SUNDAY, JUNE 27, 2010
SB 435 bill analysis
OFF THE WIRE
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2010ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id: SB 435 (Author:Pavley) – As Amended: Ver: June 22, 2010
SENATE VOTE: Not relevant
SUBJECT: Motorcycle exhaust system federal noise labels
SUMMARY: Makes it a crime for a person to park, use, or operate a motorcycle, registered in the state that is manufactured on and after January 1, 2011, that does not have a federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) noise emission control label. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires that a registered motorcycle manufactured on and after January 1, 2011, and operating within the state, have a federal U.S. EPA noise emission label.
2) Establishes that a violation of the labeling requirement is a mechanical violation and a peace officer is prohibited from stopping a motorcycle solely on a suspicion of a violation of this labeling requirement. Requires a peace officer to cite a violation of this law as a secondary infraction.
3) Requires that a person issued a notice to appear or to whom a complaint is filed, to produce a proof of correction.
4) Establishes a violation of this law as punishable by the same fine that is currently established pursuant to the equipment anti-tampering law.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Known as California's anti-tampering law, prohibits the installation, sale, offer for sale, or advertisement of any device, apparatus, or mechanism intended for use with, or as a part of, any required motor vehicle pollution control device or system that alters or modifies the original design or performance of the motor vehicle pollution control device or system.
2) Subsequent to the purchase of a motor vehicle (including a motorcycle), establishes an exemption by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) if an alteration, modification, or modifying device, apparatus, or mechanism does either of the following:
a) Not to reduce the effectiveness of the required motor vehicle pollution control device; or,
b) To result in emissions from the modified or altered vehicle that are at levels that comply with existing state or federal standards for that model year.
3) Requires a motorcycle to have equipped at all times an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise. Prohibits a person from modifying the exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle that exceeds the noise limits or otherwise makes the motorcycle noncompliant.
4) Existing federal regulations require a motorcycle manufactured on and after January 1, 1983, and exhaust emission systems for those motorcycles, to meet specified noise emissions standards and require that a label be affixed onto the motorcycle or exhaust emission system indicating that the motorcycle or exhaust emission system meets the noise emissions standards.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: According to this bill's author, "federal regulations promulgated under the Noise Pollution Control Act have required, since 1983, that all motorcycles in the United States (original equipment and aftermarket replacement exhaust systems) must maintain two permanent, readily visible EPA stamps, one on the chassis of the motorcycle and one on the muffler, certifying that the equipment meets or exceeds the maximum noise levels prescribed by the federal government. Failure to comply is currently punishable under the Act, but since there is no “Federal Noise Police,” enforcement of these regulations has been lax. This bill, by requiring in the California Vehicle Code that these stamps be maintained on all motorcycles in California going forward from 2011, gives state and local law enforcement the ability to write citations for violations of the federal regulation… This is needed because current noise control statutes are rarely and unevenly applied throughout the state, and this will give law enforcement a uniform tool by which they can cite motorcycles for illegally tampering with their emissions equipment in order to increase noise. Any such citation will have a base fine of $50-$100 that can be dismissed upon proof of correction, and will be citable as a secondary infraction. Additionally, since enforcement of federal regulations against after market manufacturers has been lax over the last 25 years, this bill will be proscriptive, starting in January 2011 so as not to unfairly penalize riders who may have, through no fault of their own, purchased technically illegal equipment since 1983."
U.S. EPA regulation enforcement: In the past, the EPA coordinated all federal noise control activities through its Office of Noise Abatement and Control. However, in 1981, the Administration at that time concluded that noise issues were best handled at the state or local government level. As a result, the EPA phased out the office's funding in 1982 as part of a shift in federal noise control policy to transfer the primary responsibility of regulating noise to state and local governments. However, the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978 were not rescinded by Congress and remain in effect today, although essentially unfunded. Accordingly, leaving enforcement up to the states and local governments without any federal financial assistance resulted in sporadic enforcement of these laws nationwide.
