State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO 

THE CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS FOR NEW 1997 AND LATER 

OFF-HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND ENGINES 

Public Hearing Date: July 20, 2006 

Agenda Item No.: 06-7-4

I. GENERAL 

The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking (“staff report”), 

entitled “Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the California Regulations for 

New 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines,” released 

June 2, 2006, is incorporated by reference herein. 

Following a public hearing on July 20, 2006, the Air Resources Board (the Board or 

ARB) by Resolution 06-23 approved for new 1997 and later off-highway recreational 

vehicles and engines (OHRVs): 1) the adoption of evaporative emission standards 

for fuel tanks and hoses, equivalent to those required federally and becoming 

effective in 2008; 2) the reclassification of off-road utility vehicles from the large 

spark-ignition (LSI) category and the reclassification of sand cars from the LSI and 

small off-road engine categories, which will allow the manufacturers to use the allterrain vehicle test procedure, as is allowed federally; 3) the clarification of engine 

labeling requirements; and 4) the amendment of the riding seasons (section 2415) to 

improve uniformity and facilitate more efficient enforcement by the park rangers and 

land managers. Resolution 06-23 is attached hereto and is incorporated by 

reference herein. 

The amendments modified the existing off-highway recreational regulations to 

include evaporative emission standards. These standards control the evaporative 

losses that occur due to fuel permeating through the fuel tanks and hoses. Because 

these standards are also required federally, there is no additional burden on 

manufacturers to comply with the requirements. 

The reclassification of off-road utility vehicles is limited to those vehicles that meet 

the criteria specified in the definition. This action parallels the decision in the federal 

rule for OHRVs, and serves to streamline the manufacturers’ certification 

requirements. Similarly, because the federal OHRV rule provides for the certification 

of sand cars, these vehicles have also been reclassified. In addition, a new vehicle 

type, the off-road sport vehicle, has been added to the OHRV category. 
2

The amendments to the labeling requirements are merely a clarification that the 

original labeling requirements remained in effect. A previous, unrelated Board action 

had amended the labeling requirements for on-highway motorcycles. These labeling 

requirements were contained in a document that was incorporated by reference by 

both the OHRV and on-highway motorcycle regulations. In the on-highway 

rulemaking, the federal labeling requirements were adopted, and the incorporated 

document’s applicability for these vehicles was sunsetted in 2004. Because many 

on-highway manufacturers also produce OHRVs, there was confusion as to whether 

the incorporated document was still in effect for OHRVs. Therefore, the language 

from the labeling document was directly inserted into the title 13 regulation; thus, 

clarifying that the original requirements remain as before. 

Making revisions to the riding seasons and locations is prescribed in section 2415 of 

the OHRV regulation. Staff analyzed ozone readings from California’s air quality 

monitoring network and made recommendations that reflect more recent data. 

Additionally, the public land agencies who enforce the riding seasons requested that 

there be more uniformity with the riding season dates. Because the air quality data 

showed fewer exceedances for ozone than in years past, staff reevaluated the riding 

season dates and accommodated the land agencies’ needs. The original set of 17 

different dates has now been reduced to only 6. 

Incorporation of Test Procedures. The amended exhaust emission test 

procedures are incorporated by reference in title 13, CCR, section 2412(c)(1). The 

test procedures document is readily available from the ARB upon request and was 

made available in the context of this rulemaking in the manner specified in 

Government Code section 11346.5(b). The test procedures are available online at 

ARB’s internet site.

The test procedures are incorporated by reference because it would be 

cumbersome, unduly expensive, and otherwise 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, computer modeling, and laboratory practices required for certification of 

the regulated engines and equipment and have a very limited audience. Because 

ARB has never printed complete test procedures in the CCR, the directly affected 

public is accustomed to the incorporation format used 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 for a limited 

audience in the CCR. Printing portions of ARB’s test procedures that are 

incorporated by reference would be unnecessarily confusing to the affected public.
3

Fiscal Impacts on School Districts and Local Agencies. The Board has 

determined that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or savings, as 

defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any state agency or in federal 

funding to the state, costs or mandate to any local agency or school district whether 

or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 

17500), Division 4, Title 2 of the Government Code, or other nondiscretionary 

savings to local agencies. 

In developing this regulatory proposal, the ARB staff evaluated the potential 

economic impacts on private persons and businesses. The Board has determined, 

pursuant to Government Code section 11346.5(a)(3)(B), that the regulation will not 

negatively affect small business. The Executive Officer has also determined that 

adoption of the proposed regulatory action will not have a significant adverse 

economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to 

compete with businesses in other states. 

The Board has determined that there will be no, or an insignificant, potential cost 

impact, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(9), on private persons or 

businesses directly affected resulting from the proposed action. 

Finally, the Board has determined that the proposed regulatory action will not 

negatively affect the creation or elimination of jobs within the State of California, the 

creation of new businesses or elimination of existing businesses within California, or 

the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. Assessment 

of the economic impacts of the proposed regulatory action can be found in the staff 

report. 

