TITLE
13.
CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
NOTICE
OF
PUBLIC
HEARING
TO
CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
CALIFORNIA
EXHAUST
STANDARDS
FOR
ON­
ROAD
MOTORCYCLES
The
Air
Resources
Board
(
the
Board
or
ARB)
will
conduct
a
public
hearing
at
the
time
and
place
noted
below
to
consider
amendments
to
the
California
on­
road
motorcycle
regulation,
including
lower
tailpipe
emission
standards
for
hydrocarbons
plus
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
HC+
NOx),
corporate
averaging
on
an
HC+
NOx
basis,
and
other
technical
modifications.
The
amendments
are
designed
to
help
meet
the
ARB's
commitment
to
achieve
emission
reductions
from
motor
vehicles
under
the
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
for
ozone
attainment.

DATE:
December
10,
1998
TIME:
8:
30
a.
m.

PLACE:
Air
Resources
Board
Hearing
Room
Northern
California
Headquarters
2020
L
Street
Sacramento,
California
This
item
will
be
considered
at
a
two­
day
meeting
of
the
Board,
which
will
commence
at
8:
30
a.
m.,
December
10,
1998,
and
may
continue
at
8:
30
a.
m.,
December
11,
1998.
This
item
may
not
be
considered
until
December
11,
1998.
Please
consult
the
agenda
for
the
meeting,
which
will
be
available
at
least
10
days
before
December
10,
1998,
to
determine
the
day
on
which
this
item
will
be
considered.

This
facility
is
accessible
to
persons
with
disabilities.
If
accommodation
is
needed,
please
contact
the
Clerk
of
the
Board
by
November
25,
1998,
at
(
916)
322­
5594,
or
Telecommunications
Device
for
the
Deaf
(
TDD)
at
(
916)
324­
9531,
or
(
800)
700­
8326
for
TDD
calls
from
outside
the
Sacramento
area,
to
ensure
accommodation.

To
obtain
this
document
in
an
alternative
format,
please
contact
the
ARB
Coordinator
for
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(
ADA)
at
(
916)
322­
4505,
TDD
(
916)
324­
9531
or
(
800)
700­
8326
for
TDD
calls
outside
the
Sacramento
area.

INFORMATIVE
DIGEST/
PLAIN
ENGLISH
POLICY
STATEMENT
OVERVIEW
OF
PROPOSED
ACTION
Sections
Affected:

Amendments
to
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR),
section
1958
and
the
incorporated
"
Exhaust
Emission
Standards
and
Test
Procedures
­
Motorcycles
Manufactured
on
or
After
January
1,
1978."
The
Existing
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation
The
ARB
adopted
the
first
on­
road
motorcycle
regulation
in
1975
to
reduce
ozone­
forming
emissions
from
this
mobile
source
category.
The
regulation
established
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
standards
for
HC
beginning
with
the
1978
model
year.
Depending
on
the
motorcycle
engine
size,
the
original
HC
exhaust
standards
ranged
from
5.0
grams
per
kilometer
(
g/
km)
to
14.0
g/
km.

The
regulation
established
standards
for
motorcycles
with
engines
as
small
as
50
cubic
centimeters
(
cc).
Because
in
this
rulemaking
staff
proposes
to
amend
the
standards
only
for
Class
III
motorcycles
(
280
cc
or
greater),
the
remainder
of
this
discussion
will
focus
on
the
standards
that
currently
apply
to
this
class
of
on­
road
motorcycles.

In
1984,
the
ARB
amended
the
model
year
1985
HC
standard
to
give
manufacturers
more
flexibility.
The
new
standards
for
model
year
1985
and
beyond
focused
on
the
Class
III
category
(
280
cc
and
above):
280
to
699
cc
engines
were
limited
to
1.0
g/
km
for
model
years,
while
700
cc
and
larger
motorcycles
were
limited
to
1.4
g/
km
HC.
The
ARB
established
provisions
to
allow
manufacturers
to
meet
these
limits
on
a
"
corporate
average"
basis,
with
no
individual
engine
family
allowed
to
exceed
2.5
g/
km
HC.