Availability of parts and effective date: The availability of aftermarket replacement exhaust mufflers from 1990 to 2000 and newer was difficult to determine with any amount of reliability. For the most part, it appeared that replacement equipment that is compliant with the federal noise labeling regulations, likely due to the lack of federal oversight and enforcement, was not consistently available upon questioning of workers at motorcycle part stores. Accordingly, it was determined that it would be unfair and impracticable upon owners of older year motorcycles to require older year models to operate with federally noise compliant exhaust systems. Taking a reasonable, modest, and proscriptive approach, this bill's requirements will be imposed upon motorcycles beginning with 2011 and thereafter.
Support: Writing in support of this bill and as its sponsor, the American Lung Association in California indicates that the bill "would increase enforcement of current anti-tampering and noise-level statutes for motorcycles, and ensure that motorcycles on California roads operate with approved emission control systems. Failure to properly display a label indicating compliance with federal regulations would require the operator to take the necessary action to obtain the appropriate exhaust system and label…While this bill is focused on federal noise requirements, tampering with exhaust systems has serious air quality and public health implications. The ARB has reported that the average motorcycle with a tampered exhaust system emits several times more smog-forming emissions than a non-tampered motorcycle and up to 10 times more for certain types of motorcycles and modifications."
BUB Enterprises, also in support of the bill, indicates that their company manufactures exhaust products to fit Harley Davidson as well as Metric cruiser motorcycles. They started manufacturing noise and tailpipe emission compliant systems in late 2005. The company is the first aftermarket manufacturer to receive California executive order numbers from the ARB for exhaust emission parts containing catalytic converters. They contend that "This measure is a modest and reasonable solution to the lack of enforcement of federal and California statutes."
Opposition: Writing in opposition to the bill (Note: Letter received prior to June 22, 2010 amendment), ABATE contends that the bill "is a nuisance issue, having no impact on motorcyclist or non-rider safety. It is a nuisance caused by a small minority of motorcycle riders and there are existing laws, some on the books for over 40 years, to cite and sanction operators of excessively loud motorcycles, whether from worn out or damaged exhaust systems or modified parts. Here are our opposition points:
1) Existing California Vehicle Code Sections 27150 and 27151 are already routinely used to cite motorcyclists with excessively loud mufflers.
2) Enacting the federal label matching requirements adds nothing to those laws that are already in effect. This will be a redundant, overlapping statute that does little or nothing to solve the problem.
3) The U.S. EPA noise labels on motorcycle mufflers are nothing more than a manufacturer’s self-certification warranty that the mufflers will be noise compliant for a period of one year or 3,730 miles, whichever comes first. After that, from wear or tear or damage, they may no longer be noise compliant, so that doesn’t solve the excessive noise problem. Think of them as the function that a mattress tag serves - certification that the mattress meets federal standards at point of sale. There are no restrictions against an end user, or any one else, removing them at some later date. In fact, many new motorcycles’ muffler stampings are there, but legally obscured by heat shields, covers and accessories. How can they be cited, when these labels were never primarily designed to be an enforcement tool?
4) Noise laws from all sources, like autos with noisy boom boxes or mufflers, loud house parties and construction equipment need to be enforced, not just targeting motorcycles for subjective and discriminatory prosecution.
5) Some motorcycle riders buy replacement mufflers that may, or may not, comply with the EPA noise standard because stock parts may no longer be available from the manufacturers after several years. It will be unfair to subject them to a label-matching requirement especially if they have bought their motorcycle, used, from another party that installed those parts.
6) What option does an owner have if their muffler wears out or is damaged if stock parts are no longer available from their dealer or manufacturer? This is especially critical for aftermarket catalytic converter motorcycle mufflers. There are currently few, if any, aftermarket mufflers available because ARB only passed a regulation for their certification less than a year ago.
Suggested amendment: The committee suggests that, consistent with other equipment initial violations, the bill be amended to allow a first-time offender to receive a "fix it" ticket, and not be subject to punitive monetary penalties.
