California Backs Requirement for EPA Exhaust & Sound Limitations

[KTMrad 508]

June 29, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: James Holter

Phone: (614) 856-1900, ext. 1280

E-mail: jholter@ama-cycle.org

California lawmakers back EPA compliant requirement for riders of new motorcycles

PICKERINGTON, Ohio -- A key California State Assembly committee has endorsed a proposal to require motorcyclists to have EPA-compliant exhaust systems on their model year 2011 and newer motorcycles, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.

On June 28, the Committee on Transportation voted 8-4 to approve Senate Bill 435, introduced by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Oxnard-Los Angeles), which would make it illegal to ride a motorcycle on the road built on, or after, Jan. 1, 2011, that doesn't display a federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) label certifying the exhaust system meets sound emissions standards.

Riders caught riding model year 2011 or newer motorcycles without this stamp would be issued "fix it" tickets by law enforcement officers.

The measure now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for further consideration.

"Many EPA labels are very difficult to locate on motorcycles," said AMA Western States Representative Nick Haris. "This proposed law could lead to a flurry of tickets for motorcyclists who have legal exhaust systems on their machines with EPA labels that can't be easily seen. It's unreasonable to expect a law enforcement officer to easily locate an EPA label, and it's simply unfair to expect a motorcycle owner to partially dismantle an exhaust system alongside the road to prove the label exists.

"Requiring that a motorcycle display a readily visible EPA label isn't the correct way to address concerns about excessive motorcycle sound," he added. "The only objective way to determine whether a motorcycle complies with sound laws is for properly trained personnel to conduct sound level tests using calibrated meters and an agreed-upon testing procedure."

Haris suggested that concerned California motorcyclists contact their state lawmakers and urge them to reject Senate Bill 435. To do so, go to AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Issue & legislation and select "CA" in the drop down menu.

The AMA has long maintained a position of strong opposition to excessive motorcycle sound. In September 2009, the AMA developed model legislation for use by cities and states seeking a simple, consistent and economical way to deal with sound complaints related to on-highway motorcycles within the larger context of excessive sound from all sources. The model legislation offers an objective method to evaluate motorcycle sound based on the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) J2825 standard, "Measurement of Exhaust Sound Pressure Levels of Stationary On-Highway Motorcycles." For more information, see AmericanMotorcyclist.com > Rights > Resources > Model Legislation.

[KTMrad 508]

Comments from AMA Rep, watch the video also...........

"A Bill in search of an issue, just to keep it alive".

http://www.kcra.com/video/24077812/index.html

Not exactly accurate but a decent story all in all. Great quote from

Neillo at the end.

Nick

Nicholas Haris

Western States Representative

American Motorcyclist Association

[bikeslut 1]

I sure as h e double hockey sticks hope this doesn't ever go before the voters, because the voters are sick of the ridiculous amounts of noise coming from straight-pipers... this is the only way they can think of to combat the noise

The aftermarket also should realize they may be biting the very hand that feeds them, and start making good sounding exhausts that are reasonable... I don't think most people object to a V-8 or V twin that has a rumble... it's the crazy loud pipes that are driving this legislation.

so... I can see both sides of this, but hope it doesn;'t come before the voters... the majority of voters DON'T ride street bikes, and they'll vote against them at every turn

[PastaPilot 17]

I am a voter and I ride a street bike (well not lately) and would ALMOST support this legislation. Spend a weekend at my house in Pacific Beach and you'll quickly become an "almost" supporter too. I agree with the one guy that there are federal requirements that regulate sound and emissions and don't think California's bill is the answer to the problem. The real problem is the federal standards are NOT enforced. I can't imagine why, it's got to be the easiest ticket to write*. All the LEO has to do is listen and say to themselves, straight pipes or EPA noise emission compliant? It's a pretty simple question. If deputized I could hand out 100 tickets a day just at my corner to straight pipe cruisers and rediculously loud crotchrockets (and lately a few sumos).

I don't think it is the aftermarket that has created the problem. The aftermarket will only produce a product that the CONSUMER will purchase. If it's chrome straght pipes that sell like hotcakes than hotcakes will be produced in mass quantity and because every idiot out there with an 800# black and chrome disaster has them every idiot new owner thinks that's how it's supposed to be to get that badass born to be wild sound/image. The consumer has created the problem and now it's going to be up to consumer groups to fix it OR the government will step in and regulate it for us at our expense.

