State
of
California
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
FINAL
STATEMENT
OF
REASONS
FOR
RULEMAKING
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
CALIFORNIA
ON­
ROAD
MOTORCYCLE
REGULATION
.

Scheduled
for
Consideration:
December
10,
1998
Agenda
Item
No.:
98­
14­
4
Table
of
Contents
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................
1
II.
MODIFICATIONS
TO
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
.............................................
4
1.
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
...............................................................
4
1.
The
Existing
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation..........................
4
2.
The
Original
Proposal...............................................................................
5
2.
MODIFICATIONS
TO
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL.......................................................
6
1.
Section
1900(
b)(
17)
(
Definition:
Motorcycle
Engine)
...............................
6
2.
Section
1958(
a)
(
Applicability)
................................................................
7
3.
Section
1958(
b)
(
Table
of
Standards)........................................................
7
4.
Section
1958(
f)(
1)
&
(
2)
(
Small
Volume
Manufacturers)
..........................
7
5.
Section
1958(
g)
(
Early
Compliance
Credits)
.............................................
8
6.
Section
1958(
h)
(
Sunset
Review)..............................................................
8
7.
Section
1965
(
Emission
Control
&
Smog
Index
Label)
............................
8
III.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
AND
AGENCY
RESPONSES
..................................
9
List
of
Comments
Received..................................................................................
9
1.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
45­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD
...........................
11
1.
Applicability
&
Need
to
Regulate
On­
Road
Motorcycles
........................
11
2.
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Contribution
to
the
Emissions
Inventory
...............
12
3.
Technological
Feasibility
........................................................................
15
4.
Commercial
Feasibility
&
Cost
Impacts
..................................................
17
5.
Small
Volume
Manufacturers
.................................................................
28
6.
Early­
Compliance
Credits
......................................................................
33
7.
Tampering
..............................................................................................
33
8.
Miscellaneous
.........................................................................................
35
2.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
FIRST
15­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD..................
37
1.
General
Comments
.................................................................................
37
2.
Engine
Manufacturers
­
Section
1958(
a)
(
Applicability)
..........................
38
3.
Small
Volume
Manufacturers
­
Section
1958(
f)
......................................
38
4.
Early­
Compliance
Credits
­
Section
1958(
g)
...........................................
39
5.
Sunset
Review
­
Section
1958(
h)
............................................................
40
3.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
SECOND
15­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD..............
41
­
1­
State
of
California
AIR
RESOURCES
BOARD
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
Rulemaking,
Including
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Responses
PUBLIC
HEARING
TO
CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
CALIFORNIA
ON­
ROAD
MOTORCYCLE
REGULATION
Public
Hearing
Date:
December
10,
1998
Agenda
Item
No.:
98­
14­
4
1.
INTRODUCTION
In
this
rulemaking
the
Air
Resources
Board
(
ARB
or
Board)
is
adopting
a
comprehensive
set
of
amendments
to
the
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
regulation
(
section
1958,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR)).
The
amendments
include
the
application
of
new
exhaust
emission
standards
to
on­
road
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
for
hydrocarbon
plus
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
HC+
NOx).
The
amendments
also
include
provisions
for
small­
volume
manufacturers
and
early­
compliance
credits
and
modifications
to
sections
1900
(
Definitions)
and
1965
(
Emissions
Control
and
Smog
Index
Label)
that
are
consistent
with
the
amendments
to
section
1958.
Finally,
the
amendments
include
a
sunset
review
provision,
as
required
by
Executive
Order
W­
144­
97,
as
well
several
technical
modifications.
The
amendments
are
designed
to
help
meet
the
ARB's
commitment
to
achieve
emission
reductions
under
the
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
for
ozone
attainment
and
in
partial
satisfaction
of
the
recent
SIP
lawsuit
settlement.

The
rulemaking
was
initiated
by
the
October
23,
1998
publication
of
a
notice
for
a
December
10,
1998
public
hearing
to
consider
the
on­
road
motorcycle
regulatory
amendments.
A
"
Staff
Report:
Initial
Statement
of
Reasons"
(
referred
to
as
the
Staff
Report)
was
also
made
available
for
public
review
and
comment
on
October
23,
1998.
The
Staff
Report,
which
is
incorporated
by
reference
herein,
contains
an
extensive
description
of
the
rationale
for
the
proposal.
The
text
of
the
proposed
amendments
to
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR),
and
related
documents
incorporated
by
reference
in
the
title
13,
CCR
regulations,
were
included
as
appendices
to
the
Staff
Report.
These
documents
were
also
posted
on
the
ARB's
Internet
site
for
this
rulemaking
at
<
http://
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
msprog/
motcycle/
motcycle.
htm>.

The
proposed
action
consisted
of
amendments
to
title
13,
CCR,
section
1958
and
the
incorporated
"
Exhaust
Emission
Standards
and
Test
Procedures
­
Motorcycles
Manufactured
on
or
After
January
1,
1978."
­
2­
On
December
10,
1998,
the
Board
conducted
the
public
hearing,
at
which
it
received
written
and
oral
comments.
At
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing,
the
Board
adopted
Resolution
98­
65,
in
which
it
approved
the
originally
proposed
amendments
with
several
modifications.
In
accordance
with
section
11346.8
of
the
Government
Code,
Resolution
98­
65directed
the
Executive
Officer
to
incorporate
the
modifications
into
the
proposed
regulatory
texts,
with
such
other
conforming
modifications
as
may
be
appropriate,
and
to
make
the
modified
text
available
for
a
supplemental
comment
period
of
at
least
15
days.
He
was
then
directed
either
to
adopt
the
amendments
with
such
additional
modifications
as
may
be
appropriate
in
light
of
the
comments
received,
or
to
present
the
regulations
to
the
Board
for
further
consideration
if
warranted
in
light
of
the
comments.

Subsequent
to
the
hearing,
the
staff
identified
a
number
of
additional
technical
corrections
to
the
regulatory
texts
that
were
needed
to
reflect
the
underlying
intent
of
the
original
proposal
as
approved
by
the
Board.
Most
of
these
conforming
modifications
were
nonsubstantive.
These
modifications
were
incorporated
into
the
texts
of
the
proposed
regulations
and
incorporated
documents,
along
with
the
modifications
approved
by
the
Board
at
the
hearing.

The
texts
of
the
substantive
modifications
to
the
originally
proposed
regulations
and
incorporated
documents
were
made
available
for
a
supplemental
15­
day
comment
period
by
issuance
of
a
"
Notice
of
Public
Availability
of
Modified
Text
and
Supporting
Documents
and
Information"
(
the
"
first
15­
day
notice").
The
first
15­
day
notice
and
its
attachment
were
mailed
by
June
18,
1999
to
all
parties
identified
in
section
44(
a),
title
1,
CCR,
including
the
more
than
40
persons
who
submitted
written
comments.
This
Notice
was
also
posted
on
the
ARB's
Internet
site
for
this
rulemaking
at
<
http://
www.
arb.
ca.
gov/
msprog/
motcycle/
motcycle.
htm>.
Two
written
comments
were
received
during
the
first
15­
day
comment
period.

In
light
of
the
supplemental
comments
received,
the
Executive
Officer
determined
that
additional
modifications
were
necessary.
A
Second
Notice
of
Public
Availability
of
Modified
Text
(
the
"
second
15­
day
notice")
and
an
Attachment
identifying
the
additional
substantive
modifications
were
mailed
by
September
17,
1999
to
all
parties
identified
in
section
44(
a),
title
1,
CCR;
the
second
deadline
for
supplemental
comment
was
October
4,
1999.
No
comments
were
submitted
during
the
second
supplemental
comment
period.

Following
the
close
of
the
second
supplemental
15­
day
comment
period,
the
Executive
Officer
issued
Executive
Order
G­
99­
073,
adopting
the
amendments
to
title
13,
CCR,
and
to
the
various
incorporated
documents.
­
3­
This
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
(
FSOR)
updates
the
Staff
Report
by
identifying
and
providing
the
rationale
for
the
modifications
made
to
the
originally
proposed
regulatory
texts.
The
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
also
contains
a
summary
of
the
comments
the
Board
received
on
the
proposed
regulatory
amendments
during
the
formal
rulemaking
process
and
the
ARB's
responses
to
those
comments.

Incorporation
of
Test
Procedures
and
Federal
Regulations.
The
amended
exhaust
emission
standards
and
other
documents
are
incorporated
by
reference
in
CCR,
title
13,
sections
1900,
1958,
and
1965.
Some
of
the
test
procedure
documents,
in
turn,
incorporate
certification
test
procedures
adopted
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
U.
S.
EPA)
and
contained
in
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
Part
86.

California
Code
of
Regulations,
title
13,
sections
1900,
1958,
and
1965
identify
the
incorporated
ARB
documents
by
title
and
date.
The
ARB
documents
are
readily
available
from
the
ARB
upon
request
and
were
made
available
in
the
context
of
this
rulemaking
in
the
manner
specified
in
Government
Code
section
11346.5(
b).
The
CFR
is
published
by
the
Office
of
the
Federal
Register,
National
Archives
and
Records
Administration,
and
is
therefore
reasonably
available
to
the
affected
public
from
a
commonly
known
source.

The
test
procedures
are
incorporated
by
reference
because
it
would
be
impractical
to
print
them
in
the
CCR.
Existing
ARB
administrative
practice
has
been
to
have
the
test
procedures
incorporated
by
reference
rather
than
printed
in
the
CCR
because
these
procedures
are
highly
technical
and
complex.
They
include
the
"
nuts
and
bolts"
engineering
protocols
required
for
certification
of
motor
vehicles
and
have
a
very
limited
audience.
Because
the
ARB
has
never
printed
complete
test
procedures
in
the
CCR,
the
affected
public
is
accustomed
to
the
incorporation
format
utilized
therein.
The
ARB's
test
procedures
as
a
whole
are
extensive
and
it
would
be
both
cumbersome
and
expensive
to
print
these
lengthy,
technically
complex
procedures
with
a
limited
audience
in
the
CCR.
Printing
portions
of
the
ARB's
test
procedures
that
are
incorporated
by
reference
would
be
unnecessarily
confusing
to
the
affected
public.

The
test
procedures
incorporate
portions
of
the
CFR
because
the
ARB
requirements
are
substantially
based
on
the
federal
regulations.
Manufacturers
typically
certify
vehicles
and
engines
to
a
version
of
the
federal
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
which
has
been
modified
by
state
requirements.
Incorporation
of
the
federal
regulations
by
reference
makes
it
easier
for
manufacturers
to
know
when
the
two
sets
of
requirements
are
identical
and
when
they
differ.

Fiscal
Impacts.
The
Board
has
determined
that
this
regulatory
action
will
not
result
in
a
mandate
to
any
local
agency
or
school
district,
the
costs
of
which
are
reimbursable
by
the
state
pursuant
to
Part
7
(
commencing
with
section
17500),
Division
4,
Title
2
of
the
Government
Code.
­
4­
Consideration
of
Alternatives.
The
amendments
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
were
the
result
of
extensive
discussions
and
meetings
involving
staff
and
the
affected
motor
vehicle
manufacturers
and
others.
Staff
seriously
considered
all
of
the
alternatives
proposed
by
industry.
As
described
in
Comment
56,
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC)
presented
an
alternative
proposal
which
the
manufacturers
believed
was
more
technologically
feasible,
less
costly,
and
more
cost­
effective
than
the
staff's
proposal.
The
alternative
proposal
was
supported
by
the
American
Motorcyclist
Association
(
AMA),
the
California
Motorcycle
Dealers
Association
(
CMDA),
and
other
stakeholders,
while
the
staff's
proposal
was
supported
by
the
Harley­
Davidson
Motorcycle
Company,
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association
(
MECA),
and
the
Ventura
County
Air
Pollution
Control
Board
(
VCAPCB).

As
discussed
in
this
FSOR,
the
primary
objective
of
the
rulemaking
is
to
supplement
and
help
partially
fulfill
ARB's
commitments
under
the
1994
California
State
Implementation
Plan
for
ozone
(
ozone
SIP).
This
rulemaking
is
designed
to
achieve
as
much
additional
emission
reductions
in
hydrocarbon
plus
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
HC+
NOx)
as
are
technologically
feasible
and
cost­
effective,
to
be
counted
against
the
ozone
SIP's
additional
75
tons
per
day
HC+
NOx
emission
reduction
target
 
the
so­
called
"
Black
Box."
The
amendments
are
also
designed
to
achieve
maximum
feasible
and
cost­
effective
emissions
reductions
of
HC+
NOx
as
part
of
the
ARB's
efforts
to
attain
the
state
ambient
air
quality
ozone
standard
as
early
as
practicable,
as
well
as
to
reduce
emissions
of
particulate
matter.
Finally,
the
amendments
are
designed
to
satisfy
the
portion
of
the
recent
SIP
lawsuit
settlement
relating
to
on­
road
motorcycles.
The
adopted
amendments
are
expected
to
achieve
HC+
NOx
emission
reductions
in
2010
and
2020
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
(
SCAB)
and
statewide
that
are
significantly
greater
than
what
would
be
achieved
by
the
industry
alternative.
Accordingly,
the
Board
has
determined
that
neither
the
MIC's
alternative
proposal,
nor
any
other
alternative
considered
by
the
ARB,
would
be
more
effective
in
carrying
out
the
purpose
for
which
the
regulatory
action
was
proposed
or
would
be
as
effective
and
less
burdensome
to
affected
private
persons
than
the
action
taken
by
the
Board.

II.
MODIFICATIONS
TO
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
1.
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
1.
The
Existing
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation
The
ARB
adopted
the
first
on­
road
motorcycle
regulation
in
1975
to
reduce
ozoneforming
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.
­
5­
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,
the
Board
believes
it
is
appropriate
to
amend
the
existing
standards
to
the
revised
levels,
which
reflect
the
use
of
reasonably
available
technologies.

2.
The
Original
Proposal
The
primary
impetus
for
the
amendments
comes
from
the
ARB's
obligations
under
the
State
Implementation
Plan
for
Ozone
(
ozone
SIP)
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
(
i.
e.,
the
greater
Los
Angeles
area).
­
6­
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.
Amendment
of
the
regulations
for
on­
road
motorcycles
is
a
new
emission
reduction
effort
reflecting
reasonably
available
technologies.
The
amendments
offer
additional,
cost­
effective
emission
reductions
needed
to
continue
progress
toward
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
amended
regulations
maintain
the
approach
used
in
the
existing
regulations.
The
approach
maintains
the
current
standards
until
model
year
2004,
when
the
first
of
the
new
standards
becomes
effective.
For
model
year
2004,
the
amended
standard
is
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
(
Tier­
1).
Beginning
in
model
year
2008,
the
amended
standard
of
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
becomes
effective
(
Tier­
2).
Manufacturers
would
be
allowed
to
meet
the
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,
the
Tier­
1
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
becomes
effective
starting
in
model
year
2008.
In
ARB
staff's
original
proposal,
small­
volume
manufacturers
were
those
that
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,
a
set
of
multiplier
factors
provides
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.

2.
MODIFICATIONS
TO
THE
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
1.
Section
1900(
b)(
11)
(
Definition:
Motorcycle
Engine)

A
definition
for
"
motorcycle
engine"
was
included
in
the
final
amended
regulation
in
order
to
apply
the
standards
to
both
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
application
of
the
exhaust
standards
to
motorcycle
engines
is
consistent
with
preexisting
ARB
enforcement
interpretation
of
the
current
regulations;
therefore,
the
inclusion
of
language
regarding
motorcycle
engines
merely
clarifies
and
memorializes
preexisting
ARB
interpretation.
No
comments
challenging
the
application
of
the
exhaust
standards
to
motorcycle
engines
was
received
during
any
of
the
comment
periods.
­
7­
2.
Section
1958(
a)
(
Applicability)

As
noted
earlier,
the
preexisting
applicability
of
the
exhaust
emission
standards
and
other
requirements
of
Section
1958
to
motorcycle
engines
was
memorialized
through
references
to
"
motorcycle
engines"
and
"
manufacturers
of
either
motorcycles
or
motorcycle
engines."
These
modifications
merely
clarified
ARB
interpretation
of
current
regulations.