Additionally,
in
1984
the
Board
directed
the
ARB
staff
to
revisit
the
regulation
when
catalytic
and
other
emissions
control
technologies
had
matured
to
the
point
that
it
would
be
feasible
to
apply
these
technologies
to
on­
road
motorcycles.
Significant
strides
in
controlling
emissions
from
internal
combustion
engines
have
taken
place
since
then,
with
developments
in
the
automotive
sector
gradually
being
applied
to
motorcycles.
This
is
particularly
true
in
Europe
and
Asia,
where
engine
modifications,
fuel
injection,
secondary
pulse­
air
injection,
and
catalytic
converters
are
used
in
significant
numbers
of
on­
road
motorcycles.
On
the
other
hand,
the
ARB
emission
standards
for
motorcycles
have
not
kept
pace
with
the
rate
at
which
emission
control
technologies
have
developed.
Therefore,
ARB
staff
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
amend
the
existing
standards
to
the
proposed
levels,
which
reflect
the
use
of
reasonably
available
technologies.

The
Proposed
Amendments
The
primary
impetus
for
the
proposed
amendments
comes
from
the
ARB's
obligations
under
the
State
Implementation
Plan
for
Ozone
adopted
by
the
Board
in
1994.
The
ozone
SIP,
which
represents
California's
commitment
to
attain
and
maintain
the
federal
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
ozone
in
greater
Los
Angeles
and
the
rest
of
the
state,
was
approved
by
U.
S.
EPA
in
1995.
The
ozone
SIP
includes
measures
to
reduce
emissions
from
mobile
sources
under
State
control
(
including
cars,
heavy­
duty
trucks,
off­
road
equipment),
as
well
as
federal
assignments
to
control
emissions
from
sources
under
exclusive
or
practical
federal
control
(
such
as
airplanes,
marine
vessels,
and
locomotives).
The
ozone
SIP
also
relies
upon
the
development
of
additional
technology
measures
(
the
mobile
source
"
black
box")
to
provide
additional
emission
reductions
needed
for
attainment
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin.
3
Although
on­
road
motorcycles
have
been
regulated
since
the
1978
model
year,
the
ozone
SIP
does
not
specifically
plan
for
emission
reductions
from
on­
road
motorcycles.
The
staff's
proposal
for
on­
road
motorcycles
is
a
new
emission
reduction
effort
reflecting
reasonably
available
technologies.
The
staff's
proposal
offers
additional,
cost­
effective
emission
reductions
needed
to
continue
progress
towards
attainment
of
the
federal
ambient
ozone
standard.
The
additional
emission
reductions
will
also
ensure
continued
progress
toward
meeting
State
and
new
federal
air
quality
standards
for
ozone
and
particulate
matter.

The
ARB
staff
proposal
maintains
the
regulatory
approach
used
in
the
existing
regulation.
The
proposal
will
maintain
the
current
standards
until
model
year
2004,
when
the
first
of
the
new
standards
becomes
effective.
The
proposed
Tier­
1
standard
for
model
year
2004
is
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx.
Beginning
in
model
year
2008,
the
proposed
Tier­
2
standard
of
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
becomes
effective.
Manufacturers
would
be
allowed
to
meet
these
proposed
standards
on
a
corporate
average
basis,
with
all
engine
families
limited
to
no
more
than
2.5
g/
km
HC+
NOx.
For
small­
volume
manufacturers,
staff
is
proposing
that
the
Tier­
1
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
become
effective
starting
in
model
year
2008.
In
the
staff's
proposal,
small­
volume
manufacturers
are
those
which
have
combined
California
Class
I
(
50
cc
to
169
cc),
Class
II
(
170
cc
to
279
cc)
and
Class
III
(
280
cc
and
greater)
sales
of
no
greater
than
1000
units
in
a
model
year.

