  compliance by  written submission to
EPA would eliminate  costly stock obsolescence  or the inefficient  and possibly
inaccurate relabeling of  inventories."

     ANCMA  suggests  that the  "exhaust system  should be marked with  vehicle
manufacturer  identification  mark, and a reference number, which identifies the
specific  exhaust system.  The  same number  shall be reproduced  on  the vehicle
 label.   In  the case of non-original exhaust systems, the words 'Not Original'
 and the name or identification mark of the exhaust system manufacturer should
be added  to  the reference number."

Response;

      EPA agrees that the proposed  labeling requirements could have  caused some
 exhaust systems to  become  obsolete for use  on future motorcycle models.  The
Agency carefully considered all the comments;  and  as a result, the model year
 requirement   in  the  labeling provisions  for exhaust systems   has  been  elim-


                                   5-5

-------
Inated  1n  the  final  rule.   However,  the Agency is requiring in the final  rule
that  exhaust system  manufacturers  include  on  the  label  the noise  emission
standard  of the motorcycle  that  the exhaust system  is  designed  to fit.   By
identifying  both the  applicable  noise  emission  standard  and the  motorcycle
model  on  the label,  the  Agency does not believe  identification of  the  model
year  is necessary.

      Therefore,  this labeling  scheme  will  make  it  possible for earlier  de-
signed  exhaust  systems to  be  installed on future motorcycle  models  provided
that  they do  not cause  those motorcycles  to  exceed Federal noise  emission
standards.

5.4   STATIONARY SOUND LEVEL LABELING REQUIREMENTS

Issue;  Will the  stationary sound level labeling  procedures require assembly-
        line shutdowns?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Suzuki commented that  the Stationary Sound  Level  (SSL)  labeling require-
ment will result in assembly line shut-down  for periods of time so that labels
can be ordered with the SSL for that production run.   Suzuki  believes that SSL
information  can be  most effectively  reported  and  disseminated  in  writing.
Harley-Davidson concurs with Suzuki  and  states that  the production scheduling
and  storage  problems created  while  labels  are being  ordered  is  untenable.

Response;

     EPA  has eliminated the  requirement  for  motorcycle manufacturers  to
conduct  F50  stationary tests  in the  final  rule and  as a result  motorcycle
manufacturers and exhaust system manufacturers will  not be required to include
stationary sound level Information on the label.

5.5  PLACEMENT OF LABEL

Issue;  Can labels always be placed in readily-visible positions?

Comments;

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA contends that in many cases, particularly for mopeds,  scooters, and
off-road  vehicles,  1t will  be impossible to locate the  label  so that 1t  1s
directly visible.

Response;

     EPA does not foresee any problem with  placing  labels in  a readily-visible
position.  The  motorcycle  exhaust system is sufficiently large  to maintain a
label the  necessary  size  to meet the wording requirements in the regulation.
Where  the exhaust  system  is  totally enclosed, the  label  should be  placed
on the  exhaust  system at the  location  that  would  be first visible  when  ser-
vicing or replacing the exhaust system.

                                  5-6

-------
     Placement of  the  motorcycle label  in  such positions as on  the forward
frame  supports  or on the  front  forks would satisfy the  label  placement  re-
quirements if the label  could be readily seen.   Manufacturers  can also meet
the motorcycle  label  requirements by consolidating the  label with  other
government labels  provided  that  the  label  meets the  labeling  provisions  of
this regulation.

5.6  AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS

Issue:  Will  labels affect the aesthetic appearance of the motorcycle and its
        exhaust system?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Kawasaki stated that  excessive labeling  on the exhaust system should be
avoided since it constitutes a major element of motorcycle styling.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Jardine  Header and  Alphabets  Custom  West both  fear  the  aesthetically
destructive  effect the  labels  would  have on muffler  design  and  consumer
acceptance.

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA and  BPICM contend  that  the  amount  of label information will make
the  labels  incompatible with  the sizes and forms of the majority of exhaust
systems.

     MIC  states  that  the excessively wordy labeling exceeds a  "practical  and
aesthetic threshold of  consumer  acceptability on  a product  as small  and
dependent on  attractive styling as a motorcycle exhaust system."

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The  Pennsylvania  Motorcycle Dealers'  Association stated that the  labels
required  on  the  exhaust  system  should not distract from the styling  of  the
product.

Response;

     EPA  believes that  manufacturers  can place labels  in  positions which will
not  adversely affect  the  aesthetic appearance  of  the motorcycle or exhaust
system.   The regulations  do not specify the  exact  location of the label  on
motorcycles  or  exhaust  systems,  thus  allowing manufacturers  to use  their
judgment  as  to where the  label  can be  placed  without  adversely affecting  the
appearance of their product.  The  regulations  only  require  that the label be
placed in a  readily visible position.   Since the label  wording  in  the final
rule  has  been condensed,  the size of labels can be reduced.  Thus, the  labels
should not be aesthetically  difficult to design  into the motorcycle or exhaust
system.
                                  5-7

-------
                          6.   ENFORCEMENT

6.1  STATUTORY AUTHORITY

j^ssue:  What  sections  of the Noise  Control  Act provide  authority for EPA's
        motorcycle regulations?

Comments;

     Trade Association Comments

     The  MIC requested that EPA  identify  the statutory provision which
supports each of  the  substantive sections of  the proposed  regulation.  Speci-
fically, the MIC stated that "The notice of  proposed rulemaking  indicates that
'these regulations are proposed under the authority  of Sections  3,  6,  10, 11,
13,  and 15 of  the Noise Control  Act  ...',  43 Fed.  Reg. 10840  (March 15,
1978).   This  generalized statement referring  to all regulatory  provisions of
the  Act is insufficient to clearly identify  to  all  affected parties the
specific  provisions  of the Act which support each  of the  substantive provi-
sions of  the  regulation. This specific  identification  is  required  as  a result
of the  90-day review  provision  contained  in Section 16(a)  of the Act  which is
specifically  limited to Sections 6, 8, 17, or  18 of the Act."

Response;

     The  commenter has referred specifically  to the supplementary information
provided along with the proposed rulemaking.  This  generalized statement  is in
addition  to specific citations provided  for  each  section of the  regulation.
After each  section in the regulation, a specific cite is given in parentheses,
identifying specific  sections of the  Noise  Control  Act  from which EPA derives
its  authority.  Where  a sequential  group of regulatory sections  have identical
citations,  a  single  citation  is  provided following the  last section in the
group.

6.2  RECALL AND CEASE  DISTRIBUTION PROVISIONS

Issue;  Are  EPA's  recall  and  cease distribution  provisions for  motorcycle
        noise violations  invalid,  illegal,  and  in excess  of  Congressional
         intent?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson  contended  that the  recall  provision  was beyond  Congres-
sional  intent and amounted to "overkill."  EPA's authority is limited to cases
where  such action "is  necessary to protect  the public's  health and  welfare"
and  only following  adjudicatory hearings conducted pursuant to the  Adminis-
trative Procedure Act.   The recall authority  proposed under Section 205.163
ignores these important  statutory restraints.

      Harley-Davidson  contended  that the  cease-to-distribute  orders cannot  be
promulgated under Section 6  of  the  Noise  Control Act and are beyond the Intent
of the  Congress.   Harley-Davidson  further stated that the cease-to-distribute


                                   6-1

-------
orders  violate  the  safeguards  built  into  Section  11.    Yamaha  and Harley-
Davidson believe that the cease-to-distribute  orders  are  overly broad.

     Yamaha contended that the section providing  for  the  recall of products  1s
overly broad in  light  of the statutory authority cited for it.  The enabling
legislation by omission implicitly removes the ability to recall.

     Suzuki commented that  something  is  basically wrong  with  this program  if
manufacturers develop  information for enforcement which  EPA  can  use against
them.

     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC,  with  Yamaha  and  Suzuki on record  as  supporting its  comments,
stated  that  "the  provisions for recall  of   non-conforming  motorcycles and
motorcycle exhaust  systems  are  unauthorized  and contravene the  spirit and
substance of the  provisions of  the Noise Control Act  and  that EPA's proposed
regulations authorizing  issuance  of  cease-to-distribute  orders are  invalid."

     Sections 205.163  and  205.174,  which give the  Administration  broad and
unlimited  authority  to recall,  are  not  authorized  nor  necessary.   Further,
Congress specifically considered placing recall  authority under Section
ll(d)(l) of the Act and rejected  it  in committee.  The United States Court  of
Appeals  for  the  District  of Columbia Circuit  has  pointed out  in previous
EPA cases,  that the  absence of language is meant  to have  significance.  Ethyl
Corp. v. EPA, 541 F. 2d  1,  22n, 41,  23,  cert,  denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976).   On"
Lorp.
this  I
      basfsT" the  MIC  requests  that Section  205.163  and  Section  205.174 be
deleted.

     The MIC contended  that  the prohibition contained in  Sections  205.157-10
and 205.168-11  are  in direct violation  of  Section ll(d)  of  the Act.   These
sections and to  some  extent  Section 205.174 "provide for  virtually  unlimited
discretion on the part  of the  Administrator  to issue orders requiring manu-
facturers to cease-to-distribute their products  in  the event of  a violation of
any one of the myriad of  regulatory provisions.  However,  none  of the regula-
tions require a determination that  issuance of  a cease-to-distribute order 1s
necessary  to  protect the public  health and welfare.'    Thus,  the proposed
regulations assert  authority  to issue cease-to-distribute orders even though
the products themselves  may  fully  comply with the  prescribed  maximum noise
emission levels."

     The MIC therefore  believes  that  the cease-to-distribute orders are
"punitive and coercive...and  not rationally  related to actual  violations under
the Act" and should be deleted.

Response:

     The Administrator is given  the authority to  issue  remedial orders under
Section ll(d) of  the  Noise Control  Act.  These  orders supplement the criminal
and civil penalties of Section ll(a) and will be Issued  only  after  notice and
opportunity for  a hearing.

     Recall and  cease distribution  orders are  an  example  of remedial orders
the Administrator could find  appropriate in certain circumstances.   Different


                                 6-2

-------
circumstances may  warrant remedial orders  other  than those described  in  the
regulation.   Examples  of  other  remedial  orders  which may  be  required  are
requiring  labels to  be mounted or changed  if  they  are  found  to be incorre'ct,
requiring  flyers  be sent  to  customers hanging maintenance  instructions,  and
requiring  manufacturers  to cover  certain repair costs.  The  Administrator is
given the  authority  to fashion remedial orders in  such situations to protect
the public health and welfare.

6.3  SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AUDITING

Issue;  Is SEA a necessary enforcement tool?

Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comment

     Harley-Davidson commented  that  EPA should not be  allowed  to order a SEA
unless  there is  reason  to believe  the manufacturer  is  not  in compliance.
Harley-Davidson saw  potential  for harassment  and further charges that  SEA is
clearly inconsistent with Congressional intent and that SEA places heavy costs
on the manufacturer.

     Honda stated  that SEA was not  needed.   The manufacturer  by simply sub-
mitting the  description  of its internal quality control plan  and data, would
meet  EPA  needs.   If necessary, EPA  could verify the validity  of the test by
checking  the manufacturer's  records  or  by  directly witnessing  the quality
control testing.  When EPA uses the  SEA inspection, it should review only the
manufacturer's  data  which  were used  to determine the label  values.   Honda
would also like to see  SEA studied  further before it  is made  mandatory.   To
Honda, there  is  sufficient incentive for manufacturers  to  have tight quality
control.

     Kawasaki charged  that SEA was  time consuming,  expensive,  and generally
burdensome.

     Suzuki  recommended  the deletion of  SEA since it  is extremely time con-
suming, expensive  and  unwarranted and it will only achieve  minimal benefits.
Further, Suzuki said that  it  would have difficulty running  the required tests
since it is currently using its test facilities to full capacity.  Suzuki also
believes that EPA has  sufficient  authority  under  Sections  205.159 and 205.170
to deal  with any problems  which  may arise  with new  vehicles  and new exhaust
systems.

     Yamaha  commented  that warrantless  entry and  inspection  appears  to fall
within  the proscription  against  unreasonable  search and seizure pursuant to
the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

     The regulations promulgated  by  EPA  appear  to be  deficient  in two prin-
ciple areas:   "First,  the regulations  in the  abstract  give the Administrator
unfettered discretion  in  the  quantum  of test orders which  may be imposed upon
a given manufacturer.  A quantitative ceiling incorporated  in the regulations
would tend to remove same from the orbit of being unreasonable.
                                  6-3

-------
     "Secondly, SEA's apparently can  be  ordered without any consideration as
to  cause.    Constitutional  considerations  based upon  reasonableness,  equal
treatment,  and  cause  indicate  that the Agency  cannot  arbitrarily order such
tests without a rational  basis."

     Trade  Association Comments

     The MIC,  with  Yamaha  and  Suzuki  on record  as  supporting its comments,
charged that  "the Administrator is without the  statutory  authority  to pro-
mulgate regulations  which  permit  warrantless  searches of  a manufacturer's
facilities."   The MIC-  objected to the  entry  and  inspection  provisions set
forth in Section  205.4  of Subsection  A,  since neither  statutory  nor judicial
support exists for such requirements.

     "Particularly germane to the foregoing rule of administrative law is the
fact  that  Section  555(c) of  the  Administrative Procedure  Act  specifically
governs the Administrator's actions under the Noise  Control  Act  and provides
that:

          'Process,  requirement of a report,  inspection or other
          investigative act or demand may  not  be issued, made,
          or enforced except  as authorized by  law.   5  U.S.C.
          555(c) (1970)'  (emphasis  added)."

     Congress  did  not delegate  any  authority  to enter,  search  and inspect
manufacturer's facilities under  the Noise  Control Act.   Further, warrantless
searches are in violation of  the Fourth  Amendment.   This has  been reaffirmed
by  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  in Marshall  v. Barlows, Inc.,   46 U.S.L.W.  4483
(May 23, 1978).                       ~

     The MIC further  contended  that "the proposed regulations regarding
selective enforcement  auditing and  the acoustical  assurance period as they are
applied to motorcycle replacement  exhaust systems have  no rational  basis and
are not supported by the economic data prepared  by the Agency."

     EPA has  not  established  "reasonable necessary  requirements" to warrant
the substantial economic  impact on the aftermarket industry.   "The failure to
establish this reasonable necessary requirement  has  in  the  past  been grounds
for  courts determining  that an  agency's  regulation can  not  be  upheld."
Further, the AAP  and  SEA requirements on the aftermarket do  not comply with
the President's directive to eliminate needless  regulations.  The MIC therefore
requested  that a  self-certification  process  be established  for motorcycle
manufacturers  and aftermarket  firms and  that the SEA and AAP  be  deleted from
the final  regulations.

     BPICM charged that  SEA is at  best,  an expensive program  and at worst,  a
totally useless one until more is known about it.

     The Specialty Equipment Maufacturers' Association recommended that SEA be
done  on a  single  sampling scheme.   Requiring a stationary test per day  seems
high.
                                  6-4

-------
Response:

     The Selective Enforcement Audit scheme (Sections 205.160 and 205.171) was
developed to provide EPA with an additional tool    to assess a manufacturer's
compliance during  production,  after  he has  verified  compliance on an  early
production vehicle.  It is designed to sample his production and allow EPA  to
determine with a  high degree of  confidence,  if his production is within
the required 10 percent acceptable  Quality Level  (AQL).

     Because SEA is  an  oversight tool,  its  use will  be primarily on manufac-
turers believed to  be  not  in  compliance with the standard.   Evidence  of this
noncompliance  may   be  unusually  high  production verification  noise  levels,
noisy field surveillance test results  or other knowledge  of a manufacturer's
improper compliance with the regulation.

    SEA's may  be  used  to spot-check manufacturers' compliance.   They can  be
used  to demonstrate that a manufacturer has been properly verifying his
production or to display improper test  work.  The number of SEA's will  be kept
to a  reasonable number  and  will not  be used  to harass a manufacturer  or as a
means of gathering unnecessary  data.

     The SEA sampling  plan  has  been  modified to allow for a more expeditious
completion of  each  SEA.   It uses  a single batch sampling plan instead of the
multiple  batch plan  used  in  earlier  EPA noise emission  regulations.   EPA
believes  this  change  to  be beneficial  and  less burdensome  to all  parties.
The  new  plan  does not place any additional  risk of  SEA failure on the manu-
facturer.

     Regarding comments  about  EPA's right to  warrantless  search and  inspec-
tion  of  manufacturers'  facilities, the Agency has changed  the regulation  in
accordance with the litigation judgement  in  the case of Marshall v.  Barlows,
436  U.S.  307  (1978), in which these rights were  limited.   The changes to the
regulations  limit  EPA's right to  inspect  the manufacturers'  facilities only
after obtaining the manufacturer's  consent.

6.4  CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Issue;  Is  the certification process for  the vehicle  and muffler an un-
        necessary burden to the industry and  EPA?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson commented that  the requirements for verification of the
stationary  level   label  are  both  unnecessary  and  statistically  impossible.
Harley-Davidson also stated that the use of ten percent AQL  should be  recog-
nized as a means of effectively reducing  the  published noise standards.

      Honda believed that  the  10 percent AQL  requirement  1s  sufficiently
stringent  to  assure compliance of all motorcycles with  applicable  standards.

      Kawasaki  understood and  appreciated the  necessity for pre-sale  certifi-
cation  1f the  health and welfare risk  of non-compliance 1s  sufficiently large


                                  6-5

-------
to warrant such action.  However, Kawasaki did not view this as the case with
the  motorcycle  noise regulation.   The  marginal  benefits that  might  accrue
are  too  small  for  the costs  involved.   The  PV  test is  time  consuming and
expensive.   In  lieu  of the elaborate PV, EPA should occasionally test at the
retail  level.    Besides,  the  penalties  which may  be imposed  under  Section
10(a)(l)  and Section ll(a) of the Noise Control Act  provide substantial
disincentive to prevent manufacturers from distributing noncomplying products.

