EPA
550/9
77-202
;rt K|W
Region 9
aaasiss
USB
\
<3
EPA 550/9-77-202
EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
550-
9-
77-
202
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES
PROPOSED MOTORCYCLE
NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY
IMPACT STATEMENT
November 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ID
T
Q
^ " ' EPA 550/9-77-202
~ •• IJUWidl
Repository Material-
Permanent Collection
ro
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
for
PROPOSED MOTORCYCLE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS
November 1977
j-y-s ^ ••
£-'• -'-l~-
««.--» \.j
°c~
' r-)^. UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY » \B.B^^
OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL \
This document has been approved for general availability.
It does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
-------
SUMMARY
Agency:
Action;
Description;
Impacts;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) .
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to establish noise
emission limits for newly manufactured street and off-road
motorcycles and motorcycle replacement exhaust systems.
l.^Newly manufactured motorcycles will be required to meet
increasingly restrictive sound emission requirements 7\ For
street motorcycles, a three-step standard down to 78*08 (A)
effective in 1985 is proposed. Hie same schedule is
proposed for small off-road motorcycles (170 cc and below) .
Large off-road motorcycles would be subject to a two-step
standard down to 82 dB(A) effective in 1983. Moped-type
street motorcycles would be regulated at 70 dB(A) .
2. Replacement exhaust systems intended for use on a
regulated motorcycle must not cause any such motorcycle to
exceed the applicable standard.
3. (Motorcycles and replacement exhaust systems must be built
so as to not degrade above the standard for at least one year.""!
4. Labeling and comprehensive enforcement requirements are
also proposed.
55 to 75% reduction in street motorcycle noise impact
is expected.""}
2. Off-road motorcycle noise area impact is anticipated to
be reduced by 25 to 35%.
3 . ^Motorcycle purchase prices are expected to rise by an
average of 7 to 10%.~1
4. vSome performance, weight and fuel economy penalties
are predicted. 3
5 . L Proposed lead times may strain smaller manufacturers
and will be examined again in the final rule based on
information received in the public docketTj
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT 2
PUBLIC COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 3
*
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION 4
REGULATION OF MOTORCYCLE OPERATIONS 6
HEALTH AND WELFARE IMPACT OF MOTORCYCLE OPERATIONS 8
REGULATORY OPTIONS 12
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY ACTIONS 14
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION 17
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS 22
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 24
IMPACT ON INFLATION AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 25
RELATIONSHIP WITH CITHER FEDERAL, STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 31
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 33
-------
DRAFT
EINvTRQNMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
for
PROPOSED MOTORCYCLE NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued proposed
noise emission regulations for newly manufactured motorcycles and motor-
cycle replacement exhaust systems. These proposed regulations are
intended to alleviate the problem of motorcycle noise not only in cities
and on highways, but in off-road environments as well.
This draft Environmental and Inflationary Impact Statement (EIS-IIS)
presents in summary form the benefits to be gained from the proposed
motorcycle noise standards, and the economic implications of this action.
Also presented are the principal regulatory options which were considered
by EPA. The information contained in this document will provide an under-
standing of the issues involved with this proposed rulemaking, and of
EPA's strategy in promoting a quieter, more livable environment for all
Americans.
-------
-2-
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
In arriving at the proposed standards the Agency considered various
regulatory options in the light of available quieting technology, poten-
tial health and welfare benefits, and the economic costs of compliance
with each option. The regulatory decisions for the proposed rule were
based on information gathered and analyzed by EPA and its contractors
from manufacturers, published works and other sources. This information,
including all information which is presented in this draft EIS-IIS, has
been compiled and analyzed by EPA, and published in the form of a back-
ground document. This document, entitled "Background Document for
Proposed Motorcycle Noise Emission Regulations," (EPA 550/9-77-203) may
be obtained upon request from:
Mr. Charles Mooney
EPA Public Information Center (PM-215)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
For the sake of brevity and simplicity the information contained in
this EIS-IIS is presented in summary form only. Persons wishing more
detailed explanation and discussion of the facts and issues pertinent to
this proposed motorcycle noise rulemaking are encouraged to refer to the
background document.
The preamble and text of the proposed regulations and additional
copies of this EIS-IIS can also be obtained from the above address.
-------
-3-
POBLIC COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public comment is invited on this draft EIS-IIS and on the proposed
motorcycle noise regulations. Comments should be addressed to:
Director, Standards and Regulations Division
Attention: Docket No. ONAC 77-10 (Motorcycles)
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (AW-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
All information received which is not identified as company proprietary
in nature will be open for public inspection.