3.
Section
1958(
b)
(
Table
of
Standards)

Again,
minor
changes
were
made
to
make
it
clear
that
the
exhaust
emission
standards
also
apply
to
motorcycle
engines.
No
other
substantive
modifications
were
made
to
the
original
proposal.

4.
Section
1958(
f)(
1)
&
(
2)
(
Small
Volume
Manufacturers)

In
Section
1958(
f)(
1),
the
entire
subsections
(
A)
and
(
B)
were
replaced
with
simplified
language
to
make
it
clear
that,
for
model
years
through
2007,
Class
III
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
made
by
"
small­
volume
manufacturers"
shall
meet
the
existing,
HC­
only
standards
as
specified
in
the
Table
of
Standards
in
Section
1958(
b).
For
model
year
2008
and
subsequent,
the
modified
subsection
(
B)
specifies
that
small­
volume
manufacturers
must
meet
the
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
standard
for
all
Class
III
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines.
A
portion
of
(
f)(
1)
that
was
not
otherwise
amended
has
been
numbered
as
(
f)(
2)
to
provide
clarity.

In
Section
1958(
f)(
2)
[
renumbered
to
(
f)(
3)
in
the
final
regulation
order],
the
originally
proposed
language
has
been
replaced
with
a
table
that
clearly
shows
that,
with
the
Board's
adoption
of
a
300­
units
per
model
year
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition,
there
would
be
four
different
time
periods
which
needed
to
be
identified
to
determine
the
exact
exhaust
standard
that
applies
to
a
motorcycle
made
by
a
"
small­
volume
manufacturer"
in
any
given
model
year.
To
illustrate,
the
Board
adopted
the
first
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition
of
5,000
units
per
model
year
applicable
to
the
1984
through
1987
model
years.
This
means
that
prior
to
1984,
no
definition
for
small­
volume
manufacturer
existed
(
i.
e.,
all
manufacturers
regardless
of
production
volume
had
to
meet
the
same
standards).
Moreover,
the
Board's
newly­
adopted
300
units
per
model
year
definition
does
not
become
effective
until
the
2008
model
year.
Therefore,
the
period
covering
model
years
1988
through
2007
also
do
not
have
an
effective
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition.
Consequently,
all
motorcycles
in
model
years
1988
through
2007
would
need
to
meet
the
same
standards
regardless
of
production
volume.
All
four
of
these
relevant
time
periods
and
the
applicable
requirements
and
definitions
for
small­
volume
manufacturers
within
these
time
periods
have
been
identified
in
the
final
amendments.

In
adopting
the
300
units
per
model
year
definition,
the
Board
was
faced
with
the
situation
in
which
adoption
of
a
500­
or
1,000­
unit
per
model
year
or
a
greater
cutoff
would
have
allowed
fairly
large
companies
(
based
on
worldwide
sales),
such
as
Triumph,
Ducati,
and
others,
to
be
given
relief
against
the
Tier­
2
standard
(
i.
e.,
meet
only
the
Tier­
1
standard
with
nine
years
to
­
8­
comply),
while
larger
companies
with
which
they
compete
directly
in
the
market
would
be
required
to
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard.
Given
the
difficult
job
of
balancing
such
competing
needs,
the
Board
carefully
considered
the
issues
and
appropriately
adopted
a
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition
that
provides
relief
only
to
those
companies
that
are
truly
small,
"
mom­
and­
pop"
operations.
Nonetheless,
reconsideration
and
modification
of
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
provision
may
be
appropriate
based
on
our
findings
from
the
planned
2006
technology
review.

5.
Section
1958(
g)
(
Early­
Compliance
Credits)

As
with
other
modifications
noted
earlier,
the
early­
compliance
credits
provision
was
also
modified
to
apply
to
motorcycle
engines
as
well
as
motorcycles.
Also,
language
was
included
in
the
modified
amendments
to
require
the
applicant
for
early­
compliance
credits
to
provide
in
writing
all
emissions
data,
test
protocols,
equipment
specifications,
operating
conditions,
and
any
other
technical
information
requested
by
the
Executive
Officer.
Furthermore,
the
final
amendments
specify
that
an
Executive
Order
would
be
the
instrument
by
which
the
ARB
would
issue
early­
compliance
credits;
such
Executive
Orders
would
identify
the
exact
amount
of
credits
granted,
the
date
of
expiration
of
the
credits,
and
all
applicable
enforcement
provisions.
Finally,
the
modified
proposal
specifies
that
each
applicant
shall
identify,
on
its
"
California
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
Control
and
Smog
Index
Label"
(
Section
1965,
Title
13,
CCR),
the
actual
HC+
NOx
engine
family
exhaust
emissions
level
for
which
the
vehicle
or
engine
has
been
granted
earlycompliance
credits.

6.
Section
1958(
h)
(
Sunset
Review)

This
provision
was
added
in
conformance
with
Executive
Order
W­
144­
97.
The
provision
requires
the
ARB,
within
five
years
from
the
effective
date
of
adoption
or
date
of
implementation,
whichever
comes
later,
to
consult
with
the
Secretary
for
Environmental
Protection
and
review
the
provisions
of
Section
1958
to
determine
whether
it
should
be
retained,
revised,
or
repealed.
It
is
important
to
note
that
this
is
a
general
requirement
for
ARB
to
review
newly­
adopted
regulations
after
five
years
to
determine
if
they
remain
necessary
to
achieve
the
stated
emission
reduction
goals.
This
"
sunset
review"
is
not
the
same
as
the
planned
2006
technology
review
that
will
look
at
manufacturers'
progress
toward
meeting
the
2008
Tier­
2
standard
(
or
the
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
standard
for
small­
volume
manufacturers).

7.
Section
1965
(
Emission
Control
&
Smog
Index
Label)

Modifications
to
Section
1965
were
made
for
consistency
with
the
changes
relating
to
the
applicability
of
Section
1958'
s
requirements
to
motorcycle
engines,
as
noted
earlier.
­
9­
2.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
AND
AGENCY
RESPONSES
List
of
Comments
Received
(
written
comments,
unless
otherwise
noted)
Reference
Company
or
Individual
Dated
AMA
American
Motorcyclist
Assn.
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
12/
1
&
12/
10/
98
Eric
J.
Lundquist,
Esq.
&
Dana
Bell,
Western
States
Representative
Alcorn
John
J.
Alcorn
11/
10/
98
Andrews
Gerald
G.
Andrews,
Sr.
11/
16/
98
ATK
ATK
America,
Phil
Walker,
Chief
Engineer
12/
8/
98
BAAQMD
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
12/
10/
98
Baum
William
E.
Baum,
Jr.
11/
25/
98
Bauman
Stephen
K.
Bauman
12/
10/
98
Boner
(
see
Sanders)

Bowan
Linda
Bowan
10/
5/
98
(
early)

Boyse
George
Boyse
12/
9/
98
Campbell
Ronald
T.
Campbell
10/
26/
98
Campbell,
W.
William
Campbell
(
see
Sanders)

CAPCOA
California
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association
12/
8/
98
Douglas
W.
Allard,
President
CMC
California
Motorcycle
Company,
Clifford
E.
Fenske,
Jr.,
CEO
12/
4
&
12/
10/
98
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
(
Oral)

CMDA
Cal.
Motorcycle
Dealers
Assn.,
John
Paliwoda,
Director
12/
7
&
12/
10/
98
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
9/
9/
98
(
early)

Cunningham
Barry
K.
Cunningham
10/
29/
98
DeLaney
J.
C.
DeLaney
12/
9/
98
Delliskave
Ben
Delliskave
12/
2/
98
Downs
Ken
Downs
12/
2/
98
Epps
Jack
Epps
12/
9/
98
Evans
Debbie
Evans
&
Terry
Evans
12/
9/
98
Fisher
Robert
E.
Fisher
10/
8/
98
(
early)

Flynn
Mark
Flynn
11/
5/
98
Getty
John
A.
Getty
10/
20/
98
(
early)

Gilbride
(
see
Sanders)

Gracier
Jerry
and
Susan
Gracier
10/
28/
98
Hanneman
Mr.
&
Mrs.
Ritch
Hanneman
12/
9/
98
­
10­
Reference
Company
or
Individual
Dated
HD
Harley­
Davidson
Motorcycle
Company
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
12/
10/
98
Tim
Hoelter,
Vice­
President,
William
H.
Freedman,
McCutchaen
LLP
Honda
American
Honda
Motor
Co.,
Inc.,
David
W.
Raney,
Mgr.
Environ
&
Energy
7/
7/
99
JHD
Jamestown
Harley­
Davidson,
Dan
Chance,
Owner
11/
30/
98
Jones
Floyd
S.
Jones,
Jr.
12/
3/
98
Kaiser
David
Kaiser
11/
11/
98
Line
Orrin
W.
Line
12/
9/
98
Malone
Al
Malone
11/
16/
98
M&
M
M&
M
Lock
and
Key,
J.
Vincent
Lee
11/
16/
98
Marling
Phillip
Marling
11/
13/
98
MECA
Manuf.
of
Emission
Controls
Assn.,
Antonio
Santos
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
12/
10/
98
MIC
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
Tim
Buche
and
Tom
Austin
(
Sierra
Research)
­­
(
45­
day
comments)
12/
10/
98
Pamela
Amette,
Vice­
President
(
15­
day
comments)
7/
7/
99
Mullick
Emile
M.
Mullick
11/
10/
98
Nielsen
Kathy
Nielsen
12/
14/
98
(
late)

Pack
Steven
Pack
11/
23/
98
Pierce
John
Pierce
12/
01/
98
Polaris
Polaris
Motorcycles,
div.
of
Victory,
Stacey
Stewart
(
written
&
oral
testimony)
12/
10/
98
PSCC
Pure
Steel
Custom
Cycles,
Inc.,
Tim
Hurley,
GM
12/
7/
98
Rugg
Steven
W.
Rugg
11/
12/
98
Ryder
(
see
Sanders)

Sanders
Margie,
Bubba,
Otis,
and
Ollie
Sanders,
Jr.,
Timothy
Gilbride,
John
Boner
11/
23/
98
And
Matthew
T.
Ryder
SCAQMD
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District,
Barry
Wallerstein
2/
10/
981
SCI
Stroker
Cycles,
Inc.,
Leonard
Gonzales,
Owner
12/
8/
98
Seegert
Alan
Seegert
12/
10/
98
Smith
M.
D.
Smith
11/
22/
98
Smith,
Malcolm
Malcolm
Smith
12/
10/
98
SSC
S&
S
Cycle,
Inc.,
Tom
J.
Henline
11/
10/
98
Stassinos
Robert
Stassinos
11/
5/
98
Staufenberg
Kurt
Staufenberg
12/
7/
98
­
11­
Struthers
Sherwood
W.
Struthers
12/
10/
98
Thomasian
Berge
Thomasian
12/
9/
98
Tindel
Dale
Tindel
11/
18/
98
Tomchick
Scott
Tomchick
3/
22/
99
(
late)

TMC
Titan
Motorcycle
Company,
Patrick
Keery,
President
12/
7/
98
Triumph
Triumph
Motorcycles,
Ltd.,
Robert
G.
Mills,
Supervisor
12/
10/
98
Ultra
Ultra,
Division
of
Bikers
Dream,
Inc.,
Drew
Milburn,
Dir.
Manuf.
12/
8/
98
VCAPCB
Ventura
County
Air
Pollution
Control
Board
(
written
and
oral
testimony)
11/
10/
98
Susan
K.
Lacey,
Chair
and
Richard
Baldwin,
APCO
Waal
George
Waal,
Jr.
10/
15/
98
(
early)

Wehr
Kevin
Wehr
11/
19/
98
Weiner
Peter
Weiner
12/
31/
98
(
late)

Wolf
KH
Wolf
Consulting,
Kathleen
Wolf,
Principal
12/
10/
98
Wolfe
Wolfe
Precision
Mold,
Raymond
N.
Fleischman,
Jr.
11/
23/
98
Anonymous
Fed
Up,
So.
CA
11/
15/
98
­
12­
1.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
45­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD
1.
Applicability
&
Need
to
Regulate
On­
Road
Motorcycles
Comment
1:
CARB
should
take
a
long,
scientifically
rigorous
look
at
the
cost­
benefit
ratio
of
the
proposal
as
compared
to
truly
filthy
engines
(
chainsaws,
snow
machines,
outboard
motors,
lawn
mowers)
go
relatively
unregulated.
Actually,
I
support
your
efforts
to
crack
down
on
2­
stroke
off­
road
bikes,
but
whatever
standard
off­
road
motorcycles
have
to
meet,
snow
machines,
ORV's
[
off­
road
vehicles],
etc.
should
also
meet.
Jet­
skis
too.
Instead
of
trying
to
reach
zero
emissions
from
a
VFR
800
fuel­
injected
streetbike
­­
already
relatively
clean
­­
let's
work
on
jet­
skis,
snow
machines,
and
other
unregulated
vehicles.
(
Boyle­
02,
Seegert­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
other,
high­
emitting
engine
categories
such
as
those
identified
above
need
to
be
controlled
to
reduce
their
emission
contributions.
Indeed,
the
ARB
has
already
embarked
on
an
ambitious
program
to
reduce
emissions
from
these
and
numerous
other
sources;
regulations
covering
small­
utility
engines,
jet
skis,
and
other
combustion
sources
have
already
been
adopted
or
are
currently
under
development.
Also,
a
regulation
to
reduce
evaporative
and
spillage
emissions
from
portable
gasoline
containers
was
adopted
in
September
1999,
and
the
fourth
major
round
of
consumer
product
regulations
to
reduce
volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC)
emissions
will
be
considered
by
the
Board
in
October
1999.
However,
even
with
all
of
these
efforts
and
the
ongoing
efforts
to
reduce
emissions
from
cars
and
stationary
sources,
reducing
the
emissions
from
on­
road
motorcycles
is
still
an
important
part
of
ARB's
overall
effort
to
meet
its
ozone
SIP
commitments.
As
we
stated
in
the
Staff
Report
and
on
numerous
occasions
during
this
rulemaking,
all
commercially
and
technologically
feasible
reductions
in
HC
and
NOx
emissions
must
be
pursued
to
meet
ozone
attainment
goals.