I also think it could be the racing sanctioning organizations that are the cause of the noise problem. When you go to a motorsports race, regardless of what the vehicle is, the exhaust notes are always played fortissimo. It has become part of the experience of a racing event, but the sound of the racetrack is what the fans will ultimately want for there own cars, trucks, boats, motorcycles, etc. Unfortunately the owner of that vehicle may be the only person in there neighborhood that feels that way.

*Is it a concern for California because there is no state code for local officers to reference for writing a citation? Thus no enforcement of federal code? Trophy you're my go to expert, how say ye?

[bikeslut 1]

I "think" the issue is a meter that will stand up to scrutiny in court... they can give out tickets all day, but whether they hold up is another issue all together

I didn;'t mean to imply that the aftermarket CAUSED the problem, but rather THEY need to solve it since dumas riders won't

[TrophyHunter 15]

...and if the tickets were written, cops would be aholes, dicks and other body parts while the motoring public would like to push them into traffic.

db list at the bottom. cop writes it using a finely tuned ear (hopefully takes good notes as to brand and style of pipe so John Q doesn't switch out the pipes before the meter test) and the rest is the meter.

Note: New law (27150.2 VC) does not require law enforcement to use sound level meters to test for excessive noise. Citation is based on officer's judgment. Cited violators may have testing done at smog referee stations or may be directed by the court to have testing done. Vehicles in violation must be brought into compliance. A fine may also be imposed.

27150. (a) Every motor vehicle subject to registration shall at all

times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and

properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise, and

no muffler or exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass,

or similar device.

( B ) Except as provided in Division 16.5 ( commencing with Section

38000) with respect to off-highway motor vehicles subject to

identification, every passenger vehicle operated off the highways

shall at all times be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant

operation and properly maintained so as to meet the requirements of

Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200), and no muffler or

exhaust system shall be equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar

device.

© The provisions of subdivision ( B ) shall not be applicable to

passenger vehicles being operated off the highways in an organized

racing or competitive event conducted under the auspices of a

recognized sanctioning body or by permit issued by the local

governmental authority having jurisdiction.

27151. (a) No person shall modify the exhaust system of a motor

vehicle in a manner which will amplify or increase the noise emitted

by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle is not in compliance

with the provisions of Section 27150 or exceeds the noise limits

established for the type of vehicle in Article 2.5 (commencing with

Section 27200). No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an

exhaust system so modified.

( B ) For the purposes of exhaust systems installed on motor

vehicles with a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating of less

than 6,000 pounds, other than motorcycles, a sound level of 95 dbA or

[/b ][/i]less, when tested in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers

Standard J1169 May 1998, complies with this section. Motor vehicle

exhaust systems or parts thereof include, but are not limited to,

nonoriginal exhaust equipment.

From AMA: Maximum allowable A-weighted sound levels based on measurements taken at a distance of 50 ft from center lane of travel:1)Pre-1970..92dba; 2) After 1969, and before 1973...88dba; 3) After 1972, and before 1975...86dba; 4) After 1974, and before 1986...83dba; 5) After 1985...80dba (27201-27202. Motorcycle Limits).

CA Veh Code

27201. For the purposes of Section 27200, the noise limit of 92 dbA

shall apply to any motorcycle manufactured before 1970.

27202. For the purposes of Section 27200, the following noise

limits shall apply to any motorcycle, other than a motor-driven

cycle, manufactured:

(1) After 1969, and before 1973 ...... 88 dbA

(2) After 1972, and before 1975 ...... 86 dbA

(3) After 1974, and before 1986 ...... 83 dbA

(4) After 1985 ....................... 80 dbA

[TrophyHunter 15]

So basically....there are already laws on the books...we don't need more (which costs plenty to get passed, print, update materials, train officers).

It's like when the "carjacking" Penal Code section came out. Prior to that, it was a robbery & the car was the loss. Somebody coined the term carjacking and suddenly we needed a law. Been doin' it the other way for years and it worked just fine.

If you want enforcement of a particular kind, call your service agency and request it on your street. For traffic enforcment in the unincorporated areas, it's CHP.