For further information related to the proposed regulations, please
contact:
Mr. Scott Edwards
Program Manager—Motorcycles
Office of Noise Abatement and Control (AW-471)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-4-
SUMMAKY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
The following table presents the proposed noise emission standards
and effective dates for street motorcycles and off-road motorcycles:
Proposed Noise Emission Standards
Street Motorcycles
Effective Date Sound Level (dB(A))
January 1, 1980 83
January 1, 1982 80
January 1, 1985 78
Moped-Type Street Motorcycles
Effective Date Sound Level (dB(A))
January 1, 1980 70
Off-Road Motorcycles
170 cc Displacement and Less
Effective Date Sound Level (dB(A))
January lf 1980 83
January 1, 1982 80
January 1, 1985 78
Off-Road Motorcycles
More than 170 cc Displacement
Effective Date Sound Level (dB(A))
January 1, 1980 86
January 1, 1983 82
The regulatory standards refer to sound levels measured at 15 meters
(49.2 ft) while the vehicle is accelerating, according to the measurement
methodology prescribed in the proposed regulation.
The above standards also apply to motorcycle replacement exhaust
systems. Any replacement system designed and marketed for Federally
-------
-5-
regulated notorcycles will, when installed on a motorcycle for which it
is intended, be required not to cause the motorcycle to exceed the above
applicable sound level standard.
The above standards are required to be met by each product distri-
buted in commerce. To insure compliance with such a not-to-exceed
standard EPA expects motorcycles to be manufactured some two to three
decibels below the standard.
To eliminate designs which may fail rapidly in use, the proposed
regulations also require an acoustical assurance period. To comply with
this requirement, manufacturers must design and build their products
such that their sound control performance will not deteriorate to exceed
the applicable standard for a specified period (AAP). For street motor-
cycles and street motorcycle replacement exhaust systems this period is
one year or 6,000 kilometers (3730 mi); for off-road motorcycles and
off-road motorcycle replacement exhaust systems this period is one year
or 3,000 kilometers (1865 mi).
-------
-6-
REGULATION OF MOTORCYCLE OPERATIONS
The proposed regulations would establish sound level limits for newly
manufactured motorcycles and exhaust systems distributed in commerce. It
is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the product to ensure that
the standards are met at the time of sale and throughout the acoustical
assurance period. The only Federal regulation applicable to the operator
of a motorcycle is the prohibition against tampering with sound control
devices.
Hie Noise Control Act, which gives EPA the authority to establish
these motorcycle noise standards, specifically reserves all authority for
regulation of the operation of motorcycles to state and local governments.
In other words, it is EPA's responsibility to make sure that manufacturers
sell products which meet prescribed sound level limits. Once a motorcycle
passes to the customer, however, it is state and local responsibility to
make sure that it is used properly and isn't tampered with. Accordingly,
these proposed regulations do not include in-use motorcycle sound limits,
time-of-day restrictions, or land-use requirements. Such in-use regula-
tion, of course, is a necessary complement to these Federal standards if
motorcycle noise is to be effectively controlled. EPA will be working
with concerned states and localities to establish and enforce complemen-
tary in-use regulations. State and local governments will be encouraged
to consider the following types of regulations: (a) Noise emission
standards applicable to street motorcycle operation; (b) Stationary-test
noise emission standards to detect tampering and exhaust system viola-
tions; (c) Inspection programs to ensure use of complying exhaust systems
-------
-7-
on Federally regulated motorcycles; (d) Prohibition against using competi-
tion motorcycles in general recreational areas; (e) Operation permits or
other land management systems to minimize impact of off-road motorcycle
operation in residential and wilderness areas, etc.
-------
-8-
HEALTH AND WELFARE
IMPACT OF MOTORCYCLE OPERATIONS
1. Street Motorcycles. Although street motorcycles account for
less than two percent of total traffic mileage, the noise impact of new
motorcycles, and especially of exhaust-modified motorcycles, constitutes
a major noise problem. This problem is most evident in urban residential
and suburban areas where motorcycles are not part of the greater traffic
stream, and where noise from an individual motorcycle operation is a
separately identifiable noise impact; event. These noise intrusions inter-
fere with normal activities and cause annoyance on the part of persons so
impacted.
To examine the impact of street motorcycle noise on the public
health and welfare, the Agency used a single-event activity interference
analysis to give a picture of the annoyance caused by motorcycle noise.
For the purposes of the analysis, two types of activity interferences
were investigated as an index of this annoyance: numbers of outdoor
speech interferences, and the numbers of sleep disturbances and awak-
enings occurring due to motorcycle noise. This analysis indicates that
street motorcycles cause approximately 1.7 million outdoor noise impact
events per day, and hundreds of thousands of indoor impacts.
In addition to examining street motorcycle noise in terms of single
event impacts, the Agency also examined the contribution of motorcycles,
both modified and unmodified, to overall traffic noise impact. This
type of analysis is useful in measuring motorcycle noise as it compares
with noise from the other transportation vehicles (such as trucks, buses
-------
-9-
and automobiles) which occur in highly populated urban areas. Current
unmodified motorcycles were not found to be a major contributor to over-
all traffic impact (traffic currently impacts almost 100 million people
each day). As traffic vehicles get quieter in the future, however, un-
modified motorcycles become a significant traffic source which would
stand out without further sound reduction.