Comment
2:
The
Ventura
County
Air
Pollution
Control
Board
supports
the
proposed
onroad
motorcycle
amendments.
Much
of
the
poor
air
quality
in
Ventura
County
can
be
attributed
to
mobile
sources
that
local
air
districts
have
no
power
to
control.
The
ARB
staff's
proposal,
if
adopted
by
the
Board,
will
help
the
District
to
fulfill
its
responsibility
to
attain
the
current
onehour
federal
ozone
standard,
the
new
eight­
hour
standard,
and
to
make
further
progress
toward
attaining
the
California
ozone
standard.
We
urge
the
ARB
to
adopt
the
proposed
amendments.
(
VCAPCB­
01)
We
supports
the
Proposed
Amendments.
(
CAPCAO­
01,
BAAQMD­
01,
SCAQMD­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.
­
13­
8.
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Contribution
to
the
Emissions
Inventory
Comment
3:
There's
no
need
to
lower
the
on­
road
motorcycle
standard
since
the
staff's
own
emission
inventory
figures
demonstrate
that
these
vehicles
comprise
barely
2%
of
the
total
on­
road
motor
vehicle
population
but
emit
less
than
0.6%
of
the
ozone
inventory
attributable
to
that
group.
(
CMDA­
01,
Line­
01,
Anonymous­
01)

Comment
4:
Why
don't
you
go
after
diesel
trucks?
They
produce
one
third
of
California's
vehicle
pollution,
not
including
diesel
cars
and
pick­
ups.
I
understand
ARB
is
not
doing
anything
about
diesel
trucks
at
this
time.
Motorcycles
represent
two
percent
of
California's
motor
vehicles.
Motorcycle
owners
don't
commute
on
their
bikes
and
we
ride
a
lot
less
than
the
average
car
is
driven.
Motorcycles
have
much
smaller
engines
than
cars
or
trucks
and
put
out
less
total
exhaust
per
mile.
Motorcyclists
ride
mainly
on
weekends
and
hardly
ride
at
all
in
the
winter
months.
Targeting
motorcycles
will
not
result
in
any
great
reductions
in
pollution.
According
to
ARB's
own
figures
only
0.00625
percent
of
total
hydrocarbons,
less
than
one
percent
of
total
pollution,
come
from
motorcycles.
Also,
why
not
go
after
leaf
blowers
and
lawn
mowers,
or
refineries
and
factories,
the
violators
who
can
pay
the
fines
or
buy
the
"
pollution
credits"
and
continue
to
do
business
as
usual?
(
Nielsen­
01,
Jones­
01,
Bauman­
01,
Gracier­
01,
Sanders­
01,
Sanders­
02,
Flynn­
01,
Kaiser­
02,
Wehr­
02,
Fisher­
01,
Waal­
02,
Rugg­
02,
M&
M­
01,
Tindel­
01,
Pierce­
02)

Comment
5:
I
have
evaluated
the
staff
proposals
and
I
cannot
understand
the
logic
used
to
develop
the
proposals.
Motorcycles
constitute
less
than
2%
of
all
the
registered
vehicles
in
the
State
of
California.
A
considerable
number
of
these
motorcycles
are
used
as
daily
transportation.
The
proposals
you
have
submitted
will
have
a
minuscule
effect
on
the
air
quality
in
the
State
of
California.
As
presented
they
will
effect
[
sic]
only
somewhere
between
several
billionths
and
several
trillionths
parts
per
million
of
any
noxious
gases
measured
in
the
air
in
California!
[
emphasis
in
original]
Passage
of
these
proposed
standards
may
even
have
a
"
reverse"
effect
on
the
amount
of
noxious
gases
produced.
Instead
of
paying
higher
prices
for
these
"
improved,
clean"
motorcycles,
enthusiasts
may
just
opt
to
drive
their
less
efficient
automobiles
or
trucks
on
a
daily
basis,
effectively
defeating
any
supposed
or
imagined
benefit
from
stiffer
regulations
on
motorcycles.
(
Boyse­
03,
Campbell­
01,
Epps­
01,
Flynn­
01,
Pack­
03,
Cunningham­
01,
Getty­
01,
Getty­
03,
Malone­
04,
Thomasian­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenters
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
ARB
has
pursued
and
will
continue
to
pursue
emission
reductions
from
all
feasible
sources,
including
diesel
trucks,
automobiles,
jet­
skis,
portable
gasoline
containers,
factories,
and
consumer
products.
All
of
these
current
efforts
and
more
will
be
required
to
meet
the
ozone
SIP
and
State
air
quality
standards.
Contrary
to
the
commenters'
assertion,
ARB
staff
estimates
that
Class
III
motorcycles,
which
are
affected
by
this
rulemaking,
emit
about
11
times
as
much
HC+
NOx
per
mile
as
a
typical
new
passenger
vehicle.
Thus,
converting
the
entire
automobile
fleet
to
motorcycle
ridership,
even
if
it
were
possible,
would
most
likely
worsen
the
air
quality
in
California.
Finally,
our
efforts
over
the
last
30
years,
while
yielding
significant
reductions
in
air
­
14­
pollution
despite
tremendous
growth
in
population
and
vehicle
miles
traveled,
nevertheless
show
that
we
still
need
to
pursue
smaller
sources
of
emissions
in
order
to
maintain
progress
toward
attainment
of
the
air
quality
standards.
Each
of
these
measures
individually
may
achieve
small
reductions
relative
to
the
overall
amount
of
emissions,
but
collectively
these
individual
measures
will
achieve
significant
emission
reductions.
To
put
this
in
the
proper
context,
we
should
note
that
several
categories
of
consumer
products,
products
that
the
ARB
has
regulated
in
recent
years
at
a
higher
cost­
effectiveness
than
this
rulemaking,
emit
less
than
one­
quarter
ton
per
day
of
pollutants,
with
emission
reductions
measured
in
the
tenths
of
a
ton
per
day,
while
this
proposed
rulemaking
will
reduce
emissions
by
nearly
3
tons
of
HC+
NOx
per
day
by
2020.
(
Staff
Report,
IX­
2)

Comment
6:
I
am
concerned
about
ARB's
plan
to
lower
emission
standards
for
motorcyclists.
The
plan
I
have
read
about
seems
too
extreme,
placing
restrictions
of
such
magnitude
on
street
legal
motorcycles
that
an
unfair
burden
results.
Motorcycles
comprise
a
very
small
minority
of
vehicles
on
the
road.
They
are
already,
by
comparison,
very
efficient
producers
of
energy.
Every
time
I
ride
my
motorcycle,
which
gets
over
50
miles
per
gallon,
I
know
I
am
doing
my
part
to
reduce
consumption
and
emission
of
nonrenewable
resources.
By
increasing
[
sic]
emissions
standards
for
motorcycles
to
12
times
the
Federal
standards
ARB
will
seriously
impact
the
number
of
people
choosing
this
alternative
form
of
transportation.
By
significantly
raising
the
costs
&
lowering
the
performance
of
motorcycles,
ARB
will
effectively
be
sending
people
back
into
their
gas­
guzzling
cars.
I
believe
this
to
be
counterproductive
to
your
goals.
(
Alcorn­
01,
Boyse­
01,
Hanneman­
01,
Rugg­
01,
Staufenberg­
01)

Comment
7:
Instead
of
wasting
time
on
strict
and
expensive
smog
requirements
on
motorcycles,
you
should
be
protecting
us
from
MTBE
and
diesel
smoke.
Now
that
we
know
MTBE
is
a
carcinogen,
it
needs
to
be
removed
from
gasoline
since
it
is
not
necessary
to
reduce
air
pollution
and
it
is
being
found
in
our
water.
Since
diesel
smoke
is
a
known
carcinogen,
this
type
of
pollution
needs
to
be
strongly
addressed.
Truck
traffic
is
as
frequent
as
ever
and
more
diesel
cars
and
pick­
up
trucks
are
on
the
road
than
ever
before.
(
Pierce­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
these
comments
for
several
reasons.
First,
ARB
is
already
implementing
a
phase­
out
plan
for
MTBE
and
has
already
identified
diesel
exhaust
as
a
toxic
air
contaminant
(
TAC),
the
first
step
in
a
comprehensive
risk
assessment
and
control
process
that
will
eventually
lead
to
a
risk
reduction
program
for
diesel
smoke.
Even
with
these
efforts,
the
need
to
reduce
ground­
level
ozone
("
smog")
remains;
on­
road
motorcycles'
contribution
to
the
ozone
problem
still
needs
to
be
addressed.
As
we
noted
above,
on­
road
motorcycles
currently
emit
significantly
more
pollutants
per
mile,
not
less,
as
compared
with
modern
automobiles.
The
two
workshops
and
numerous
private
meetings
we
held
with
interested
parties
show
that
we
worked
diligently
with
the
industry
to
craft
a
set
of
exhaust
emission
standards
that
will
ensure
future
riders
will
enjoy
a
wide
variety
of
high
performance
motorcycles
that
emit
significantly
less
­
15­
than
their
current
counterparts.
The
cost
impacts
from
the
amendments
are
addressed
in
"
Commercial
Feasibility
and
Cost
Impacts"
below.

Comment
8:
Staff
assumes
a
1.3
tons
per
day
reduction
in
emissions
if
the
regulation
is
imposed.
The
MIC
assumes
a
0.7
ton
per­
day
reduction
if
its
recommendation
is
followed
(
page
VIII­
2).
This
is
unrealistic
and
an
over
simplification
based
upon
fallacious
assumptions.
The
greatest
assumption
is
that
motorcycles
are
used
the
same
every
day.
California
motorcycles
are
not
typically
ridden
every
day
for
commuting
and
other
normal
transportation
needs.

The
bulk
of
daily
transportation
use
of
motorcycles
is
in
communities
where
it
makes
sense.
This
would
include
college
settings
and
in
congested
downtowns.
Most
motorcycles
used
in
these
settings
are
likely
Class
I
(
50
cc
to
169
cc)
and
Class
II
(
170
cc
to
279
cc),
both
of
which
are
unaffected
by
this
regulation.
Similarly,
the
bulk
of
Class
III
motorcycle
use
is
likely
outside
of
daily
commuting
times,
for
weekend
and
holiday
leisure
transportation.
Much
of
this
use
will
also
be
rural,
outside
of
the
state's
congested
noncompliant
air
quality
zones.
We
cannot
argue
whether
a
reduction
in
emission
levels
at
such
places
during
such
periods
is
worthwhile.
However,
the
regulation
will
have
little
effect
upon
the
areas
of
the
state
where
current
air
quality
mandates
greater
reductions.
(
AMA­
08)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
our
emission
estimates
are
unrealistic
and
oversimplified.
As
we
noted
in
the
Staff
Report
(
Staff
Report,
X­
1),
ARB
staff
took
extraordinary
measures
to
account
for
emissions
data
and
suggested
changes
provided
by
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC).
Indeed,
the
current
staff
estimates
for
the
emissions
from
this
category
are
based
largely
on
the
MIC's
input.
We
are
committed
to
continuing
work
with
the
MIC
to
further
refine
the
emissions
inventory
for
motorcycles
and
to
identify
additional
ways
to
reduce
emissions
cost­
effectively.

Comment
9:
Your
80%
reduction
plan
on
less
than
2%
of
registered
vehicles
is
paramount
to
being
a
bully.
At
12
times
as
strict
as
Federal
standards
and
3
times
stricter
than
anything
considered
in
Europe
and
most
assuredly
won't
clean
up
air­
quality
by
1/
2%.
It
gives
the
appearance
that
you
are
picking
on
a
minority
that's
too
insignificant
for
the
general
population
to
care
about
and
too
small
to
defend
itself
effectively.
You
must
take
a
step
back
and
honestly
weigh
if
expense,
burden,
and
cost
to
manufacturers
and
consumers,
and
general
decline
of
a
wholesome
activity
is
really
worth
the
minuscule
results.
The
only
true
way
to
clean
up
the
air
is
population
reduction;
we
have
too
many
people
for
the
area
period.
I
urge
you
to
retain
the
Federal
standard
and
move
on
to
issues
that
will
be
effective.
(
Fleischman­
03,
JHD­
01).
The
mtorcycle
companies
still
have
not
included
all
the
current
California
emissions
standard
on
biles
they
make
for
the
other
49
states
because
of
costs.
What
about
some
reasonable
standards
that
would
benefit
all
50
states.
(
Boyse­
04)
­
16­
Agency
Response:
The
proposed
standards
are
designed
to
reduce
emissions
by
nearly
3
tons
per
day
HC+
NOx
statewide
by
2020.
These
are
significant,
cost­
effective
reductions
that
will
help
California
in
its
air
quality
attainment
efforts.
Beyond
developing
and
implementing
air
pollution
control
programs,
ARB
has
no
jurisdiction
to
regulate
population
growth
in
California.
­
17­
3.
Technological
Feasibility
Comment
10:
Please
test
[
the
feasibility
of
the
proposed
standards]
before
you
enforce.
(
Delliskave­
01)

Agency
Response:
ARB
thoroughly
evaluated
the
feasibility
of
the
proposed
standards
and
found
them
to
be
technologically
feasible.
This
conclusion
is
bolstered
by
equivalent
findings
from
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council,
Harley­
Davidson,
Honda
American
Motor
Company,
and
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association.

Comment
11:
The
proposed
standards
are
clearly
technologically
feasible
and
costeffective
Catalyst
technology,
which
has
been
used
on
motorcycles
for
a
number
of
years
and
has
demonstrated
outstanding
emission
control
performance
and
durability,
will
enable
motorcycle
manufacturers
to
meet
the
Tier
2
corporate
average
performance
and
durability.
The
staff
report
has
thoroughly
and
accurately
analyzed
and
addressed
the
technical
aspects
associated
with
meeting
the
proposed
standards.
The
report
fairly
addressed
all
the
issues
raised
by
the
various
interested
parties,
and
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association
(
MECA)
concurs
with
the
report's
conclusions
that
no
technological
barriers
exist
to
meeting
the
proposed
standards.
(
MECA­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.

Comment
12:
Harley­
Davidson
is
not
opposing
the
adoption
of
the
rule...
As
of
today,
we
have
been
unable
to
provide
the
level
of
detailed
technological
review
that
would
allow
us
to
support
the
0.8
standard
for
the
2008
model
year.
However,
we
are
committed
to
doing
everything
we
can
to
meet
the
2008
proposed
target.
If
it
can
be
done,
it
will
be
done.
We
are
optimistic
.
.
.
The
proposal
before
this
Board
taken
with
the
amendments
provided
with
the
current
staff
report
presents
a
challenge
for
Harley
and
its
dealers,
a
challenge
that
we
are
prepared
to
do
our
very
best
to
meet
.
.
.
I
therefore
respectfully
request
that
the
proposal
be
adopted
with
the
staff
recommended
amendments.
(
HD­
01)

Agency
Response:
There
was
a
general
consensus
that
of
the
six
major
manufacturers
affected
by
the
staff's
proposal,
Harley­
Davidson
would
likely
have
the
most
difficulty
in
adapting
its
45­
degree,
V­
twin
engines
to
meet
the
standards.
Therefore,
Harley­
Davidson's
optimism
regarding
their
ability
to
meet
the
2008
standard
is
very
encouraging.

Comment
13:
The
AMA
cannot
accept
the
ARB
proposal
for
Class
III
motorcycles
to
meet
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2004
and
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2008.
We
can
accept
an
interim
level
of
1.5
g/
km
HC+
NOx
for
2005
as
proposed
by
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC).
While
the
MIC
proposes
a
long
term
standard
of
1.2
g/
km
HC+
NOx,
we
would
prefer
to
see
a
­
18­
long
term
standard
of
1.3
g/
km
HC+
NOx.
Such
a
standard
would
be
more
in
line
with
long
term
standards
proposed
for
the
European
Union
and
the
world
community.
These
are
more
reasonable
for
manufacturers
who
are
not
MIC
members
and
have
not
had
input
to
their
proposals.
(
AMA­
01)

Comment
14:
First,
and
by
far
most
importantly,
I
would
like
to
extend
my
sincere
gratitude
for
listening
to
the
concerns
of
fellow
manufacturers
and
motorcyclists.
It
is
very
comforting
to
know
that
compromises
can
be
reached
and
goals
can
be
met,
on
time
and
in
proper
fashion.
My
understanding
is
that
ARB
has
released
a
compromise
proposal
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2004
and
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2008.
Although
we
feel
that
these
levels
are
still
very
stringent,
especially
for
the
minute
number
of
motorcycles
on
the
road,
it
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
It's
pleasing
to
see
more
reasonable
and
obtainable
[
compared
to
previous
proposals]
numbers
being
considered
for
the
motorcycle
and
aftermarket
parts
manufacturers.
(
SSC­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
first
comment
and
agree
with
the
second
comment.
As
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC)
confirmed
at
the
Board
Hearing,
the
staff's
proposal
is
technologically
feasible.
Moreover,
the
comment
by
S&
S
Cycles
(
SSC­
01),
a
relatively
small
manufacturer,
suggests
that
the
staff's
proposal
is
reasonable
and
achievable,
even
for
small
companies.
While
it
may
be
desirable
to
conform
to
worldwide
standards
as
much
as
possible,
the
air
pollution
in
California
dictates
that
standards
in
California
be
as
stringent
as
technically
feasible
to
achieve
federal
and
state
air
quality
standards.

Comment
15:
Will
the
proposal
cause
problems
with
tune­
ups,
spark
plugs,
carburetor,
or
burned­
out
valves?
(
Marling­
02)

Agency
Response:
Based
on
our
technical
analysis
of
the
emission
control
technologies
that
will
be
used
to
meet
the
standards,
we
do
not
expect
such
problems
to
occur
to
an
extent
greater
than
in
existing
motorcycles.
The
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
has
conceded
that
the
standards
are
technologically
feasible,
and
the
industry
has
up
to
9
years
to
meet
the
more­
difficult
Tier­
2
standard.
The
time
provided
for
compliance
should
be
more
than
sufficient
for
manufacturers
to
develop
and
refine
compliant
technologies
to
minimize
or
eliminate
any
problems.