Consideration of Alternatives. For the reasons set forth in the Initial Statement of 

Reasons, staff’s comments and responses at the hearing, and in this Final 

Statement of Reasons, the Board has determined that no alternative considered by 

the agency or that was otherwise identified and brought to the Board’s attention 

would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action 

was proposed or would be as effective or less burdensome to affected private 

persons than the action taken by the Board. 

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

At the July 20, 2006 public hearing, the Board approved the proposed amendments 

to Sections 2111 – 2112 and 2411 – 2415, Title 13, CCR and the associated test 

procedures, with some modifications to the originally proposed regulatory language. 

These modifications were subsequently published in two Notices of Modified Text, 

which gave stakeholders two 15-day comment periods for further participation in the 

process. 
4

A. First Notice of Modified Text 

The first 15-day notice modifications included a minor change to the proposed riding 

seasons, and the addition of off-road sport vehicles and sand cars to the off-highway 

recreational vehicle category. Included with these additional vehicle types is the 

option for manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with California’s exhaust 

emission standards using either chassis-based testing or engine-based testing. The 

regulations under which these vehicles were previously classified allowed 

engine-based testing only. The following is a more detailed description of the 

modifications, by section number. 

Section 2111 – The Procedures for In-Use Vehicle Voluntary and Influenced Recalls 

was amended to include the vehicle types that were added to the off-highway 

recreational vehicle category. 

Section 2112 – The useful life period for the off-highway recreational vehicle 

category was amended to include the vehicle types that were added. 

Section 2411 – The (a)(1) definition of “all-terrain vehicle (ATV)” was amended to 

consolidate the proposed Class I and II definitions and retain the width description. 

These changes will prevent confusion that could occur by having an ATV definition 

that differs from the definition in the California Vehicle Code. Also, the proposed 

Class III definition was deleted in favor of “off-road utility vehicles,” which 

harmonizes with the definition in the federal regulation for these vehicles. 

The (a)(13) definition of "off-highway recreational vehicle engines” or “engines” was 

amended to include off-road sport vehicles, off-road utility vehicles, and sand cars. 

The (a)(17), (a)(18), and (a)(19) definitions of “off-road sport vehicle,” “off-road utility 

vehicle,” and “sand car,” respectively, were added to include these types of vehicles 

in the off-highway recreational vehicle regulation. The reason for adding these new 

definitions was in response to industry’s request to streamline their certification 

efforts, as much as possible, with the federal requirements. 

Section 2412 – Under subsection (b), the original exhaust emission table was 

revised to include the new vehicles that have been added to the off-highway 

recreational vehicle category. Additionally, a second table was added to clarify the 

exhaust emission standards for those manufacturers that use engine-based testing 

for certification. The engine-based test procedures come from the small off-road 

engine (SORE) regulation. Although there are different SORE test cycles, only the 

6-mode Test Cycle A is appropriate for off-highway recreational vehicles and has 

been clarified in the modified text. 

Under subsection (c), language was added to clarify which test procedures are 

applicable to off-highway recreational vehicles, as well as clarifying which Subparts 

from the Code of Federal Regulations are incorporated by reference into California’s 

test procedures. 
5

Under subsection (d), determining corporate averaging of emissions was clarified 

between chassis-based testing and engine-based testing with the addition of an 

appropriate formula for the engine-based certifications. In the same fashion that the 

exhaust emission standards for engine-based testing were added to subsection (b), 

the corresponding formula for determining corporate averaging was added to 

subsection (d). This formula was derived from the SORE regulation and is 

appropriate for engines that are tested under the 6-mode Test Cycle A. 

Because of the new language for engine-based testing contained in the previous 

subsections of section 2412, the language in paragraph (e) was deleted. Paragraph 

(e) now contains the reporting requirements for manufacturers, which were 

previously contained in paragraph (d). 

Paragraph (4) was added to subsection (g) to extend the requirements that all other 

off-highway recreational vehicles have conformed to, upon their respective 

implementation dates for compliance to the exhaust emission standards. 

Section 2413 – In subsections (a), (b), and (c), the words “off-road motorcycle and 

ATV” were replaced, where appropriate, with the words “off-highway recreational 

vehicle” to underscore that the requirements apply to all vehicles in this category. 

Section 2415 – In subsection (a), language was added to clarify that, although there 

are new vehicle types in the off-highway recreational vehicle category, some riding 

areas cannot accommodate certain types of vehicles or the terrain is not 

appropriate. Language was also added to clarify the new arrangement of riding 

areas in Table 1. Previously, the riding areas were grouped according to the land 

agency with jurisdiction. Now, the riding areas are listed according to location, from 

north to south, which is more intuitive for the off-highway recreation community. 

Also in Table 1, the riding season for Heber Dunes was changed to “year round,” 

based on comments received from the California State Parks. 