To
provide
incentives
for
early
compliance
with
the
Tier­
2
standard,
staff
is
also
proposing
a
set
of
multiplier
factors
that
provide
extra
credit
to
manufacturers
that
introduce
motorcycles
which
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard
earlier
than
the
2008
model
year.
Use
of
these
credits
will
make
it
easier
for
a
manufacturer
to
comply
with
the
corporate
emissions
average
standard
in
2008.

Comparable
Federal
Regulations
Under
Title
II
of
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
the
U.
S.
EPA
has
adopted
comprehensive
regulations
to
control
emissions
from
new
motor
vehicles
and
motor
vehicle
engines,
including
on­
road
motorcycles
(
see
Title
40,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
Part
86
(
40
CFR
86)).
However,
both
state
law
and
CAA
section
209(
b)
authorize
California
to
establish
its
own
standards
that
differ
from
the
federal
standards.

While
similar
in
purpose
and
scope,
the
California
exhaust
emission
standards
are
more
stringent
than
the
comparable
federal
requirements.
The
current
federal
exhaust
emission
standard
applicable
to
the
engine
size
class
(
Class
III)
affected
by
the
proposed
amendments
is
5.0
g/
km
(
HC
only).
The
federal
standard
for
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
is
identical
to
California's
existing
standard
(
12
g/
km).
The
more
stringent
California
on­
road
motorcycle
program
is
necessary
to
help
attain
the
national
and
state
ambient
ozone
standards.

AVAILABILITY
OF
DOCUMENTS
AND
CONTACT
PERSON/
PLAIN
ENGLISH
POLICY
STATEMENT
OVERVIEW
The
Board
staff
has
prepared
a
staff
report
that
includes
the
initial
statement
of
reasons
for
the
4
proposed
action
and
a
summary
of
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
proposal,
if
any.
Copies
of
the
staff
report
and
the
full
text
of
the
proposed
regulatory
language
may
be
obtained
from
the
Board's
Public
Information
Office,
2020
L
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95814,
(
916)
322­
2990
at
least
45
days
prior
to
the
scheduled
hearing.
The
ARB
has
determined
the
proposed
action
will
affect
small
business.
The
ARB
has
also
determined
that
it
is
not
feasible
to
draft
the
regulations
in
plain
English
due
to
the
technical
nature
of
the
regulations;
however,
a
plain
English
summary
of
the
regulations
is
available
from
the
agency
contact
person
named
in
this
notice,
and/
or
is
also
contained
in
the
staff
report
for
this
regulatory
action.
The
Board
staff
has
compiled
a
record
that
includes
all
information
upon
which
the
proposal
is
based.
This
material
is
available
for
inspection
upon
request
from
the
contact
person
identified
immediately
below.

Further
inquiries
regarding
this
matter
should
be
directed
to
Mr.
Floyd
Vergara,
P.
E.,
On­
Road
Control
Regulation
Branch,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division,
at
(
916)
327­
1503
or
by
e­
mail
at
fvergara@
arb.
ca.
gov.

COSTS
TO
PUBLIC
AGENCIES
AND
TO
BUSINESSES
AND
PERSONS
AFFECTED
The
determinations
of
the
Board's
Executive
Officer
concerning
the
costs
or
savings
necessarily
incurred
in
reasonable
compliance
with
the
proposed
regulations
are
presented
below.

The
Executive
Officer
has
determined
that
the
proposed
regulatory
action
will
not
create
costs
or
savings,
as
defined
in
Government
Code
§
11346.5(
a)(
6),
to
any
state
agency
or
in
federal
funding
to
the
state,
costs
or
a
mandate
to
any
local
agency
or
school
district
whether
or
not
reimbursable
by
the
state
pursuant
to
part
(
commencing
with
§
17500),
Division
4,
Title
2
of
the
Government
Code,
or
other
nondiscretionary
savings
to
local
agencies.