Comment
16:
I
beg
you
to
refrain
from
abolishing
motorcycles.
This
may
not
be
your
intent
but
will
be
the
eventual
result.
I
do
not
approve
of
your
2­
stroke
ban
either,
though
I
quit
off­
road
riding
20
years
ago.
Off­
highway
riding
is
a
wholesome
family
recreation,
with
many
benefits
for
youth,
this
may
not
be
your
personal
point
of
view
but
it
is
a
fact.
(
Fleischman­
01)

Agency
Response:
The
commenter's
fears
of
an
on­
road
motorcycle
ban
are
unfounded.
As
discussed
in
the
"
Technical
Feasibility"
and
"
Commercial
Feasibility
and
Cost
Impacts"
section
of
this
FSOR,
the
staff
has
developed
exhaust
emission
standards
which
Harley­
Davidson,
Honda,
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council,
and
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association
recognize
as
technologically
feasible.
The
staff's
analysis
also
demonstrates
the
commercial
­
19­
feasibility
of
the
standards.
Thus,
there
is
no
reasonable
foundation
for
believing
the
standards
will
effectively
result
in
a
"
ban"
on
motorcycles
in
California.
Because
of
this,
we
anticipate
that
consumers
will
continue
to
be
able
to
choose
from
a
wide
variety
of
motorcycles
in
2008
and
beyond.

Comment
17:
The
MIC
does
not
question
the
technological
feasibility
of
the
proposed
standards.
Our
member
companies
believe
they
will
be
able
to
comply
with
the
proposal
presented
in
the
October
23
staff
report.
We
are
not
opposing
the
proposed
interim
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
in
2004
because
it
is
close
enough
to
the
alternative
proposed
by
the
MIC
[
i.
e.,
1.5
g/
km].
(
MIC45­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.

4.
Commercial
Feasibility
&
Cost
Impacts
Comment
18:
Please
accept
the
industry
proposal
for
1.2
g/
km
HC+
NOx
as
the
Tier­
2
standard.
We
are
very
concerned
that
the
same
mistake
that
was
made
with
the
off­
road
motorcycle
and
the
ATV
standard
is
being
replicated
with
the
proposed
second­
tier
on­
road
standard.
That
mistake
is
very
critical
for
our
dealer
members
­­
if
the
standard
is
set
too
low,
some,
or
many,
of
the
on­
road
motorcycle
manufacturers
will
cut
back
on
model
availability
or
conceivably
abandon
the
California
market
altogether,
and
that
will
be
devastating
to
our
members.
(
CMDA­
03).

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
and
believe
the
experience
with
off­
road
motorcycles
is
distinguishable
from
this
proposed
rulemaking
in
several
critical
aspects.
First,
the
off­
road
motorcycle
regulation
necessitated
a
major
technological
changeover
from
2­
stroke
to
4­
stroke
engines.
By
contrast,
the
staff's
proposal
in
this
rulemaking
essentially
requires
evolutionary
refinements
to
existing
fuel
delivery,
computerized
controls,
and
catalytic
converter
technologies
that
are
already
in
common
use
in
on­
road
motorcycles.
In
addition,
this
rulemaking
provides
significantly
more
time
for
manufacturers
to
develop
compliant
technologies,
up
to
5
years
for
compliance
with
the
Tier­
1
standard
and
9
years
for
Tier­
2.
Because
the
standards
are
technologically
feasible
and
manufacturers
have
a
relatively
long
time
to
develop
cheaper,
compliant
versions
of
existing
technologies,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
manufacturers
would
not
abandon
the
California
market.
Finally,
the
planned
2006
technology
review
should
provide
a
good
opportunity
to
evaluate
manufacturers'
progress
toward
meeting
the
Tier­
2
standard;
any
modifications
to
the
proposed
standards
can
be
made
at
that
time
if
needed.

Comment
19:
The
second­
tier
industry
proposal
of
1.2
g/
km
HC+
NOx
will
not
force
widespread
catalyst
use
and
potential
product
availability
problems.
The
industry
proposal
provides
almost
100%
of
the
emissions
reduction
benefit
as
the
staff
proposal.
(
CMDA­
04)
­
20­
Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
alternative
industry
proposal
will
provide
almost
100%
of
the
staff's
projected
emission
benefits.
As
we
noted
in
the
Staff
Report,
we
estimated
the
emission
reductions
from
the
proposed
1.2
g/
km
alternative
standard
as
achieving
less
than
50%
of
the
projected
benefits
from
the
staff's
proposal
by
2020
(
1.2
tons
per
day
reduction
versus
2.9
tons
per
day
from
staff's
proposal).
(
Staff
Report,
VIII­
2).
While
the
industry
alternative
may
result
in
less
tampering,
it
also
does
not
rely
on
catalytic
converter
technology
and
will
therefore
achieve
less
reductions.
Also,
the
industry's
proposal
achieves
its
"
equivalence"
by
relying,
in
part,
on
the
unenforceable
migration
and
tourism
into
California
of
out­
of­
state
motorcycles
made
in
compliance
with
a
1.2
g/
km
standard
(
i.
e.,
a
"
50­
state"
bike).
(
MIC,
at
Board
Hearing)

We
designed
the
Tier­
2
standard
so
that
the
universal
application
of
catalytic
converters
would
not
be
required.
Rather,
we
estimate
that
only
about
60%
of
the
market
would
need
to
use
catalytic
converters.
(
Staff
Report,
IX­
3)
We
therefore
established
the
limit
of
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
so
that
manufacturers
can
choose
to
market
a
product
line,
for
example,
in
which
the
motorcycle
models
that
are
less
likely
to
be
tampered
with
by
the
consumer
would
have
the
catalytic
converters
(
e.
g.,
sportbikes
emitting
0.4
g/
km),
while
those
with
known
tampering
rates
(
e.
g.,
custom
bikes
emitting
1.2
g/
km)
would
have
other
emission
controls;
the
corporate
averaging
of
these
product
lines
would
enable
the
manufacturers
to
comply
with
the
standards.
This
is
a
more
sensible
and
enforceable
method
for
reducing
emissions
in
California
than
relying
on
the
variable
and
unenforceable
migration
of
out­
of­
state
motorcycles
into
California.

Comment
20:
While
the
MIC
believes
the
proposed
standards
are
technologically
feasible,
our
concern
with
the
proposal
is
that
it
appears
to
have
been
designed
to
force
much
greater
use
of
catalytic
converters.
The
much
greater
use
of
catalytic
converters
would
make
the
proposed
2008
standard
not
cost­
effective.
Because
of
the
relatively
low
production
volumes
of
on­
road
motorcycles
and
their
low
mileage
accumulation
rates,
the
cost­
effectiveness
ratio
associated
with
the
staff
proposal
for
2008
is
in
the
range
of
$
10
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
emissions
reduced,
making
this
one
of
the
most
expensive
motor
vehicle
emissions
control
measures
ever
considered
by
the
Board.
It's
ten
times
more
expensive
per
pound
of
control
than
the
staff
s
estimate
for
the
recently
adopted
Low
Emission
Vehicle
II
standards.
(
MIC45­
02)

Comment
21:
The
difference
in
cost
between
currently
available
motorcycle
models
with
carburetion
and
fuel
injection
is
about
$
800,
not
including
catalytic
converters,
etc.
Considering
the
fact
that
the
average
annual
motorcycle
mileage
is
somewhere
in
the
2000­
3000
mile
range,
don't
you
think
your
proposed
requirements
are
just
a
little
much?
I
think
going
with
the
more
reasonable
40%
industry
proposal
would
be
a
more
appropriate
decision.
(
Downs­
01)
­
21­
Comment
22:
As
a
business
professional,
a
thirty­
year
motorcyclist,
and
a
voter,
I
feel
that
the
controls
being
contemplated
may
be
inappropriate
and
may
also
do
much
to
harm
motorcycling
in
California
and,
as
a
result,
the
nation.
Current
controls
are
so
strict
that
motorcycles
emit
much
less
pollution
per
passenger
car
and
emit
an
extremely
small
amount
of
the
total
that
is
emitted
by
internal
combustion
engines.
On
a
new
motorcycle
that
I
recently
purchased,
the
California­
mandated
equipment
not
only
added
to
the
cost
of
the
machine
(
which
I
am
willing
to
pay),
but
it
also
created
a
situation
that
is
supposed
to
shut
when
the
ignition
is
off
and
a
vacuum­
operated
fuel
valve
that
requires
many
more
cranks
of
the
engine
to
get
it
started.
(
Waal­
01)

Comment
23:
Additional
regulation
is
completely
unnecessary.
It
will
only
serve
to
greatly
damage
the
industry,
and
thus
adversely
affect
the
state's
economy.
Are
motorcyclists
being
targeted
because
we
seem
an
easy
and
relatively
silent
and
powerless
group?
(
M&
M­
02)

Comment
24:
I
have
found
that
some
of
the
proposals
I
have
read
about
to
be
patently
ridiculous.
For
the
most
part
they
would
raise
the
price
of
motorcycles
with
very
little
beneficial
result.
The
negative
result
would
be
to
make
motorcycles
less
efficient
and
possibly
less
safe.
The
higher
price
would
force
potential
users
out
of
the
market.
This
could
result
in
the
use
of
less
efficient
gas
guzzlers
and
polluters
that
would
be
available
at
the
same
prices.
I
don't
feel
that
motorcycles
constitute
a
great
source
of
pollution
and
what
they
might
cause
is
offset
by
the
savings
in
gas,
wear
and
tear
on
the
roads,
and
the
ever
increasing
traffic.
I
think
effort
might
be
more
well
spent
in
eliminating
diesel
vehicles
such
as
trucks
and
buses.
This
would
include
school
buses
which
seem
to
belch
out
more
smoke
than
any
other
vehicle
I
happen
to
ride
behind.
(
Weiner­
01)

Comment
25:
The
staff
underestimated
the
unit
cost
of
their
proposal
by
$
200.
If
a
$
300
cost
is
applied
to
the
cost­
effectiveness
formula
that
CARB
uses
to
evaluate
emission
measures,
the
$
10
cost
per
pound
is
above
what
is
fair
for
other
mobile
sources,
because
of
the
low
production
volumes
for
motorcycles.
(
CMDA­
05)

Comment
26:
The
staff
proposal
shows
a
cost
range
of
between
$
3.00
to
$
5.60
per
pound
of
emission
reductions,
which
does
not
appear
reasonable.
Our
research
on
machines
available
today
shows
a
difference
of
$
800
to
$
1000
in
vehicles
using
fuel
injection
versus
those
equipped
with
carburetors.
Granted
that
fuel
injection
has
the
appearance
of
an
added­
value
item
to
consumers,
however,
the
staff
finding
of
$
67.50
appears
unrealistically
low.
(
AMA­
05)

Comment
27:
Similarly,
the
values
given
for
a
three­
way
catalyst
of
$
30.21
is
also
likely
low.
Different
motorcycles
need
exhaust
system
placement
in
different
locations
for
machines
meeting
different
purposes.
Some
such
placements
could
put
the
catalyst
elements
within
an
inch
­
22­
or
so
of
the
operator's
legs.
Given
the
temperatures
at
which
today's
catalysts
operate,
that
would
create
an
unrealistically
dangerous
situation
and
more
expensive
placements
will
have
to
be
contemplated.
(
AMA­
06)

Comment
28:
Even
with
standards
such
as
the
proposed
0.8
g/
km
standard,
I
can
still
see
the
need
for
computer­
controlled
fuel
injection,
three­
way
catalytic
converters
with
feedback
controls,
and
air
injection
systems
being
necessary.
Making
up
for
less
than
0.1%
of
emissions
polluting
vehicles
on
California
roadways,
expensive
systems
such
as
fuel
injection,
catalytic
converters,
and
air
injection
are
not
cost­
effective
and
would
add
to
new
motorcycle
costs
by
as
much
as
20
percent.
(
SSC­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
these
comments.
Our
analysis
as
shown
in
the
Staff
Report
uses
the
most
current
cost
figures
we
obtained
from
emission
control
equipment
suppliers
who
provide
equipment
to
both
automobile
and
motorcycle
manufacturers.
Based
on
these
figures,
we
project
the
production
cost
for
affected
motorcycles
would
increase
by
no
more
than
3
percent,
not
20
percent.
Because
the
basic
technologies
are
essentially
the
same,
there
is
no
credible
reason
to
believe
the
cost
of
a
fuel
injector
or
catalytic
converter,
for
example,
should
be
significantly
different
for
a
motorcycle
as
compared
to
similar
equipment
on
an
automobile.
In
fact,
the
catalyst
costs
for
motorcycles
(
typically
the
highest­
cost
emissions
control
item)
should
be
less
than
the
cost
for
a
similar
unit
on
a
car,
since
the
converter
would
likely
be
placed
closer
to
the
motorcycle
engine
and
would
need
less
of
the
precious
metals
(
due
to
the
lower
exhaust
flowrates).
These
figures
were
confirmed
by
members
of
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association
(
MECA),
as
well
as
ARB's
nearly
30
years
of
experience
in
evaluating
the
feasibility
and
costs
of
emission
controls
on
motor
vehicles
in
California.

Comment
29:
I
am
a
motorcycle
enthusiast,
I
have
ridden
them
regularly
for
30
years,
and
I
also
like
to
ride
bicycles,
on
and
off
road.
Clean
air
is
VERY
important
to
me.
[
emphasis
in
original]
The
arguments
from
the
industry
about
costs
and
technical
problems
is
[
sic]
the
same
nonsense
we
always
hear
from
the
manufacturers.
We
all
know
emissions
can
be
cleaned
up,
and
I
believe
that
the
initial
cost
increase
will
be
small
and
well
worth
the
benefits
to
us
all.
Your
estimate
is
$
278
per
vehicle,
their's
[
sic]
is
ridiculous
at
$
1,000
per
vehicle.
Even
at
$
1,000
per
vehicle
its
worth
it,
those
guys
spend
more
than
that
on
fancy
wheels
and
doodads
for
their
trucks.
Don't
cave
in
to
pressure
from
the
industry
and
from
the
riders
who
enjoy
polluting
the
environment
with
their
dirty
and
noisy
motors.
(
Evans­
01,
Mullick­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.
It
has
been
our
experience,
particularly
with
motor
vehicle
regulations,
that
our
original
cost
estimates
for
a
regulation
are
almost
invariably
greater
than
the
actual
cost
increases
experienced
by
manufacturers
and
consumers.
Given
our
experience
with
other
motor
vehicle
categories,
the
actual
costs
experienced
by
motorcycle
manufacturers
may
be
less
than
those
estimated
by
staff.

