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)
------- |