The
affected
businesses
that
would
be
required
to
comply
with
the
proposed
amendments
are
manufacturers
of
on­
road
motorcycles
sold
in
California.
Six
companies
worldwide
manufacture
the
vast
majority
(
over
95%)
of
California­
certified,
on­
road
motorcycles.
Other
affected
companies
are
smaller
manufacturers
generally
located
in
Europe,
as
well
as
numerous
very
small
manufacturers
located
throughout
the
United
States,
including
several
located
in
California.
Also
affected
would
be
businesses
that
supply
parts
for
these
California­
certified,
on­
road
motorcycles.
California
businesses
account
for
only
a
small
share
of
total
nationwide
manufacturing
of
on­
road
motorcycle
parts
because
most
new
parts
suppliers
also
tend
to
locate
in
areas
close
to
vehicle
assembly
plants
to
minimize
shipping
costs
and
delivery
time.
In
addition,
on­
road
motorcycle
dealerships
may
be
affected
by
the
proposed
amendments.

The
proposed
amendments
may
result
in
increased
costs
to
on­
road
motorcycle
manufacturers
and
dealers.
The
complete
cost
analysis
concerning
the
proposed
exhaust
emission
standards
is
contained
in
the
Staff
Report.
When
the
proposed
amendments
are
fully
phased
in,
the
total
annual
manufacturers'
cost
is
estimated
at
up
to
$
3.6
million.
The
overall
cost
increases
are
not
expected
to
have
a
noticeable
impact
on
the
profitability
or
sales
of
affected
manufacturers
and
dealers.
Most
manufacturers
are
expected
to
pass
on
the
bulk
of
the
cost
increase
to
motorcycle
5
purchasers
in
the
form
of
higher
prices.

The
proposed
amendments
are
expected
to
affect
the
retail
price
of
new
on­
road
motorcycles
purchased
by
California
consumers
to
the
extent
manufacturers
are
able
to
pass
on
their
cost
increases
to
purchasers.
If
the
entire
costs
of
compliance
are
passed
on
to
the
consumer,
we
estimate
a
retail
price
increase
from
the
proposed
amendments
of
up
to
approximately
$
200
per
motorcycle,
with
an
average
of
about
$
100
per
motorcycle.
As
the
average
retail
price
of
an
onroad
motorcycle
is
currently
about
$
7,600,
the
cost
increase
on
average
represents
less
than
a
two
percent
increase
in
the
price
of
new
on­
road
motorcycles.
The
magnitude
of
this
increase
is
generally
not
expected
to
significantly
dampen
consumer
demand
for
new
on­
road
motorcycles
in
California.

While
no
significant
dampening
of
sales
is
expected,
the
projected
higher
prices
resulting
from
staff's
proposal
may
cause
a
slight
decrease
in
new
motorcycle
sales.
This
could
have
a
small
negative
effect
on
motorcycle
dealers.
However,
the
overall
net
effect,
if
any,
is
expected
to
be
minor
since
motorcycle
dealers
also
sell
other
products
such
as
accessories,
apparel,
and
other
types
of
vehicles
unaffected
by
staff's
proposal.

The
Executive
Officer
has
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
would
have
no
adverse
economic
impact
on
businesses
including
the
ability
of
California
businesses
to
compete
with
businesses
in
other
states,
as
the
proposed
standards
are
anticipated
to
have
only
a
minor
impact
on
retail
prices
of
new,
on­
road
motorcycles.
In
addition,
no
impacts
on
competitiveness
are
expected
since
all
manufacturers
selling
new,
on­
road
motorcycles
in
California
must
meet
the
proposed
standards,
regardless
of
the
manufacturers'
location.