Hie Agency's analysis confirmed that a large part of the current
street motorcycle noise impact is due to motorcycles with exhaust system
modifications. Modifications include both tampering with quiet exhausts
and ineffective replacement exhaust systems. Exhaust modifications of
either type can cause a more-than-twenty decibel increase in a motorcycle's
sound level. That reducing exhaust system modifications is essential to
reducing the overall impact of motorcycle noise is illustrated by the
fact that a reduction in the number of exhaust-modified motorcycles (now
estimated to be almost 15% of the population nationwide) by one-half
would accomplish the same reduction in impact as lowering new motorcycle
sound levels by ten decibels. Although no accurate method of prediction
exists, the Agency estimates that Federal replacement exhaust system
regulations, combined with state and local in-use enforcement programs,
can be expected to reduce the percentage of exhaust modifications to
between one-half and one-fourth of their current numbers.
2. Off-Road Motorcycles. The Agency has also proposed noise
emission regulations for pure off-road motorcycles. Concerned state and
local government officials have reported that use of off-road motorcycles
both in wilderness and near-residential areas is a significant noise
problem. Not only are off-road motorcycles loud, they are used in areas
-------
-10-
where any man-made motorized sound is unwanted (wilderness areas), or
in areas where they disturb residents such as in backyards/ vacant lots,
along railroad tracks, etc. It is generally agreed that the main problem
of off-road motorcycle noise is one of incompatible land use, and that
reducing noise emission levels will only alleviate, not solve the problem.
Although progress is being made in some areas, state and local officials
report great difficulty in having proper in-use and land use restrictions
established, and in properly enforcing them once established. These dif-
ficulties are exacerbated by the facts that off-road motorcycles are
usually not licensed, that operators are often difficult to apprehend once
observed in a violation, and that many jurisdictions cannot effectively
exercise authority over juvenile offenders.
As with the case of street motorcycles, a large part of the total
impact of off-road motorcycle noise is attributable to exhaust system
modifications. It is estimated that almost 30% of all off-road motor-
cycles have modified exhausts. It is apparent that reducing these
modifications is as important to reducing the impact of off-road motor-
cycle noise as it is for street motorcycles. Federal exhaust system
regulations and in-use enforcement are expected to control the incidence
of exhaust modifications to between one-half and one-quarter of their
current levels.
Bie impact of off-road motorcycle noise is difficult to quantify
in terms of the population impact criteria used in the street motorcycle
analysis. In assessing the impact of off-road motorcycle noise, EPA used
an analysis based on "detectability distance." In this analysis the
distance at which the noise from off-road motorcycles can be detected in
-------
-11-
typical off-road settings was calculated. This detectability distance was
then combined with the estimated off-road mileage accumulated by these
vehicles. With allowances made for multiple use of trails and other
factors, it was estimated that over 33,000 square miles are impacted by
off-road motorcycle noise each day. With reasonable assumptions about use
patterns, this translates into one to two million people impacted daily.
3. Competition Motorcycles. In considering regulatory options for
competition motorcycles, the Agency analyzed the health and welfare impacts
associated with competition motorcycle noise from two standpoints: (a) As
competition vehicles which contribute to noise disturbance from raceways;
and (b) As vehicles which can be improperly used in off-road environments.
The noise impact of automobile and motorcycle raceways is an in-
creasing problem as notorsports become more popular. Controlling raceway
noise is a different problem than controlling motor vehicle noise, since
raceways exist wholly within individual jurisdictions and can be required
to meet local land-use or general environmental standards. Although exact
statistics are not available, certain jurisdictions have reported raceway
noise as a significant problem.
A more wide-spread problem appears to be the use of motorcycles
intended for competition use in general off-road environments. Although
more expensive than non competition off-road motorcycles, racing motor-
cycles offer increased performance (due in part to decreased silencing)
and lighter weight. Whether used for practice or exclusively for recre-
ational use, these motorcycles are appearing in great numbers in general
off-road environments and are causing some significant noise disturbance,
according to the state and local officials contacted by EPA.
-------
-12-
REGULATOKY OPTIONS
To reduce the array of possible motorcycle standards to a manageable
few for analysis purposes, EPA chose several "study levels" for examina-
tion. The study levels ranged from current levels to the lowest levels
that might be considered achievable over the next one or two decades. As
will be seen, the lowest levels studied turned out to be more stringent
than the level representative of "best available technology" as required
by the Noise Control Act. The Agency, of course, was not bound to adopt
any of the discrete steps listed below and could have chosen any inter-
mediate level not specifically analyzed.