     Kawasaki also pointed  out that voluntary compliance has been successful
in California.

     Suzuki  contended  that  the  compliance   regulations  are overly  complex
and  will  be difficult to enforce.  EPA  should concentrate on developing
regulations  which are  not burdensome  to the  industry   and  should  consider
a  self-compliance program  similar  to   the  National  Highway Traffic  Safety
Administration.   A  self-compliance program  would  greatly  cut  down  on the
additional  paperwork,  which  Suzuki  estimates  will  run from  13  to  15 pages,
that  will  be  necessary to certify each motorcycle's noise  emission  level!
Further, manufacturers  can  gain no  benefit  from  under  or over  reporting the
motorcycle's sound  level and EPA should have  a "mechanism for relieving
manufacturers from liability  in the event that  they  make an inconsequential
mistake -- for example, in a reporting requirement."

     Yamaha commented  that the 10 percent AQL should  be increased to 40
percent in  order  to  save costs  and to  be consistent  with the Agency's  other
regulatory  schemes.     Yamaha  would also  like  to see the  Agency conduct an
informal workshop to  investigate the possibility of combining portions of the
air  emission,  safety,  and noise regulations to ease  costs  and  simplify the
programs.    Yamaha also recommended that manufacturers submit a  copy  of the
test report  for all  testing  conducted pursuant to Section 205.160 by airmail
within 72 working hours after  such testing is completed.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Gemini  Tube  Fabrications  and  Hooker  Industries  were concerned  over the
burdensome  costs  associated  with annual  verification.   Gemini  Tube Fabrica-
tions recommended that  once  a  system has  demonstrated  compliance,  it should
only have  to be  reverified if there is a design  change.   Hooker Industries
thought that exhaust  systems should be  certified by groups.  Reporting of the
results should  be done  to  EPA  prior to  product distribution but EPA approval
should not be required before distribution.

     Gemini  Tube  Fabrications   reminded  the  Agency that  it  is  dealing  with
small businesses  that have  limited  resources.   A streamlined simple approach
should be  takened.    Annual  certification is  too burdensome and redundant.

     RJS Engineering  commented  that the government should assume the costs of
the compliance and certification processes.

     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC commented  that the proposed certification tests and enforcement
techniques will discourage most small  domestic businesses from  attempting to
comply.   "Greater consideration  needs to be  given to the cost and logistical


                                  6-6

-------
burdens placed  on the  replacement  exhaust system  aftermarket  manufacturers
due to  the proposed certification testing  and  administration requirements."

     Dealer/Distributor  Comments

     The Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers'  Association  recommended  replacing  the
manufacturing-level  vehicle  certification  and labeling  program with an  EPA
spot-check system  that  would test  new motorcycles  offered  for sale at  the
retail level.   "Any model  that  did  not meet the prescribed standard would be
subject to recall,  retrofit, and  a  freeze  on  further  sales.   This  should
be sufficient deterrent to encourage manufacturers to  comply with noise
emission standards.    This  approach,  when preceded by  the  establishment of
reasonable noise  emission standards  and  simple noise  measurement  criteria,
would be effective as  the certification approach and much more cost efficient.
The aftermarket industry could comply  by  certifying  to the eventual consumer
that their products meet  the federal  standards  for specific  models.  Recall,
retrofit and  sales  freeze penalties  would  apply equally  to  the aftermarket
industry."

     The present process of certification  places an unreasonable burden on the
industry and consumer.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The Pennsylvania Trail  Riders'  Association commented that the  labeling,
testing,  and  reporting  requirements  are  too  cumbersome  and   inflationary.

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr. Thomas  L.  Geers, Ph.D. also  recommended  testing products  once  they
are  on the  market.  If need be,  they can  be recalled if proven in non-
compliance.  This would  eliminate the  large amount of  paperwork  required  with
the compliance standards.

Response;

     Production Verification  (PV)  is intended to  force manufacturers to
demonstrate compliance on  early production motorcycles,  before they are
distributed in commerce.  EPA does not consider  the amount of  required testing
to  be excessive, as  motorcycle  configurations  can  be grouped  together  into
categories.   EPA does not consider the reporting requirements  burdensome, as
Agency  experience with  other  industries  operating  under EPA noise emission
regulations  has  been  favorable.   PV is therefore retained in the regulation.

     The  Selective Enforcement  Audit  (SEA)  procedure  is  to be used  as an
additional check on manufacturers, not as  a verification of  compliance  at the
point  of   original  sale.   Because it  is  used  primarily as  a means of  spot-
checking  manufacturers'  ability to  comply,  production  verification is  still
necessary  to assure systematic,  organized reporting of compliance.

      The  Agency  also  intends  to  perform  field  surveillance  testing  as an
additional  check on manufacturers'  compliance.  This surveillance may be
performed  at retail  stores or on motorcycles already  in use,  with  consent of
the owners.
                                  6-7

-------
     The combination of PV, SEA, and field surveillance  testing should provide
an  effective  enforcement program with  minimum  burden to motorcycle manufac-
turers.

     The Agency  does  not intend to use a  self-compliance program of enforce-
ment at  this  time.   In  future  years, after the regulation has been effective
for  a  number  of reporting cycles,  the  reporting  requirements may be reduced
and  the  enforcement  program  modified to rely more on manufacturer  self-
compliance.

     The Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)  of 10  percent  is consistent with other
EPA noise regulations, (New Medium and Heavy Trucks  (40  CFR Part 205, Subparts
A and  B),  Truck-Mounted  Solid  Waste Compactors  (40 CFR  205, Subparts A and F)
and  New  Portable Air  Compressors  (40 CFR  Part  204,  Subparts A  and  B).  The
Agency has no plans to change the AQL  to 40 percent.

     The Agency  considers  other regulations,  when  it  develops a noise stand-
ard.   Air emission and  safety regulations are examined  and  compared  to the
noise  emissions  regulation to  minimize redundancy  and  waste.   However,  the
Agency does  not plan  to  attempt  to  combine  all  regulatory efforts  into  a
single package.  Greater efficiency results from EPA consultation with other
Agencies rather than total integration of   regulations.

     Sections 205.160-5  and  205.171-7 require that  reports  of SEA testing be
submitted  within 24 hours  of  the  conclusion of each  24 hour period.   The
Agency believes  this rapid reporting time  is  necessary  to properly monitor an
SEA and the provision  is retained as proposed.

     A number  of comments were  received  from moped  and exhaust system manu-
facturers saying  they will be inordinately burdened by  the verification
requirements.   In  response to  these comments, the Agency has determined that
it may be  possible  to  grant  a  substantial  amount of carry-over of production
verification data,  from year  to year.  This will reduce  manufacturers' testing
requirements substantially after the  first year in  which the regulations are
effective.  Mopeds and exhaust  systems which comply with the standard and have
not been  modified  between years would  be  most eligible for this carry-over.

6.5  STATIONARY SOUND  LEVEL METHODOLOGY

Issue:   Should the procedure for determining  the stationary sound level value
        to be  placed on the label be revised?

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson commented  that EPA should  assume the role of developing
a stationary test standard.  However,  if the  current procedure is maintained,
the statistics on the  label should represent  the 99th percentile of the class
SSL.    Harley-Davidson contended that  the 90th percentile  stationary  sound
level   labeling  statistic is  unworkable  and  normal  statistical  distribution
alone  makes a valid  90th percentile determination unrealistic.  Harley-
Davidson  contends that "labeling to the 99th  percentile of the class average
stationary sound  level   would  provide a  high degree  of  confidence  that  any
vehicle exceeding that label  value would have either been modified or deteri-
orated.  Therefore, for  an in-use label enforcement, Harley-Davidson proposes


                                 6-8

-------
that EPA  accept a  label  value equal  to the  mean of the  stationary sound
level + three  times the standard deviation of the test population (x +  3).
The manufacturer would  determine this  population  mean  and  standard devi'ation
in much the  same manner as proposed in the regulations.  Data would  be  sup-
plied to EPA prior to introduction into commerce.   Harley-Davidson feels  that
label verification  as proposed  in  the NPRM is an unacceptable  burden,  espe-
cially in  view  of  the fact that the manufacturer  is developing  the label  for
EPA to  apply in other  areas, such  as  in-use  and  aftermarket certification."
"The means exists  for the  EPA to maintain control of the labeling process by
exercise of the Selective  Enforcement Audit procedure.  However,  the method of
evaluating  label  compliance must  be changed because  of  the  demonstrated
statistical  problems with  the scheme  proposed  in  the  NPRM.   Harley-Davidson
suggests that  the  label would comply if  at least 10 percent of the vehicles
tested  during  the   SEA  were within 1.0  dB  of  the  mean noise  level  used to
establish the label value  (x + 1.0 db.)."

     Harley-Davidson  believes that  the  "proposed  scheme  for   labeling  may
well place the manufacturer in a questionable legal position.   The implicit
requirement  is that some significant percentage of production must  be produced
in  such  a way  as  to  fail  a Federal stationary test.   This failure will not
only be detected by EPA on vehicles prior to  delivery,  but  some  failures  will
also be  'caught1  by local  enforcement  authorities.   It is  certainly a ques-
tionable  government practice to compel  a manufacturer  to  produce a product
intentionally  designed  to violate  local  laws.   This  requirement places the
manufacturer  in an  untenable position,  damages   its  reputation  and  may be
illegal."

     Suzuki  recommended that the  mean value  plus  three dB be  used  as the
enforcement  value.   This  corresponds roughly  to  the mean value plus 3  indi-
cating  about 99.9  percent of the motorcycles will  pass the stationary test.
This  value can be  used by enforcement officers  as  a  pass/fail  value.    This
will also  reduce the need  for testing a large  number of motorcycles.

     Current EPA requirements state that manufacturers should test at  least 30
vehicles  using the 90th  percentile  value.   Suzuki  believes similar  results
could be  obtained at  the 50th percentile,  which  would only  require  four
vehicle tests,  a reduction of seven times.  The 30 vehicle  limit will  require
assembly  shutdowns  during  the time vehicles are to be tested and labels are to
be ordered.

      "Manufacturers cannot  incorporate  such  a shutdown into the  production
process.   For  this  reason,  stationary sound levels values cannot be labeled on
the vehicle and  must  be  reported to  EPA in  writing."  The  levels can be
 included   in the  operator's manual which enforcement  officials  will  use to
test.

      Further,  Suzuki pointed out that the 90th  percentile value may serve as a
 guide  but it  cannot be used as proof since by definition,  10  percent of the
 vehicles  must  exceed this  level.

      Yamaha commented that "The  EPA proposal  requires  unreasonably  high
 accuracy   in the  stationary  sound  level  which is  not  correctable  with the
 acceleration test.   In spite  of  this difficulty,  EPA,  according to Section
 205.160-6(c),   is  able  to  reject  same as  being   'mislabeled1   and/or  in non-


                                  6-9

-------
compliance.   This situation places  unreasonable  complications upon the
manufacturers.

     "Yamaha  would  like  to recommend the following:    Stationary  Sound  Level
Tolerance  should  be +5  dB(A)  instead  of the  90th  percentile as  in  Section
205.160-2  'test  sample selection.1 The rationale  for same is due to the
inherent inaccuracies  in the ANSI  Type  II Meter."

     Honda  "would  like to  propose to  set the  stationary  sound level  as
described below."

     "As a  matter  of  course, the stationary sound levels  of  all  motorcycles
which have  statistically been determined  to  be  in compliance with the applic-
able moving test regulations should be regarded as proper,  passing stationary
sound levels."

     "Also  an allowance of up to 0.5 dB(A) is necessary because of variations
in the  degree of  the  accuracy of  reproduction of  steady engine speeds."

     "On the  other hand,  stationary sound  level  increases due  to tampering
with the  exhaust  system,  for which  the  stationary  sound test is  mainly de-
signed,  have been  measured  as follows for Honda motorcycles:

     "Diffuser removed:   +3 to +4  dB(A),
      Elimination  of the last silencer  chamber: +6 to +7 dB(A),
      Entire muffler removed: +20 to +25 dB(A)."

     "In these respects,  we (Honda) believe that a cut-point of the stationary
sound level which  should cover normal  ranges of  production noise variations,
and measuring errors and yet effectively  identify exhaust  systems  which  have
been tampered with may  be defined  as  follows:

                     (x + 2.0 + 3.0  dB(A)

     "The fact that the contribution  of the  exhaust  system noise  to the total
acceleration noise is  less  than 40 percent based  upon our test data minimizes
the impact  of noise caused  by any exhaust  system which  would otherwise  have
been rejected under the acceleration  test procedures."

     State and Local Government Comments

     The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality contended that  the  90th
percentile  value  stamped on  the  motorcycle  frame is  really an indication  of
the OEM  exhaust  system; thus, when  the OEM exhaust  system  is  replaced the
value loses its   usefulness.   The  Oregon DEQ recommended placing the  90th
percentile value on replacement exhaust systems also.

     The  Orange  County,  California  government  was  concerned over  Section
205.160-2(b) which allows 10 percent  of a test  batch  of motorcycles to exceed
the label stationary noise values.   Orange  County contends that  anti-tamper-
ing citations  issued  to motorcycle  operators  by state or  local  enforcement
officers,  could be  easily  contested  in court.  All a defendant would have  to
do is refer to the EPA regulation itself,  which  allows one out  of every ten
new motorcycles  to exceed  this  stationary  standard as  it  comes off the
assembly line.

                                  6-10

-------
     The National Association of Counties Research reported that the  "quality
control standard  is  too  lax.   If  one  in ten motorcycles  does  not meet the
noise standard, the position of the enforcement officer  is  seriously  weakened
if not untenable."

     Trade Association Comments

     The Specialty Equipment Manufacturers' Association  recommended "that the
sound values put on the labels  be selected at  the  99th or 98 percentile  level,
rather than the  90th.  This  will  reduce  the possibility of local  law  enforce-
ment agencies picking 'fudge factors'  that are too low.

     BPICM feel  that  "the provisions  for SSL are out  of  place in  view  of the
absence of  proven data  on  the correlation between  the  various  measurements
which will have to be made."

     ANCMA wonders  whether  the  correlation existing on  new  vehicles between
stationary and acceleration noise levels will  exist on used vehicles.

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr. David Wallis pointed  out  that  "according to EPA's standard,  approxi-
mately  ten  percent of  all   new motorcycles  will  exceed  the  stationary noise
level  on  the  label.   It  will  be  easy for law enforcement officials to inter-
pret the labels  as meaning that all motorcycles will not exceed the stationary
level  unless  tampering has  occurred.   Therefore, some  cyclists  will receive
citations  needlessly.    Some information should  be  included in the  label  or
the  owners's  manual  stating  that the  stationary noise  level  on the label
represents  the  90th  percentile  level  and that  some motorcycles  may  exceed
the  level by a small amount."

Response;

     EPA  has  eliminated the  requirement for motorcycle manufacturers  to
conduct  F50 stationary  tests  in  the final   rule  and as  a result motorcycle
manufactuers and exhaust system manufacturers will not be required to  include
stationary sound level  information  on the label.

6.6  TAMPERING

Issue;   Is  tampering  with  manufactured  products the  true  problem  causing
        unacceptable noise  levels  and not motorcycles  in  general?

Comments;

      Manufacturers'  Comments

      Kawasaki  and Harley-Davidson  both  expressed concern that regulating  new
motorcycles  would  not   solve  the noise  problem  which  is  caused by modified
motorcycles.   Harley-Davidson contended  that "no amount of  costs  heaped onto
manufacturers  and consumers" will  solve  the modified motorcycle  problem.  Even
though performance is not necessarily increased when modifying motorcycles, it
 is still  done.
                                   6-11

-------
     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Alphabets  Custom  West,  Florida  Cycle  Supply,  Jardine  Header,  and  RC
Engineering  all  pointed out  that the  true problem with motorcycle noise  is
caused  from  owner modifications or  misuse  of the  original  product.   Jardine
Header  contended  that owner modification will  continue to  exist  even though
new vehicles will be regulated.

     State and Local Government Comments

     The Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments,  the Los Angeles City
Attorney's office,  the  California  Office  of  Noise Control,  the  Gainsville,
Florida, Department of  Community  Development,  the  Florida Highway Patrol,  and
the San Francisco Police Department Noise Enforcement team all stated that the
true  problem evolves  from modified motorcycles.   The  San  Francisco  Police
Department Noise Enforcement team reported  that  75 percent  of the motorcycles
stopped were modified.

     The Los  Angeles  City Attorney's office,  the  Florida Highway  Patrol  and
the San Francisco Police  Department Noise  Enforcement  team stated that  the
difference  between  defective  and  modified mufflers must   be  distinguished.

     The California  Office of  Noise Control  suggested that  modified motor-
cycles  be identified  as  a  separate  source of noise and  given higher priority.