Comment
30:
Your
estimates
that
these
changes
would
increase
the
cost
of
a
new
motorcycle
by
an
average
of
about
$
278
is
[
sic]
absolutely
absurd.
Manufacturers'
estimates
­
23­
range
from
5
to
10
times
that
amount,
and
that's
if
they
choose
to
continue
producing
models
for
sale
in
California.
­
24­
I
share
the
belief
that
we
all
must
do
our
part
to
keep
the
environment
healthy
and
the
air
clean.
I
do
not
think,
however,
that
your
attempt
to
legislate
unfairly
against
any
group
is
appropriate,
particularly
when
that
group
is
such
a
small
part
of
the
problem.
If
passed,
this
proposal
will
have
a
severe
impact
on
the
powersports
industry
in
California.
I
urge
you
to
consider
a
more
reasonable
proposal
regarding
the
reduction
of
motorcycle
emissions.
(
JHD­
03,
Malone­
01)

Comment
31:
We
are
a
small
California
manufacturing
facility,
which
provides
jobs
for
many
California
citizens.
The
proposed
on­
road
[
motorcycle]
regulation
is
so
stringent;
I
feel
it
may
result
in
job
loss
for
many
of
the
people
we
have
in
our
employee
[
sic].
(
Ultra­
01)

Comment
32:
The
motorcycle
contribution
to
air
pollution
in
California
is
only
0.00625%.
The
cost
of
compliance
far
out
way
[
sic]
any
savings
in
air
pollution.
(
Ultra­
02)

Comment
33:
There
is
a
strong
potential
for
severe
financial
hardship
for
the
many
voters
involved
in,
or
employed
by,
the
motorcycle
industry
in
California.
Has
the
ARB
investigated
all
of
the
economic
impact
of
its
proposals?
Not
just
to
the
OEMs
[
original
equipment
manufacturers],
but
to
the
after­
market
manufacturing
and
services
industries
that
have
been
built
around
providing
maintenance
for,
and
service
to,
on­
road
motorcycles.
Has
the
ARB
investigated
the
potential
loss
of
payroll,
and
tax
revenues,
to
the
state
in
return
for
the
billionths
or
trillionths
of
PPM
of
noxious
emissions
removed
from
the
environment?
(
Campbell­
02,
Sanders­
03,
Flynn­
02,
Pack­
01,
Cunningham­
02,
Fleischman­
02,
Marling­
01,
Getty­
02,
Malone­
03)

Comment
34:
Your
unrealistic
proposed
standards
jeopardize
future
growth
of
motorcycling
in
the
State
by
placing
unrealistic
standards
that
can't
be
met
without
a
substantial
increase
in
the
overall
cost
of
a
new
motorcycle.
As
one
who
makes
their
living
in
the
powersports
industry
(
our
company
employs
500+
people),
I
can't
help
but
feel
that
if
passed,
the
new
standards
would
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
our
future
business.
CARB
promised
that
the
1997
two­
stroke
ban
would
not
impact
the
sport,
yet
in
fact,
it
has
reduced
the
number
of
green
sticker
OHVs
available
for
individuals
to
purchase
by
90%.
(
Kaiser­
01,
JHD­
02)

Comment
35:
In
addition
to
the
on­
cost
[
sic]
for
technological
changes
published
and
well
documented
by
the
MIC,
the
financial
burden
of
re­
certification
alone
will
raise
the
unit
cost
of
a
Triumph
motorcycle
by
$
40.00
(
based
on
an
annual
volume
of
1250
units).
(
Triumph­
07)

Comment
36:
This
regulation
imposes
significant
costs
which
logically
cannot
be
amortized
into
sizeable
California
sales,
as
we
are
effectively
limited
to
a
maximum
of
1250
units
per
year.
As
a
result,
imposition
of
such
a
regulation
will
impose
an
unfair
financial
penalty.
To
emphasize
how
difficult
it
would
be
to
amortize
our
costs
into
California
sales,
even
if
we
could
build
more
motorcycles,
it
is
reported
that
total
small
volume
manufacturer's
share
of
the
California
market
is
just
2.5%,
meaning
that
the
six
major
producers
divide
97.5%
of
the
market
between
them.
(
Triumph­
05)
­
25­
Comment
37:
There
are
no
known
or
proposed
emission
limits
elsewhere
in
the
world
that
would
come
close
to
those
proposed
for
California,
meaning
that
100%
of
our
emissions
control
effort
would
be
concentrated
at
5%
of
our
world
volume.
A
very
poor
return
on
investment,
of
negligible
air
quality
due
to
our
low
volumes,
and
contrary
to
any
sensible
cost­
to­
benefit
calculations
we
have
made.
(
Triumph­
08)

Comment
38:
Unlike
the
majority
of
our
major
competitors,
we
do
not
have
supporting
business
interests,
such
as
automobile
or
marine
vehicle
production,
that
could
make
financial
or
technological
contributions
to
motorcycle
emissions
control.
(
Triumph­
04)

Comment
39:
Passing
the
legislation
before
you
would
be
a
grave
mistake.
Insuring
that
all
new
motorcycles
require
fuel
injection
system
and
catalytic
converters
is
wrong.
Thus
far
you
have
outlawed
many
off­
road
bikes
and
are
about
to
do
the
same
with
road
bikes.
This
means
that
I
will
buy
my
new
bikes
out
of
state,
taking
with
me
the
revenue
that
goes
along
with
the
purchase.
I
will
also
buy
all
of
my
repair
parts
out
of
state.
No
money
for
CA.
(
Wehr­
01)

Comment
40:
Harley­
Davidson
sells
two
touring
models,
the
same
designation,
one
has
a
carburetor,
it's
[
sic]
twin
sister
is
fuel­
injected.
Guess
what?
The
fuel­
injected
model
is
$
1000
more
and
that's
just
to
get
the
fuel­
injection
plus
some
electronics.
It
would
not
meet
your
proposed
new
standards.
Harley­
Davidson
would
have
to
add
the
same
tons
of
"
crap"
that
you
now
force
down
our
throats
in
our
automobiles.
Not
only
Harley
but
every
manufacturer
that
would
want
to
sell
motorcycles
in
California.
How
many
of
them
are
you
going
to
force
to
stop
doing
business
in
California?
The
Board
needs
a
serious
dose
of
reality.
There
has
never
been
and
I
mean
never
been
"
clean
air"
in
California,
and
there
never
will
be.
Even
if
every
person
up
and
left,
no
factories,
cars,
buses,
etc.,
the
air
would
still
be
polluted.
It
has
always
been
that
way.
(
Andrews­
01)

Agency
Response:
Our
economic
impacts
analysis,
using
the
Cal/
EPA
approved
methodology
for
conducting
cost
analyses
and
well­
established
assumptions,
shows
that
the
staff's
proposal
overall
is
both
cost­
effective
and
will
not
significantly
impact
California
businesses
or
consumers.
Even
with
the
reduced
emissions
inventory
based
on
input
from
the
MIC,
we
estimate
the
cost­
effectiveness
of
the
regulation
to
range
from
about
$
3.00
to
$
5.60
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
reduced,
which
is
well
within
the
range
of
cost­
effectiveness
of
other
regulations
adopted
by
the
Board.
Moreover,
our
business
impacts
analysis
indicated
that
the
staff's
proposal
will
affect
the
profitability
of
affected
businesses
by
less
than
3
percent,
a
level
which
is
not
considered
to
be
significant.
The
businesses
impacts
analysis
evaluated
costs
to
OEMs,
aftermarket
manufacturers,
parts
suppliers,
service
facilities,
and
retailers
involved
in
sales
of
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
accessories
(
Staff
Report,
VI­
4).

While
the
staff's
analysis
shows
the
industry
as
a
whole
would
not
experience
undue
­
26­
hardships,
this
is
not
to
say
individual
companies
would
have
the
same
experience.
Indeed,
some
companies,
particularly
those
with
low
profit
margins,
may
experience
cost
increases
beyond
those
we
discussed
in
our
analysis.
To
help
reduce
these
impacts,
our
public
outreach
effort
included
separate
meetings
with
small
manufacturers
to
evaluate
their
particular
concerns.
These
discussions
resulted
in
a
small­
volume
manufacturer
provision
that
applies
only
the
Tier­
1
standard
to
such
companies
and
gives
them
9
years
to
comply.
Our
planned
technology
review
in
2006
will
also
look
at
the
small­
volume
manufacturers'
progress
toward
reducing
their
emission
levels.
At
that
time,
any
changes
to
the
standard
can
be
evaluated
in
light
of
our
findings.
Based
on
these
reasons,
we
believe
the
proposal's
provisions
specific
to
small­
volume
manufacturers
will
help
reduce
any
adverse
impacts
they
may
experience.

Very
few,
if
any,
air
pollution
regulations
can
reduce
emissions
without
imposing
some
costs
and
other
impacts
to
manufacturers
and
consumers.
However,
the
mere
presence
of
cost
impacts
should
not
preclude
our
efforts
to
clean
the
air;
Californians
demand
and
deserve
the
cleanest
air
possible
in
the
shortest
amount
of
time.
"
Giving
up
and
doing
nothing,"
as
the
last
commenter
seems
to
be
suggesting,
is
not
an
option
under
State
law
when
feasible,
pollution
reduction
measures
are
available.
As
we
have
done
in
this
rulemaking,
the
costs
of
the
proposed
regulation
must
be
balanced
against
the
magnitude
and
feasibility
of
the
potential
reductions.
Based
on
our
analysis,
the
Board
has
concluded
that
the
amendments
are
commercially
and
technologically
feasible.

Comment
41:
While
the
MIC
believes
the
proposed
standards
are
technologically
feasible,
the
additional
emissions
controls
required
to
comply
with
the
proposed
[
2008]
standard
will
reduce
the
practicality
of
producing
vehicles
that
can
be
certified
on
a
50­
state
basis.
Under
the
current
standards,
many
popular
models
are
already
different
in
their
California
configuration
and
some
models
are
unavailable
in
California.

The
staff
report
contains
an
illogical
claim
that
more
stringent
standards
will
increase
model
availability.
We
are
certain
the
opposite
is
true.
The
rationale
for
ARB
staff's
conclusion
is
that
manufacturers
will
prefer
to
certify
on
a
50­
state
basis
to
reduce
the
average
cost
increase
per
vehicle
associated
with
meeting
the
California
standards.
In
other
words,
the
argument
is
that
manufacturers
will
be
willing
to
incur
a
greater
increase
in
total
costs
if
the
cost
per
vehicle
is
lower
on
a
nationwide
basis.
[
emphasis
in
original]
This
assumption
is
clearly
inconsistent
with
the
economic
interests
of
the
manufacturers.
Even
if
manufacturers
decide
that
some
of
the
design
changes
needed
to
meet
the
proposed
standard
(
e.
g.,
fuel
injection)
would
add
value
to
49­
state
models,
there
will
be
no
market­
drive
reason
to
incorporate
the
catalyst
itself.
As
a
result,
differences
between
the
models
available
in
California
and
the
other
49­
states
will
increase,
not
decrease.
Reduced
model
availability
and
an
increase
in
"
California­
only"
versions
of
other
models
will
adversely
affect
sales
and
create
an
incentive
for
circumvention
of
the
­
27­
California
standards.
(
MIC45­
03)

Comment
42:
In
our
July
testimony,
at
the
related
CARB
staff
workshop,
we
cautioned
staff
against
assuming
that
a
California
regulation
could
drive
the
motorcycling
market
in
much
the
same
way
that
it
has
driven
other
markets.
Perusal
of
the
staff
proposal
finds
our
caution
has
been
ignored.
Staff
assumes
that
the
manufacturers
will
produce
a
50
state
motorcycle
to
meet
the
regulation
(
page
VI­
16
of
the
Staff
Report).
While
this
is
may
have
been
the
case
in
the
past,
it
is
no
longer
a
valid
presumption.
California
simply
does
not
possess
the
requisite
market
that
would
justify
any
manufacturer
anywhere
spending
the
capital
required
to
impose
this
regulation.

In
the
only
recent
case
of
a
regulation
affecting
the
motorcycling
public,
CARB
imposed
an
emission
reduction
regulation
on
off­
highway
motorcycles
in
1997.
As
a
result,
industry
apparently
abandoned
the
market,
sales
dropped
42%
and
the
vehicles
available
to
the
public
went
from
over
100
different
models
to
less
than
10.
In
part
to
prevent
the
total
collapse
of
this
consumer
market,
that
regulation
is
also
under
review
by
the
Board
for
revision
at
this
meeting
(
i.
e.,
Board
Hearing).

The
situation
for
the
on­
highway
market
is
no
different.
California
represents
less
than
12
percent
of
the
national
motorcycle
market.
However,
there
is
today
no
such
thing
as
a
motorcycle
produced
solely
for
the
U.
S.
market.
Models
are
sold
worldwide
and
are
virtually
the
same
world­
wide.
Today,
the
needs
of
the
European
Community,
with
its
more
than
340
million
residents
and
a
higher
per­
capita
motorcycling
purchase
record,
drives
the
Class
III
market.
Australasia,
with
its
several
billion
residents
who
are
striving
to
emerge
into
the
modern
world
and
where
motorcycles
are
seen
as
a
primary
form
of
transportation,
drives
the
Class
I
and
Class
II
markets.
In
meetings
for
the
past
six
months
around
the
world,
between
representatives
of
the
AMA
and
the
international
motorcycling
manufacturing
community,
we
have
been
told
in
no
uncertain
terms
that
many
have
no
qualms
about
abandoning
the
California
market
if
the
final
CARB
regulation
is
unreasonable.
(
AMA­
04,
Malone­
02,
Smith,
Malcolm­
01)

Comment
43:
The
proposed
2004/
8
regulations
will
lead
to
us
building
California­
only
motorcycles,
should
we
decide
to
continue
in
the
market
at
all.
This,
we
know,
is
something
that
the
ARB
are
keen
to
avoid.
(
Triumph­
11)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenters
for
several
reasons.
First,
we
believe
that
California
will
benefit
if
manufacturers
decide
to
build
a
California­
compliant,
"
50­
state"
motorcycle;
enforcement
will
be
simplified
and
manufacturers
would
have
reduced
costs
in
terms
of
simplified
manufacturing
and
distribution
requirements.
Second,
the
commenters
are
in
error
with
regard
to
our
assumption
about
the
production
of
a
"
50­
state"
motorcycle.
To
rephrase
our
conclusion
in
the
Staff
Report,
there
are
basically
two
different
scenarios
manufacturers
can
take:
(
1)
all
manufacturers
would
produce
"
50­
state"
motorcycles
that
comply
with
the
California
standards,
and
(
2)
all
manufacturers
produce
both
"
California­
only"
and
"
49­
state"
motorcycles
that
comply
with
California
or
U.
S.
EPA
standards,
respectively.
Because
we
cannot
predict
which
route
each
manufacturer
will
take
(
each
approach
has
advantages
and
­
28­
disadvantages),
we
calculated
and
reported
the
cost­
effectiveness
for
both
scenarios,
with
the
entire
costs
for
complying
with
the
California
standards
spread
over
only
the
California
market
under
Scenario
2
(
i.
e.,
the
worst­
case
cost
scenario).
From
this
reasonable
approach,
we
calculated
and
reported
the
cost­
effectiveness
range
of
$
3.00
to
$
5.60
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
reduced.
Despite
the
commenters'
assertion,
we
received
no
indication
of
any
planned
mass
exodus
of
manufacturers
from
the
California
market
due
to
the
staff's
proposal,
which
the
MIC
has
conceded
is
technologically
feasible.

Comment
44:
It
may
very
well
be
that
in
order
for
the
manufacturers
to
meet
phase
two
requirements
and
consumer
expectations
at
the
same
time,
that
add­
ons
will
be
found
inadequate
and
different
engine
families
will
be
needed.
Traditionally,
motorcycle
engine
families
have
a
long
life
to
meet
tooling
and
other
expenses.
New,
large
displacement
on­
highway
engine
families
developed
without
contemplation
of
this
regulation
(
but
with
the
upcoming
European
regulation
contemplated)
have
come
on­
line
this
year
or
will
come
on
line
next
year
for
Harley­
Davidson,
Henderson­
Excelsior,
Polaris,
Yamaha,
Triumph
and
others.
If
new
families
are
needed
to
meet
the
regulation,
these
will
undoubtedly
create
a
great
deal
of
additional
expense
to
the
consumer.
Staff
did
not
contemplate
that
many
companies
only
have
one
or
two
engine
families
in
their
repertoire
and
may
be
unable
to
take
advantage
of
averaging
due
to
the
kinds
of
models
they
sell.
(
AMA­
07)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree.
The
Tier­
1
standard
is
designed
to
be
met
with
minimal
modifications
to
most
motorcycles;
indeed,
we
estimate
that
60%
of
the
existing
motorcycle
market
already
meets
or
is
very
close
to
meeting
the
Tier­
1
standard
at
this
time.
(
Staff
Report,
V­
4).
In
addition,
contrary
to
the
commenter's
assertion,
the
staff's
economic
impacts
analysis
conservatively
assumed
that
all
manufacturers
would
need
to
retool
and
redesign
essentially
all
existing
motorcycle
product
lines
to
comply
with
the
Tier­
2
standard.
(
Staff
Report,
VI­
7
through
VI­
14)
Thus,
the
factors
noted
above
have
already
been
accounted
for
in
the
staff's
analysis.