The regulatory alternatives considered by EPA during the development
of this proposed rulemaking are as follows:
Street Motorcycles
o Do not regulate. Leave source emission standards to concerned states
and localities.
o Eighty-three decibel ultimate standard.
o Eighty decibel ultimate standard (83 dB(A) interim standard).
o Seventy-eight decibel ultimate standard (83 dB(A) and 80 dB(A) interim
standards).
o Seventy-five decibel ultimate standard (83 dB(A), 80 dB(A), and 78
dB(A) interim standards).
Off-Road Motorcycles
o Do not regulate. Rely instead on state and local new product stan-
dards, land use restriction, and in-use enforcement.
-------
-13-
o Eight-six decibel standard for large (over 170 cc) off-road motor-
cycles; standards for small (170 cc and under) off-road motorcycles
the same as street motorcycles.
o Eighty-three decibel standard for large off-road motorcycles; street
standards for small off-road motorcycles.
o Eighty decibel standard for large off-road motorcycles; street stan-
dards for small off-road motorcycles.
o Street motorcycle standards for all off-road motorcycles.
Replacement Exhaust Systems
o Do not regulate.
o Establish noise standards.
Competition Motorcycles
o Do not regulate.
o Establish noise standards.
EPA evaluated these regulatory options by considering the quieting
technology involved, the cost and economic impact, and the health and
welfare benefits of each alternative. Since these regulations will set
standards which will remain in effect for the forseeable future, choosing
from among the available regulatory options involves making public policy
decisions which will have long range effects. In considering and arriving
at these decisions the Agency must balance the short term economic con-
sequences of noise control standards against their potential long term
benefit to the public health and welfare.
-------
-14-
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE PECULATOR* ACTIONS
The health and welfare and economic impacts associated with alter-
native regulatory levels considered for street motorcycles are summarized
in Table 1.
Table 2 presents a summary of the health and welfare and economic
impacts associated with the different study regulatory levels for off-road
motorcycles.
It is apparent that although new vehicle sound level reductions
accomplish some significant reduction in health and welfare impacts for
both street and off-road motorcycles, the most substantial reductions
will occur from controlling the numbers of exhaust-modified motorcycles.
The technological implications of the various regulatory levels
studied are summarized in terms of the major model changes required for
different motorcycle models to comply with the different standards.
Major model changes, which require substantial redesign of engine/drive
train components, include water cooling, switching to multi-cylinder
designs (street motorcycles only), and conversion from 2-stroke to 4-
stroke engines.
The economic impacts of the regulatory alternatives studied can be
expressed by several different measures. Purchase prices of motorcycles
are expected to increase as a result of the additional engineering design,
development and production costs involved in applying sound reduction
technology. Total annualized costs associated with quieting motorcycles
are another measure of economic impact, and account for purchase price
increases and increased operating and maintenance costs which would not
otherwise be incurred by consumers in the absence of noise regulations.
-------
-15-
Table 1
STREET MOTORCYCLES: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Regulatory
Level
dB(A)*
83
80
78
75
Health and
Welfare
Reduction in
Current Impact**
43%
52%
56%
60%
Technology
Major Model
Changes
Required***
None
some large
displacement
motorcycles
most motorcycles
over 175 cc
all motorcycles
over 100 cc
Price Increase
$/vehicle
(Fractional increase)
$ 16 (1%)
$ 52 (4%)
$140 (10%)
$263 (18%)
Total
Annual i zed
Cost
$M/yr
$ 25
$100
$190
$245
*Test procedure proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
**7% incidence of modified exhaust systems, reduced from current 12%. Current impact:
1.7 million outdoor impact events daily, 450 thousand indoor impact events.
***Use of liquid cooling or other major engine redesign.
-------
-16-
Table 2
OFF-ROAD MOTORCYCLES: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Regulatory
Level
dB(A)*
86/78****
83/78
80/78
78/78
Health and
Welfare
Reduction of
Current Impact**
32%
35%
39%
42%
Technology
Major Model
Changes
Required***
0%
> 170cc: 10%
> 170cc: 100%
> 170cc:
essentially
infeasible
Price Increase
$/vehicle
(Fractional increase)
$2 (1%)
< 170cc: $50 (6%)
> 170cc: $20 (2%)
< I70cc: $50 (6%)
> 170cc: $100 (9%)
< 170cc: $50 (6%)
> 170cc: $175 (14%)
Total
Annualized
Cost
$M/yr
$ 5.0
$ 8.5
$15.0
$21.0
*Test procedure proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
**Off-road alone: 8% modifications (substantial reduction from current level).
***Percent of current models which would require two-stroke to four-stroke engine
conversion or other major engine redesign.
****Two class standard: 86 dB(A) for large off-road motorcycles
78 dB(A) for small off-road motorcycles.
-------
-17-
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION
The proposed regulation will establish noise emission standards for
newly manufactured street and off-road motorcycles and for newly manu-
factured replacement exhaust systems designed for use on Federally
regulated motorcycles. Competition motorcycles will be required to be
labeled, but no noise emission standards are established. A one-year
acoustical assurance period for new motorcycles and new replacement
exhaust systems is also established.