     Trade Association Comments

     The ANCMA,  BPICM,  the Berliner and  Premium Motor Corporation, the MIC
and the Specialty Equipment  Manufacturers' Association  all stated that  the
true problem of motorcycle noise is caused by owner tampering.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The following dealers and distributors  stated  that  tampering  is the true
source of noise problems and/or new motorcycles are quiet:

       Spokane Suzuki               Ohio  Motorcycle  Dealers'  Assn.
       Kawasaki Midwest            TRI-ONDA
       West  Valley Cycle Supplies   Honda of  Ocala
       Kelly  Bros.  Cycle Parts     Western Kawasaki
       Performance Sales Assoc.,    Tramontln Harley-Davldson Inc.
         Inc.                       Maryland  Motorcycle Dealers'
       Texas  Motorcycle Dealers'      Assn.
         Assn.                     Athens Sport Cycles,  Inc.
       Dudley Perkins  Co.          Blackwater Van & Cycle Supply
       Phil  Peterson,  Harley-       Munroe Motors
         Davidson Dealer           Doty's Motorcycle World,  Inc.
       Wholesale Supply            Honda of  Terre Haute
       Honda  of Ft.  Walton          Godfrey Custer,  Motorcycle
       Harley-Davldson of            Dealer
         Valdosta                  Fay Myers Honda
       Kelly's Cycle Shop          Wisconsin Motorcycle  Dealers'  Assn.
       Maryland Cycle  Supply
                                    6-12

-------
     Motorcyc1e Interest  Group Comments

     Road Rider Magazine  stated  that  more research  was  needed to  determine
what types of  motorcycles  are  being modified and  the  characteristics  of the
individuals who install modified systems.  Without such  information,  it will
be difficult to solve the real noise problem.

     The  following   interest groups  expressed  the  view  that  tampering  was
indeed the true problem which EPA should  address itself to:

        ABATE of Michigan          Motorcycle Product News
        AMA                        Central Florida BMW Motor-
        Harrisburg MC Inc.            cycle Owners
        Rider Magazine             Pennsylvania Trail Riders'
        AMA Great Plains  Dist.  33    Assn.
        BMW Motorcycle Owners      Freedom Riders  MC
          of America                Jersey Motorcycle Assn.,  Inc.
        Cross Island MC            ABATE of  Maryland

Response;

     It was  recognized at the time of  identification that much  of the current
impact  from  motorcycles  comes  from  owner-modified motorcycles (particularly
those  with  ineffective  replacement  and  modified  exhaust  systems).   Studies
indicate, however, that, unmodified  motorcycles, if  not regulated, will
become  the  single  loudest  source  of  traffic  noise when  other vehicles are
quieted as part of EPA's  program to reduce traffic  noise  impact.

     The  Agency studies  have confirmed that controlling exhaust system modi-
fications  is an essential  part  of  any strategy designed to  lessen the  impact
of  motorcycle  noise  on  the public  health   and welfare.   The  "modification"
problem consists of two parts:  owner alterations  to original  equipment
exhuast  systems (tampering); and the availability  of replacement systems  with
poor muffling  performance.   Motorcycles  which  are modified by either  method
can  be  as  much as 20 decibels  louder  than motorcycles  in stock  configuration.
Noise  levels of such vehicles are  higher than those  of any other (unmodified)
road transport vehicle type.  It  is conservatively  estimated that  nationwide
some  12 percent  of  street  motorcycles,  and  approximately 26 percent of  off-
road motorcycles currently have exhaust  systems  that have  been modified
by  one or the other method.   That  reducing exhaust system modifications  in
addition  to  lower noise emissions for new motorcycles is essential  to  reducing
the  overall  impact of motorcycle noise  is illustrated by the fact that a 50*
reduction  in the number of  exhaust-modified motorcycles would  accomplish the
same reduction in impact as lowering new motorcycle noise  levels by  10 deci-
bels.   Although no  accurate method of prediction  has  been  identified  by EPA,
the  Agency  estimates  that  eliminating the  availability of  loud,  ineffective
systems  could decrease the  incidence  of  exhaust system modification  by
half.
                                  6-13

-------
 6.7   PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING

 Issue:  Are stiff penalties needed to prevent tampering violations?

 Comments;

      State and Local Government Comments

      The  California  Highway Patrol  commented that stiff fines should exist to
 prevent tampering  and  it believes that enforcement  can  be proven to be cost-
 effective with fines and citations.

      Orange County,  California also  suggested ticketing loud motorcycles as a
 method to deal with modified motorcycle noise.

      Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

      Alphabets Custom  West,  and  Jardine  Header expressed the  belief  that if
 fines were levied for excessively loud modified systems, then such occurrences
 would decrease.

      Trade and Interest Group  Comments

      AESMC,  the  American  Motorcycle Association, Point  Loma Chapter  of the
 American  Association  of Retired Persons,  and Citizens  Against  Noise Trespass
 all commented that fines for tampering are in order.

 Response:

      State and local enforcement authorities are encouraged to enact penalties
 for  violations  of  the  motorcycle  and  motorcycle replacement  exhaust  system
 noise regulations.  This  assures  a  wide  coverage of  enforcement of the in-use
 acoustical  assurance period  requirement   and  the anti-tampering provisions.

      As an  aid  to State  and  local   authorities,  each  motorcycle  must  display
 two labels which may be  used  to determine compliance.   One, on the motorcycle
 frame, identifies  the motorcycle manufacturer,  class, and  advertised  engine
 displacement.  The other  label  exists  on  the exhaust system, and must  contain
 the same model specific code as that of the motorcycle on which it is mounted.
An enforcement officer  need only compare the two to verify  that the  exhaust
 system is proper for the particular motorcycle.

6.8   PUBLIC AWARENESS PROGRAM

 Issue:  Should the public  be  educated  about the  tampering  problem  and  how to
        deal  with it?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson believed that the submission of a list of acts of tamper-
ing will 'educate1  the owner and may, in fact,  cause more tampering.   A simple
statement against tampering is sufficient.


                                  6-14

-------
     Yamaha argued  just the  opposite  point.   Yamaha favors  the  concept of
providing materials which educate the  consumer  and dealer as to what in fact
tampering is and the consequences  associated  with  It.

     Kawasaki  supported the MIC's efforts to aid  local enforcement efforts to
educate  the general  public and  to  motivate operators  towards achieving the
goals of quieter motorcycles.  Kawasaki does  not want  to  tell  customers not to
modify their motorcycles by listing  tampering violations.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Alphabets Custom West believes that providing information  about  perform-
ance  and respective noise levels  will help  persuade  the consumer not to
tamper.

     Serve-Equip,  Inc.  recommended  that  dealers  and  distributors be  provided
with  a  booklet  outlining and simplifing the mass of data in  the regulation.

     State and Local Government Comments

     The  Illinois  EPA,  Orange County,  California,  the Gainsville,  Florida
Department  of  Community Development,  the Florida Department  of Environmental
Regulation, and  the  Maryland  State  Police all  believe that  a public  awareness
program  is needed to support the regulations.

     NACOR  also  supports and  recommends  a public  education  for both  citizens
and law  enforcement officials.

     Trade Association Comments

     The MIC  commented that a greater degree  of education and  technical
assistance  for  law enforcement  authorities  and  support for  a dealer  and  rider
awareness  and behavior modification program  is needed.

      Dealer/Distributor  Comments

      The Dudley Perkins Co.  suggested that  an  attempt be made to  educate and
inform  customers of the noise problem;  but  Spokane Suzuki  doubts  if EPA will
ever  be  able to  control  tampering.

      Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

      Road  Rider  Magazine suggested  that  EPA confer with the Motorcycle Safety
Foundation in regard to education  about motorcycle  noise  and the  impact any
education  effort may have.

      The American  Motorcycle Association and  its Florida  District  A stated
that  an  education program should  be  developed  to inform  the  public  of the
tampering  problem.

      Public Interest Group Comments

      The  Environmental  Law   Society  believes  that Section  206.173-2  of the
proposed regulations does not  provide "adequate protection  against  tampering


                                  6-15

-------
 by  purchasers or  retailers.    Although such  tampering  would violate  42  USC
 4909(a)(2)  according to the  regulation's  proposed  warning against tampering,
 no  penalty is provided for  such  violation."   The  Environmental  Law Society
 urged  EPA to  strengthen this provision by providing the necessary penalties.

 Response:

     The  Agency believes  that  the  anti-tampering  provisions as  now written
 (Sections  205.162-2 and 205.173-2)  allow  for  adequate monitoring  of possible
 acts of tampering.

     The  provisions required manufacturers  of new motorcycles to  submit  for
 EPA  approval,  a  list of possible  tampering  acts  and to  include  these acts in
 the  owner's  manual as  a  warning to  consumers  regarding those acts  which
 constitute  potential tampering.   The   provisions require  aftermarket exhaust
 system manufacturers to  warn  consumers  that  any  modifications  made  to  the
 replacement  exhaust system  causing the  motorcycle  to  exceed the  standard
 would  constitute tampering,                                                  '

 6.9  STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT

 Issue:  Will  there  be  any benefits  from the Federal  regulation  without state
        and local enforcement?

 Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson, Kawasaki,  MAICO,  Suzuki, and  Yamaha all  commented that
 state  and  local  enforcement is  crucial  to  the  ultimate effectiveness  and
 success  of this  regulation.  Without   it,  the noise  problem will  continue
 resulting in no health  and welfare benefits.                                 *

     Kawasaki   further  pointed  out  that if  there  are some manufacturers  who
 can,  through   lack  of  enforcement,  continue  to  sell products  which do  not
 properly  comply,  they  will  be  able to  gain  a cost  benefit and  possibly  a
 performance benefit depending on the product.

     As MAICO  stated,  "anything a manufacturer does cannot solve  the problem
 of tampering."   Local  enforcement is elementary to  the  success of this regu-
 lation.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Alphabets  Custom  West,  Gemini Tube Fabrications,  Hooker  Industries
Jardine  Header,  MCM Manufacturing,  and   RC   Engineering  all  contended  that
without effective enforcement,  the tampering and hence the noise  problem will
continue to exist.

     Gemini Tube  Fabrications  believes that  no further  reduction  in  noise
 levels should  occur without first proving that  effective  enforcement exists at
the current levels.
                                   6-16

-------
     Jardine Header  and Alphabets  Custom West  expressed  concern that  some
small shops will  continue to  produce and sell noisy exhaust systems and warned
that these businesses will  be hard to control.

     RC Engineering commented that the  local  level is where the problem is and
where it must be  solved.

     State and  Local  Government Comments

     Close  cooperation  between  local,  state,  and  Federal  officials  will  be
needed to  effectively enforce these regulations, according to the Washington
Metropolitan Council of Governments, and  the California  Highway  Patrol.   The
Hillsborough County  Environmental  Protection  Commission  stated that  EPA's
regulations provide a good  working tool for local enforcement.

     There  does  remain  a  problem  of arriving  in time to  catch the  noise
violators, according to the Los Angeles City  Attorney's  office,  and the
Hillsborough  County  Environmental  Protection  Commission.    The  Washington
Metropolitan Council  of  Governments  also pointed out that, "we're dealing with
unlicensed drivers operating  unlicensed vehicles."

     Local  law enforcement  agencies  have priorities other than noise enforce-
ment according to  Orange County,  California.   The Hillsborough Environmental
Protection  Commission stated that there  is  a fear of  being labeled "police
harassment" when  enforcing  noise  standards.

     The  courts  will  eventually  play  a role  in  the effective enforcement of
noise standards.   The California  Highway Patrol commented that it  seldom,loses
when it goes to  court to prove noise violations, but the Gainesville, Florida
Department  of Community Development  stated that problems arise when trying to
provide evidence  in  support  of  a citation for noise violation in court.  The
Florida  Highway  Patrol  has  been taking  a noise  level  reading  of violative
motorcycles  to  court as evidence  to  prove  their  cases.  However,  the City
of  El  Segundo,   California warned that the  attitudes  and  interpretations of
judges determine the effectiveness of  any  enforcement effort.

     The  Maryland State  Police expressed  some  doubt that  the  Maryland
legislature would be receptive to adopting a law to  enforce  the  Federal
government's requirements.

     Trade  Association Comments

     ANCMA  and BPICM pointed out the  absolute need for  effective enforcement
of  the  laws at the  local  level.   The MIC charged that EPA was more concerned
with the technical compliance  detail than with  the  sociological  aspects
of  owner  behavior  and lack of community enforcement activities.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     The  Wisconsin Motorcycle Dealers' Association stated that  "some Federal
involvement in the setting of standards  is  necessary.   However,  in  the final
analysis  it will  require  education  and  encouragement  of  the  motorcyclists
combined  with  local enforcement efforts to  effectively  control  motorcycle
sound  emissions."
                                  6-17

-------
      The following  dealers  and distributors  believe  that without  state  and
 local  enforcement of  the  proposed regulations,  EPA's  noise program will  be
 ineffective:
      Honda  of Ft. Walton         Honda of Ocala
      West Valley Cycle Supply    Western Kawasaki
      Performance Sales Assn.,    Cycle Sport Unlimited
        Inc.                      Tramantin Harley-Davidson,
      Kelly's Cycle Shop            Inc.
      Texas  Motorcycle Dealers'   Honda of Terre Haute
        Assn.                     Pennsylvania Motorcycle
      Ohio Motorcycle Dealers'      Dealers' Assn.
        Assn.


      Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

      Cycle  World Magazine stated that police departments do  not spend a  lot of
 time  enforcing  noise  regulations  today and, along with Tumbleweed MC Club of
 Brockton, Inc. and Rider Magazine. Cycle World Magazine believes that enforce-
 ment  is still needed with current laws.

      Public Interest Group Comments

      The  Environmental  Law  Society   recommended  that EPA  present  state  and
 local governments with recommendations for specific enforcement procedures  and
 ordinances.

      The National  Retired Teachers Association and the American Association of
 Retired Persons stated that  state and local  enforcement will  depend  on  effec-
 tive  Federal action.

      Citizens Against  Noise Trespass and  the  630 Club  stated that current
 efforts by state and local  enforcement authorities must improve.

 Response:

     The Agency expects a 56% reduction in impacts due to  this regulation even
without State and local complementary programs.   Also,  the Agency anticipates
 that  this Federal rulemaking will prompt  similar  complementary  regulations  at
 the State  and local levels.   Enforcement of  these  regulations will be made
 simpler as  the  labeling requirements and other  enforcment-related provisions
of this regulation become effective.   With vlgourous  1n-use enforcement  at  the
State and local level,  combined with Federal noise performance standards  for
replacement exhaust systems,  EPA  estimates that in areas where State  and local
enforcement programs are implemented, the level of motorcycle  exhaust modifi-
cations may be reduced to approximately one  quarter of  their  current numbers.
This  would  result  1n a  projected 77% reduction  in  motorcycle noise Impact!
EPA anticipates  devoting a  significant  amount   of  effort,   under  the  Quiet
Comnunlties Act of  1978, to assistance  to State and  local  agencies in ori-
ginating and enforcing  their  own noise control  programs.
                                  6-18

-------
6.10  FEDERAL SUPPORT

Issue:  Are Federal subsidies needed at  the  state  and local level to support
        noise  enforcement  activities,  and  should EPA  commit  resources  to
        assisting communities to  prepare and implement effective enforcement
        procedures?

Comments:
     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Harley-Davidson suggested that EPA promote  effective  local enforcement by
educating and training governing bodies,  the judiciary, and enforcement
personnel as well as developing model  codes and  ordinances.   It should also be
noted that  there is a  lack of  support for committing local funds to support
noise programs.

     Kawasaki  suggested that  EPA  seek amendments to the Noise Control Act to
obtain  subsidies  to support state  and  local  enforcement  activities.  Yamaha
also suggested that financial assistance is necessary to  help state  and  local
enforcement.

     MAICO  suggested  that  EPA give law  enforcement officials  a device  which
would record  instant readouts to  determine  noise levels.   Dealers  should also
have this  device.   The current test  methods  are too  dangerous and  subject to
weather conditions.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Jardine  Header contended  that a  "strong  federally-funded  in-use enforce-
ment  policy  is  essential  to the  success of  any  motorcycle noise control
program."

     State  and Local Government Comments

     The  Washington  Metropolitan  Council  of  Governments  pointed  out  that
current  local  and state enforcement activities  are  extremely limited.   Orange
County,  California,  the Gainsville,  Florida  Department of Community Develop-
ment, and  the  Florida Department of Environmental Regulation all  mentioned the
need  for  Federal  funding,  training, guidelines,  and  technical  assistance.

     Funds  are needed  to  purchase sound  level  meters,  according to the Los
Angeles  City  Attorney's  office,   Orange County, California, and  the  Florida
Highway Patrol.

     The  Florida Department of Environmental  Regulations  recommended that EPA
undertake   a  study  to  develop a  national strategy  for  motor  vehicle  noise
enforcement.

     The  Maryland State Police stated that a relatively simple test requiring
only one  person  would be the  ultimate solution to the local  and state enforce-
ment needs.
                                   6-19

-------
      The  National  Association of Counties Research commented that the Issuance
 of "final regulations on motorcycles before local governments are educated as
 to their  role may be  counter-productive.   NACO has  gone on record 1n support
 of Senate bill  S.3083 which gives  EPA additional  funding  for strengthening
 local  programs.   This effort is essential  to educate elected officials, train
 and equip noise  officers,  and  to  develop  model programs  for all  sizes  of
 cities and counties.   If this effort  is  not made,  the  effectiveness  of the
 program is severely  limited  and  it will be  harder  to  gather support several
 years  from now for enforcement of  regulations  which have been "on the books"
 and ignored by local  government.  The Federal government must also be prepared
 to conduct research  into the effects of noise  pollution,  provide information
 and technical  assistance to  local  governments, and  provide  grants  to states
 and local  governments  Identifying sources of noise pollution.

     Trade Association Comments

     The  MIC   stated  that EPA should commit  a  large staff  and  financial  re-
 sources to the task of assisting community 1n-use enforcement.

     The  Specialty Equipment Manufacturers' Association  recommended  that EPA
 prepare training films and books to  use  in training police officers.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group Comments

     The  Pennsylvania Trail  Riders' Association  recommended that EPA develoo
 model  state legislation to deter tampering by owners.

     The  New   England  Trail  Riders'  Association  reminded  EPA of  the current
 lack  of manpower,  equipment, expertise, and  in some cases  desire,  for noise
 enforcement at the state  and local level.