Test Procedures: 

86.401-90 was amended to include the new types of vehicles in the off-highway 

recreational vehicle category. 

86.402-78 was amended to be consistent with the definitions in section 2411. 

Additionally, because these test procedures were taken from the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency’s test procedures for motorcycles, the definition of 

“motorcycle” was amended to include all the vehicle types comprising California’s 

off-highway recreational vehicle category. 

The following sections were amended to include the new types of vehicles in the 

off-highway recreational vehicle category: 

86.407-78 86.408-78 86.409-78 86.410-90 86.411-78 86.412-78 

86.413-78 86.414-78 86.416-80 86.425-78 and 86.437-78. 
6

The following sections were added to the test procedure document, solely for 

completeness and compatibility with Part 86 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

86.401-2006 86.401-97 86.402-98 86.410-80 

86.410-2006 86.419-2006 86.445-2006 86.446-2006 

86.447-2006 86.448-2006 86.449-2006 86.505-2004 

86.513-87 86.513-94 86.513-2006 86.529-98. 

1051.110 was amended to clarify that, when using the federal average, banking, and 

trading (AB&T) program in California, the generated or used evaporative emission 

credits must be from vehicles produced for sale in California. 

1051.145 was amended to retain subparagraphs (g) and (h) from the federal 

language, which outlines how credits and deficits are to be handled, with regards to 

evaporative emissions. 

Staff made other non-substantial modifications throughout the regulation and test 

procedures to correct grammatical and typographical errors, correct references and 

citations, and improve the overall clarity of these documents. 

B. Second Notice of Modified Text 

In response to the comments received from the first Notice of Modified Text, staff 

made the following additional modifications. 

Section 2411 – 

The (a)(17) definition of “off-road sport vehicle” was amended to allow for a higher 

payload capacity: increasing from 350 to 600 pounds. Staff learned in the first 

15-day public comment period that a 350-pound limit was insufficient. The 

increased payload capacity for carrying cargo is a technical modification that more 

accurately reflects the Board’s intent to include this vehicle type into California’s 

off-highway recreational vehicle regulation. This change streamlines industry’s 

certification efforts because all of these sport vehicles certify under the federal 

off-road recreational vehicle rule; therefore, industry will be able to use the same 

emission test procedures in California as they do federally. 

Section 2412 – 

Under subsection (b), compression-ignition off-highway recreational vehicles are not 

subject to the evaporative emission standards in paragraph (2). This amended text 

clarifies staff’s intent, as approved by the Board, to harmonize California’s regulation 

with the federal evaporative requirements. The new text, which expressly excludes 

compression-ignition off-highway recreational vehicles from the evaporative 

emission requirements, is a clarifying modification. Because of its low volatility, 

diesel fuel does not permeate through fuel tanks and hoses like gasoline does. 
7

Therefore, staff believes the express exclusion clarifies the Board’s intent not to 

expand the California’s OHRV evaporative emission requirements beyond those 

contained in the federal rule. 

Test Procedures – 

The following two modifications parallel the changes in the title 13 sections above. 

86.402-78: The definition of “off-road sport vehicle” was amended to allow for a 

higher payload capacity: increasing from 350 to 600 pounds. 

1051.5 was added to clarify that compression-ignition vehicles are not subject to the 

evaporative standards and test procedures for off-highway recreational vehicles. 

C. Nonsubstantive Modification 

With regard to section 1051.5 of the test procedures mentioned above, a minor 

oversight was corrected in section 2412 of the title 13 regulations. Specifically, in 

paragraph (c)(1) the letter “A” was added to the list of subparts from Part 1051 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, which are incorporated by reference. While this 

Subpart A was listed and discussed in the proposed change to the incorporated test 

procedures as noticed in the second 15-day comment period, that notice 

inadvertently omitted listing Subpart A in the corresponding section 2412 sentence 

listing the incorporated Subparts. This minor modification was made for clarity and 

consistency with the test procedures. 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE 

At the July 20, 2006 board hearing, oral testimony was received from: 

Pamela Amette, Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) 

Tom Austin, Sierra Research Consultant to MIC 

John Begin, Suspensions Unlimited (and representing Sand Car manufacturers) 

Susan Matthews, Points West ARGO representing Ontario Drive & Gear 

John Paliwoda, California Motorcycle Dealers Association (CMDA) 

Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP representing ATV manufacturers: 

• Artic Cat 

• Bombardier Recreational Products 

• Polaris Industries 

• Yamaha Motor Corporation 

Written comments were received by the hearing date from: 

Pamela Amette, MIC 

Tom Bernardo, California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 

Matt Bilyeu 

Eric Brisco 

John Janke 
8

John Paliwoda, CMDA 

Ronald Perry 

Ray Rodriguez, Short Course Off Road Enterprises (SCORE) 

Lawrence St. George 

Written comments were received in response to the first 15-day Notice of Modified 

Text from: 

Mike Schmitt, Yamaha Motor Corporation 

Jeffrey D. Shetler, Kawasaki Motors Corporation 

Chris Wright, Arctic Cat 

Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP 

Written comments were received in response to the second 15-day Notice of 

Modified Text from: 

Frank Whitman 

Chris Wright, Arctic Cat 

Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP 

Set forth is a summary of each objection or recommendation made regarding the 

specific regulatory actions proposed, together with an explanation of how the 

proposed action was changed to accommodate each objection or recommendation 

or the reasons for making no change. The comments have been grouped by topic 

wherever possible. Comments not involving objections or recommendations 

specifically directed towards the rulemaking or to the procedures followed by ARB in 

this rulemaking are not summarized below. 