1. Street Motorcycles. New vehicle regulations are considered by
the Agency to be feasible and the most effective means of controlling the
noise from newly manufactured street motorcycles. The decision to esta-
blish the 78 dB(A) regulatory level for street motorcycles was made by
the Administrator after careful examination of the alternative regulatory
levels investigated by the Agency. EPA fully appreciates the price, per-
formance and styling impacts of the proposed standard, and the fact that
the engineering development required to meet the 78 dB(A) level may make
it difficult for some small manufacturers to remain in the U.S. market.
The more stringent 75 dB(A) standard for street motorcycles was not
considered to be achievable using "best available technology" as defined
in the Noise Control Act. Some manufacturers could undoubtedly produce
certain models at this level, but the absence of demonstrated techniques
to allow the manufacture of a full range of motorcycles eliminates this
from consideration in EPA's motorcycle noise rule.
The 80 dB(A) standard was seriously considered as an option which
would have most of the health and welfare benefits of the 78 dB(A) level,
-------
-18-
with substantially fewer economic impacts. However, there is a clear
showing that sound control technology is available to reach the proposed
standard at a reasonable cost. Moreover, motorcycles are the loudest
transportation vehicle type in the urban/suburban residential environment,
since medium and heavy trucks are not frequently operated in these areas.
Reducing street motorcycle sound emissions to the 78 dB(A) level will
bring motorcycles closer to parity with sound levels of current automo-
biles and other vehicles operated in this environment.
2. Off-Road Motorcycles. To deal with the problem of noise from
pure off-road motorcycles, several alternatives to new vehicle sound
level standards (such as labeling only) were considered. Such options,
however, would leave new product as well as in-use and land use regula-
tion to states and localities. Although land use restrictions seem to
be the most effective way to deal with off-road motorcycle noise, it is
apparent that there is a need as well for new product regulations which
will complement these in-use regulations.
The decision to establish a split-level classification scheme for
off-road motorcycles was made on the basis of technology, cost and health
and welfare considerations. The 78 dB(A) regulatory level was selected
for small off-road motorcycles since the technology to reach this level
is available at a reasonable cost and with minimum performance penalties.
For large off-road motorcycles the Administrator considered regulatory
levels stricter than the proposed 82 dB(A) standard. The performance
penalties associated with stricter standards would, however, have a severe
impact on the nature of the sport of off-road motorcycling as it is known
-------
-19-
today, with limited additional health and welfare benefits. The Agency
also considered standards less stringent than 82 dB(A) for large off-road
motorcycles. A less restrictive level such as 86 dB(A) would have fewer
economic impacts, with much of the health and welfare benefit of the
proposed standard. However, with technology clearly available to achieve
lower levels, and in consideration of the seriousness and the scope of
the problem of off-road motorcycle noise, the Agency is persuaded that
the Federal noise emission standard for large off-road motorcycles must
be that level which minimizes the noise -impact of these vehicles, and
at the same time does not significantly alter the nature of the sport.
3. Competition Motorcycles. As discussed above, the Agency con-
sidered competition motorcycles both from the standpoint of raceway noise
and improper use off-road. Reducing the sound levels of racing motorcycles
is only one way to combat the problem of noise from motorcycle raceways.
Federal regulations to reduce competition motorcycle sound levels were
seriously considered, but these regulations would have to be diligently
enforced at the raceway by raceway operators or local officials, since
such vehicles are often completely disassembled between races. EPA has
concluded that Federal standards for newly manufactured competition
motorcycles are not the most effective method of dealing with motorcycle
raceway noise problems.
EPA cannot solve the problem of competition motorcycles being
improperly used in off-road areas without regulating competition motor-
cycles to the levels of off-road machines. Such a severe measure would
essentially destroy serious off-road motorcycle competition, and would
-------
-20-
not deter the few motorcyclists determined to use the highest performance
vehicles in off-road areas. Clear labeling of competition motorcycles
coupled with local enforcement appears to be the most effective Federal
approach to this problem,
4. Moped-type Street Motorcycles. Moped-type motorcycles are
currently sold in the U.S. in limited numbers but are experiencing rapid
sales increases. Although current models are relatively quiet (most are
less than 70 dB(A))r their expected increase in numbers, competitive trends
to increase performance and the potential for significant incidence of
owner modification argue for establishing a standard to prevent increased
sound levels either from new products or from modified vehicles.
5. Lead Times. The proposed schedule of effective dates for these
standards is based on the time required for rapid-but-orderly redesign
of a major manufacturer's product line. Smaller manufacturers will likely
need to initiate accelerated programs to comply with these dates. EPA
is soliciting comment from manufacturers on the implications of these
proposed lead times to determine if lead times, alone, might force any
manufacturers out of the U.S. market that otherwise would be able to
remain. If information submitted to the docket indicates that limited
additional lead time may allow some firms to remain in the U.S. market
which otherwise could not, the Agency might consider adjustments to
the effective dates in the final rule.