 Response;

     EPA,  under  the  Quiet Communities  Act of  1978  (PL 95-609;  November  28
 1978)  has  set  in  place a grants  administration program which provides finan-
 cial  assistance  to State and  local  organizations to aid  them 1n or1g1natina
 and  enforcing  their  own  noise  control  ordinances.   The funds  for  these  pro-
 grams  are limited,  however,  and are  intended  primarily  to help  initiate
 general community  noise  control ordinances.  The greater part  of  contlnulna
motorcycle noise  enforcement program will  remain the responsibility  of state
 and local officials.

6.11  SOUND METERS

 Issue;  Will  there be  inconsistencies  1n  enforcement,  because sound
        differ?

Comments:
     The Maryland  State  Police stated that Inconsistencies exist  between  the
Type 1  and  Type  2 sound level meters which will be used.  To  be  accurate  and
fair, enforcement  officers  would need two  pieces  of equipment but  they will
have  the  additional  burden of  determining which  equipment  should be used
for enforcement action.
                                  6-20

-------
     Mr.  Ralph Hillqulst, P.E. stated that "Paragraphs  (a)  (1)  of  Appendices
1-1 (b) require that the sound level measurement system meet the SIA require-
ments  of  American  National  Standard Specification  for Sound  Level  Meters,
SI.4-1971   (R1976).   This  1s  unnecessarily restrictive, Inasmuch  as  special
purpose Instrumentation  Is  neither required  1n this  circumstance or  even
readily available.  By specifying only that the sound level meter or measure-
ment  system meet the  Type 1 requirements or  ANSI SI.4-1971, the desired
accuracy Is ensured, SIA Instruments are permitted,  and more importantly, all
Type 1 Instruments currently in  the  user  inventory can be utilized."

Response:

     The proposed regulation required that a Type 2 sound  level meter be used
1n the stationary test and  a Type 1 meter  be  used 1n the moving test.  In the
final  regulation,  there  is no  longer  a requirement to perform a stationary
noise  test; therefore, a Type  2 meter is no longer necessary.  Type 1 meters
are  to be  used  for all  noise measurement made by both  original equipment
motorcycle and exhaust system manufacturers.

6.12  STATE STANDARDS FOR COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

jssue;  Since  EPA has  not  proposed  to  regulate competition motorcycles, are
        the states free to regulate them?

Comments;

      The  Oregon  DEQ requested  that "EPA  specifically address  the issue of
Federal preemption  of  new  product standards,  and state  whether  or  not,  in its
opinion,  Oregon  can place  new  competition  motorcycle noise emission standards
on manufacturers."

Response:

      EPA  has  decided that  Federal  noise standards  are  not the  most effective
way to deal  with  the problems  associated  with  competition  motorcycles.
Rather, 1t 1s  EPA's  intention that State and local  agencies determine the most
effective  method to deal with  individual  situations.   In  support of State and
local  efforts,  however, EPA  regulations require that  all  competition  motor-
cycles be clearly labeled  as such. This requirement should not preempt  State
and local  agencies from  regulating  noise emissions from  new competition
motorcycles.

6.13  AMENDMENTS TO MOTORCYCLE NOISE RULE

 Issue:  Will   the clarifying amendments of  the   December 5,  1977 Federal
"~Register be carried over to the motorcycle  noise regulation?

 Comments;

      The  MIC  stated that  "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.


                                  6-21

-------
     "Our  Initial  review of  the  proposed motorcycle noise  regulations  Indi-
cates 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 Tegulati ons."

Response;

     Many of the clarifying amendments  and  changes  stipulated  in the Chrysler
litigation [Chrysler  et  al. v. EPA,  600  F2d 904 (D.C.  Cir. 1979)]  have been"
incorporated,  where   appropriate,  into the final  motorcycle  noise  emission
regulation.  Please  refer to  the  Item-by-item list of changes  to  the  motor-
cycle regulation,  found  in  the  Preamble,   for  a  brief  discussion  of  these
changes.
                                  6-22

-------
                         7.  AAP/SLDF

7.1  NEED FOR AAP/SLDF

Issue;     Are the AAP and SLDF requirements necessary?

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Yamaha  and  Kawasaki  said  that the  AAP/SLDF  concepts were  reasonable.
Yamaha further stated  that  It  was reasonable to verify  products  against  the
performance  standard.   Suzuki  said  that  the AAP/SLDF requirements were  un-
necessary since  newly  manufactured  motorcycles  do  not experience  significant
noise degradation.  Suzuki  also maintained that there will be no benefit from
AAP/SLDF  since the  noise  problem is due  to  modified motorcycles  rather than
unmodified motorcycles  whose  noise levels  have degraded.

     State and Local Government  Comments

     The Los Angeles City attorney stated  that the AAP provisions will protect
the consumer.

     Trade Association Comments

     BPICM  found  it  difficult  to  resolve  the contradiction  between  EPA's
stated  belief that the noise level  of  a properly maintained motorcycle will
not degrade  and the introduction of AAP  into  the proposed regulation.

     The  New England  Trail  Riders'  Association  commented  that  the AAP  is an
excellent  idea  which  will  eliminate the problem  of continually rebuilding
poorly designed muffling systems.

Response;

     EPA maintains  the view  that the AAP provision  is required to adequately
protect  the  public's health and welfare.   Without this provision,  the benefits
of the  regulation could be  severely reduced.   If the noise control features
of a product are not  designed  to be durable over  time  and the noise charac-
teristics of regulated products  degrade  significantly after the  sale of  the
product, no substantial health and welfare benefits  can result  from  the
regulation.

     As  EPA  has stated  previously,  no  significant degradation  has been
evidenced with  motorcycles currently  being manufactured.   However, many
motorcycle manufacturers will be making design changes to their  products to be
 in compliance with the  regulations.    The AAP merely ensures  that  these
changes  are  made such that they  are durable over  a reasonable  period of  time
 so that maximum health and welfare  benefits can be obtained from the regula-
tion.   There are, unfortunately some components of motorcycles  where degrada-
tion can and does occur.  The AAP addresses this problem.

      EPA 1s  not dictating that  a  product's  noise level  cannot  deteriorate
 during   its  AAP, but  rather  merely requiring  that it  not  deteriorate above


                                   7-1

-------
 the standard.   To  better assure that  products do  not deteriorate above
 the standard,  the regulation has  been changed  to no longer  require that
 manufacturers  compute a  Sound  Level Degradation Factor (SLOP); however,  the
 degradation  expected  to  occur  must still  be considered by  manufacturers.   The
 regulation  requires  that manufacturers  establish records  regarding  the  amount
 of  anticipated  noise  level increase.  The records may consist of statements of
 engineering  judgment, the results of durability testing or  other  information
 which  the  manufacturer deems  necessary to  support the  fact  that his  products
 comply with  the standard  for the AAP.

 7.2  LEGALITY OF THE  AAP

 Issue:   Is  an  Acoustical Assurance Period  within the  authority  granted  under
         the  Noise Control Act?

 Comments:
     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Tenneco  Automotive  and Maremont Research and Engineering  commented  that
the  AAP  is in  effect  a performance warranty which  the  Agency does have  the
power to implement under the Noise Control Act.

     Trade Association Comments

     The AESMC  opposes the  AAP concept  since  it  appears  to  exceed  the  author-
ity granted to  the Agency by the Congress in the  Noise Control  Act.  The AESMC
submits  that  the AAP  is  a performance  warranty,  because  if  the  AAP is  not
complied with  during  the  year that  it  remains  in  effect, the manufacturer
will be  deemed  to have  violated the  standard.  The AAP commented that  the  AAP
is in direct conflict with the legislative intent of  Congress.

Response:

     The AAP is not considered to be a performance warranty. However,  in order
to achieve the  benefits intended by Congress,  the AAP provision is  required to
adequately protect the public health and  welfare.  Without  this provision  the
benefits of  the regulation could be  severely reduced.   If the noise  control
features of a  product  are  not designed to be durable over  time and the noise
characteristics  of  regulated  products  degrade  significantly  after  the sale
of the product, no substantial health and welfare benefits can  result from  the
regulation.

     EPA considers the  authority  for promulgating the AAP  to be  implicit in
the Noise  Control Act.   In order to meet  the requirements  of  the  Act, it is
necessary  to  ensure  that  real and  lasting benefits  result from each  regula-
tion.   The AAP  is  an important and necessary provision of  any noise emission
regulation  for achieving such  lasting benefits.
                                  7-2

-------
7.3  COMPUTATION OF  SLDF

Issue:  Are more specific  criteria needed for determining the SLDF?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Honda suggested that because there is no specific test procedure for the
SLDF,  the requirement should  be  deleted. Honda further  stated uncertain
weather conditions  or component  changes  would  force them  to add  a  safety
factor to the SLDF in order to ensure  compliance with the regulation.

     Suzuki indicated that the AAP  concept  was  acceptable, but  the SLDF should
be delayed.  Suzuki  would find it helpful to have  the SLDF determined by using
motorcycles tested  in  the  air emission regulation durability data collection,
but,  Suzuki  admits   that  this might  be  difficult since the motorcycles air
emission categories  are different than the  noise categories.

     Yamaha stated  that  an unreasonable  testing  burden to  determine SLDF was
not warranted when  an  enforcement  provision  such  as the SEA is sufficient to
check a false verification.

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA and  BPICM commented  that the criteria  for SLDF  are  too subjective.
Specific  tests  should  be  developed,  according to ANCMA.   MIC indicated that
it  would  take  a year  of testing to determine the SLDF, which  is an  unaccept-
able  burden  on  the  manufacturers.    The  current  requirements  do not  provide
the  manufacturer with a  technically  defensible  method for  responding to an
enforcement action,  if the SLDF is  based on engineering judgment.

     SEMA  recommended that  aftermarket  manufacturers be  allowed   to  use  a
standard  SLDF   rather  than  having  to  test  each  motorcycle exhaust  system.

     APAA would  prefer in-use testing by EPA rather than the SLDF  requirement.

      State and  Local Government Comments

      Sound  degradation is no  problem if  mufflers  are made larger  and  steel
packed rather  than glass  packed,  according to the San Francisco Police
Department.

      Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

      Nelson  Industries is concerned  that  motorcycle  components other than  the
exhaust  system  may contribute to  a  SLDF  greater than  zero even  though  the
exhaust  system   alone  would  experience no  degradation.  This  could  result in
the replacement  exhaust  system being  determined inadequate with  respect  to
degradation when the degradation  is due to other motorcycle  components.
                                   7-3

-------
 Response;

      Developing  and  implementing  long-term durability  testing  could move  back
 the  effective date  of the  regulation  by  several  years.    The  cost  of  such
 a  program as  well  as  the  substantial  delay  in  achieving  benefits from  the
 regulation  does  not,  in  the EPA's  opinion,  constitute a cost effective  ap-
 proach to minimizing  the  noise level  degradation of regulated products.

      The  EPA did  request  comments concerning  the desirability of design
 criteria  for  exhaust  systems.   The  response  from manufacturers indicates
 preference  for  the AAP concept rather  than design  criteria.  Thus,  although
 larger  and  steel packed   mufflers  would  produce less  noise degradation  than
 glass  mufflers,  this  is  a  design  criteria,  and  left  to the manufacturer's
 discretion.

      Any product found  to be in noncompliance with the AAP would be thoroughly
 evaluated by  EPA to  determine  the factors  contributing  to non-compliance.   If
 the  replacement  exhaust system is  not  a factor in  the non-compliance of  the
 motorcycle,  the  replacement  system manufacturer  would not be  in violation
 of the  noise emission standards.

      Computation  of   a  Sound  Level  Degradation  Factor  (SLDF) is  no  longer
 required.  Please refer to the discussion in comment number  7.1 for details on
 this change.

 7.4  DURATION OF AAP

 Issue:    Should the duration of the AAP be changed?

 Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Honda recommended that the length  of the AAP for street  bikes  be  one year
 and  a varying  number of kilometers, depending on the size of  the  motorcycle
 For  off-road  bikes,  the length of  the  AAP should be time-related only since
 they  usually do  not  have odometers.  Honda further  stated that the AAP should
 be consistent with the useful life of the product under  the exhaust  system  air
 emission regulations.

     AMF noted that  mopeds  do  not   usually  have  odometers  and therefore  the
 mileage requirements for the duration of the AAP would  not apply.   However,  if
 EPA does go with the  AAP distance requirement,  AMF  recommended 500 to 1000 km
 as appropriate for mopeds.

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA commented  that  different  categories of motorcycles travel different
distances per year and therefore should  have different mileage  limitations  for
the AAP.   ANCMA  recommended 200  km  for  mopeds,  3000 km for motorcycles  less
than  250cc,  and  5000  km  for motorcycles over  SOOOcc.   BPICM  concurred with
ANCMA1s recommendations, and  said that  these  results  were  obtained from  the
manufacturers' workshop experience.


                                  7-4

-------
     State and Local  Government  Comments

     The Illinois EPA  believes  that the AAP  should  be  longer than one year.
The California Office of Noise Control  would  like  the AAP to be extended to be
commensurate with the  current industry warranty  coverage  which  is 10,000 km
or 6,000 miles.  Orange County,  California  indicated  that the  short AAP period
proposed would encourage the  manufacture of  products which would soon exceed
the  standards.  Also,  a  person  receiving  a  noise citation for  a motorcycle
that has  gone beyond  the AAP could conceivably  use this  fact  as a success-
ful  defense  in court.   A more reasonable  requirement  would be  one year or
12,000 km.

     NACOR recommends the expansion of the  AAP to  one full  year and 12,000 km.
Making  the standards more  strict will lighten the responsibility of law
enforcement officers.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Gemini Tube Fabrications stated that the AAP period of one  year or  1,865
miles is an excessively long test  period for aftermarket manufacturers because
they do not have access to  the various  motorcycle  models for this  period  of
time.

Response;

     In  determining  the length of  the Acoustical Assurance  Period,  EPA  took
into account  the magnitude  and  conditions  of use of these products, the best
maintenance attendant  to noise control, and the cost of compliance.  If a high
quality  product  is  well maintained, significant  degradation  should  not  occur
over the  expected  life of  the  product.   However,  EPA does  not consider
it  reasonable to hold  the manufacturer responsible  after the  expected time of
the  first  significant  repairs.  Beyond this,  it should  be the owner's respon-
sibility  to ensure  that  the noise levels  do not increase due  to inadequate
maintenance or component degradation.

     The  length  of  the AAP  is specified  in terms of both time and mileage for
motorcycles or mopeds  without odometers.   Further distinctions  between motor-
cycles  because of displacement  does not appear to  be warranted.   The AAP for
mopeds  will be the same  as that for street motorcycles.

7.5  COST  OF  AAP  AND SLDF

 Issue:   Are the  costs  of determining the AAP  and  SLDF too high?

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Suzuki  expressed  concern  that  it  is  extremely  expensive  to  test each
motorcycle configuration for  a  SLDF.   Also, the administration of  the AAP will
 be costly because it will involve  many hours  of explaining that the  AAP is not
 a warranty covering  any problem remotely related  to  noise.
                                   7-5

-------
     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Gemini Tube  Fabrications,  Hooker Industries, Jardlne Header, and  Nelson
 Industries were all concerned about the high costs of meeting the  AAP  and  SLDF
 requirements.  Gemini indicated that a small aftermarket manufacturer  does not
 have  the resources necessary  to  determine these  sophisticated measurements.
 Gemini  and Jardlne  both  indicated  that  determining the  SLDF  would require
 some guesswork.

 Response;

     To  ensure that manufacturers  develop  and apply durable noise reduction
 measures  to  their products, the Agency  established  a specific period  during
 which newly manufactured products must,  as  a  minimum requirement,  comply  with
 the Federal standard.   If  a product complies  with the standard  during the AAP
 period,  it is  unlikely  that the noise emissions  will degrade (increase) above
 the standard for  the remainder of  the expected  life of  the  product,  provided
 that the product is properly maintained and used.

     The  SLDF  requirement   has been deleted from  the regulation. The  record
 keeping  requirements which  remain,  are minimal  and  a part of  normal product
 development.  The costs associated  with  these  requirements are  likewise
 minimal.

 7.6  SSL AND SLDF RELATIONSHIP

 Issue:  What is the  correlation between  the Stationary Sound Level (SSL)  and
	   the SLDF?

 Comments:
     Trade Association Comments

     The ANCMA commented  that  if degradation occurs it will certainly  result
in a change  in the  Stationary  Sound  Level.   It  is not  clear how  the  SLDF will
be considered  when determining  the  SSL label  value  on the new motorcycles.

Response;

     Both the stationary  sound level  and SLDF requirements have been deleted
from the final  regulation.

7.7  AAP AS A DESIGN CRITERION

Issue:   Should  the AAP  be based on  more  specific requirements,  such as
        design  criteria?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson indicated that EPA  should avoid any design criteria  for
AAP/SLDF.  Harley-Davidson was also concerned  that since the SLDF regulation
is vague, manufacturers would be forced to conduct extensive test programs to
determine the noise level  over a  wide  range of  operating  conditions.
                                  7-6

-------
     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Jardlne Header stated  that 1f EPA would  like  to eliminate glass packed
mufflers,  "that  Is  one thing," however,  to  require an AAP  1n  an  attempt to
eliminate glass packed mufflers  "Is quite  another."

Response;

     The AAP  1s  not a design criteria nor 1s  1t directed to eliminating any
particular design of motorcycle or exhaust system.  Its primary purpose Is to
ensure that whatever  design or component 1s used does  not degrade such that
the product does not meet the standard for  a reasonable amount of  time.

7.8 AAP ALTERNATIVE

Issue;  A  durability  test  simulating  the actual usage  and wear  of  exhaust
        systems should be developed and used  in place  of AAP.