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY 

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11346.4 

A. General comments regarding the necessity of regulating off-highway 

recreational vehicles (OHRVs). 

A few comments were received that raised the question of the necessity for 

amending the OHRV regulations or the necessity of having any OHRV regulations. 

Some commented that these vehicles don’t contribute significantly to the air quality 

problem in California. 

1. Comment: “I am opposed to any changes in the regulations for OHRV 

and engines. We do not need more regulation just enforce the rules 

already on the books.” (Ray Rodriguez, SCORE) 

2. Comment: “No more off-road rules. We are 1% of the population in CA, 

but we have more rules than any other hobby group.” 

(Lawrence St. George) 
9

Agency Response: The staff disagrees with these minimizations of the 

emissions impact of OHRVs on California’s air quality, as in its Resolution the 

Board continued to find OHRV regulations necessary to meet and attain state 

and federal air quality standards. Although there are cleaner OHRVs today, 

the population of these vehicles has more than doubled since the regulations 

were adopted. The revised riding seasons will help in the effort to enforce the 

regulation’s riding seasons. Additionally, as pointed out in the staff report, 

this regulatory action will reduce evaporative emissions by 4.5 tons per day in 

2020. Therefore, the OHRV regulations continue to be a necessary 

component in the Board’s effort to improve California’s air quality. 

Comments regarding the definition of ATVs and utility vehicles 

3. Comment: “...we would like the proposed new definitions modified so 

that utility vehicles are not referred to as “ATVs.” In addition, to achieve 

greater harmonization, we recommend that the definition be revised so 

that the speed criterion for utility vehicles is changed from “>25 mph” to 

“>25 mph.” (Pamela Amette, MIC) 

4. Comment: “CVC (California Vehicle Code), Section 111, gives specific 

standards for ATVs, including the 50” maximum width, handlebars and a 

straddled seat. This definition is used to identify ATVs for recreation 

purposes. In addition, these are the standards which are used when 

building recreational trails. There is no need to establish a separate 

classification for an ATV with a passenger seat. At this time, a utility 

vehicle should remain a utility vehicle. To blur the lines will only lead to 

more confusion on behalf of the DMV, the public, and the public land 

managers. Given the definition which currently exists in CVC, Section 

111, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for CARB to make these 

changes. While I appreciate your efforts to try and expand the definition of 

ATVs, it does present a number of problems for our operational 

management. (Tom Bernardo, DPR) 

Agency Response: Staff generally agreed with this comment and amended 

the definition of “all-terrain vehicle (ATV)” to consolidate the proposed Class I 

and Class II definitions and to retain the width description. This consolidation 

will prevent confusion that could occur by having an ATV definition that differs 

from the definition in the California Vehicle Code. Also, the proposed Class III 

definition was deleted in favor of “off-road utility vehicles,” which harmonizes 

with the definition in the federal regulation for these vehicles. In addition, the 

speed criterion for these utility vehicles was changed to greater than or equal 

to 25 miles per hour, which harmonizes with the federal definition. 

C. Red Sticker Comments 

5. Comment: “I am requesting an amendment to the current Red Sticker 

OHV law that prohibits my single piston four stroke motorcycle to be 

ridden in most areas for most of the year.” (Ronald Perry) 
10

6. Comment: “...please abolish the entire red sticker program and make all 

bikes green sticker...” (Matt Bilyeu) 

Agency Response: The amendment or elimination of the red sticker 

program for vehicle registration was not within the scope of this rulemaking. 

However, amendments were made to the riding seasons that expanded riding 

opportunities for off-road enthusiasts. 

Comment: “A person with a red stickered bike cannot ride there [Hungry 

Valley OHV] between May and September. However, during that same 

period that same person can ride the same red sticker bike at I-5MX 

motocross park which is right next to Hungry Valley OHV. How is riding a 

couple miles away keeping our air cleaner?” (Matt Bilyeu) 

Agency Response: The ARB’s regulatory authority for determining the 

riding seasons does not extend to riding areas located on private land or 

closed course race tracks. The I-5 MX motocross park has three race tracks: 

a one mile long track for adults, and two smaller tracks for children. The 

maximum number of OHRVs that the I-5 MX park can accommodate is 

nowhere near the number of OHRVs that Hungry Valley can accommodate 

with its 130 miles of trails. 