6. Acoustical Assurance Period (AAP). The one year acoustical
assurance period as required in the proposed regulation is established
with the purpose of ensuring that the noise control componentry of the
-------
-21-
regulated products are of good quality and design and will not fail
rapidly with use. Data available to EPA indicate that the noise emissions
of motorcycles do not increase appreciably with accumulated time and
mileage. Accordinglyr motorcycles which do not degrade during the initial
period are expected to stay at or near the standard for their operational
lifetime. Certain types of currently manufactured replacement mufflers,
however, may not be able to satisfy the requirement. Otherwise, the
acoustical assurance requirement is not expected to impose any additional
costs.
-------
-22-
HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFITS
The proposed regulation will reduce individual new street motorcycle
sound levels by an average of five to seven decibels by 1985. Sound
levels of new off-road motorcycles of 170 cc displacement and less will be
reduced by an average of approximately two to four decibels. Large off-
road motorcycles (over 170 cc displacement) will experience sound level
reductions of an average of seven to nine decibels.
At the 78 dB(A) regulatory level, the Agency estimates that outdoor
speech interference impacts caused by motorcycle noise will be reduced
from current levels by 55-75% (1 to 1.3 million outdoor events daily),
and that the number of sleep disturbance impacts will fall by 50-65%
(300 to 375 thousand). These figures assume that Federal regulation of
replacement exhaust systems combined with state and local action will
reduce the numbers of exhaust-modified motorcycles from the currently
estimated twelve percent of the street motorcycle population (nationwide)
to between three and seven percent.
The Agency also investigated the effect of lowered street motorcycle
sound emissions on overall traffic noise levels and equivalent numbers of
people impacted. This analysis concluded that, from current levels, with
medium and heavy trucks regulated to 80 dB(A), reducing new motorcycle
noise emissions (only) to the 78 dB(A) regulatory level will cause a re-
lative reduction in overall noise impact of less than two percent (700
thousand equivalent noise impacts). However, a reduction of the incidence
of exhaust modifications from the current twelve percent to three percent
could achieve an additional 18% reduction in total equivalent noise impact.
-------
-23-
With the advent of Federal noise regulations for the other major
types of transportation vehicles, urban/suburban population noise impact
from transportation vehicles is expected to be significantly lessened
over the next several decades. From the viewpoint of this future noise
environment, noise emission standards for street motorcycles are even
more important than when viewed from current baseline levels. The Agency
assessed the effect of lowered motorcycle sound levels in this future
"regulated" noise environment, wherein the present vehicle population
will have been replaced with quieter, Federally regulated vehicles (for
analysis purposes, heavy and medium trucks are assumed to be regulated
at 75 dB(A)). In this future situation, the impact of a 78 dB(A) street
motorcycle standard would be a seven percent (2.4 million) reduction
in total equivalent noise impacts. Reducing exhaust modifications to
three percent would cause an additional 27% reduction.
EPA's analysis of the environmental impact of off-road motorcycle
noise concluded that, at sound level standards of 82 dB(A) and 78 dB(A)
for large and small off-road motorcycles, a 25-35% (80 to 115 thousand
square miles) reduction in the total area impacted by off-road motorcycle
noise is achieved, This figure assumes a 78 dB(A) regulatory level for
dual purpose motorcycles, and a reduction in the proportion of exhaust
system modifications to between eight and fifteen percent.
Although the current noise impact of moped-type street motorcycles
is negligible, these regulations will prevent sound level increases and
will establish a Federal prohibition against tampering with muffling
devices.
-------
-24-
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Water Quality. No appreciable impacts on water quality are
expected.
2. Air Quality. Noise regulations should not make it more difficult
for manufacturers to comply with street motorcycle exhaust emission stan-
dards. In addition, noise regulations are not expected to significantly
impact exhaust emissions from off-road motorcycles.
3. Raw Materials. In general, changes in the amount of raw
materials used lay motorcycle-related industries are not expected to be
significant, although some slight increase in such use is foreseen.
4. Wildlife. Although there are differing opinions as to the
significance of noise impact on animals, it is generally agreed that the
impact is somewhat detrimental. Therefore, quieting motorcycles may have
some beneficial effect on wildlife and domesticated animals, although the
benefit can not be quantified.
5. Land Use. The regulation is expected to have no adverse effect
on land use.
6. Solid Waste Disposal Requirements. No change in the amount of
solid waste is expected. The scrapping of old motorcycles should not
increase as a result of noise regulation. In fact, increased motorcycle
prices and possible performance decrements should have, to a small degree,
a reverse effect: users may be encouraged to retain old motorcycles
longer.