Comments;

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr. Thomas  L.  Geers, Ph.D  recommended eliminating the AAP and replacing
1t with  an acceleration  test  procedure that  stimulates 6000 km of motorcycle
usage.   "The  durability  requirement  would reduce to the  satlsflcatlon of the
fundamental noise emission  standard  at the end, as well as  at the beginning,
of the acceleration test.

Response:

     The  difficulty  of  obtaining a  safe and  economical  acceleration test
prohibits  the possibility  of  establishing   such  an alternative to  the AAP.
Such a test procedure would be expensive  to conduct.  The  motorcycle Industry,
In general,  strives to produce long lasting,  durable products by using com-
ponent parts  of high quality and  designs which can withstand extensive use,
and with  the  exception of glasspack  mufflers,   the  majority  of  these  products
will not  degrade significantly  1f  properly used and maintained.  As  such, It
would be  inappropriate to set up an Indiscriminate requirement that  manufac-
turers conduct such a test.
                                  7-7

-------
                         8.   MOPEDS


8.1  THE LEGALITY OF REGULATING MOPEDS

Issue:    Can mopeds be legally regulated?

Comments:

     Trade Association Comments

     The Moped Association of America critiqued EPA's action concerning  mopeds
and reviewed  the  Noise Control Act of 1972. The Moped Association  of America
found  that "only  if a  product  is  identified  as  a  'major source of  noise'
either  alone  or  as  part of  a class,  or  if  its  regulation is  'requisite  to
protect  the public's  health  and welfare' is there  statutory authority for the
imposition of noise emission standards with respect to that product."  EPA has
not identified  mopeds as a  'major source  of noise'  either individually or as
part  of  a  larger  class,  nor  has it found that regulating mopeds would benefit
the  public's  health  and  welfare.    Within EPA's  own literature, mopeds were
stated  to  be "relatively quiet"  and were  found to  "typically  have low sound
levels."   The  MAA  submits  that  a  desire to  prevent  future  tampering with
mopeds  is  insufficient  reason to  justify regulating the product under  the
1972  Act.

      In  addition, the background document or  any  other  administrative  record
fails to justify  EPA's  fears regarding the future  impact of  mopeds in this
country.  There  is  no proof that the European experience  is  applicable
in the U.S.

      Finally, the laws of 33  states preclude  the  likelihood of a competitive
atmosphere conducive to  increased performance goals.

      When  EPA can verify that  mopeds are a major source of  noise, then it will
be time  to impose regulatory limits.  Now the administrative burden and costs
do not justify  the benefit to  the public.

Response;

      EPA believes  that  it  has the  authority  to  include  mopeds  in the final
Rulemaking.   Section  5  of  the Noise Control  Act  gives  the Administrator the
authority  to identify  "classes of  products"  as  major sources  of  noise, but
does  not require  that each subpart  of the  class be identified.  Motorcycles as
a class  were  identified under the  authority of Section 5(b)(l)  of the Act as a
major source  of noise on May 28,  1975.   The identification of motorcycles as a
major source of noise was based on  the total  impact  of motorcycle  operations.
The   identification  did  not  specify which types of  motorcycles or motorcycle
operations were responsible  or further define at that time all  of  the  various
vehicles which  are included  in  the class of  vehicles  known  as motorcycles.
Whether mopeds  can be considered to be covered by this  identification  depends
upon  whether mopeds  can  reasonably  be  considered  to fall  into  the motorcycle
class.
                                   8-1

-------
     States  refer to  mopeds  as  motorized  bicycles,  bicycles with  helper
motors, class "C" motorcycles (New York),  and simply  as  mopeds.  The ISO noise
standards r.efer to mopeds as "motorcycles" with an engine capacity which does
not  exceed 50 cc's.   The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)  refers  to mopeds as  motor driven  cycles  with specified  limits  on
maximum  speed,  horsepower,   and  engine displacement.   However,  "most mopeds
cannot be  considered truly  pedalable  because of their heavy weight (100 Ibs.
compared to 20 to 40 Ibs. for  bicycles) and  extremely low gearing which means
the rider has to pedal  fast  and hard"  (Consumer  Guide Magazine).

     The pedals and ottier special attributes, such as a top  speed of 25 to 30
mph  and  a  maximum engine power rating of 1  to  2  hp, are designed to qualify
the moped  for less restrictive operator licensing restrictions, nominal state
registration fees, and  exclusion  from  otherwise  mandatory helmet and insurance
requirements.   By function, they  are small  motorcycles with  limited engine
displacement.  For these reasons,  the  Agency  considers mopeds to be a class of
motorcycles.

8.2  COMPLIANCE WITH  MOPED REGULATIONS

Issue;  Should mopeds  be regulated or, at  a minimum,  have  their compliance
        standards lowered?

Comments:
     Manufacturers'  Comments

     AMF and Motobecane oppose the regulation  of  mopeds  for noise.  Mopeds are
viewed  as  noiseless  vehicles  which do  not  contribute  to the endangerment of
the public's health and welfare.

     AMF  said  that mopeds  are not  motorcycles  and should  be treated  as  a
separate issue with its own comprehensive approach.  Mopeds are quiet, and EPA
did not  list  them  as  a major  source of noise.  It seems to be regulation for
the sake of regulation.  Yamaha also stated that mopeds  have not been identi-
fied as a major source of noise.

     Although AMF can  meet  the 70 dB level, the manufacturer points out that
it still must face the compliance  burden.

     Motobecane commented that EPA should be satisfied with a yearly certifi-
cate  issued by the  manufacturer stating  the sound level  of the  vehicle
Motobecane has stated that it  is willing to  mark  the exhaust silencer with the
noise  level  Yamaha  points  out  that the  potential for  tampering  with mopeds
does exist and for this reason, Yamaha  is "willing to incur the administrative
costs to effectuate the overall scheme of regulations."  However, Yamaha also
points out that the  people who purchase mopeds are not  likely to tamper with
the vehicle.

     State and Local  Government Comments

     The Oregon DEQ believes mopeds should be  labeled with the stationary test
decibel level to facilitate enforcement.
                                  8-2

-------
     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA, BPICM, Du Motocycle,  and  the  Moped Association of America do not
favor regulating  mopeds.   They are not  a noise source  and  tampering is not
expected to be a problem.

     BPICM  stated  that the  exhaust  system  and  vehicle could  be  labeled to
verify compliance to enforcement personnel.

     The Moped Association of America  contends  that  regulating mopeds  will not
create any  environmental  benefits. EPA  should  exempt mopeds from the regula-
tion  and  undertake  a  study to  determine if  mopeds will  be  troublesome in
the  future.   The  Moped  Association  of America  also  points out  that  state
limitations on performance and power  serve to keep moped noise down.

     If  EPA desires  to  regulate  mopeds, the  Moped Association  of America
recommends simple annual letter of certification  from each manufacturer  rather
than the complicated compliance scheme proposed.

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr. David Wallis stated that  EPA's rationale to regulate mopeds  was weak
since mopeds  are  motorized bicycles  and not motorcycles.   They have  not been
listed  as  a major source  of  noise,  and that,  even  if  their numbers  increase
this does not indicate their noise will.

Response:

     EPA considers mopeds  as  a  part of  the motorcycle class which was identi-
fied  as a  major  source of  noise  on  May  28,  1975.  Accordingly,  the  Agency
believes  that mopeds  should be  regulated  (See  the Response  to  Issue  8.1).

     Although most  new mopeds  are quieter  than  other  new motorcycles  during
acceleration, their  noise levels  are  comparable  to  new  motorcycles during low
speed  cruising  because the moped must operate  at  or  near full  throttle  to
maintain its top speed of  25 or 30 mph.  The average A-weighted noise level  of
current  new larger motorcycles at a  cruising  speed of 25 mph  is  about  68  dB
while the  level  of  7 mopeds that were tested,  at their maximum speed of 25  to
30  mph  varied from 60 to  74  dB (based  on a 50  foot microphone distance from
the  vehicle's path).  Notably, the average new automobile has an average noise
level  at  a cruising  speed of 25 mph of only  61 dB, significantly  lower
than the average moped or  larger motorcycle.

     EPA has  identified a  day-night sound level (Ldn)  of  55  dB as the
environmental noise  level  below which no  significant adverse impact on public
health  and welfare  occurs.   The Agency  desires  from  a health  and welfare
perspective to  quiet all  noise sources  substantially below the 70 dB level  in
order  to  bring about  an  acceptable  environmental noise level.    Standards
have not been  set  this  low in regulations for  trucks  and other sources only
because  of the  limits of available  technology  and the  cost  of  compliance.
Although  new  mopeds  may be quiet compared to new trucks,  EPA does not believe
                                  8-3

-------
that  new  mopeds should  be permitted to  have increased noise  levels  in the
future  especially  when there  are no costs (other  than  the small  cost of
showing compliance  to  EPA) associated with  meeting  the 70 dB standard.  All
mopeds  that  have  been  tested by the Agency  which  are being sold in the U.S.
easily comply with the standard.

     In Europe  where  mopeds are much more  common  than in the United States,
mopeds with  ineffective exhaust systems contribute significantly to the motor
vehicle noise problem.   This noise problem can be attributed  to the removal of
mufflers  to  make the  moped engine  sound more  powerful  and the  failure to
replace faulty  exhaust systems.   EPA believes  that  the European experience
with mopeds, similar in many respects to  the current  motorcycle  noise problem
in the  U.S., is  also likely to  be repeated in this country  as the  moped
population continues  to grow.   An aftermarket  company is already marketing
parts and services  to  increase  moped horsepower and  performance.  A substan-
tial market  for  such  performance  products as racing  exhaust  pipes for mopeds
can be  expected.  The  use of such exhaust systems can  increase  vehicle noise
levels  by as much  as  20  dB.    Modified mopeds  would be considerably noisier
than  larger  motorcycles  meeting  the  noise  standards.    Because  mopeds are
likely  to be operated  on  local residential  streets  and  in back yards where
ambient noise levels are  lower  than more highly trafficked  areas, such modi-
fied mopeds would stand out especially strongly  and would  likely cause  severe
annoyance to the residents.

     However, if mopeds  and moped replacement exhaust  systems are regulated,
sales of  replacement  exhaust  systems designed  specifically  to  increase the
noise levels of mopeds will be curbed.   Without such  a regulation,  sales of
these noise  producing  products  could be  expected  to continue to grow as the
moped population  increases,  and similar  problems caused by noisy replacement
exhaust systems  for  larger motorcycles would result.

     In the absence  of a Federal rule for  mopeds  and  moped  replacement exhaust
systems, the resources required by State  and local governments to counter the
moped noise  problem could  be substantial.   By including mopeds  in this rule-
making,  State and local governments will  receive significant  benefits even if
they take no further steps.  With  this rulemaking,  coupled  with anti-tampering
efforts by  State  and  local officials, a  serious moped noise problem in this
country could be substantially  avoided.

     The  specified  administrative requirements  in the  final rule  for mpped
manufacturers to show  compliance  with  the standard are the same as for other
motorcycles.   However,  the Agency expects to reduce  the yearly  moped testing
requirements for many  moped manufacturers by liberally  allowing  carry-over of
previous  years'  production verification  test data.    The  liberal carry-over
policy will  be applied for  those manufacturers whose  mopeds  have noise  levels
well below the not-to-exceed standard.  A number of  manufacturers are expectd
to demonstrate  this qualification in the first  year after implementation of
the rulemaking.
                                  8-4

-------
8.3  INFLATIONARY IMPACT  OF  MOPED REGULATION

Issue:   Will  the proposed regulations  inflate the price of mopeds?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     AMF is  extremely  concerned about  the  inflationary Impact of  the moped
noise  regulation,  especially  since EPA has  no evidence  of a moped noise
problem nor a  cost-benefit analysis of the  regulatory effect on mopeds.
     AMF forecasted  the following cost impacts:   $100,000 for the initial year
and $35,000  to  50,000  annually  thereafter  for  production verification, test-
ing, reporting,  sound  level degradation testing,  product  assurance testing,
and vehicle labeling.

     Even though AMF's Roadmaster moped is below the 70 dB, AMF cannot escape
the administrative costs mandated by this  inflationary regulation.

     Trade Association Comments

     Du  Motorcycle   and  ANCMA  commented  on  the  inflationary nature  of the
regulation.   As ANCMA points out,  the costs  of compliance and therefore the
expected  increase  in price would represent a  high percentage of the  present
vehicle cost.

Response;

     EPA  does  not  believe  the  final  regulations  will  inflate  the price of
mopeds.   All  mopeds that have been tested by the Agency which are  being  sold
in the U.S. easily comply with the  standard.

     The  only  cost for moped  manufacturers  is the  small cost  of showing
compliance  to EPA.   The  compliance costs  could be further reduced  since the
Agency  expects  to   allow  liberal   carry-over  of  previous  years'   production
verification  test data for  manufacturers  whose mopeds have levels  well  below
the 70 dB standard.

8.4  MOPED TESTING REQUIREMENTS

Issue:  Will  it be  possible  to find  a test  site for    mopeds  that  has an
        acceptable  ambient  noise level?

Comments;

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     AMF  contends  that  it will be extremely difficult to get a  background
noise  level  at  a test site 10 dB  below  the  noise emission of a 63 dB Road-
master moped.   The  siting and construction of a moped test site,  together with
weather-related restrictions,  makes  moped  noise testing extremely difficult
especially  since mopeds  are not a noisy product.
                                  8-5

-------
Response:

     Those  moped  manufacturers that  find  it difficult  to locate test  sites
with acceptable  ambient  noise levels will  be allowed  to test  with the  micro-
phone  at  7.5  meters  from the  vehicle path,  rather than 15 meters specified  1n
the moped test  procedure and  subtract a correction factor of  6  dB from their
measurements.  Since the tested noise levels would then be higher, the problem
of finding  a test site with an ambient 10 dB below the regulatory level  should
be effectively eliminated.

8.5  MOPED  SOUND LEVELS

Issue;    Is the noise emission standard for mopeds too stringent?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Motobecane commented  that not  all  of  its  models can reach  70  dB.  The
fastest models go as high as 72 dB.

     Yamaha supported  73 dB  as  the not-to-exceed level.   The Initial   70  dB
level 1s too strict in light of the lead time offered.

     Trade Association Comments

     ANCMA, BPICM,  Du Motocycle,  and the  Moped Association  of America all
support 73 dB as the regulatory level for moped  noise.

     ANCMA  stated  that  73  dB was  far  below the noise  levels  of  all  other
vehicles and 1s in line with the corresponding European regulations,

     BPICM  and Du Motorcycle commented that  because EPA's  test methods  differ
from the  European Regulation  9 method, moped  noise  standards  will  be more
strict in the U.S.  than in Europe.

     BPICM  contends  that  the difference  between 70  dB and  73 dB  produces
infinitesimal  benefits but at  very considerable  costs.

     The European levels (measured by the European method) are between  73 and
74 dB.   If  the EPA regulation  is  73 dB,  the U.S.  standard will still  be below
the European  standard.   Furthermore, 1n Europe  there  1s a 1  dB  tolerance  1n
relation  to the theoretical  limit established and  a 2 dB  margin  between
working vehicles and new vehicles.

     The  Moped  Association  of America  Indicated  that  although  its  member
companies can meet  the  70  dB level, the  margin is very  close.   One  member
company has asked that the noise standard be 73  dB, especially  in  light  of the
fact that the proposed 1985 limit  for street motorcycles is 78  dB.
                                  8-6

-------
Response:

     EPA does not believe that the  noise  emission  standard  for mopeds  is too
stringent because all  the  mopeds  that have been tested by the Agency which are
being sold in the U.S. easily comply with the standard. The costs are reason-
able  since  moped manufacturers  will have  to only  incur  the  small  costs  of
showing compliance to  EPA.

     In addition the Agency believes that the standard is compatible with the
European standard taking into account the differences in microphone distance,
vehicle operating  procedure, and  enforcement  and production tolerances.
                                   8-7

-------
                          9.   GENERAL

9.1  PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE LAWS

^ssue:  Will this  regulation preempt state and  local  motorcycle noise  laws?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments
     Suzuki  favors  Federal motorcycle  regulations,  because  the states  have
been legislating without technical analysis.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers' Comments

     Oardine  Header states that  Federal  standards preempting  existing  state
and  local  noise limits are necessary  to unify the national  motorcycle  noise
control  program.    Kendrick Engineering concurred with this  view,  especially
since each state requires a different test procedure.

     State and Local Government Comments

     The Los  Angeles City Attorney's office and the California Office of Noise
Control expressed concern that EPA's levels would preempt California's levels.
The  Los  Angeles  City Attorney's  office asked why MIC  was willing to lobby for
75 dB in California yet settle for 78 dB with EPA's regulations.

     The Florida  Department of Environmental  Regulation  and the  Florida
Highway  Patrol  suggested  80   dB  for  a starting  level since Florida already
regulates  to 83  dB.

     The  Oregon DEQ stated that EPA's standards  are  not adequate since they
are  less  stringent  than Oregon's.  For  off-road bikes, EPA's  starting  level of
86  dB  is  also  not  favored since many  states  already  have noise standards in
effect requiring 86 dB.

     The Illinois  Environmental  Protection Agency also favored more stringent
 levels.

     Trade Association Comments

     The Specialty Equipment  Manufacturers' Association expressed the concern
of  many within  the industry, i.e., standards which vary from state to  state
 and  locality to locality  lead  to  inequities  in enforcement  and compliance
 difficulties for manufacturers.  "Having  a realistic  standard at the  national
 level  should eliminate these  problems."