8. Comment: “If this is really about air quality why not make this rule apply 

to everyone on the road. For instance make every automobile with the 

letter C in the VIN only able to drive on Mondays, with a D Tuesdays, and 

so on.” (Eric Brisco) 

Agency Response: Unlike automobiles and other pollution sources that 

must comply with California’s standards, the OHRV regulation allows the sale 

and use of off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles that do not comply 

with emissions standards. Because of the higher emissions from these 

noncomplying vehicles, their usage is restricted when ozone levels exceed 

ambient air standards. There are numerous OHRVs available that meet 

California’s standards and can operate without restriction. 

9. Comment: “If I was informed ahead of time I wouldn’t have bought a bike 

with a red sticker.” (Eric Brisco) 

Agency Response: The red sticker program has been in place since 1998. 

Efforts to inform the public began at that time. Information about the program 

has been available on numerous websites, including ARB’s and the public 

land agencies. Fact sheets have been available through ARB and the 

Department of Motor Vehicles. The California Motorcycle Dealers 

Association has also contributed to the effort by providing information to their 

member dealers. 
11

10. Comment: “I feel strongly that you can require the use of a low noise 

<92db exhaust system with a US Forestry Service approved spark 

arrestor and allow the use of such vehicles throughout the year. I would 

like to see that if someone makes the effort to modify the noise level and 

provide spark prevention they should be able to amend their red sticker to 

a green one...even if it required annual or bi-annual inspections.” 

(Ronald Perry) 

Agency Response: Although ARB supports the land agencies in their efforts 

to control noise levels and prevent forest fires, spark arrestors are not 

emission control devices. For an OHRV to be eligible for green sticker 

registration, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the vehicle will meet 

California’s emission standards throughout the vehicle’s useful life. 

11. Comment: “While we see no major problems with the proposed riding 

season changes on the current State Vehicular Recreation Area (SVRA) list, 

we do have some concerns regarding the addition of Heber Dunes to the 

schedule...historically the area has had little or no law enforcement 

presence. Because of its close proximity to Mexico, many visitors to Heber 

Dunes are from out of state. Since CARB exempts out of state vehicles, it is 

doubtful any substantial reduction in air pollution can be realized at Heber 

Dunes. Furthermore, trying to limit the few California residents using Heber 

Dunes to a red sticker riding season, when the park is used primarily by 

exempt vehicles from Mexico, is problematic. Given these obstacles and 

our desire not to implement something which isn’t practical, I would 

recommend removing Heber Dunes SVRA from the riding season 

schedule.” (Tom Bernardo, DPR) 

12. Comment: “We would like to see all of the SVRAs (State Vehicle 

Recreation Areas) open year-round for red sticker vehicle use, because it 

has become increasingly difficult for off-highway vehicles to find legal, or 

appropriate, places that provide for off-road motorized recreation. At least, 

if all of the SVRAs were open year-round, that would provide more 

opportunity for regulated OHV sites, cutting down on illegal OHV use on 

private property and public land, thereby contributing to already smog 

impacted areas. Please consider assigning Clay Pit year-round usage. We 

respectfully request that the Hungry Valley SVRA be reclassified for yearround red sticker use instead of only the seven months that it now can be 

used.” (John Paliwoda, CMDA) 

Agency Response: The OHRV regulation provides for the periodic review of 

the riding season schedule. Although provisions in the regulation allow the 

Executive Officer to make changes to the riding seasons without a public 

hearing, staff elected to include the revisions in this rulemaking in order to 

foster participation by the stakeholders. After evaluating the air quality data 

throughout California, and taking into account the land agencies’ request to 

make the riding season dates more uniform, the revised riding season 
12

schedule provides both more riding opportunities for off-road enthusiasts and 

easier enforcement for the land agencies. 

The riding season for Heber Dunes was changed to “year round” based on 

comments received from the California State Parks and because, due to its 

location, the change won’t significantly impact the air quality in ozone 

nonattainment areas. Changes to the other areas mentioned in the preceding 

comments would significantly impact the air quality of ozone nonattainment 

areas and cannot be modified any further at this time. 

13. Comment: “The federal land managers will have to speak on behalf of their 

own units and the impacts of the proposed changes to their units. However, 

they have expressed their concerns to the Division regarding the posting of 

the “year-round” designation on the riding schedule. The use of this 

designation does not include all of the riding areas throughout the state 

which are open “year-round” and which are not.” (Tom Bernardo, DPR) 

Agency Response: Because of the numerous riding areas on federal lands, 

the areas were arranged by the “field office” or “ranger district” (as appropriate) 

so that all the riding areas in a particular jurisdiction would have a harmonized 

riding season, whether year round or limited. 