Comment
45:
The
ARB
staff
estimates
the
price
increase
associated
with
a
0.8
standard
at
approximately
$
100.
We
estimate
the
cost
to
be
over
$
300.
There
are
four
principal
reasons
for
the
difference
in
price
estimates.
First,
the
price
premium
for
fuel
injection
contained
in
the
staff
report
is
only
$
42
plus
a
small
dealer
mark
up.
In
contrast,
MIC
member
companies
supplied
data
to
Sierra
indicating
that
the
retail
price
increase
associated
with
feedbackcontrolled
fuel
injection
would
be
$
282.
Estimates
from
four
different
companies
were
provided
independently
to
Sierra.
Most
of
the
data
were
confidential,
but
we
shared
it
with
the
ARB
staff.
There
was
very
close
agreement
between
the
estimates
provided
by
each
company.
One
of
the
companies
providing
data
was
BMW,
a
company
that
has
already
converted
to
fuel
injection
on
the
majority
of
its
production.
BMW's
estimates
are
based
on
actual
costs
of
the
design
change
they
have
already
made.
The
information
provided
by
BMW
was
based
on
"
hard"
costs
that
reflect
no
corporate
profit
or
dealer
mark
up.
The
information
was
developed
for
internal
purposes
prior
to
­
29­
ARB's
proposal
to
tighten
the
emissions
standards.
ARB's
estimates
of
fuel
injection
costs
appear
to
be
based
on
the
component
costs
for
automotive
systems
produced
in
volumes
that
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher.
During
discussions
with
ARB
staff,
it
has
been
acknowledged
that
our
estimates
for
the
cost
of
fuel
injection
appear
more
reasonable.
­
30­
The
second
most
significant
difference
in
the
cost
estimates
made
by
ARB
staff
and
Sierra
involves
amortization
of
the
cost
for
research,
development,
and
engineering.
The
ARB
staff
cost
estimates
assume
such
costs
will
be
spread
over
nationwide
sales
for
15
years.
Under
this
approach,
almost
90%
of
the
true
costs
are
ignored.
In
addition,
an
8­
yr
life
expectancy
between
major
engine
redesigns
is
a
more
representative
time
period
over
which
such
costs
should
be
amortized.

Third,
the
ARB
staff
analysis
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
return
on
investment
(
ROI)
manufacturers
should
expect
to
obtain
from
the
investments
necessary
to
develop
a
new
product
is
6%.
The
fiduciary
responsibility
corporations
have
to
their
shareholders
is
such
that
investments
expected
to
yield
an
ROI
of
6%
are
considered
irresponsible.
The
risks
associated
with
the
development
of
new
products
is
[
sic]
such
that
historical
ROI
values
are
typically
15%.
Sierra's
analysis
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
an
ROI
of
12%
will
be
achieved.

Finally,
ARB's
cost
estimates
assume
normal
dealer
margins
will
not
apply
to
increases
in
cost
associated
with
more
stringent
vehicle
emissions
standards.
There
is
no
basis
for
this
assumption.
Dealer
margins
apply
to
all
cost
increases.
[
emphasis
in
original]

We
have
not
been
able
to
duplicate
ARB's
estimates
of
the
costeffectiveness
ratio.
Our
independent
estimate
is
that
the
cost
of
the
proposed
0.8
g/
km
standard
is
approximately
$
10
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
reduced.
This
is
substantially
higher
than
what
is
normally
considered
an
acceptable
ratio.
(
MIC45­
06)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
this
commenter's
findings
for
the
following
reasons:

(
a)
As
we
noted
earlier,
we
used
the
best
available
cost
data
obtained
from
parts
suppliers.
While
the
commenter
suggests
our
cost
estimates
are
low,
the
commenter
did
not
provide
ARB
staff
with
access
to
the
"
raw"
cost
data
that
he
used
to
arrive
at
his
cost
estimates,
even
after
we
requested
such
data.
We
therefore
cannot
comment
on
the
validity
of
this
commenter's
calculations.
However,
as
we
noted
in
this
section,
it
has
been
ARB
staff's
experience
that
our
original
cost
estimates
have
typically
been
conservative
and
tend
to
overestimate
the
actual
costs
manufacturers
incur
in
complying
with
air
pollution
regulations.

(
b)
Again,
the
commenter
provided
no
basis
or
substantiation
for
his
claim
that
8
years
is
a
better
cost
amortization
period
than
the
time
frame
staff
used.
It
was
our
understanding
that
15
years
adequately
represents
the
amortization
for
R&
D
costs
in
the
motorcycle
industry
and
we
had
no
reason
to
believe
otherwise.
­
31­
­
32­
(
c)
With
regard
to
the
assumed
ROI
of
6%,
the
commenter
suggests
that
an
R&
D
director
seeking
a
6%
ROI
would
have
breached
her
fiduciary
duty
to
the
company's
stakeholders
and
that
12­
15%
would
have
better
represented
a
return
on
investment
that
companies
seek.
This
makes
little
sense
for
regulatory
purposes,
however,
since
it
is
the
staff's
responsibility
to
use
a
reasonable
rate
of
return
for
cost
estimation
purposes,
rather
than
using
a
rate
of
return
that
represents
some
ideal
for
stakeholders.
It
must
be
remembered
that,
for
purposes
of
determining
the
cost
feasibility
of
a
proposed
regulation,
it
is
appropriate
to
assume
that
a
company
would
view
the
effort
to
comply
with
the
standards
as
a
cost
of
business,
not
necessarily
a
business
opportunity
to
make
a
high
rate
of
return
on
investment.
Therefore,
based
on
our
experiences
in
promulgating
air
pollution
regulations,
we
concluded
that
a
6%
ROI
was
a
reasonable
return
on
investment
to
use
for
cost
estimation
purposes.
As
we
noted
in
the
Staff
Report
(
Staff
Report,
VI­
13),
at
least
one
large­
volume
automobile
manufacturer
employs
such
an
approach
to
calculate
the
cost
of
capital
recovery,
and
we
believe
other
automobile
and
motorcycle
manufacturers
use
a
similar
approach.

(
d)
With
regard
to
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
staff
did
not
apply
a
dealer's
normal
margins
to
all
cost
increases,
the
commenter
is
simply
incorrect.
As
we
noted
in
the
Staff
Report
(
Staff
Report,
VI­
4),
"
since
the
price
of
the
motorcycle
would
likely
increase
due
to
the
proposed
standards,
it
is
appropriate
to
account
for
the
additional
interest
that
the
dealer
would
pay
for
financing
the
cost
of
the
motorcycle
and
to
cover
the
commission
sales
persons
will
receive
as
well."
We
reported
dealers'
increased
costs
based
on
such
adjustments;
it
is
unclear
to
us
how
the
commenter
arrived
at
his
conclusion
given
our
stated
methodology
in
the
Staff
Report.

(
e)
The
commenter
did
not
share
the
details
of
his
cost
calculations
with
staff,
even
after
we
requested
such
details;
we
therefore
cannot
comment
on
the
possible
reasons
for
the
commenter's
inability
to
replicate
the
staff's
cost
calculations.
Consequently,
we
are
unable
to
verify
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
costeffectiveness
of
the
proposal
is
greater
than
$
10
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
reduced.
Based
on
our
extensive
analysis
as
shown
in
the
Staff
Report,
we
conclude
that
the
proposal
is
cost­
effective,
with
a
cost­
effectiveness
ranging
from
$
3.00
to
$
5.60
per
pound
of
HC+
NOx
reduced.
­
33­
5.
Small
Volume
Manufacturers
Comment
46:
An
exemption
of
only
300
to
500
units
per
year
would
effectively
put
us
out
of
business
in
California.
An
exemption
of
3000
units
per
year
would
allow
us
the
time
and
resources
to
comply
with
the
2008
standards.
(
CMC­
01)

Comment
47:
We
feel
the
appropriate
exemption
level
for
small
volume
manufacturers
that
we
could
support
is
1,000
unit
sales
in
a
model
year
or
higher
or,
alternatively,
the
1.2
g/
km
standard
in
2008
proposed
by
the
MIC.
(
CMDA­
02,
Wolf­
01)

Comment
48:
Please
do
not
lower
the
proposed
1,000
units
per
year
exemption
level
for
small
volume
manufacturers
because
of
claims
by
Japanese
manufacturers
that
such
an
exemption
level
would
put
them
at
a
competitive
disadvantage.
The
proposed
exemption
level
represents
less
than
3%
of
the
California
market
per
year.
(
SCI­
01)

Comment
49:
We
feel
the
suggested
proposals
of
300­
500
units
per
year
will
affect
the
cost
of
our
units
to
the
extent
of
possibly
putting
us
out
of
business
or,
at
a
minimum,
not
be
able
to
offer
our
product
to
California.
CARB
should
be
more
concerned
about
putting
American
businesses
out
of
business
rather
than
about
a
huge
overseas
company
being
put
at
a
so­
called
competitive
disadvantage
for
2.5%
of
the
California
market.
1,000
units
and
under
per
year
should
be
the
cut
off
point
for
the
exemption.
(
PSCC­
01)

Commenter
50:
ATK
forecasts
reasonable
growth
in
the
future,
but
requires
the
ability
to
sell
motorcycles
in
California
to
help
perpetuate
its
growth.
While
ATK
makes
continual
technological
steps
towards
improving
emissions
from
its
motorcycles,
it
is
unreasonable
to
make
the
assertion
that
ATK
can
comply
to
the
proposed
2008
emissions
standards.
By
2008,
ATK
plans
to
be
selling
over
500
and
possibly
over
1000
street
motorcycles
in
California.
However,
this
will
be
impossible
with
the
current
proposal.
ATK
needs
a
small
manufacturers
exemption
that
will
allow
us
to
continue
to
grow
our
business
without
being
stifled
by
insurmountable
technological
walls.
When
ATK
grows
big
enough
to
outgrow
the
small
manufacturers'
exemptions,
we
will
be
happy
and
excited
to
comply
to
the
adjusted
emission
levels
because
we
will
have
the
experience,
financial
stability,
and
technological
stability
to
make
the
compliance
a
reality.
A
generous
small
manufacturer
exemption
must
be
applied
to
the
proposal
to
allow
manufacturers
selling
1000
or
even
1500
motorcycles
per
year
in
California
to
be
allowed
emissions
compliance
at
higher
levels.
(
ATK­
01)
­
34­
Comment
51:
Although
ATK
is
a
small
manufacturer,
in
general
ATK
dealers
depend
on
the
sales
of
ATK
motorcycles
to
stay
in
business.
For
many
dealers
to
grow
their
own
business,
ATK
needs
to
grow
also.
The
limited
expansion
of
ATK
into
California
as
the
result
of
more
restrictive
emissions
levels
would
mean
the
staggered
growth
or
even
failure
of
California
dealerships.
Citing
ARB's
own
statistics,
only
2.5%
of
on­
road
motorcycles
are
produced
by
small
manufacturers,
and
only
0.00625%
of
total
emissions
derive
from
all
of
the
motorcycle
community.
What
is
the
value
of
condemning
the
small
manufacturer
by
enforcing
the
lower
emissions
levels
to
all
manufacturers?
(
ATK­
02)

Comment
52:
It
is
known
that
the
individual
states,
and
the
Federal
government,
follow
the
lead
of
CARB
when
setting
levels
and
following
trends.
Not
allowing
a
small
manufacturers
exemption
for
on
road
emissions
levels
may
prevent
all
small
manufacturers
from
making
any
advancement,
and
may
ultimately
spell
the
end
to
these
small
businesses,
including
ATK
America.
(
ATK­
03)

Comment
53:
Please
accept
the
small
volume
manufacturer
exemption
of
1,000
units
annually
under
the
present
proposal.
(
TMC­
01)

Comment
54:
The
regulation
also
addresses
a
long­
term
goal
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
for
small­
volume
manufacturers
in
2008.
The
emission
level
portion
of
this
part
of
the
regulation
is
acceptable,
however,
we
cannot
agree
with
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
limit
of
1,000
California
motorcycle
sales
across
all
classes.
Instead,
the
state
should
recognize
the
US
EPA
standard
for
small
manufacturers
of
10,000
such
vehicles,
with
2,000
California
sales
in
the
affected
Class
III
(
280
cc
or
greater).
(
AMA­
02)

Comment
55:
Under
the
proposed
0.
8
g/
km
standard,
MIC
member
companies
were
not
able
to
reach
a
consensus
regarding
how
"
small
volume"
manufacturers
should
be
treated.
Because
of
the
relatively
sophisticated
technology
needed
to
comply
with
the
standard,
the
staff
recommended
that
"
small
volume"
manufacturers
be
exempt
from
the
standard.
To
the
best
of
my
recollection,
ARB
has
never
provided
a
permanent
exemption
from
a
performance
standard
based
on
sales
volume.
Understandably,
small
volume
manufacturers
support
this
exemption.
Larger
volume
manufacturers
oppose
it
because
they
compete
directly
with
smaller
volume
manufacturers
in
certain
segments
of
the
market
and
a
permanent
exemption
creates
an
incentive
for
the
proliferation
of
smaller
volume
producers.
Another
benefit
of
the
MIC
alternative
is
that
the
controversy
surrounding
this
issue
is
eliminated
because
small
volume
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
meet
the
standard
without
the
enormous
research,
development,
and
engineering
costs
required
by
the
0.8
g/
km
standard.
(
MIC45­
07)

Comment
56:
I
ask
you
for
the
1,000
unit
small­
volume
manufacturer
exemption,
because
there
effectively
is
no
corporate
averaging
available
to
small
manufacturers
with
one
product
line,
and
these
manufacturers
don't
have
access
to
banking
or
trading
or
any
of
that
other
stuff
that
the
large
manufacturers
have
access
to.
(
Wolf­
02,
Polaris­
01)
­
35­
Comment
57:
We
do
not
support
the
MIC
position
on
small
volume
manufacturers
and
the
proposals
contained
in
the
ARB
staff
report
on
this
subject.
Moreover,
we
are
totally
opposed
to
the
moves
made
by
a
large
volume
manufacturer
to
further
reduce
the
cut­
off
point
delineating
large
and
small
volume
manufacturers.
Instead,
we
respectfully
request
that
the
Board
adopt
a
3,000
units
per
model
year
in
California
cut
point
for
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition
or,
alternatively,
a
7,500
units
per
model
year
total
U.
S.
production.
These
definitions
will
truly
encompass
all
small
volume
manufacturers
such
as
Triumph.
The
suggested
cut­
off
points
will
also
allow
sensible
redistribution
of
volume,
natural
growth
of
market
share,
and
yet
would
not
impose
the
very
considerable
financial
burden
of
redesign
and
re­
certification
that
could
still
not
be
recovered
from
increased
overall
products
(
Triumph­
01,
Triumph­
06)

Agency
Response:
As
these
comments
indicate,
numerous
and
widely­
varying
cutoff
points
were
suggested
for
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
provision.
In
adopting
the
300
units
per
model
year
definition,
the
Board
balanced
the
need
to
provide
some
relief
to
truly
small
manufacturers,
which
have
limited
research
and
development
resources
(
R&
D)
but
need
room
to
grow,
versus
the
need
to
ensure
that
fairly
large
manufacturers
with
relatively
low
sales
in
California
cannot
gain
an
unfair
competitive
advantage
against
manufacturers
who
would
need
to
spend
R&
D
resources
to
comply.
Here,
the
Board
was
faced
with
the
situation
where
adoption
of
a
500­
or
1,000­
unit
per
model
year
or
greater
cutoff
would
have
allowed
fairly
large
companies
(
based
on
worldwide
sales),
such
as
Triumph,
Ducati,
and
others,
to
be
given
relief
against
the
Tier­
2
standard
(
i.
e.,
meet
only
the
Tier­
1
standard
with
nine
years
to
comply),
while
larger
companies
with
which
they
compete
directly
in
the
market
would
be
required
to
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard.
Given
the
difficult
job
of
balancing
such
competing
needs,
the
Board
carefully
considered
the
issues
and
appropriately
adopted
a
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition
that
provides
relief
only
to
those
companies
that
are
truly
small,
"
mom­
and­
pop"
operations.
This
is
not
to
say
that
such
relief
will
be
permanent;
reconsideration
and
modification
of
the
small­
volume
manufacturer
provision
may
be
appropriate
based
on
our
findings
from
the
planned
2006
technology
review.