      Public  Interest Group Comments

      The Lakewood  Civic  Association contends that EPA's regulation should be
 at  least as  strong  as current state  regulations.
                                   9-1

-------
Response:

     EPA has established motorcycle noise emission standards that will preempt
the  standards  for newly  manufactured  motorcycles and motorcycle replacement
exhaust  systems  adopted  by several  states,  to provide national uniformity of
treatment for controlling  motorcycle  noise.   Prior  to promulgation, EPA
conducted a thorough review  of current  state and  local motorcycle  noise
regulations  to  ensure  that the  final  Federal  regulation will  provide the
necessary tools to state  and local  governments for  effectively  reducing
motorcycle noise  impact.   The  Agency established noise emission standards for
newly manufactured motorcycles and exhaust systems which  it considered requi-
site to protect the public health and welfare.   These  standards were  set  after
the  Agency  conducted  comprehensive studies  taking into account the  magnitude
and  conditions  of motorcycle  use,  the  degree  of  noise reduction achievable
through  the  application  of  the  best  available technology,  and  the cost of
compliance.

     Under section  6  (e)(2)  of the  Act, State  and local  governments are not
preempted by  Federal  regulations  from establishing and enforcing controls on
environmental noise through  the  licensing,  regulation,  or restriction of the
use, operation,  or  movement of any  product  or  combination of products.   The
labeling  provisions  of this regulation  were also established  by  the Agency
in part to assist State and local  govenments.

     EPA strongly encourages state and local governments to adopt and enforce
laws and ordinances which complement and support the  Federal motorcycle  noise
standards.

9.2  AIR AND NOISE EMISSION COORDINATION

Issue;   Are EPA's noise emission  regulations  coordinated with  its air emission
        regulations?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments              *

     Harley-Davidson charges that  the  noise regulations are an uncoordinated
addition to  the  air  emission  regulations  which were imposed January in 1978.

     Harley-Davidson also suggests that the noise labels be combined with the
exhaust emission labels and read:

          "This  vehicle  conforms  to  USEPA  exhaust  and  noise  emission
          regulations applicable to	model year motorcycles."

     Kawasaki suggests that EPA  give some thought  to the placement of labels
on street models since the  'best1  label locations are  already filled by other
EPA and NHTSA labels.

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Alphabets Custom  West believes  that with  the adjustments  to mufflers
necessary just  to  meet the smog  standards,  the mufflers  will  become quiet.


                                  9-2

-------
     Kendrick Engineering  reported that  technical problems  exist with  air
emission  requirements,  and they will be further compounded by the  noise
emission regulations.

Response:

     The impact of EPA air emission regulations  for motorcycles was considered
by the Agency during  the  development  of the motorcycle noise emission stand-
ards.   During  this review, the Agency found  no evidence of conflict between
the two standards  and foresees  no technical  problems  with newly manufactured
motorcycles meeting  both the  requirements  for reduced exhaust and  noise
emissions.

     For those manufacturers that prefer combining the air and noise emission
labels  on motorcycles, paragraph  205.158(d)  of the  final  regulation  allows
manufacturers to  combine  motorcycle labeling requirements with other govern-
mental labeling requirements in one or  more labels.   To  make  this  combination
of  labels  possible, the  effective date of the  motorcycle regulation has been
changed to be based  on  the model  year rather than  the  calender  year  to be
compatible with the air emission regulations.

9.3  FOLLOW-UP OF REGULATIONS

jssue;  Will  the  regulation be  reevaluated  in the   future  to determine  the
        actual impact on motorcycle noise problems?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Suzuki, Honda,  and  Yamaha want  EPA to reevaluate the  noise problem
 sometime  in  the future, at which time  lower  standards can be set  if they are
 deemed  feasible and  necessary.   Honda  stated  that noise control  technology
 should  be evaluated and the 78  dB  standard held  until a  study  similar  to the
 heavy duty vehicle  regulation is completed.

     State and  Local  Government  Comments

     The  California  Highway  Patrol  recommends  that EPA  conduct a  survey of
 states  with  and without  noise  regulation now and  in the future to determine
 the effectiveness  of  noise  standards   and  whether they should be lowered.

     Trade Association  Comments

     BPICM recommends that EPA undertake a review of overall noise in 1988 and
 determine the  contribution  of  controlled motorcycles to those noise levels.

     ANCMA states  that motorcycle  noise reduction  will  be justified  in the
 future  when  other  vehicles are quieted.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group Comments

     The  Pennsylvania Trail Riders' Association, Motorcycle Product News, and
 AMA Great Plains District 33 all contend that EPA should  reevaluate  the impact


                                  9-3

-------
of the  noise standards, their effectiveness,  their  costs,  and the  available
technology in the future before setting lower standards.

Response:

     EPA plans  to  review the  effectiveness  and  need for continuation of the
provisions of the regulations five years after the effective  date  of  the final
step  standard.   The  Agency will  assess the  actual  costs incurred  and other
burdens  associated with compliance and will  review noise  data  to  evaluate the
effectiveness of the regulation.

9.4  EFFECTIVE DATE

Issue;   Should the effective date be related to model year?

Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson, Honda,  Kawasaki,  and Suzuki contend that the  standards
should become effective on  a  model year  basis.   A model  year's  effective  date
would be consistent with product changes.  The  model year is  well  established
in  the minds  of  manufacturers,  distributors,  dealers,  consumers,  and  the
various government personnel who will  enforce the regulation.

     Honda further  pointed  out that  a  January  1 starting date would require
compliance with  the regulations  one  model  year earlier,  thereby cutting  lead
time.  Harley-Davidson, Suzuki,  and  Kawasaki also expressed concern over  the
lead time lost if a calendar year basis  was adopted.

     Yamaha reported  that  it was amenable to the calendar year designation.
However,  Yamaha stated that "if EPA utilizes model  year for its control
scheme, the effective and control dates  must  be  modified to conform to produc-
tion and marketing schemes as utilized by the industry."

     Kawasaki  also  commented  that   the model  year  is the basis for EPA's
exhaust emission regulations.

Response:

     The Agency  has  specified the  effective  dates of the  regulation in terms
of model year.   Although the  proposed rule provided  effective dates  that  were
based on the calendar year,  the Agency felt that the  model year  designation in
the final  rule would  cause  minimum industry  disruption  by allowing motorcycle
manufacturers  to  conform   to traditional  marketing  schemes  and  production
processes.  With effective  dates based on  model  year, manufacturers  will  also
be  able  to coordinate  compliance of noise  emission standards  with EPA  air
emission standards,  whose  compliance  demonstration requirements are. based on
model year.

     Model year  will  mean  the  manufacturer's  annual  production  period  (as
determined by the Administrator) which includes  January  first  of such calendar
year.   If  the manufacturer has  no  annual  production period,  the  term  "model
year" shall mean the calendar year.


                                  9-4

-------
9.5  SAFETY HAZARDS

Issue:     Will  lower noise levels  present  safety hazards?

Comments;

     Aftermarket Manufacturers'  Comments

     Kendrick Engineering, and Action Exhaust Systems warned that motorcycles
must have  a certain decibel  level  so  that other  drivers  are  aware of  their
presence.    Such  a  level  gives the motorcyclists a  slight  "noise  visibility."

     Trade Association Comments

     MIC  warned that  forcing  technology which  may drastically  affect  the
performance capability and durability of  the motorcycle  in  traffic  may create
safety hazards.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Harley-Davidson of  Valdosta, Wisconsin Motorcycle  Dealers'  Association,
the Blackwater Van  and Cycle  Supply, and  Godfrey Custer,  a motorcycle dealer,
all eluded to the problem of "noise visibility."

     Mr. Custer  also commented that the noise  of off-road motorcycles acts as
a warning to wildlife.

     Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

     Road Rider  Magazine  wondered how, with  all  the  current  effort  to make
motorcycles  more conspicuous  to  other drivers,  EPA could propose regulations
which will make  motorcycles less  audibly noticeable.

     The  AMA Great Plains  District 33,  Motorcycle Product News, and  the AMA
Florida  District  A all  stated   that  motorcycle noise  serves  to  warn other
vehicles of their  presence.

Response:

     The  Agency has not found any  evidence that the noise levels proposed by
EPA  for new motorcycles  have any  relationship to driver  safety.   The noise
level of  a motorcycle would have to be substantially louder than most  current
models  to be  heard by an automobile  or  truck driver,  even  in  light  traffic
situations.  Motorcyclists who are  depending on  the noise generated from their
machines  to provide a necessary warning  to other road users are gambling with
their own  safety.

     The  expected  performance  losses  for street  motorcycles  due to  quieting
technology are  very  small  and should not be  so  severe  as  to create  safety
hazards.

     Off-road  motorcyclists should  not  rely on noise  to  warn  wildlife.
Nevertheless,  even at the  regulated  levels,  the  off-road motorcycle  is  more
than sufficiently  noisy  to  provide  an  advance warning to  wildlife.


                                   9-5

-------
9.6  REGULATION OF ALL AFTERMARKET MUFFLERS

Issue:  Should aftermarket exhaust systems  for pre-1983  Model Year motorcycles
        be regulated?

Comments:

     The California Office  of  Noise  Control  commented that EPA should extend
its  regulation  to all  aftermarket exhaust  systems  and not just  those that
would be applicable to post-1983 motorcycles.

Response;

     EPA believes  that  regulating  newly manufactured exhaust systems designed
for motorcycles manufactured prior to the effective date of  this regulation Is
not  feasible.   The Agency  has  Insufficient  data  on  the noise  levels of pre-
regulation motorcycles  and  believes  that obtaining such data would be diffi-
cult or  Impossible.   Since older motorcycles have  varying noise  levels for
different  models  and years  of production,  It would be  extremely  difficult
and costly  for  the Agency  to  set varying  noise  standards for  the respective
replacement exhaust systems.   In  any  case,  the  sale of pre-1983 replacement
exhaust  systems  will eventually   fall  to  Insignificant  numbers  as  pre-1983
motorcycles are retired from operation.

     To assist  State and  local enforcement  authorities,  the  regulation re-
quires all  replacement  exhaust systems designed for motorcycles manufactured
prior to 1983 be labeled as such.   Use of these exhaust  systems on motorcycles
subject to  EPA  noise  regulations  constitutes tampering  and 1s  a violation of
Federal law,  unless  it  can be shown  that the exhaust systems  do  not cause
the motorcycle to exceed the noise emission standards.

9.7  EPA BIASED AGAINST MOTORCYCLES

Issue;    Is EPA biased against motorcycles?

Comments:

     ABATE  of Michigan, Tumblewood  MC Club of  Brockton,  Inc.,  Motorcycle
Product News,  Freedom Rider MC, ABATE  of  Indiana,  ABATE  of California,  and
Twin Shores Motorcycle Club all contend that  EPA  is biased against motorcycles
and wants to remove them from the streets.

     The Motorcycle Trade Association charges Charles  L.  Elklns,  Deputy
Administrator for  noise control  programs, "with bias  and  prejudice against
the  motorcycle  Industry by:    Using  'carnival  tricks'  as evidenced  by  the
tape recordings  played  at  the March  15th EPA  press  conference;  aiding and
abetting Inflamatory  articles  against motorcycles  1n  the public press,  as
evidenced  by  Illinois  and  Florida newspaper articles  promoted by  EPA Field
Representatives;  publishing erroneous, misleading,  and false  Information  at
the  taxpayers'  expense  as  evidenced by  EPA's   booklet  entitled,  Noise on
Wheels; and,  unjustifiably  holding  a  public hearing  1n  an  area which  the
Agency knew would  be overwhelmingly  In favor of Its proposals,  but not re-
presentative of the public,  as evidenced by EPA's  'retirement home* hearing In
St. Petersburg,  Florida."

                                  9-6

-------
     Also expressing concern over biased EPA press releases were:   the Ameri-
can Motorcycle Association, the Harrisburg Motorcycle Club, Inc.,  Road Rider
Magazine, the  Motorcycle  Doctors'  Association, U.S.  Norton Owners'  Associa-
tion,Freedom  Rider  M.C.,  ABATE  of  Indiana,  Jennings  County MC,  Modified
Motorcycle Association,  ABATE  of  Georgia,  ABATE  of Maryland, Wholesale Supply,
Kawasaki Midwest, West Valley Cycle Supply, Kelly Brothers Cycle Parts, Kelly
Cycle  Shop,  Blackwater Van  and  Cycle  Supply,  and  Doty's  Motorcycle World,
Inc.

Response;

     EPA is not  biased  against motorcycles.   As mandated by Congress, EPA has
determined that  motorcycles are  a  major source of noise and has proceeded to
regulate them.

     In regard to the misleading and unfortunate press releases, there are two
points EPA wishes  to clarify.   First,  the newspaper  article author took
considerable editorial  license  with not-for-the-record remarks.  Second, EPA
noise  office  representatives, in the public  hearings held on these  proposed
regulations stated for the formal record that, in (our) opinion, the  article's
reference to  the "Hell's  Angels" was inappropriate  and did not reflect  EPA's
views.   To  the extent that the  Agency  may have contributed to an  unfavorable
motorcyclist image characterization, we apologize.

     In February 1977, the EPA published a pamphlet entitled,  Noise on Wheels.
This publication,  which  discusses all  suface transportation  noise  sources,
contains  some  patently  incorrect Information  on  motorcycle noise  levels.
Noise  on Wheels  was  not properly reviewed within EPA prior to its  publication
and was  immediately  withdrawn once the  inaccuracies  were discovered.

     When  determining  where  public hearings  are held,   EPA  must weigh  many
factors  not  least  among  them  politics,    St. Petersburg, Florida   is  not  a
 'retirement  home1  in the  opinion  of EPA.   The site  was  selected  because  it
represented  an  area with  high  public awareness  and concern  for  motorcycle
noise.   To balance  this site, the Agency held its second hearing  in Anaheim,
California,  an area with a large motorcycle-owning public.

     The Agency contends that,  by holding public hearings in these two sites
 and in the  Nation's  capitol,  along  with  a 90 day  open docket for  public
response,  that  it  has provided  the  opportunity  for  representative  public
responses.

 9.8  COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

 Issue:    Should competition  motorcycles  be regulated?

 Comments;

      Manufacturers* Comments

      Harley-Davidson recommended  a provision to the regulations to  allow the
 temporary installation of  competition  exhaust  systems on  standard motorcycles
 during  the time they are actually being used in an  approved  competition
 event.

                                   9-7

-------
     State  and Local Government Comments

     The  Illinois  EPA  stated that noise  level  limits  are  needed  for competi-
 tion motorcycles.  This would benefit residential areas impacted by race track
 noise.  The  California  Highway Patrol  also  pointed out that  competition
 motorcycle  noise control  is necessary as  these motorcycles  are a  problem.

     The  Oregon  Department  of  Environmental  Quality stated that regulation  of
 off-road  motorcycles  will be  a  necessity if significant  control  of  off-road
 use  can be gained  since off-road motorcycles  are  classified  as  competition
 motorcycles in Oregon.

     Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

     The  Pennsylvania  Trail  Riders'  Association pointed  out that  "competition
 machines  used for  closed-course  events  should be required  to meet the AMA
 noise  level standard.  At  present  many do  not meet these  standards as they are
 sold and  used.   A major  off-road noise source  is from competition bikes used
 for  recreational riding.    In  addition  manufacturers should  be  required  to
 provide, with each new competition bike sold, a silencing kit  and instructions
 on how to make the machine conform to the competition machines being used in a
 non-competitive  configuration."

 Trade Association Comments

     MIC would like to see the competition replacement exhaust system labeling
 reworded  to  allow  installation  on  certified  street  or off-road  motorcycles
 that will be  used  in closed  course competition  events.   As the regulation now
 reads, competition exhaust systems may only be used  on competition motorcycles.

 Response:

     EPA  carefully  considered  issuing  Federal   noise  emission standards for
 competition motorcycles.  Acceleration noise levels  of competition motorcycles
 are often  100 decibels  or  more.   Since  several types of  competition  motor-
 cycles are well  suited  for off-road  operation,  the  use of  such extremely loud
 vehicles  in desert  and trail environments  is  considered to be a  serious and
 widespread  problem.   In  addition, the  noise generated from  racetracks  where
motorcycle competitions are  held  has in a number of cases  become  a  source  of
considerable  public  annoyance  in surrounding  residential areas.    Although
Federal  noise  regulations  for  competition  vehicles  are one  approach  to
the problem,  other  solutions  such  as boundary  line  noise ordnances or time
 limit restrictions are available to local  authorities.

     EPA has  concluded that  Federal  noise standards for motorcycles  intended
solely for use in closed course competition  events,  are not the most  effective
way to deal either with the  racetrack or  the improper  use  problems associated
with such competition motorcycles.   Since racing motorcycles  are  disassembled
between races, vigorous state and local  action  would still  be  necessary  in any
jurisdiction  with  a competition  motorcycle  noise  problem,  even if Federal
noise  standards  were  established.    In support of state  and  local  efforts,
these regulations require that  all such  motorcycles  be  clearly labeled as such
and they  limit  the  use  of  such  motorcycles  to closed-course events   only.


                                  9-8

-------
     The  regulations  do  not  prohibit  modification  of  off-road  and street
motorcycles for  competition events  provided  the usage  is restricted to
closed-course events.   Use outside of the closed course without returning the
off-road or street motorcycle to its original configuration would be  a viola-
tion of Federal law.

9.9   SPARK ARRESTORS

Issue:  Should  spark  arresters  sold  separately  from the  exhaust  system be
        regulated?

Comments:
     The MIC stated that spark arrestors sold separately should not be subject
to  certification  since their function  is  not noise related and  is therefore
outside the authority of EPA.

     The  MCM Manufacturing  Company  stated that  spark arrestors are  sold
strictly  as adapters to mufflers  and  should not have  to meet the  same  cer-
tification  requirements as mufflers.