-------
-25-
IMPACT ON INFLATION AND OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Costs of applying sound reduction technology to meet the proposed
regulatory levels and the associated increases in retail purchase prices
vary according to the type and size of motorcycle models. Expected unit
purchase price increases range from five percent for small displacement
(under 100 cc) street motorcycles to thirteen percent for medium sized
street motorcycles at the 78 dB(A) regulatory level. Unit prices of
large off-road motorcycles are expected to increase an average of five
percent at the 82 dB(A) level. Price increases of small off-road motor-
cycles range up to ten percent at the ultimate (78 dB(A)) level.
The total annualized costs of the proposed noise emission standards
for street and off-road motorcycles are estimated to be approximately
$200 million. This figure, projected through the the year 1996f accounts
for increases in purchase prices and the increased costs of operating
and maintaining the vehicles due to noise control regulation.
Federal noise standards for replacement exhaust systems are expected
to cause retail prices to rise to levels roughly comparable to those of
stock replacement systems on quieted motorcycles, or approximately fifty
percent more than the average price of current original equipment systems.
Additionally, a significant shrinkage of the total market is forecast,
since styling and performance advantages of many current exhaust systems
will largely disappear.
A number of other potential economic impacts were assessed by EPA
in determining the possible effects of noise control regulations on the
-------
-26-
various segments of the motor cycle industry. These impacts, many of
which cannot be easily quantified, are summarized as follows:
1. Impacts on Motorcycle Manufacturers. A net reduction in motor-
cycle demand is expected, as a result of the proposed noise standards.
Forecasting based on historical price-demand relationships indicates that
the demand for street and off-road motorcycles combined would be about
ten percent below that expected in the absence of noise regulations.
Significant shifts in historic market shares due to Federal noise stan-
dards are not expected to occur among the major Japanese motorcycle
manufacturers. Manufacturer profitibility is likewise not expected to
be impacted to any large extent. Cost increases due to noise control
are expected to be largely passed on to consumers, and 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.
The economic impact of the proposed 78 dB(A) standard on AMF/
Barley-Davidson, the principal domestic manufacturer, is expected to be
primarily manifested in terms of the ability of the firm to manufacture
large displacement motorcycles which conform to EPA standards. For
Harley-Davidson to achieve an 80 dB(A) standard it is apparent that, at
the very least, major redesign of their current large engine types incor-
porating most known engine quieting techniques would be necessary. One
attraction of Harley-Davidson motorcycles is an uniquely identifiable
exhaust note which dominates other noise subsources. Engine redesign
could exact tonal characteristics and performance penalties that might,
in themselves, impact demand for Barley/Davidson motorcycles. Further, a
-------
-27-
regulatory level of 78 dB(A) is not considered achievable with modification
to current Barley-Davidson engine designs. Complete redesigns, in addition
to major exhaust and intake treatment, are likely to be necessary*
It is well accepted that Barley-Davidson motorcycles occupy an unique
position in the U.S. motorcycle market. Barley-Davidson motorcycles have
a devoted following and are expected to be relatively insensitive to small
price rises. Consequently, if engine designs can be developed which meet
the proposed standard and which are acceptable to potential purchasers,
Barley-Davidson would be expected to be able to raise necessary capital
from its large parent corporation, AMF, and to be able to sell the new
designs at little sacrifice in profitability.
Hie other major North American motorcycle manufacturer of street
motorcycles is Canada's Bombardier, Ltd., which manufactures high-
performance dual purpose motorcycles based on off-road and competition
models. Hie remaining street motorcycle manufacturers predominantly are
European firms which export large displacement models on a limited scale
to the United States, although several export a sizeable portion of their
total production to this country. Most of these firms are considered
capable of producing motorcycles at the 80 dB(A) regulatory level. Bow-
ever, it is questionable whether Bombardier or many of the European
manufacturers would continue exporting street motorcycles to the United
States with the establishment of the 78 dB(A) standard.
Japanese manufacturers of off-road motorcycles are not expected to
experience serious difficulty in producing and marketing off-road motor-
cycles which comply with the proposed sound level standards. As discussed
-------
-28-
above, the technology is well understood, although some weight and perfor-
mance penalities may be unavoidable. Other manufacturers, however, are
expected to experience considerable difficulty in maintaining their present
market positions at the proposed levels, due to the considerable impacts
to performance advantages of current models. The 82 dB(A) regulatory level
for large off-road motorcycles is considered to be technically achievable
for almost all current manufacturers without requiring conversion to
four-stroke engines. However, the performance and cost impacts of this
regulatory level may make it unprofitable for some of these firms to remain
in the U.S. market.
Since no additional sound reduction is to be required, manufacturers
of moped-type street motorcycles are not expected to be significantly
impacted by these regulations.