D. Exhaust Emission Requirement Comments 

14. Comment: “The California exhaust emissions standards for ATVs should 

also be harmonized with the federal standards. This will not result in a loss 

of emissions control...” (Pamela Amette, MIC) 

Agency Response: The staff disagrees. Both the federal and California 

regulations allow ATV manufacturers two test methods to demonstrate 

compliance: a chassis-based test and an engine-based test. These tests 

have different, but comparable exhaust emission standards. With regards to 

chassis-based testing, the federal standard for carbon monoxide, as shown 

on page 7 of the staff report, is more than double the California standard. 

However, it is important to point out that virtually all manufacturers opt for the 

engine-based test. With the engine-based test, the federal and California 

standards are the same for ATVs with engine displacements greater than 

100 cc; which covers the majority of the fleet and eases the manufacturers’ 

certification efforts. But the federal rule, as shown on page 8 of the staff 

report, has much higher emission standards for ATVs with engine 

displacements less than 100 cc. Therefore, harmonizing with the federal 

standards would result in a loss of emissions control for California. 

E. Evaporative Emission Requirement Comments 

15. Comment: “I do not see the value in trying to regulate evaporative 

emissions from off-highway vehicles. It seems to be such a miniscule 

percentage compared to other fuel-intensive industries and recreational 
13

activities, such as auto racing and normal everyday automobile fueling.” 

(John Janke) 

Agency Response: As demonstrated on page 14 of the staff report, 

significant emission reductions can be achieved by controlling losses due to 

permeation. Not only are the control measures cost-effective for 

manufacturers, but consumers also benefit in fuel savings; which is 

particularly important with current trends in gasoline prices. 

16. Comment: “The proposed evaporative emissions regulations need to be 

revised slightly to achieve the stated objective of harmonization with the 

federal standards. As proposed, the CARB regulation does not include 

the “pull ahead” or “deficit credit” provisions in the federal regulation. 

These provisions allow for a delay in meeting the ultimate gas tank 

permeation standard for manufacturers who either generate offsetting 

credits by certifying to a less stringent standard ahead of schedule or who 

overcomply in subsequent years.” (Pamela Amette, MIC) 

Agency Response: Indeed, the objective behind adopting the evaporative 

emission standards in California was to harmonize with the requirements 

contained in the federal rule. Besides having the same standards for 

evaporative emissions, the programs shall also provide the same types of 

flexibilities related to compliance, such as the two-year delay for eligible small 

volume manufacturers, and the option to generate credits with early 

introduction of low-permeation components. Therefore, the staff agrees and 

section 1051.145 of the test procedures was amended to retain 

subparagraphs (g) and (h) from the federal language, which outlines how 

credits and deficits are to be handled, with regards to evaporative emissions. 

F. Labeling Comments 

17. Comment: “Because 2007 model year vehicles are already in production, 

compliance during the 2007 model year is not feasible. MIC therefore 

requests that the “applicability” provision in section 2413(b)(1) be changed 

as shown below, rather than as proposed by staff, such that the current 

labeling requirements continue in place for the 2007 model year and the 

new requirements apply beginning with the 2008 model year.” 

(1) All 2007 and earlier model year off-road motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles and engines used in such vehicles, except those certified 

according to section 2412(f), produced on or after January 1, 1997, for 

sale, lease, use of introduction into commerce in California, shall comply 

with the labeling requirements of Title 13, California Code of Regulations, 

Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 1965, and the incorporated “California Motor 

Vehicle Emission Control and Smog Index Label Specifications,” adopted 

March 1, 1978, as last amended June 24, 1996 (as corrected September 

20, 1996), and which are incorporated by reference herein. Any reference 

to motorcycles in the incorporated documents applies to off-road 
14

motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, and engines used in such vehicles. All 

2008 and later model year motorcycles, all terrain vehicles and engines 

used in such vehicles, except those certified according to Section 2412(f), 

shall comply with the labeling requirements in this section.” 

(Pamela Amette, MIC) 

Agency Response: The staff disagrees with the proposed language in this 

comment because it is redundant. As explained on page 13 of the staff 

report, following the action taken in the 2002 rulemaking for on-road 

motorcycles there was a false interpretation among some manufacturers that 

the labeling requirements for OHRVs has not been in effect since 2004. In 

2002, the labeling document, which had been mutually incorporated by 

reference by both the on-road and OHRV regulations, had been sunsetted for 

on-road motorcycles and was replaced with the federal labeling requirements; 

however, OHRVs were not part of this regulatory action. Although 

convenient, it is inconsistent for manufacturers to contend on the one hand 

that the sunsetting action of the on-road rulemaking applied to OHRVs, but 

then contend on the other hand that the new labeling requirements in that 

same rulemaking did not apply to OHRVs. 

Nevertheless, recognizing the confusion that the on-road rulemaking 

inadvertently caused and to clarify the labeling requirements issue for 

OHRVs, the requirements from the incorporated labeling document are now 

contained in section 2413 of the regulatory text. 