Response;

     EPA  considers  spark  arrestors as a component  of  a total  exhaust system.
Although  spark  arrestors may be  sold  separately from  other components  of an
exhaust system,  the regulations  require them to be designed and built so that
when  installed  as a component of  an  exhaust system,  that exhaust system does
not cause Federally regulated motorcycles  to exceed applicable noise emission
standards  for a  specified  Acoustical  Assurance  Period (AAP).   In addition,
the regulations   include provisions that  require spark arrester manufacturers
to label  their  product  certifying that when  installed with  other legal com-
ponents,  it  meets  EPA  noise  emission  standards  for  specific   motorcycles.

9.10  DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

 Issue;  Is  the  meaning of wilderness  improperly used by EPA in its supplemen-
        tary information, the EIS, and the Regulatory Analysis?

Comments:

      Motorcycle  Product  News pointed  out  that  "wilderness  has  an exact  and
 important definition,  in that all motor vehicles are excluded from designated
wilderness  (areas)  regardless  of sound   level.  To claim  that  regulation  is
 required  because of motorcycle  operation  in  wilderness  (areas)  is to make a
 gross misrepresentation of  the facts."

 Response;

      The term 'wilderness'   is used in  a general  way  by EPA to define a wooded
 or pristine  environment where  any man-made motorized  sound is unwanted.   EPA
 agrees that  all  motor vehicles  are prohibited from operating  in  a "designated
 wilderness" area as defined in the Wilderness Act of 1964.   The Wilderness Act
 defines  such an area  as  one that  is untraveled  by  man  and  where man  is  a
 visitor and does not stay.
                                   9-9

-------
      Most  State and  local  officials agree that  incompatible  land use is the
 main  problem of  off-road motorcycle  noise  and that  reducing  noise emission
 levels  will  only  alleviate,  not  solve  the  problem.

 9.11  REGULATORY  ANALYSIS OUTDATED

 Issue;   Is  the data used  in  the Regulatory  Analysis of  the  Noise Emission
         Regulations  for  Motorcycles  and Motorcycle Exhaust  Systems the best
         that  is currently available?

 Comments:

      Aftermarket  Comments

      Kendrick Engineering commented  that the background document  is "somewhat
 dated."   It  does .not  really  include  the technical achievements  of the last
 three years.

      Trade Association  Comments

      The Motorcycle  Trade Association charged that the background document is
 filled with  "estimates  from  estimates, contradictions, and  guesses."

      Motorcycle Product News stated that the background document was dated and
 did  not adequately  reflect  the real  world.   A more  current  American public
 attitude study  was  requested.   Motorcycle  Product News  also  questioned the
 absence  of  a report entitled  "Study  of  Street Noise Contribution in Southern
 California,"  released January  1978, from the background document.

    Private Citizen  Comments

      Mr. Robert Steeves commented that the data  base  utilized  to justify the
 needs for  regulating motorcycle  noise  is outdated and that  improvements  in
 motorcycle  noise  emissions  have  been  such  as  to  drop beneath  the nuisance
 threshold of  the majority of the public.

      "While describing the impact  of current motorcycle noise regulations, the
 proposed regulations cite some very impressive sounding numbers.   For example
 studies  indicate  nearly two  million  motorcycle noise events causing interfer-
 ence  to  persons outdoors  occur daily in the United States.   In addition, there
 are almost 500,000 daily  speech impacts of persons  indoors, and many thousands
 of sleep interferences  and  awakenings caused  by motorcycles.   Upon study  of
 the assumptions made in developing these numbers, it seems  that a  large number
 of judgmental parameters  have been used and no explanations of the sensitivity
of these paramenters are  given.   Many  studies done  for  and by  the  Federal
 government are  full  of judgmental decisions  that have large  impacts  on out-
comes.   Rarely  are  these  examined to  develop a range of  uncertainty  for the
 particular results obtained.   These  results are then, even if  accompanied  by
disclosures from the author, taken as  gospel  by someone  looking for data.  It-
 is easy  to  see  how  this  process of ignoring  uncertainties can  soon mushroom
from study to study and produce study results without proper foundations."  Mr
John  S.  Viggers  would  like  to know  if this  data collection problem has been
resolved in this study.
                                  9-10

-------
Response:

     One of EPA's best sources  of  Information  for  the background document Is
the motorcycle  industry  itself.   To keep  the Regulatory Analysis  accurate
and updated,  the  industry  has been strongly encouraged  throughout  the  rule-
making process  to keep  the Agency informed of any  substantive  changes.   The
comments received during  the public comment period after the proposed rule was
issued have helped the Agency to reevaluate and update data in the Regulatory
Analysis.

     In addition the health  and  welfare  analysis  has been improved since the
proposed rule  and EPA believes  that  its current model is the  most accurate
model  available for  estimating the  impact of motorcycle noise.

9.12  EPA's AUTHORITY

Issue:    Does EPA have  the authority  to  regulate motorcycles?

Comments:

     Aftermarket Comments

     Cycle Sport Unlimited commented  that EPA may have  overstepped its mandate
because motorcycles  are  not a "major  source of  noise."

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     ABATE of Maryland contends  that  the  states are  responsible  for noise  laws
and  not the  Federal government.   ABATE  of   Illinois further  believes  that
EPA does not have the authority  to regulate for annoyance.

     Regarding  the 78 dB level,  the BMW  Motorcycle  Owners  of  America  view the
standards  as  "arbitrary,  capricious,  and beyond  the scope of authority  dele-
gated to EPA under the Noise Control  Act."

Response:

     In the Noise Control  Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574)  the  Congress directed EPA
to  establish  noise  emission  standards  for newly manufactured  products  which
have  been identified as  major sources of noise.   Under the authority of
Section  5(b)(l) of  the  Act  motorcycles and motorcycle  exhaust systems  were
identified as  major  sources of  noise on May 28, 1975  (Federal  Register,  Vol.
40, No. 103).

     In  establishing these  standards full  consideration was  given  to  such
factors as public health and welfare, magnitude  of  the problem, conditions of
use of  the product  alone  and in combination with  other  noise sources,  degree
of  noise reduction available  through use of best available technology, and the
cost of compliance.

     Although  the Federal  regulations preempt State and  local  noise  emission
standards,  these governments do retain  the right  "to establish and enforce
controls  on  environmental  noise (or  one or more sources thereof) through the
licensing,  regulation,  or  restriction of  the  use, operation,  or movement  of
any product or combination of products."

                                  9-11

-------
 9.13   DEFINITION OF MODIFIED MOTORCYCLE

 j^ssue:  Do  the  definitions of  a modified motorcycle and  a tampered motorcycle
        need clarification?

 Comments:
     AESMC  and  Motorcycle Product News   both  expressed  concern  that  EPA's
 discussion  of  modified motorcycles and accessories was  ambiguous.   The term
 'modified'  should be clarified as modified parts  or motorcycles that can still
 comply  with the law.   Tampered  products  should  be defined as those products
 which cause the motorcycle or part to exceed EPA's  noise  emission regulations.

 Responsej

     EPA  has   used  the term  "modified"   in  its  supporting  documentation  to
 describe  those motorcycles that  have  been altered from  their  original con-
 figuration to  increase the noise levels emitted by  those  vehicles.  The Agency
 did  not  consider  motorcycles to  be  "modified" when  motorcyclists  replaced
 mirrors,  horns, seats, or made any other non-noise  related  changes.

     Noise  producing  "modifications"  before the final rule  was  issued gene-
 rally consisted  of  replacing  original  equipment  exhaust  systems  with exhaust
 systems and exhaust system components  that  increase the motorcycle's perform-
 ance and  noise emissions.  Motorcycle  exhaust  systems have been  "modified" by
 removal  of the muffler's baffles,  destruction  of the  noise attenuating
 characteristics of  the system or  complete removal of the exhaust system or
 some of its components.

     Regulated motorcycles  are  "modified"  in  the sense that the changes
 described above  are  made  to  cause  such vehicles to exceed the  Federal noise
 emission  standards.    Those  motorcycles  have  also been  "tampered with"  in
 the  sense that  such  modifications are  prohibited by  the  regulation.   By
 definition  "tampering"  would  not  occur to pre-regulated motorcycles  without
 applicable  noise  emission  standards regardless  of the extent of  exhaust  or
 other noise related modifications.

 9.14.  FEDERAL MOTORCYCLE  NOISE STANDARDS  UNNECESSARY

 Issue;     Are  Federal  motorcycle  noise  standards necessary?

Comments:

     Dealers/Distributors'  Comments

     Drag Specialties  commented  that EPA  should stay  out of the  motorcycle
business  entirely, while  Spokane Suzuki,  West Valley  Cycle  Supply,  Lewiston
Cycle and Marine,  Inc., Ace Cycle  Shop, Popoli's Honda, Rich Budelier Company,
Cleary Motorcycle Co., Inc., Maryland Motorcycle Dealers' Association,  Boston
Cycles,  and Idaho  Motorcycle Dealers'  Association  all are  on  record  as
opposing  the   regulation.   TRI-ONDA views the  regulation  as  unnecessary.

     Kawasaki   Midwest,  Kelly  Brothers Cycle  Parts,  Kelly Cycle Shop,  Texas
Motorcycle Dealers'  Association,  Ace Cycle Shop,  and Blackwater  Van and Cycle
Supply contend  that  the regulations  will have no or little effect.

                                 9-12

-------
     Trade Association Comments

     The Motorcycle Trade Association  commented that the overwhelming majority
of  the  public  testimony  from non-motorcycle  users and consumer environmenta-
lists clearly indicates that the noise levels from current street motorcycles
are not objectionable.

     Motorcycle Interest  Group Comments

     EPA has not convinced the BMW  Motorcycle Owners' Associa-
tion that, there  is  a real need for motorcycle noise emission standards since
the  industry has  a history  of  self-policing with  regard  to noise,  and local
ordnances  if  properly enforced will  adequately  address  any  noise problem.

     MRVC  and  Cross  Island  MC both  commented  that the  industry  is already
voluntarily working towards quiet motorcycles.

Response:

     Due  to a  growing concern over the effects of noise on the public health
and  welfare, Congress enacted the  Noise Control  Act of 1972.  In response to
Congress' directive, EPA identified major sources  of noise in the environment,
in  which  motorcycles were included.  The identification  of motorcycles as a
major noise source was based on the total  impact  of  current motorcycle opera-
tions.   EPA is authorized  by the  Noise Control  Act to establish regulations
for  motorcycle  and motorcycle exhaust systems in  an effort to  significantly
reduce the noise impact of these vehicles.

     Motorcycles comprise a  small  percentage of the total traffic stream,  but
when  compared  to other transportation sources, motorcycles are a significant
contributor  of  noise, especially  in  residential  areas,  where heavy  vehicles
are  not  present.   In an EPA survey where  respondents did not  live  near free-
ways or airports, motorcycles were  ranked the number one  noise  source by 11.7%
of  urban  populations highly  annoyed.    Public  annoyance  is  the basis of many
noise  abatement programs  and has   been  the motivator  of legislative  action
throughout the  country.  EPA  has carefully evaluated  in its  health and welfare
analysis  various  forms  of  noise effects.  As a  result  of  these studies  the
Agency believes  that by  establishing  noise emission  standards  for newly
manufactured motorcycles and by implementing the anti-tampering,  labeling,  and
enforcement  provisions  of the  regulation, the  impact  of motorcycle  noise  on
the public health and welfare will  be significantly reduced.

9.15  BONNEVILLE SPEED TRIALS

Issue:  Can  the Bonneville,  Utah speed trial  event  be exempted from  the
        regulation?

Comments:

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The  AMA  and  its Great Plains  District 33 both requested the exemption of
the Bonneville event from  the regulation. The speed trials  provide an arena
                                  9-13

-------
for  research  and testing where  the objective is to  set  land speed records.
Motorcycles involved  are  "home-built"  or modified for  this  very unique pur-
pose.  Also, the area will not be inhabited  in the foreseeable future and does
not pose any adverse environmental effects.

Response;

     Motorcycles will not be required to meet  Federal  noise emission standards
while competing  in  speed trials  at  the Bonneville  Salt Flats.   These motor-
cycles,  which  are  "homebuilt"  or were stock models  that  have since been
extensively modified,  satisfy  EPA's  definition  of  competition motorcycles
used  in  a  "closed  course competition  event."  The  Bonneville  Speed Trials
is  an  organized event consisting of motorcycle competition  on  two types of
racing tracks.   One  track is circular for  endurance races and the other is a
straight-away  track for setting land speed records.   Both tracks  can be
considered "an  enclosed,  repeated,  or confined  route  intended for easy
viewing of the entire route  by spectators."   If motorcycles competing  in this
event were  not exempt from  these regulations, the  effects  of  quieting them
could not  be  differentiated from the  higher  noise  levels emitted by  automo-
biles also competing at the Salt  Flats.

     The Agency  understands  that other  types of desert  races  have also oc-
curred in the Bonneville  Salt Flats  area.  Motorcycles  participating in these
events would be required to comply with the  noise  emission standards specified
in the final  regulation  unless  the Agency  could be given information to show
that the races  fit  EPA's definition of a  "closed course competition  event."

9.16  PATH NOISE CONTROL

Issue:   Should EPA also  consider path  noise control  for urban transportation
        noise?

Comments:

     Manufacturers'  Comments

     Suzuki commented  that  since EPA  is  the  lead  agency charged with  co-
ordinating the U.S.  noise control program,  it  should also consider path noise
control.    Suzuki  presented  the  following  table  indicating the  potential  of
such an approach.

                           URBAN  TRANSPORTATION NOISE PATH
                            CONTROL  NOISE LEVEL IN dB(A)
Location
Roadside
30m
60m
90m
Baseline
86
76
72
69
30m Vegeta-
tive Screen
86
71
67
64
Roadway De-
pressed 3m
86
71
65
62
2m
Barrier
86
64
60
57
4m
Barrier
86
61
57
54
                                         9-14

-------
Response;

     EPA has  assisted  States and  localities  1n noise control.   One control
technique which 1s  available at the local  level  1s  the  construction of bar-
riers.   Funds are  also available  for  this purpose  from the  Highway  Trust
Fund.  Barriers are, however, expensive  and therefore tend to be worth  while
only  where there  1s high  exposure to  people  from heavy  traffic  volume.
Obviously such controls  can only protect a small number  of  people.   This 1s
particularly true 1n the case of motorcycles where Impacts occur on all  kinds
of roadways and traffic densltltes.  As a result noise emission standards and
State and local actions to control  modifications  are  also  required.

9.17  OTHER VEHICLES SHOULD BE QUIETED

jssue;  Why did EPA single  out motorcycles  for regulation when other  products
""are noisier?

Comments;

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davldson  questioned  the assumption that  motorcycles are the
loudest  noise generator  1n residential   areas  where trucks  do not  normally
operate.   Harley-Davldson points out that  garbage  and sanitation trucks are
noisy  1n residential areas.

     Dealer/Distributor Comments

     Florida  Cycle  Supply commented that the true motorcycle  noise  source  1s
the  two-stroke motorcycle,  which will soon be phased out.   Four stroke engines
are  quiet and should not be regulated.

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     Road Rider Magazine  does not  support the  assumption  that new motorcycles
are  a major source of  noise.  Old motorcycles should receive EPA's attention.

      ABATE  of Michigan, Tumblewood MC Club of Brockton,  Inc.,  Freedom Rider
MC,  ABATE  of  California,  Twin Shores MC,  Cross Island MC, and Central Florida
BMW  Motorcycle Owners  all stated that EPA should quiet other vehicles.

Response;

      The  motorcycle noise   emission regulation Is  only  one  In  a  series  of
regulatory  actions taken by the Agency to control the nation's noise problem.
To date the  Agency has  Issued  final  noise regulations  for  medium  and heavy
trucks,  truck mounted  solid waste compactors,  and  portable air compressors.
 In addition,  regulations have  been proposed for buses  and  wheel and crawler
tractors.

      The  Agency also plans  further regulatory  action on  other noise sources.
These Include pavement breakers and rock drills, power  lawn mowers, and
truck-transport  refrigeration units.


                                   9-15

-------
9.18  ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Issue:  Will  the  regulations  affect the  energy efficiency  of  motorcycles?

Comments;

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     Tumbleweed MC  Club of  Brockton,  Inc., ABATE of  Illinois, ABATE of
Indiana, Gulf Coast Sandblasters,  Inc.,  AMA Great Plains District 33, ABATE of
California, Twin Shores MC,  League of Women Motorcyclists, and Central Florida
BMW Motorcycle  Owners  all expressed concern over the  decreased  fuel  economy
that will  result from the noise regulations.

Response:

     The impact on energy efficiency  is  expected to be small.  Specifically,
additional  weight  and  increased  backpressure  due to  noise  suppression com-
ponents are expected to negatively Impact  motorcycle  fuel economy  by an
estimated  2 percent.   The average  fuel  consumption  of current street motor-
cycles  is  47 mpg.   Off-road  motorcycles are estimated currently  to  have an
average fuel consumption  of 60 mpg.   Based on 2300  miles  per year for street
motorcycles  and  1200 miles  per year for off-road  motorcycles,  an increased
fuel consumption of about one  gallon per year for street motorcycles and less
than one  gallon  per  year for  off-road motorcycles  is  expected.   By the year
2000 when  the  majority of motorcycles in-use will  have been manufactured to
comply  with the  80  dB  standard,  the  current  population of  motorcycles Is
projected to have more than  doubled to approximately  16 million vehicles.  The
fuel penalty  translates  to  about 15 million gallons of gasoline  in the year
2000, or one-half million barrels  of crude  oil which would represent less than
one tenth  of one percent of the total U.S. consumption of  crude  oil  at that
time.

9.19  EPA REGION V OFFICIALS

Issue:  The actions of EPA's regional officials raised concern.