2. Impact on Replacement Exhaust System Manufacturers. The proposed
regulations will have a substantial impact on the replacement exhaust sys-
tem industry. Of the more than one hundred 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. Such firms are not expected to be able to
manufacture exhaust systems which comply with these regulations. Although
some firms may continue to produce systems for motorcycles manufactured
prior to Federal noise regulations, in the longer term most of these manu-
facturers will ultimately be forced to switch to alternate product lines,
or go out of business.
-------
-29-
Soroe ten to twenty replacement exhaust system manufacturers are
expected to be able to produce systems which comply with Federal regula-
tions. Although a net shrinkage in the replacement exhaust system market
is forecast, these larger firms may actually experience increased sales
volumes as other manufacturers exit from the market.
3. Impacts on Foreign Trade. Since motorcycles comprise substan-
tially less than one percent of total U.S. foreign trade with Europe
and North America, the impact of a Federal motorcycle noise regulation
on the balance of trade with these areas is expected to be negligible.
Motorcycles do, however, account for some fifteen percent of the approxi-
mately $10 billion in annual imports from Japan. EPA does not, however,
anticipate any substantial changes in net revenue to Japanese motorcycle
manufacturers resulting from noise standards, and thus no appreciable
change in the U.S.-Japanese balance of trade is forecast.
4. Impact on Exports. The small percentage of AMF/fcarley-Davidson's
domestic motorcycle production which is currently exported is not expected
to change significantly as a result of noise regulations.
5. Impacts on Employment. If demand reduction forecasts based on
historical relationships are applicable, eventual reductions in current
U.S. motorcycle industry employment resulting from the proposed Federal
noise standards could range between 3,000 and 5,000 positions from future
employment in the absence of noise regulations. There is reason to be-
lieve, however, that this impact would be considerably less. Projected
growth in the industry will more than compensate for any losses that
do occur. However, if the standards or lead times established in the
-------
-30-
final rule prevent Barley-Davidson from being able to remain in the
market, their 3,000 motorcycle-related positions in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
and York, Pennsylvania would be involved.
The aftermarket exhaust system industry is the only segment of the
total industry expected to experience an actual net decline in employment.
6. Impacts on Gross National Product. The proposed regulation is
not expected to have any consequential effect, either directly or indi-
rectly, on the U.S. Gross National Product.
7. Impacts on Energy Consumption. Additional weight and other
factors could negatively impact motorcycle fuel economy by some five
to ten percent. A worst case impact would translate into a per vehicle
increase in fuel consumption of three to four gallons per year. The
superior carburetion required by air emission regulations, however, is
expected to partially offset this loss.
-------
-31-
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
1. Federal Government Agencies. The Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Land Management) and the Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest
Service) will have responsibility for ensuring that motorcycles manufac-
tured after January 1, 1979 which are operated on public lands and parks
comply with EPA noise emission regulations.
2. State and Local Governments. Under subsection 6(b)(l) of the
Noise Control Act, after the effective date of a Federal new product noise
regulation, no state or political subdivision thereof may adopt or enforce
any law or regulation which sets a limit of noise emissions from such new
products, or components of such new products, which is not identical to
the standard prescribed by the Federal regulation. Subsection 6(b)(l),
however, provides that nothing in Section 6 precludes or denies the right
of any state or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce
controls on environmental noise through the licensing, regulation or
restriction of the use, operation, or movement of any product or combina-
tion of products.
The noise controls which are reserved to state and local authority
by section 6(e)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Controls on the manner of operation of products.
2. Controls on the time of day or night in which products may be
operated.
3. Controls on the places in which products may be operated.
4. Controls on the number of products which may be operated
together.
-------
-32-
5. Controls on noise emissions from the property on which
products are used.
6. Controls on the licensing of products.
7. Controls on environmental noise level.
EPA encourages state and local government authorities to adopt and
enforce laws and ordinances which complement this Federal motorcycle noise
rulemaking. The Agency is developing a model ordinance to assist state and
local governments in using their authority to control the motorcycle noise
problem within their respective jurisdictions.
-------
-33-
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In developing the proposed motorcycle noise emission standards, EPA
has conducted an intensive public participation program to gain the views
of all interested parties. Representatives of every state government and
numerous local governments had meetings with EPA or responded to a tele-
phone program seeking their input. Similarly, environmental groups,
motorcycle user and enthusiast groups and consumer advocacy groups were
contacted. EPA carefully coordinated this effort with responsible offi-
cials in the Federal government, including: the U.S. Forest Service
(Department of Agriculture); U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Department
of Interior); Department of Transportation; National Bureau of Standards
(Department of Commerce) and the Department of the Treasury.
EPA intends to continue this public participation program throughout
the public comment and docket analysis periods in order to include all
views and comments for the Agency's deliberations in the final rulemaking
process. Addresses for submission of comments on this EIS-IIS or on the
proposed rule, and contacts for additional information regarding the
proposed rule are included on page 3 of this document.
------- |