18. Comment: “Under section 2413 there is a requirement that the label 

include the phrase, “is certified to (specify applicable HC standard) HC 

engine family exhaust emission standard in California.” Since most ATVs 

are certified to the optional, engine dynamometer standards, the phrase 

should be revised to read “is certified to (specify applicable HC or 

HC+NOx standard) HC engine family exhaust emission standard in 

California.” (Pamela Amette, MIC) 

Agency Response: The language given in paragraph 2413(c)(4)(G) is solely 

an example. Therefore, manufacturers using engine-based testing for 

certification would use a statement containing the HC+NO standard. 

G. Miscellaneous 

19. Comment: “There are some obviously unintentional errors in the 

proposed amendments regarding the optional standards and permeation 

equation that need to be corrected. We have already given staff the 

language necessary to address this problem.” (Pamela Amette, MIC) 

Agency Response: Section 1051.110 of the test procedures was amended

to clarify that, when using the federal average, banking, and trading (AB&T) 

program in California, the generated or used evaporative emission credits 

must be from vehicles produced for sale in California. 
15

H. Supportive Comments 

20. Comment: “I am very pleased to see the ARB is considering extending 

red sticker riding seasons...I feel the present riding seasons are way too 

short and the proposed season is a compromise that I could live with.” 

(John Janke) 

21. Comment: “We are pleased that the current rulemaking is, for the most 

part, opening up the riding seasons for established areas, and even 

creating new areas, often with unlimited OHV usage. I have reviewed the 

emission monitoring station locations, and am pleasantly surprised to see 

that an additional 19 net monitoring sites have been added since 1998. 

This increased the accuracy of establishing appropriate riding seasons 

that obviously support your staff’s recommendations for extending the red 

sticker riding use areas and times. CARB’s methodology has improved 

much since 1998 and it is difficult to criticize the results.” 

(John Paliwoda, CMDA) 

BOARD HEARING ORAL TESTIMONY 

22. Comment: “There are two areas though I would respectfully ask the staff 

and you folks to take a look at. There’s two SVRAs. One, Clay Pit, is 

outside of Oroville, California in northern California...I would like perhaps 

to recommend that that be made year-round...And the last one is Hungry 

Valley SVRA. Hungry Valley SVRA is the second largest SVRA in the 

system. It is at the uppermost point of Los Angeles County where it meets 

Kern County. The elevation is 3,000 feet. So it’s above the inversion 

layer. The main pollution generator in that area is quite frankly a narrow 

band of the 5 freeway. And that SVRA is adjacent to it, and it is fairly 

restricted. There’s seven months of usage there...in the interest of 

equality perhaps taking a look and seeing whether you can make that 

year-round. It’s a very large SVRA. It attracts an enormous amount of 

people from the L.A. basin and giving them the opportunity to recreate 

there year-round would cut down on the possible illegal use of these 

non-certified vehicles on private property, on public lands.” 

(John Paliwoda, CMDA) 

Agency Response: See the agency response to comments 11-12. 

23. Comment: “The labeling requirements that are proposed, we don’t have 

any real problem with the proposal except for the fact that the way it’s 

written it would apply immediately. And we’re in the middle of the 2007 

model year right now, and we would like to have a minor modification to 

delay the change in the labeling requirements to the 2008 model year. It’s 

our understanding your staff is basically ok with that.” 

(Tom Austin, Sierra Research) 

Agency Response: See the agency response to comments 17-18. 
16

24. Comment: “There is a really minor change we’d like to have made having 

to do with harmonizing the federal and California definitions for utility 

vehicles. We think this is just inadvertent, but the federal definition is for 

vehicles that have a speed of equal to or greater than 25 miles per hour. 

And the staff’s proposal is greater than 25 miles an hour, leaving vehicles 

that have a maximum speed of 25 in different categories under California 

and federal definitions. We also understand your staff is okay making that 

change with the 15-day notice.” (Tom Austin, Sierra Research) 

Agency Response: See the agency response to comments 3-4. 

25. Comment: “The one thing that we really didn’t agree on was the 

statement you heard about the federal standards not being as stringent as 

the California standards. EPA didn’t agree with that. We don’t agree with 

that. We think in the aggregate the federal standards are more stringent, 

but it’s really not that big a deal because most of the ATVs at least are 

certified under the optional standards, the engine dyno test standards 

rather than chassis test standards. And under those optional standards, 

all the ATVs above 100 CCs have to meet exactly the same standards 

under the federal program, under the California program. So there’s no 

real practical difference...We think you’d be better off with the federal 

standard.” (Tom Austin, Sierra Research) 

Agency Response: See the agency response to comment 14. 

26. Comment: “...it’s likely we think in the next few weeks possibly there’s 

going to be a new set of optional standards for ATVs that will be published 

by EPA. We think that we’ll be able to demonstrate at that time those 

optional standards are more stringent than the current optional standards 

that apply in California and apply federally. And so we think it would be a 

good idea to delegate to your Executive Officer the authority to harmonize 

with the new optional federal standards should those be published in the 

immediate future and if your staff agrees they are, in fact, more stringent 

than the current optional standards.” (Tom Austin, Sierra Research) 

Agency Response: At the hearing, staff agreed to follow the progress of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), as they were 

evaluating a new engine-based test cycle for ATVs. As of April 2007, no new 

standards have been promulgated by U.S. EPA. Moreover, it is the staff’s 

understanding that U.S. EPA is considering only chassis-based testing in the 

future. 