Comment
58:
Previous
small
volume
exemptions,
for
example
the
California
evaporative
emissions
regulations,
have
described
a
small
volume
manufacturer
as
one
who
delivers
3000
(
or
less)
units
per
model
year
in
California.
We
cannot
understand
or
accept
that,
in
a
stable
California
motorcycle
market
such
as
we
have
currently,
the
definition
of
a
small
volume
manufacturer
has
suddenly
changed.
The
problems
companies
of
our
size
will
face
in
meeting
the
figures
detailed
in
the
staff
report
have
grown
considerably,
the
market
has
not
significantly
expanded,
yet
the
cut­
off
figure
for
a
small
volume
exemption
has
gone
down
without
justification
or
apparent
consideration.
(
Triumph­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
for
several
reasons.
First,
small
volume
exemptions
are
appropriately
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
each
proposed
rulemaking;
the
small
volume
exemption
in
one
regulation,
therefore,
has
little
if
any
relevance
to
another
rulemaking.
Moreover,
it
should
be
noted
that
there
is
no
small
volume
manufacturer
exemption
currently
­
36­
effective
under
the
existing
motorcycle
regulation.
The
previous
exemption
expired
in
model
year
1988,
thereby
requiring
all
large
and
small
manufacturers
to
meet
the
same
exhaust
emission
standards
until
the
Board's
adopted
amendments
become
effective.
The
Board,
in
adopting
the
previous
(
now­
expired)
small
volume
manufacturers'
exemption,
carefully
considered
different
factors
and
concerns
dissimilar
economic
and
social
circumstances
than
did
the
Board
in
this
rulemaking.
Thus,
it
is
entirely
appropriate
and
not
at
all
surprising
that
the
Board,
in
balancing
the
competing
interests
in
this
rulemaking,
adopted
a
300
unit
per
model
year,
small
volume
manufacturer
exemption
that
meets
the
Board's
goal
of
addressing
the
competing
interests
to
the
extent
feasible
under
foreseeable
economic
and
social
circumstances
different
from
those
in
the
1970'
s
and
1980'
s.

Comment
59:
Please
do
not
allow
one
manufacturer
to
write
the
[
small­
volume
manufacturers'
provision
of
the]
regulations.
(
Ultra­
03)
Allowing
annual
unit
sales
of
3,000
units
in
California
will
allow
smaller
manufacturers
the
latitude
to
develop
a
50
state
certified
motorcycle
and
to
readily
plan
their
inventory
placement
or
move
inventory
from
state
to
state
in
response
to
market
demand
or
fluctuation.
(
DeLaney­
01)

Comment
60:
Our
understanding
is
that
the
Japanese
firm,
Honda
Motorcycle,
is
taking
exception
with
the
proposed
1,000
units
per
year
small
volume
manufacturer
exemption,
indicating
that
it
would
put
them
at
a
competitive
disadvantage.
Given
that
as
a
group,
the
total
volume
output
of
small
volume
manufacturers
is
estimated
at
only
about
2.5%
of
the
total
market,
we
maintain
that
this
argument
is
without
merit.
(
TMC­
02)

Agency
Response:
Despite
the
commenter's
assertion,
the
Board
adopted
the
smallvolume
manufacture
provision
only
after
careful
consideration
of
the
issues
and
a
delicate
balancing
of
competing
interests.
All
interested
parties
had
the
opportunity
to
let
the
Board
hear
their
concerns.

Comment
61:
The
small
manufacturer
exception
is
also
extremely
important
at
Harley­
Davidson.
We
are
not
seeking
that
small
manufacturers
be
treated
in
any
prejudicial
way.
In
fact,
we
believe
that
the
language
in
the
proposal
before
you
today
along
with
the
most
current
amendments
in
the
staff
report
represent
a
fair
compromise
between
competing
interests
.
.
.
I
am
confident
that
the
Board
will
decide
[
based
on
the
2006
technology
review]
that
ultimately
small
manufacturers
must
meet
the
same
standards
that
all
manufacturers
have
to
meet
to
provide
for
the
public
health
and
welfare
of
the
citizens
of
the
State.
(
HD­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.

Comment
62:
In
the
staff
report,
ARB
staff
have
repeatedly
referred
to
Triumph
as
a
small
volume
manufacturer
(
e.
g.,
p.
III­
1
in
the
Staff
Report)
and
thanked
us
for
our
efforts
in
discussing
the
particular
problems
a
small
volume
manufacturer
will
face
in
meeting
the
new
regulations.
It
would
seem
particularly
unjust
if,
after
hearing
our
problems,
the
ARB
were
to
write
a
regulation
that
classifies
Triumph
as
a
large
volume
manufacturer
(
despite
the
size
of
our
­
37­
company
and
our
acknowledged
problems
remaining
unchanged
since
the
discussions
took
place).
The
ARB
staff
have
more
recently
described
Triumph
as
a
major
multi­
national
company
despite,
describing
and
acknowledging
us
to
be
a
small
volume
manufacturer
in
the
staff
report.
In
response,
we
point
out
that
we
employ
just
550
people
in
producing
18,000
motorcycles
per
year
total
world
volume.
We
are
a
multi­
national
company
only
by
virtue
of
owning
distribution
companies
in
France,
Germany,
and
the
U.
S.
who
employ
8,8
and
20
people
respectively,
mainly
in
parts
distribution
and
dealer
support.
We
are
not
quoted
on
any
stock
exchange
anywhere
in
the
world
and
have
always
financed
our
projects
from
within.
We
have
just
one
factory
(
in
England)
unlike
many
of
our
competitors
who
have
sizeable
factories
on
every
continent.
We
do
not,
and
never
have
had,
a
motorcycle
racing
budget,
as
has
also
been
suggested
by
ARB
staff.
By
any
logic,
and
by
comparison
to
our
competitors,
we
are
not
a
large
company
(
Triumph­
03,
Triumph­
09,
Triumph­
10)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
for
several
reasons.
First,
it
should
be
noted
that,
under
Government
Code,
Section
11342(
h),
the
commenter
would
clearly
not
qualify
as
a
"
small
business"
(
Section
11342(
h)
defines
"
small
business"
for
manufacturing
businesses
as
those
having
fewer
than
250
employees).
Second,
the
mere
fact
that
ARB
staff
discussed
the
commenter's
concerns
with
him
should
not
preclude
the
Board
from
adopting
amendments
that
could
adversely
affect
the
commenter
or
others
similarly
situated.
We
solicited
comments
from
small
and
large
manufacturers
to
identify
the
issues,
develop
standards
that
balance
the
competing
interests
to
the
extent
feasible,
and
then
present
our
proposals
to
the
Board
for
their
consideration,
supplemented
by
oral
and
written
testimony
provided
by
the
stakeholders
during
the
45­
day
comment
period.
In
adopting
the
amendments,
the
Board
carefully
balanced
the
interests
of
companies
like
Triumph
with
those
of
competing
stakeholders
and
determined
that
the
300
units
per
model
year,
small­
volume
manufacturer
definition
best
achieves
the
Board's
goals:
commercially
and
technologically­
feasible
emission
reductions,
minimal
impacts
to
California
businesses,
and
a
wide
variety
of
motorcycles
for
public
consumption.

It
should
also
be
noted
that,
while
ARB
staff
asked
the
commenter
on
whether
his
company
sponsored
racing
teams,
such
inquiry
was
merely
for
the
purpose
of
providing
background
information
on
the
affected
stakeholders
to
the
Board.
We
therefore
treated
such
information
as
immaterial
to
the
issue
of
the
technical
and
commercial
feasibility
of
the
standards
adopted
by
the
Board.
Based
on
the
lack
of
discussion
at
the
Hearing
of
manufacturers'
racing
sponsorships,
we
can
reasonably
conclude
that
such
facts
had
negligible
impact
on
the
Board's
deliberations.
­
38­
6.
Early
Compliance
Credits
Comment
63:
We
support
the
early­
compliance
credits
provision
and
believe
it,
in
addition
to
corporate
averaging
and
the
combined
HC+
NOx
standards,
provides
flexibility
to
manufacturers.
(
MECA­
03)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.

7.
Tampering
Comment
64:
We
disagree
with
the
staff
statement
that
so­
called
"
tampering"
will
be
minimal
should
the
regulation
be
imposed.
Staff
has
not
surveyed
vehicles
and
owners
to
determine
the
numbers
of
vehicles
modified
for
one
reason
or
another
by
their
owners
today,
and
their
estimates
are
likely
low.
Motorcyclists
are
more
mechanically
sophisticated
than
most
citizens.
They
are
always
interested
in
how
they
might
wring
higher
performance
from
their
vehicles
and
are
willing
and
able
to
do
so.
The
resulting
costs
for
compliance
will
more
than
push
the
per­
pound
reduction
costs
outside
of
the
reasonable
realm.
(
AMA­
09)

Comment
65:
While
the
MIC
believes
the
proposed
standards
are
technologically
feasible,
our
concern
with
the
proposal
is
that
it
appears
to
have
been
designed
to
force
much
greater
use
of
catalytic
converters.
The
much
greater
use
of
catalytic
converters
means
that
the
benefits
the
staff
assigns
to
its
proposal
will
not
be
realized
in
customer
service.
Many
catalysts
will
be
removed
by
owners.
Because
the
emissions
from
a
catalyst­
equipped
motorcycle
that
has
been
tampered
with
will
be
higher
than
the
emissions
from
a
motorcycle
designed
to
meet
a
slightly
less
stringent
standard
that
does
not
require
the
use
of
a
catalyst.

In
addition,
the
proposed
2008
standard
of
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
will
cause
an
increase
in
49­
state­
only
production,
as
we
noted
in
our
other
comments.
Migration
and
tourism
will
cause
these
higher
emission,
49­
state
vehicles
to
enter
the
California
fleet.
The
staff
s
analysis
totally
ignores
this
effect
by
assuming
that
all
motorcycles
will
be
certified
on
a
50­
state
basis.
However,
the
staff
also
uses
estimates
for
the
impact
of
tampering
with
catalyst­
equipped
motorcycles
that
we
believe
lead
to
compensating
underestimates
of
emissions.
[
emphasis
in
original]
Our
independent
analysis
uses
completely
different
assumptions,
but
produces
almost
exactly
the
same
estimate
of
future
year
emissions
under
a
0.8
g/
km
standard.

Under
the
1.2
g/
km
alternative
standard
proposed
by
the
MIC,
emissions
will
be
identical
to
emissions
under
the
0.8
g/
km
standard.
This
occurs
for
two
reasons.
First,
increased
emissions
due
to
migration
and
tourism
are
less
of
a
problem
because
50­
state
certification
is
more
practical.
Second,
tampering
with
motorcycles
certified
under
the
1.2
g/
km
standard
causes
less
of
an
increase
in
emissions.
One
obvious
reason
for
the
reduced
impact
of
tampering
is
that
exhaust
system
replacement
is
one
of
the
most
common
forms
of
tampering.
[
emphasis
in
original]
On
a
catalyst­
equipped
bike,
this
has
a
big
effect
on
emissions.
On
a
non­
catalyst
bike,
it
has
essentially
no
effect.
There
is
also
a
less
obvious
reason
why
tampering
will
have
more
of
­
39­
an
adverse
impact
under
the
0.8
g/
km
standard.
As
the
staff
report
correctly
assumes,
3­
way
catalyst
systems
will
be
the
preferred
technology
for
meeting
a
combined
HC+
NOx
standard.
In
order
for
3­
way
catalyst
to
properly
function,
the
engine
must
be
run
with
a
stoichiometric
air
fuel
ratio
and
must
not
use
air
injection.
This
results
in
pre­
catalyst
emissions
that
are
significantly
higher
than
the
emissions
of
a
motorcycle
optimized
to
meet
a
1.2
g/
km
standard
without
a
catalyst.
This
occurs
because
the
non­
catalyst
system
will
employ
air
injection,
which
significantly
lowers
HC
emissions.

As
a
result,
an
alternative
standard
proposed
by
the
MIC
will
provide
virtually
identical
emissions
reductions
at
a
significantly
lower
cost
and
with
significantly
fewer
model
availability
problems.
(
MIC45­
04)

Comment
66:
The
reason
there
is
no
real
benefit
associated
with
forcing
greater
use
of
catalysts
is
the
common
practice
of
replacing
OEM
exhaust
systems
with
aftermarket
systems.
There
are
two
reasons
why
this
is
a
common
practice.
First,
for
many
motorcyclists,
the
sound
of
the
exhaust
is
a
critical
element
of
the
riding
experience.
The
noise
standards
that
apply
to
new
motorcycles
are
relatively
stringent.
EPA
recognizes
that
many
citizens
associate
motorcycles
with
excessive
noise,
so
the
reaction
has
been
to
set
very
stringent
noise
standards.
To
a
certain
extent,
this
has
exacerbated
the
tampering
problem.
Because
of
the
stringency
of
the
noise
standards,
OEM
exhausts
are
now
unacceptable
to
a
larger
portion
of
motorcycle
owners.

The
second
reason
for
the
replacement
of
OEM
exhaust
systems
is
performance.
Most
aftermarket
systems
produce
lower
restriction,
which
improves
performance.
Some
systems
also
offer
significant
weight
savings.
The
increased
desire
to
improve
performance
and
decrease
weight
will
be
even
greater
for
catalyst­
equipped
motorcycles.

ARB's
capability
to
prevent
this
form
of
tampering
is
extremely
limited,
an
issue
that
was
discussed
at
length
during
the
workshops
and
during
private
meetings
with
staff.
We
have
done
surveys
that
indicate
98%
of
the
motorcycle
owners
using
aftermarket
exhausts
either
installed
the
systems
themselves
or
would
have
installed
the
systems
themselves
if
such
installations
were
not
commercially
available.
Unless
you
are
active
in
motorcycling,
it
is
hard
to
imagine
how
strong
the
desire
is
for
the
use
of
aftermarket
systems.
During
the
course
of
the
rulemaking,
the
staff
has
gotten
a
better
sense
of
this.
(
MIC45­
05)

Agency
Response:
As
noted
in
previous
responses,
we
designed
the
Tier­
2
standard
so
that
manufacturers
have
the
flexibility
to
put
catalytic
converters
on
those
motorcycle
models
which
are
less
prone
to
tampering.
We
do
not
challenge
the
fact
that
tampering
does
occur;
indeed,
we
incorporated
the
MIC's
data
on
tampering
rates
into
our
emission
estimates.
The
proposal
does,
therefore,
account
for
tampering.
With
industry's
input,
we
have
designed
the
standards
to
reduce
tampering's
effects
on
the
projected
emission
reductions
and
will
continue
to
work
with
the
MIC,
AMA,
and
other
interested
parties
to
identify
ways
to
reduce
the
adverse
effects
of
tampering.
­
40­
With
regard
to
the
comment
about
increased
cost­
effectiveness
because
of
tampering,
we
do
believe
it
is
inappropriate
to
calculate
a
regulation's
cost­
effectiveness
based
on
projected
noncompliance
rates
(
i.
e.,
tampering
rates).
Adopting
such
a
methodology
would
clearly
be
bad
policy
for
any
regulatory
agency,
because
doing
so
would
create
an
incentive
for
noncompliance
to
occur
(
i.
e.,
the
more
tampering
that
occurs,
the
less
"
cost­
effective"
a
proposed
regulation
would
be,
and
therefore
it
will
not
be
adopted).

8.
Miscellaneous
Public
Outreach
Efforts
and
Rule
Development
Process
Comment
67:
The
proposed
standards
are
short­
sighted,
like
the
MTBE
gas
additive
that
was
supposed
to
reduce
air
pollution
but
is
now
causing
problems.
I
wish
CARB
would
work
more
together
with
the
motorcycle
people
and
not
against
them.
(
Struthers­
01)

Comment
68:
I
am
very
upset
with
your
proposal
for
motorcycles.
I
feel
you
are
trying
to
move
far
too
fast.
You
need
a
slower,
more
phased­
in
approach.
(
Baum­
01,
Epps­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
these
commenters.
The
first
commenter
provides
no
basis
for
analogizing
the
staff's
proposals
with
the
problems
currently
associated
with
the
use
of
MTBE
in
gasoline.
By
contrast,
Harley­
Davidson
essentially
supported
the
staff's
proposal
at
the
Board
Hearing,
while
the
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
(
MIC)
conceded
that
the
proposal
is
technologically
feasible.
Having
reviewed
the
two
public
workshops
and
twenty­
seven
individual
meetings
staff
held
with
interested
parties,
the
Ombudsman's
Office
determined
that
ARB
staff's
outreach
efforts
were
"
thorough,
complete,
and
designed
to
obtain
input
from
all
interested
stakeholders
.
.
.
"
(
Steele,
Board
Hearing)
After
working
with
industry
and
motorcycle
rider
groups
for
nearly
a
year,
we
find
it
difficult
to
imagine
how
ARB
staff
could
have
"
worked
more
together"
with
the
stakeholders.
In
terms
of
"
moving
too
fast,"
the
ARB
is
legally
required
under
the
Health
and
Safety
Code
to
reduce
emissions
as
quickly
as
practicable,
taking
into
account
technological
and
commercial
feasibility
issues.
The
staff's
proposal
reflects
a
nine­
year,
timeframe
which
most
manufacturers
would
have
to
refine
and
implement
emission
control
technologies
that
are
already
available
and
used
on
some
motorcycles
today.