The
proposed
amendments
are
not
expected
to
cause
a
noticeable
change
in
California
employment
because
California
accounts
for
only
a
small
share
of
on­
road
motorcycle
and
parts
manufacturing
employment.
There
could
be
a
slight
increase
in
California
employment,
as
suppliers
of
parts
that
will
be
used
to
help
meet
the
standards
increase
their
production
of
such
parts
or
their
workforce
to
meet
the
demand.
Also,
to
the
extent
manufacturers
use
contract
laboratories
located
in
California
for
bench
testing
or
other
research
and
development
efforts,
there
could
potentially
be
an
increase
in
employment
in
California.

Other
than
the
possible
increase
in
the
use
of
contract
laboratories
to
conduct
in­
use
testing,
the
proposed
amendments
are
not
expected
to
affect
business
creation,
elimination
or
expansion.

The
estimated
statewide
benefits
of
the
proposal
would
be
approximately
1.3
tpd
HC
and
NOx
by
2010,
and
2.9
tpd
HC
and
NOx
by
2020.
The
estimated
California
cost­
effectiveness
of
the
staff's
proposal
would
range
from
about
$
3.00
to
$
5.60
per
pound
of
ROG
+
NOx
reduced,
depending
on
the
production
and
distribution
strategy
chosen
by
the
manufacturers.
This
costeffectiveness
is
within
the
range
of
other
emission
control
measure
costs.
6
Before
taking
final
action
on
the
proposed
regulatory
action,
the
Board
must
determine
that
no
alternative
considered
by
the
agency
would
be
more
effective
in
carrying
out
the
purpose
for
which
the
action
is
proposed
or
would
be
as
effective
and
less
burdensome
to
affected
private
persons
than
the
proposed
action.

SUBMITTAL
OF
COMMENTS
The
public
may
present
comments
relating
to
this
matter
orally
or
in
writing.
To
be
considered
by
the
Board,
written
submissions
must
be
addressed
to
and
received
by
the
Clerk
of
the
Board,
Air
Resources
Board,
P.
O.
Box
2815,
Sacramento,
CA
95812,
no
later
than
12:
00
noon,
December
9,
1998,
or
received
by
the
Clerk
of
the
Board
at
the
hearing.

The
Board
requests,
but
does
not
require,
that
20
copies
of
any
written
statement
be
submitted
and
that
all
written
statements
be
filed
at
least
10
days
prior
to
the
hearing.
The
Board
encourages
members
of
the
public
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
staff
in
advance
of
the
hearing
any
suggestions
for
modification
of
the
proposed
regulatory
action.

STATUTORY
AUTHORITY
AND
HEARING
PROCEDURES
This
regulatory
action
is
proposed
under
that
authority
granted
in
California
Health
and
Safety
Code
sections
39600,
39601,
43013,
43101,
43104,
and
43107.
This
action
is
proposed
to
implement,
interpret
and
make
specific
California
Health
and
Safety
Code
sections
39002,
39003,
43000,
43013,
43100,
43101,
43104,
43107.

The
public
hearing
will
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
California
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
Title
2,
Division
3,
Part
1,
Chapter
3.5
(
commencing
with
section
11340)
of
the
Government
Code.
7
Following
the
public
hearing,
the
Board
may
adopt
the
regulatory
language
as
originally
proposed,
or
with
nonsubstantial
or
grammatical
modifications.
The
Board
may
also
adopt
the
proposed
regulatory
language
with
other
modifications,
including
changes
to
proposed
emission
standards,
if
the
text
as
modified
is
sufficiently
related
to
the
originally
proposed
text
that
the
public
was
adequately
placed
on
notice
that
the
regulatory
language
as
modified
could
result
from
the
proposed
regulatory
action;
in
such
event
the
full
regulatory
text,
with
the
modifications
clearly
indicated,
will
be
made
available
to
the
public,
for
written
comment,
at
least
15
days
before
it
is
adopted.
The
public
may
request
a
copy
of
the
modified
regulatory
text
from
the
Board's
Public
Information
office,
2020
L
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95814,
(
916)
322­
2990.

CALIFORNIA
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
Michael
P.
Kenny
Executive
Officer
Date:
October
13,
1998