27. Comment: “We are a very small, very small industry. Most of us came 

from a garage builder aspect, and nobody in this industry has a large deal 

of money by any sort. But we still are required to comply to the rules, and 

we would just like for you to consider possible a low volume exemption of 

some sort...” (John Begin, Sand Rail Industry) 
17

Agency Response: Staff acknowledged the size of the industry and 

continues to work with it towards achieving compliance with California’s 

standards. These vehicles use modern automotive engines that are equipped 

with advanced fuel controls. Therefore, meeting the standards is not an 

insurmountable task. Similar success has been achieved with inboard and 

sterndrive vessels, which is another small industry that also uses modern 

automotive engines. 

MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

FIRST NOTICE OF MODIFIED TEXT 

WRITTEN COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF MODIFIED TEXT 

28. Comment: “Due to high molecular weight and low volatility of diesel fuel 

there is no need for corresponding permeation standards. A specific 

exclusion is needed in the Modified Text to the effect that CARB 

permeation standards for fuel tanks and fuel lines do not apply to ATV’s 

and OHRV’s powered by diesel engines. After raising this issue informally 

in February we received correspondence from ARB on 3/6/2007 that ARB 

will not require diesel ATVs to meet the permeation standards that begin 

in 2008. It appears that the need for a specific exclusion to execute this 

policy may have been overlooked.” (Chris Wright, Arctic Cat) 

29. Comment: “The language should confirm that the references to 

“evaporative” emissions in the regulation are not intended to apply 

evaporative or permeation requirements to diesel off-highway recreational 

vehicles or engines.” (Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP) 

Agency Response: As stated in the staff report and presented to the Board, 

the intent of the proposed evaporative emission standards was to harmonize 

with the federal rule. Therefore, staff amended the regulations and test 

procedures to clarify that compression-ignition engines are not subject to the 

OHRV evaporative emission standards. 

30. Comment: “We support a minor adjustment to the cargo load provision of 

the off-road sport vehicle category (i.e., to permit loads above 350 

pounds.” (Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP) 

31. Comment: “...the Companies request that the proposed definition of 

“off-road sport vehicle” in §2411(17) be revised to specify that it includes 

such vehicles “having a rear payload up to 600 pounds.” This requested 

revision in the proposed definition is consistent with Board Resolution 

06-23, as well as with the intentions and expectations of the ARB staff 

which underlie the proposed amendments to the OHRV regulation.” 

(Jeffrey D. Shetler, Kawasaki Motors Corporation and Mike Schmitt, 

Yamaha Motor Corporation) 
18

Agency Response: The staff agrees, and the “off-road sport vehicle” 

definition was amended by increasing the maximum rear payload to 600 

pounds. 

MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

SECOND NOTICE OF MODIFIED TEXT 

WRITTEN COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF MODIFIED TEXT 

32. Comment: I am sure that the Red Sticker program was put into place 

with good intentions but it is very likely causing more pollution than it is 

saving. Today's four stroke off-road vehicles put out almost no emissions, 

yet the program unfairly targets them. They do not burn oil in their 

gasoline. Riders are forced to drive an extra 30-60 minutes to get to areas 

where they can ride. The trucks carrying these bikes put out several times 

the emissions that the actual bikes would be emitting because of the 

additional gallons of fuel they burn driving the extra distance. In addition, 

this causes extra wear and tear on the roadways. Common sense should 

tell you that these bikes should be exempt from the program. Isn't it the oil 

burning bikes that you should be targeting? (Frank Whitman) 

Agency Response: These comments, with which the staff disagrees, are 

not within the scope of the specific changes to the regulatory language that 

were made for the second notice of modified text. However, the staff notes 

that these assertions have been raised before and have been addressed in 

prior actions. Off-road recreational vehicles emit higher levels of pollutants 

than on-highway vehicles. Although the off-road emission standards have 

never been as stringent as the on-highway standards for motorcycles, in 1998 

the Board approved even more stringent exhaust emission standards; thus, 

making the on-highway motorcycles even cleaner than the off-road models. 

Moreover, after more than 30 years of catalyst technology and other design 

advancements for on-highway applications, cars and light duty trucks are 

significantly cleaner than off-highway vehicles. 

33. Comment: “We support the staff’s suggested modifications.”

(Robert A. Wyman, Latham & Watkins LLP) 

34. Comment: “Thank you for sending the modified text. I think I am happy 

with it and expect to have no further comment.” 

(Chris Wright, Arctic Cat) 

Agency Response: No response is necessary for these supportive 

comments.