Comments:

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The American Motorcycle Association and the Harrisburg MC, Inc., charged
that EPA Region V officials  were encouraging state and local officials to set
standards   predating  EPA's  national standards  by  several years  that  are in
direct conflict with  the proposed  standards.

Response;

     EPA regrets any  misinterpretation  of  statements made by  Region  V  offi-
cials.   The Agency's  policies  are  set at  the Administrator's level.
                                 9-16

-------
9.20  OBTAINING OBSOLETE  REPLACEMENT PARTS

Issue;   Has EPA ignored the problem of obtaining replacement parts for motor-
        cycles whose manufacturer  no longer serves the U.S. market?

Comments:
     Road Rider Magazine contends that if EPA's regulation causes a reduction
in motorcycle brands, present owners of such motorcycles would have to resort
to aftermarket supplies or face elimination  of  replacement parts.

Response;

     As  with  most  products in  the  U.S.  market,  motorcycle replacement parts
will exist if consumer demand is sufficient.

     The Agency does not expect there to be  any major decrease  in  the range of
available motorcycle types or  accessories.   If any manufacturers  do decide to
leave the U.S. market, they will most likely be the  firms  which currently have
limited  U.S. sales and already limited parts availability.

9.21  TAMPER-PROOF MUFFLERS

Issue:   Would sealing mufflers reduce the incidence of tampering?

Comments;

     Motorcycle Interest Group Comments

     The Pennsylvania Trail  Riders'  Association  suggested that original
equipment  and aftermarket exhaust  systems  be  sealed units with  no  removable
baffles  or required  fiberous packing.

     Public  Interest Group Comments

     The Seminole Lake  Country Club Estates  representative suggested  that  a
tamper-proof seal  be installed on the mufflers at time of inspection to aid in
enforcement  and decrease  tampering.

      Dealer/Distributor Comments

      TRI-ONDA suggested that  if it were made mandatory  that  customers could
 not change the muffler systems  after  they  had purchased  a new or used motor-
 cycle,  then  "all  concerned would benefit."

 Response;

      EPA does not believe it  has authority to establish design  standards such
 as requiring exhaust  system manufacturers   to seal  their  mufflers.   However,
 the Agency  is  aware that some  motorcyclists  operate their vehicles with the
 fiberous packing  or the entire baffle  removed  from the  exhaust system.   The
 latter  is  an  especially serious  problem   since  removing the  entire baffle
 can result in noise levels  as high or higher than  removal  of the entire
 muffler.

                                   9-17

-------
     The Agency  plans  to deal  with the problem of easily removable components
 in  exhaust systems, such  as baffles, by  issuing a Notice  of Proposed Rule-
 making  (NPRM)  to amend  the  final  regulation.   These  amendments will require
 manufacturers  to conduct  the testing  required to  demonstrate  compliance to
 noise  standards  with  all  easily  removable  components of the exhaust system
 removed.   The Agency  believes  that this requirement  will  encourage manufac-
 turers  to  design exhaust systems which will  reduce the incidence of tampering
 by  consumers, or  which  will  comply  with  applicable standards when easily
 removable  components  are removed.   The Agency  encourages  and solicits public
 comments  on  all  aspects of  the  proposed amendments  and will  fully analyze
 the comments prior to  publishing the amendments  in final form.

 9.22  CONCISENESS OF REGULATIONS

 Issue:  Can  the  regulation  be rewritten  in a  clearer  and  and  more concise
        manner?

 Comments:
     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson charges that the regulations are "intentionally vague and
loosely defined."  Harley-Davidson warns  that  such  vague regulations are more
costly to comply with than well defined rules.

     Harley-Davidson  commented that  line 205.160-2(g)  on  page 10848  is un-
clear; the  paragraph  headings, in general, are  unclear;  and such definitions
as configuration,  are not well defined.   Further,  the  concepts  of  class and
category are confusing.

     Suzuki commented that the regulations need to  be significantly redrafted
to  comply  with  Executive Order 12044.  As they  are  now, the  complexity and
length result in confusion, duplication, frustration, and added cost.

     State and Local Government Comments

     The California  Highway  Patrol  also  presented  suggestions  for redefining
off-road and competition motorcycles.

     The California Highway Patrol would  also  like  to know if label  verifica-
tion  reports,  as  required under  Sections 205.155-4(a)(3)  and  (4) will  be
available for enforcement purposes.

     Trade Association Comments

     The Motorcycle  Trade Association  charged that  the  labeling regulations
were  a  "classic  example of overly  complicated, unnecessary,  and unworkable
regulations."

     The MIC had more specific comments  on the conciseness of the regulations
and the language of the  enforcement provisions.

     BPICM contends that  the  90-day  comment period was  too  short and did not
allow for  a thorough and accurate  analysis.    BPICM  also contends  that the

                                  9-18

-------
methodologies  used  by  EPA makes  1t difficult to  draw  comparisons with  the
International  Standard  Organization  test method  or the  test method  incor-
porated in UN/ECE  Regulation 9.

     Motorcycle  Interest Group Comments

     Below  is  the AMA's  classification  of  all types  of motorcycle  events,
based on EPA definitions.  The AMA suggests  that this list be accepted by  EPA
with  reference  to current AMA Competition  Rule  Books for clarification  and
description.


          Closed Course              Non-Closed Course

          Road Race                  Enduro
          Dirt Track                 Off-Road Reliability Run
          Short Track                Observed Trials
          Speedway                   Scottish Trials
          Hillclimb                  Point-to-Point Race
          Scrambles                  Hare and Hound
          Motocross
          Hare Scrambles
          Ice Race
          Drag Race
          Closed Course Enduro

     The  AMA  Great Plains District  33  suggested that EPA clarify  its  defini-
tion of a closed course.

     The  Pennsylvania  Trail  Riders'  Association would  like to  see  clearer
definitions of off-road and street motorcycles.

     Private Citizen Comments

     Mr.  David Wall is submitted comments  and information  on how  to  rewrite and
clarify the regulations.

Response;

      EPA  considered  the  above  comments and  has  rewritten  the  regulations
for greater clarity.

      The  Agency  clarified the  definition  of "closed-course competition
event" to  reflect  the original  intent of  the proposed  definition.  The
 revised definition  requires that such an event cover an  "enclosed,  repeated or
 confined  route that is  intended  for easy viewing  of the entire route  by all
 spectators".  The  Agency determined  that  the following competition  events  meet
 that definition:

           Short Track
           Dirt  Track
           Drag  Race
           Speedway
           Hillclimb
           Ice Race
           Bonneville Speed Trials

                                  9-19

-------
9.23  NOISE CONTROL ACT SECTION 6

Issue:  Will the wording of the regulation  impede judicial review?

Comments:

     Manufacturers' Comments

     Harley-Davidson charged that by stating  the regulations in their entirety
were  "actions  of the  Administrator" with  respect  to Section 6  of the Noise
Control  Act,  was  an  attempt   to  take  advantage of  the  preclusive judicial
review provisions of Section 16.  Thus,  any rules or  regulations would only be
subject  to review  by the  Court of Appeals,  District of  Columbia Circuit,
and  not  subject  to  review  in  any subsequent civil  or criminal  enforcement
proceedings.

Response:

     Basically,  what  Harley-Davidson is  commenting  on was answered  by the
Court of  Appeals (D.C. Circuit), in Chrysler  Corporation,  et  al  v. EPA (600
F.  2d  904  (D.C.  Cir.  1979)).    The case concerned  the EPA  medium and heavy
truck  regulation,  which was  promulgated under the  same  authority  as the
motorcycle  regulation.   As pointed out by Harley-Davidson  the  issue decided
was  primarily a  jurisdictional  question.   EPA argued  that review  of its
enforcement provisions was permitted only by  the Court  of Appeals,  District of
Columbia Circuit.   However,  the Court found that the  Act  does  not allow for
review of  the  enforcement  provisions by the  Court  of Appeals.  Specifically,
the Court found that  it had  jurisdiction to  review only those portions of the
regulation  based  upon the authority of §6 of  the  Act, and  that many of the
enforcement provisions were  not based upon §6 authority.   Therefore, for the
medium  and heavy  truck  regulation, as  well as the motorcycle regulations,
review of enforcement provisions will first be conducted by the  Federal
district courts.

9.24  MEASUREMENTS TO NEAREST TENTH OF A dB

Issue;  Harley-Davidson stated that all  readings, calculations and  label noise
        level  values should be rounded to the nearest tenth of a dB.

Response:

     The regulation does not specify any requirement  for rounding measurements
to the tenth of  a decibel.  However, reporting to EPA  in tenth decibels will
be-sufficiently  accurate for EPA's requirements.

9.25  COLOR CODING

issue:  Harley-Davidson does not favor the color coding of parts,  as it hurts
        design  and encourages repainting by consumers.

Response:

     The Agency will not require color coding of motorcycle parts.
                                  9-20

-------
9.26  FUTURE COMPLIANCE COSTS

Issue:  The MIC contends  that EPA failed  to  consider the economic and  tech-
        nological   burdens  on  manufacturers  in  order to  comply with  future
        Federal noise and exhaust emission regulations.

Response:

     The  Agency  did  consider future compliance  costs  and technical  burdens
for meeting air and  noise  emission regulations  in its economic and technology
sections  of the  Regulatory  Analysis of  the Noise  Emission   Regulations  for
Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems.
                                   9-21

-------
  10  PRIVATE CITIZEN COMMENTS/STATE AND LOCAL QUESTIONNAIRE

10.1  Private Citizens Comments

     EPA received  comments  about  the  motorcycle regulation from  over 1,800
private citizens during the public comment  period.   The substantive comments
from these citizens were addressed along with the comments from manufacturers
and other Interested  groups 1n  the preceding nine sections of this document.
However, the  majority  of  the  comments from private  citizens  were general 1n
nature and the  Agency categorized those comments  In Table 10-1 as citizens:
(1) supporting the regulation  (2) opposing the regulation or (3) not Indicat-
ing support  or opposition to  the regulation.   Tables 10-2,  10-3,  and  10-4
provide an analysis of the comments for each of  the  three citizen categories.

       Table 10.1   DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS

                                             No.  of Coromenters     Percent

    Support the Regulation                        689               37
    Opposes the Regulation                       1124               61
    No Indication of Support or Opposition      	42             	2

      Total                                      1855              100
                                   10-1

-------
 Table 10.2.  COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS IN SUPPORT OF REGULATION*
                                              No. of Commenters   Percent
 Support Regulation  1n General                        254            37
 Mufflers are a problem                               104            15
 Regulation should be effective soon                   85            12
 Support tampering t)r muffler rules                    76            11
 Noise levels should be lower than those
 proposed                                              32             5
 Federal Standard not as stringent as
 State Standards                                        8             1
 Proposed Standards Inadequate to protect health
 and welfare                                            5             1
 New motorcycles need to be quieted further             4             1
 Concern over operator behavior                       164            24
 Concern over enforcement                             146            21
 Concern over off-road motorcycle noise                67            10
 Concern over juveniles                                45             7
 Need land use and/or time restrictions                35             5
 Need to regulate other products                       26             4
 Concern over m1n1cycles/m1n1-b1kes                    10             2
 Concern over two-stroke engine noise                   5             l
 Concern over raceway noise                             4             l
 Need to regulate competition motorcycles               1             .1
Motorcyclists who support proposed noise
 limits                                                17             2
Motorcyclists who support muffler/
 tampering rule                                         81

 *689 citizens Indicated support of the regulation. Some citizens made more
 than one comment.
                                10-2

-------
                               Table 10.3
         COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS IN  OPPOSITION  TO  REGULATION*
                                                    No. of Commenters    Percent
Cost too much/1nflatlon/trade balance/general
economic Impact                                           665              59
New motorcycles are quiet enough                          547              49
Concern for Harley-Davidson/Amerlcan Products             402              36
Concern for smaller and/or European motorcycles
manufacturers                                             393              35
Impaired performance/Increased gasoline consumption/
Increased weight/styling difficulties/need for
liquid cooling/need for multi-cylinder design             324              29
Mufflers/tamper1ng/mod1f1cation only problem              304              27
Government regulates too much  (plus other reasons)        277              25
Freedom of choice  (mufflers,  styling,  number of
models to choose from)                                    231             21
EPA/Federal government biased  against motorcycles         211              19
No motorcycle  noise problem/minority vehicle              157             14
Regulation will be Ineffective due  to  lack of
enforcement                                               134             12
EPA  should address other products  (1n  addition
to other reasons)                                          84              7
Concern for small  muffler manufacturers                    78              7
Concerned about motorcycle  safety                          72              6
Federal Government should leave to state and
local  governments                                          71              6
Incorrectly believes that EPA Is proposing to
ban  motorcycles or eliminate replacement
mufflers                                                   67              6
Elimination of two-stroke engine                           28              2
Opposes  regulation 1n general                              27              2
 (Continued  on next page)
*1124 citizens Indicated opposition to the regulation.   Some  citizens made
  more than  one comment.
                                   10-3

-------
                         Table 10.3.  (Continued)
         COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS IN OPPOSITION TO REGULATION*
                                                    No. of Commenters   Percent
EPA should work on other environmental problems
(1n addition to other reason)                            27               2
Will encourage tampering/modification of
motorcycles                                              19               2
Noise 1s not a problem (plus other reasons)              17               2
EPA should address other products (only reason)           9               1
Government regulates too much (only reason)               5               .4
EPA should work on other environmental problems
(only reason)                                             4               .3
Noise Is not a problem (only reason)                      3               .2
Opposes labeling/labeling unworkable                      1               .001
Comments about:
EPA publicity and other activities (article
appearing 1n St. Petersburg, Florida Times/
EPA contractor activity/reference to EPA
Publication Noise on Wheels/reference to health
effects attributed to motorcyle noise/reference
to Hell's Angels/reference to EPA Region V
ordinance activity)                                      254             23
*1124 citizens Indicated opposition to the regulation.   Some citizens made more
 than one comment.
                                  10-4

-------
                             Table 10.4

      COMMENTS FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS NOT  INDICATING  SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION*
                                                    No.  of Commenters   Percent
Support muffler/tampering rules but opposes
quieter new bikes                                            3              7
Support  some noise level limits,  but not all                 5             12
Recommend  other sources to be regulated  (only)               3              7
Technical comments (only)                                    5             12
Concerned about EPA tactics (only)                           8             19
Docket correspondence (request for Information,
Intention to write letter or testify, etc.)                  11             26
Other (unreadable, etc.)                                     8             19
 *42  citizens  did  not  indicate  support  or  opposition  to  the  regulation.
  One citizen  made more  than  one comment.
                                   10-5

-------
10.2  STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

     The following presents the response to an  EPA questionnaire  sent  to  state
and local government officials.


                               Table 10.5

         DISTRIBUTION OF COMMENTS FROM STATE AND  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS


     1.  Is motorcycle noise a problem 1n your  jurisdiction?

                                      No.   Percent

              Yes                     68     61
              No                       44

     2.  To what extent can motorcycle noise disturbances  be  attributed to
         vehicles that were modified after  purchase?

                                      No.   Percent

              Most                    35     32
              Few                      2     2
              Not Known                1     1

     3.  To what extent can motorcycle noise disturbances  be  attributed to
         vehicles that are used at a place  or time when any motorized  noise
         (no matter how quiet) would be a problem? (most respondents listed
         primary areas where motorcycle noise 1s  a problem)

                                      No.   Percent

              None                    14     13
              Nighttime                4     4
              Residential               3     3
              Hospital  Zones           3     3
              Public Speaking          2     2
              Wilderness               2     2

    4a.  Is there a need for EPA to require the manufacture of quieter
         motorcycles?

                                      No.   Percent

              Yes                     37     33
              No                       44
                                  10-6

-------
                        Table 10.5  (Continued)

     4b.   Are the proposed standards, which will reduce street motorcycle  sound
          levels to 75 dB or lower (as measured in actual operation),  adequate
          for controlling noise from new motorcycles 1n your jurisdiction?
                                        No.   Percent
               Adequate
               Too high
               Too low
               Not necessary
    21
     8
     5
     1
21
 7
 5
 1
          Would the EPA proposal facilitate  1n-use  enforcement of motorcycle
          noise laws in your jurisdiction?
                                        Mo.   Percent
               Yes
               No
    23
    13
21
12
          Do you anticipate  increased motorcycle noise enforcement In your
          jurisdiction in the  future, either because of this regulation or for
          other reasons  (check one  or more)?

                                         No.    Percent
               Yes
               No
               Don't  know
               Have own  regs.
     15
      8
      5
      4
 14
  7
  5
  4
«U& GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICt: 1981 341-082/210 1-3
10-7

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read litaruction* on the reverse before completing)
'•"1^8/9-80-220
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Docket Analysis for the Noise Emission Regulations for
Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environment Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Wasnington, DC 20460
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ANR-490)
Washington, DC 20460
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION»NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
EPA/200/02
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
EPA 550/9-80-220
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/02
 8. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
   This  document presents all  comments received from the public regarding the proposed
   noise emission regulations  for motorcycles and motorcycle exhaust systems and the
   Federal  government's responses to each comment.  The comments include written
   submissions received during the 90-day public comment period, and testimony
   received at the three public hearings.  The comments and Agency responses address:
   health and welfare benefits of the regulation; economic effects of the regulation;
   noise control technology; enforcement of the regulation; test procedures; Acoustical
   Assurance Period and Sound  Level Degradation Factor; labeling; mopeds; and general
   comments.  The document also presents a statistical breakdown of all comments.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Street motorcycles, mopeds, off-road
motorcycles, motorcycle exhaust systems
noise emission regulation, environmental
benefits, health and welfare benefits,
economic effects.
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT.
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS

19. SECURITY CLASS [This Report;
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tlusp^se)
Unclassified
c. COSATl Field/Group

21. NO. Ol- PAGtS
129
22. PRICE
CPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

-------