Use
of
Motorcycles
to
Reduce
Congestion
Comment
69:
We
ask
the
Board
to
require
staff
to
look
into
the
reductions
of
emissions
created
by
the
reductions
in
congestion
available
if
motorcycle
commuting
is
encouraged.

It
cannot
be
denied
that
a
reduction
in
congestion
can
also
equate
to
a
reduction
in
emissions.
Federal
EPA
regulations
allow
CARB
to
consider
congestion
reduction
alternatives
when
meeting
state
implementation
plan
standards.
CARB
motorcycle
considerations
to
date
have
emphasized
reductions
in
emissions
to
the
exclusion
of
other
alternatives.
[
emphasis
in
original]
This
is
unfortunate.
When
motorcycles
are
used
for
commuting
purposes,
they
do
not
­
41­
contribute
to
congestion.
A
motorcycle
traveling
down
a
stalled
commuting
route
will
likely
cause
mile
for
mile
much
fewer
emissions
than
an
automobile
caught
in
traffic.
The
Board
should
require
staff
to
look
at
the
impact
upon
congestion
of
encouraging
motorcycle
commuting
use
in
local
commuting
plans
(
which
today
discourage
the
use)
that
are
an
essential
part
of
the
state
implementation
plan.
We
may
in
fact
find
that
motorcycles
used
for
commuting
have
already
met
the
state's
reduction
projection
without
the
need
for
further
reductions
in
emissions.
(
AMA­
03,
AMA­
10,
Stassimos­
01,
Epps­
03)

Agency
Response:
We
agree
that
reducing
congestion
should
lead
to
reduced
pollution
levels.
This
is
one
of
the
main
principles
that
form
the
ongoing
development
of
transportation
control
measures
(
TCMs)
by
the
ARB
and
local
districts
in
California.
These
efforts
are
exemplified
by
current
ridesharing
programs,
carpooling
"
diamond"
lanes,
and
fee­
based
peak
traffic
lanes.
We
do
not
agree,
however,
that
congestion
controls
using
motorcycles
will
be
as
effective
in
reducing
emissions
as
the
staff's
proposal.
The
issue
here
is
whether
the
typical
automobile
driver
can
be
induced
to
trade
in
his/
her
vehicle
or
buy
a
motorcycle
for
commuting
purposes.
The
limited
number
of
motorcyclists
makes
it
clear
that
motorcycling
is
not
for
everyone
or
even
typical
automobile
drivers.
Moreover,
the
potential
new
motorcycle
rider
pool
would
seem
to
be
fairly
small,
perhaps
growing
only
as
fast
as
the
general
population
grows.
Thus,
it's
questionable
whether
increased
incentives
for
encouraging
commuting
by
motorcycle
would
have
much
of
an
impact
on
emissions.

Even
if
the
commenter's
claims
are
assumed
to
be
valid,
the
use
of
on­
road
motorcycles
to
reduce
congestion
should
supplement,
but
not
replace,
the
important
goal
of
updating
the
on­
road
motorcycle
standards
to
better
reflect
commercially
and
technologically
feasible
emission
levels
that
are
available
now
or
will
be
in
the
near
future.
The
current
small
number
of
motorcycle
riders
as
compared
to
automobile
drivers
suggests
that
most
automobile
drivers
would
have
difficulty
replacing
the
majority
of
their
"
vehicle
miles
traveled"
with
miles
driven
on
a
motorcycle.

More
importantly,
several
commenters
(
including
the
AMA)
suggested
that
motorcyclists
ride
mainly
for
pleasure,
not
commuting,
and
that
motorcyclists
do
not
contribute
much
to
the
emissions
inventory
because
they
are
able
to
ride
between
traffic
lanes
(
see
"
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Contribution
to
the
Emissions
Inventory").
If
this
is
true,
motorcyclists
already
have
fewer
barriers
to
using
their
vehicles
to
commute
(
i.
e.,
they
can
travel
while
cars
remain
in
gridlock);
yet,
the
relatively
low
vehicle
miles
traveled
by
motorcycles
indicate
that,
even
with
few
barriers
to
using
motorcycles
for
commuting,
riders
are
not
doing
so
in
large
numbers.
Therefore,
replacing
the
staff's
proposal,
as
suggested
by
the
commenter,
with
incentives
to
increase
motorcycle
commuting
would
seem
to
have
limited,
if
any,
utility
in
reducing
emissions.
­
42­
Smog
Check/
Inspection
&
Maintenance
Enforcement
Efforts
Comment
70:
A
proposal
to
require
motorcycles
to
pass
smog
just
as
automobiles
in
the
very
near
future
is
a
bad
idea.
Manufacturers
should
be
given
a
deadline,
say
five
years
from
the
time
you
make
the
decision
to
smog
motorcycles
and
all
other
motorcycles
prior
to
that
deadline
should
be
smog
exempt.
With
such
an
exemption,
the
cost
to
smog
motorcycles
would
be
prohibitive
and
more
than
what
the
motorcycle
is
worth.
(
Smith­
01)

Agency
Response:
Inspection
and
maintenance
requirements
(
a.
k.
a.
"
Smog­
Check")
were
not
part
of
the
staff's
proposal
for
this
rulemaking.
We
recognize
that
consumer
tampering
is
a
serious
issue
and
have
committed
to
working
with
stakeholders
to
both
quantify
the
effects
of
tampering
and
identify
cost­
effective
ways
to
reduce
or
minimize
tampering
including,
but
not
limited
to,
improved
consumer
education
and
"
Smog­
Check"
programs.
These
efforts
will
be
part
of
our
ongoing
efforts;
any
additional
rulemaking
changes
to
the
regulation
to
incorporate
such
enforcement
programs
will
likely
be
evaluated
prior
to
the
planned
2006
technology
review
noted
earlier.

Planned
2006
Technology
Review
Comment
71:
As
we
have
sought
pertinent
information
to
responsibly
respond
to
this
regulation,
we
have
learned
of
several
emergent
technologies
that
may
find
their
way
into
motorcycles
over
the
course
of
the
next
decade.
These
include
effective
cold­
temperature
catalysts,
further
changes
in
combustion
chamber
geometries
and
true
variable
valve
timing.
While
none
of
these
are
sufficiently
advanced
today
to
determine
whether
their
use
is
worthwhile,
a
second
look
at
this
regulation
in
2006
does
grant
the
manufacturers
sufficient
lead
time
for
them
to
take
a
good
hard
look.
(
AMA­
11)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.

2.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
FIRST
15­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD
1.
General
Comments
Comment
72:
Honda
supports
the
emission
standards
being
adopted
by
this
[
regulation]
Order
in
that
they
are
feasible,
flexible,
and
that
they
also
provide
incentives
in
the
form
of
earlycompliance
credits
for
introduction
of
advanced
technology
for
emissions
control.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
ARB
during
the
implementation
of
these
new
regulations.
(
Honda15A­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
agree.
­
43­
2.
Engine
Manufacturers
­
Section
1958(
a)
(
Applicability)

Comment
73:
It
is
our
understanding
that
the
exhaust
emissions
standards
will
be
applicable
to
motorcycle
engines,
as
well
as
motorcycles,
beginning
with
the
2004
standard.
As
written
the
amendments
to
§
1958(
a)
retroactively
make
the
exhaust
emissions
standards
applicable
to
all
motorcycle
engines
produced
after
January
1,
1978.
We
request
that
the
amendments
to
this
section
be
revised
to
specify
that
the
standards
apply
to
motorcycle
engines,
as
well
as
motorcycles,
beginning
with
the
2004
model
year.
(
MIC15A­
01)

Agency
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
staff's
proposal,
as
adopted
by
the
Board,
"
retroactively"
applies
to
motorcycle
engines.
As
we
explained
at
the
Board
Hearing,
the
addition
of
the
term
"
motorcycle
engines"
merely
clarifies
and
memorializes
preexisting
ARB
enforcement
policy.
That
is,
the
ARB's
policy
and
legal
interpretation
of
Section
1958,
even
before
the
staff's
proposal
was
published
for
public
comment,
is
that
the
emission
standards
and
other
requirements
of
Section
1958
applied
equally
to
motorcycle
manufacturers
and
suppliers
of
motorcycle
engines.
It
should
be
noted
that
one
of
the
major
engine
suppliers
to
custom
motorcycle
manufacturers
­­
S&
S
Cycles,
Incorporated
­­
did
not
challenge
the
clarifying
applicability
language
and
even
appeared
to
support
the
staff's
proposal
(
see
Comment
13
in
"
Technical
Feasibility").

2.
Small­
Volume
Manufacturers
­
Section
1958(
f)

Comment
74:
It
is
our
understanding
that
manufacturers
with
less
than
300
units
shall
be
exempt
from
the
1.4
HC+
NOx
standard
until
the
2008
model
year.
Under
the
proposed
language,
manufacturers
with
less
than
5,000
unit
sales
in
California
are
exempt
from
the
current
Class
III
1.0
and
1.4
g/
km
HC
Class
III
standards
for
1988
through
2007
model
years.
This
proposed
language
refers
to
a
2.5
HC
Class
III
standard
which
expired
in
1988
for
small
volume
manufacturers
producing
less
than
5,000
units
in
California
for
1984
through
1987
model
years.
There
is,
therefore,
no
small
volume
manufacturer
standard
for
1988
through
the
current
model
year.
Please
refer
to
the
attached
§
1958(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
the
current
regulation.

To
correct
this
error,
the
proposed
§
1958(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
should
be
revised
as
follows:
 
In
Section
1958(
f)(
1)(
A),
replace
"
Model
Year
1988
through
2007"
with
"
Model
Year
2004
through
2007."
 
Also,
delete
the
first
sentence
of
Section
1958(
f)(
2)
and
replace
the
reference
to
"
subsection
(
f)(
1)(
B)"
with
"
subsection
(
f)(
1)."
(
MIC15A­
02)

Comment
75:
Under
the
proposed
language,
it
is
our
understanding
that
manufacturers
of
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
of
less
than
5,000
combined
unit
sales
of
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
in
California
are
exempt
from
complying
with
the
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
emission
standard
for
Class
I,
II
and
III
motorcycles
and
engines
for
2004
through
2007
model
years.
We
do
not
believe
this
was
what
was
intended
by
the
ARB.
We
believe
that
the
intent
of
the
ARB
was
to
redefine
as
small­
volume
manufacturers
only
those
with
less
than
­
44­
300
combined
unit
sales
of
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles
or
motorcycle
engines
for
purposes
of
complying
with
the
2004
and
2008
proposed
standards.
Furthermore,
only
these
manufacturers
would
be
exempt
from
compliance
with
the
new
emission
standards
until
the
2008
model
year,
at
which
time
they
would
be
required
to
meet
the
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx.
All
other
manufacturers
would
be
required
to
meet
both
the
standards
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2004
and
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
in
2008
for
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles
and
engines.
We
respectfully
request
the
ARB
to
review
and
clarify
their
original
intent
and
through
amendments
to
the
current
language,
correct
these
apparent
errors,
accordingly.
(
Honda15A­
02)

Agency
Response:
We
agree
with
the
commenters
and
have
clarified
Section
1958(
f)
with
a
table
that
accurately
reflects
the
four
different
time
periods
during
which
different
definitions
and
provisions
apply
to
"
small­
volume
manufacturer."
These
changes
accurately
reflect
the
Board's
intentions
from
the
December
1998
Hearing.

3.
Early­
Compliance
Credits
­
Section
1958(
g)

Comment
76:
We
request
that
additional
language
be
added
to
this
section
to
clarify
the
process
for
obtaining
early
compliance
credits.
According
to
the
table
of
standards
(
§
1958(
b)),
all
Class
III
1998
through
2003
model
year
motorcycles
must
be
certified
to
a
1.0
g/
km
or
1.4
g/
km
corporate
average
HC­
only
standard,
depending
on
the
engine
displacement.
According
to
§
1958(
g),
early
compliance
credits
are
available
for
individual
engine
families
certified
as
meeting
either
a
0.8
g/
km
or
0.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
level.
It
is
unclear
what
certification
processes
or
data
submission
would
be
required
to
generate
HC+
NOx
credits
when
an
HC­
only
standard
is
in
effect.
CARB
staff
has
acknowledged
that
further
with
MIC
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period.
We
also
suggest
that
the
term
"
Tier­
2
standard"
that
appears
in
Section
1958(
g)
be
replaced
with
the
"
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx
standard"
since
the
term
Tier­
2
is
not
referenced
or
defined
elsewhere
in
the
regulation.
(
MIC15A­
03)

Comment
77:
Honda
also
agrees
with
the
request
of
the
MIC
to
add
some
language
to
section
1958(
g)
that
will
clarify
the
process
for
certification
to
the
0.8
and
0.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
levels
and
how
that
certification
impacts
corporate
averaging
and
labeling
for
the
existing
HConly
standard.
(
Honda15A­
03)

Agency
Response:
We
agree
and
have
incorporated
language
in
Section
1958(
g)
that
addresses
these
comments
by
specifying
the
requirements
for
early­
compliance
credit
applications
and
the
concomitant
changes
to
the
"
emission
control
and
smog
index
label."
We
have
also
made
the
suggested
editorial
changes
to
the
table
in
Section
1958(
g).
­
45­
4.
Sunset
Review
­
Section
1958(
h)

Comment
78:
We
request
that
the
wording
"
or
date
of
implementation,
which
ever
comes
later"
be
deleted
from
this
section.
We
assume
that
the
date
of
implementation
refers
to
the
final
approval
by
the
OAL
and
the
Executive
Officer
which
is
likely
to
occur
this
fall
or
later.
Such
a
delay
may
not
provide
enough
time
for
the
manufacturers
to
adjust
their
production
plans
for
the
2008
model
year
following
the
sunset
review
process
and
final
determination.
We
request
that
the
review
occur
within
five
years
of
the
date
of
adoption,
December
10,
1998.
(
MIC15A­
04)

Agency
Response:
The
commenter
appears
to
have
confused
the
purpose
of
the
sunset
review
with
that
of
the
planned
2006
technology
review
or
a
similar
technology
review.
The
sunset
review
is
a
generic
provision
recently
required
by
Executive
Order
W­
144­
97.
The
purpose
of
such
a
review
is
for
the
adopting
agency
(
the
ARB
in
this
case)
to
conduct
an
internal
evaluation
to
determine
if
the
regulation
is
still
required
as
part
of
its
overall
air
pollution
control
efforts
to
meet
the
Board's
stated
goals.
In
this
case,
such
a
sunset
review
has
nothing
to
do
with
evaluating
manufacturers'
progress
toward
meeting
the
regulatory
requirements.
Rather,
under
Executive
Order
W­
144­
97,
the
Board
will
take
a
"
snapshot"
at
the
specified
time
of
its
own
progress
toward
meeting
the
SIP
and
other
State
and
federal
requirements
and,
at
that
time,
determine
whether
additional
regulatory
efforts
are
needed
or
whether
some
relaxation
or
elimination
of
existing
programs
is
warranted.
In
contrast,
the
planned
2006
technology
review
is
designed
to
permit
ARB
staff
to
determine
whether
changes
to
the
2008
Tier­
2
standard
may
be
needed
to
better
reflect
manufacturers
compliance
efforts.

3.
COMMENTS
RECEIVED
DURING
THE
SECOND
15­
DAY
COMMENT
PERIOD
No
written
comments
were
received
during
this
comment
period.
