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 REGULATIONS FOR NEW 1997 AND LATER

OFF-HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND ENGINES

Public Hearing Date: July 24, 2003

Agenda Item No.: 03-42-6

I. GENERAL

The Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (“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 6, 2003, is

incorporated by reference herein.

Following a public hearing on July 24, 2003, the Air Resources Board (the Board or

ARB) by Resolution 03-06 approved the change in language regarding the model

year of Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRV) affected by the

regional/seasonal riding season provisions for non-emission-compliant off-highway

recreational vehicles. Resolution 03-06 is attached hereto and incorporated by

reference herein. The Board approved the regulatory language as proposed. The

regulations subject to the amendments are in the California Code of Regulations

(CCR), title 13, chapter 9, article 3, section 2415 (a).

The amendments modified the existing off-highway recreational regulations to

indicate that riding season use restrictions begin with the 2003 model year. The

amendments simply reflect the delay in riding season enforcement that occurred in

the field by the land management agencies due to inconsistent registrations of

these vehicles. The amended article 3 continues to apply to all California off-road

motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles manufactured on/after January 1, 1997

(manufactured on/after January 1, 1999 for vehicles under 90cc engine

displacement). The proposal does not change existing exhaust emissions

standards, but does provide for an enforceable riding season program in the field.
2

The only section affected by this regulatory action is section 2415(a) of title 13,

article 3, chapter 9, CCR. Specifically, the language “Model 2003 and later” has

been added in Section 2415(a) to reflect the delay of the enforcement in the riding

areas.

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.

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 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. See Resolution 03-06 at page 4.

II. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES

At the July 24, 2003 hearing, oral testimony was received from:

John Paliwoda, California Motorcycle Dealers Association

Mr. Paliwoda also submitted written comments. The written submission

commented on the proposed amendments to the regulations and was received

during the 45-day comment period. While the testimony given by this individual

expressed support of the proposal he requested the implementation date for

enforcement be pushed to model year 2004 or 2005 rather than the proposed

model year 2003. There were similar written comments from the public requesting

such an extension; the agency’s response is given below. Mr. Paliwoda had two

additional points in his written comments and those comments are addressed

below.

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.
3

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11346.4

A. General comments regarding extending the green sticker

grandfathering through model year 2003.

The majority of comments received (24) pertained to extending the green sticker

grandfathering beyond model year 2002, through the 2003 model year, which would

have resulted in the grandfathering of model years 1998-2003 rather than adopted

years 1998-2002. The commenters asked why model year 2002 was chosen to be

the cutoff for grandfathering when the technology of many of the OHRVs was the

same from model year 2002 to 2003. Additionally, the argument was made that

some non-emissions-compliant (red sticker) model year 2003 OHRVs had already

been purchased by consumers with the expectation that those vehicles would not be

subject to the limited riding seasons applicable to red sticker OHRVs.

Agency Response: Model year 2002 and older OHRVs were included in the

green sticker grandfathering because 2003 was the earliest practical time to

enforce the riding season restrictions as adopted in 1998. The Initial Statement of

Reasons explains the reasoning behind the date chosen in detail:

“ The amendment simply reflects the delay in riding season enforcement that

has already occurred in the field by the land management agencies due to

inconsistencies in the program. The emission reductions originally intended

by the riding season amendments will now be achieved because the

California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) will be correctly registering

OHRVs and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) will begin

riding season enforcement beginning with the 2003-riding season. The

amendment supports program changes that will reduce registration

inconsistencies that resulted in lack of enforcement in the field confirming the

regulation to reflect the actual date of enforcement of the riding season

limitations will avoid confusion for the riding public. The Board’s adoption of

these proposed amendments reflects that these problems have been

substantially corrected and that riding area enforcement has begun. The

amendment to postpone the riding season use restrictions to the 2003

Model Year supports DMV’s registration of all 2002 Model Year and older

OHRVs with a green sticker and supports DPR's enforcement actions

beginning with the 2003 riding season. With these improvements in place,

there is no reason to delay the emission reductions intended by the original

regulation any further.”
4

B. Comments regarding the necessity of the red sticker portion of the

OHRV regulations and why four stroke vehicles receive red stickers.

Four comments were received that raised the question of the necessity for having

the red sticker portion of the OHRV regulations at all and seven comments

questioned why not all four stroke OHRVs receive green stickers.

1. Comment: “...issue all modern 4 stroke engines green stickers or... take out

the whole red sticker and limited riding time idea.” (Danny)

2. Comment: “I hope that they will consider issuing the newer motorcycles green

stickers or just eliminating the red/green sticker rule and just go back to

registering the vehicle and enjoying the use of it.” (Brad Jackson)

3. Comment: “Please reconsider this (red sticker) restriction on something my

entire family loves.” (Kenneth Stevison)

4. Comment: “There should not be a red sticker program. Having a separate red

sticker for OHRVs which do not comply with exhaust emission standards is an

absurdity. Why not have special stickers for automobiles which do not pass

smog checks? The sticker would allow them to be driven at only certain time of

the year. I ask that the red-sticker program be discontinued.” (Thomas Walsh)

5. Comment: “I can’t ride my so called non compliant 4 stroke dirt bike 4-5

months our the of the year! I thought this law was to stop 2 strokes from pollution

the air? A huge amount of competitive riders convert from 2 strokes to 4 strokes

just to find out we still can’t get green stickers!” (Todd Romero)

6. Comment: “This red sticker law makes no sense to me anyhow. How can a

KTM 450 EXC be licensed with green sticker and a DRZ 400 be red sticker?

This makes no sense. The law made marginal sense when applied to oil

burning 2 stroke engines, but four strokes????” (Zac Mickel)

7. Comment: “I just purchased an ’03 YZ450 dirt bike that is powered by a clean

burning four stroke motor. However, to my surprise it was given a red sticker

and now I limited on where and when I can ride. I simply cannot understand the

fact that I purchased a much cleaner burning bike, yet I am now penalized by the

state by excessive restrictions.” (Dan Hayden)

8. Comment: “If the ARB were thinking of the environment all two-strokes bikes

would be red sticker from now on and all four stroke bikes would be green

sticker. The new four strokes are becoming very popular and are much cleaner

than the two-strokes.” (Bill Perdersen)
5

Agency Response: This rulemaking did not consider getting rid of the red sticker

category of OHRVs nor did it consider changing the underlying exhaust emission

standards. The rulemaking was simply a delay in the enforcement of the red sticker

program to reflect the real world delay in enforcement as discussed in staff report.

Therefore, as the above comments are not specifically directed at the proposed

action, they are irrelevant to this rulemaking and need not be responded to.

Nevertheless, the following response is provided for the commenters’ benefit.

The red sticker program remains important both for continued emission reductions

and OHRV availability for California. This is discussed at length in the 1998

amendment’s Initial Statement of Reasons and continues to be the ARB’s position.

The above comments fail to recognize that not all four stroke OHRVs meet the

required OHRV emission standards. Manufacturers of OHRVs are required by the

regulation to meet set emission standards in order to qualify for a green sticker.

The non-emissions-compliant four stroke product that is eligible for a red sticker has

not been built or certified by the manufacturer to meet those emission standards.

Therefore, an OHRV is not eligible for a green sticker just because it has a four

stroke engine. It is the manufacturer’s choice, not ARB’s, to build a vehicle to meet

the emission standards and certify it as emissions-compliant (green sticker) or to

build a vehicle that does not meet the standards and certify it as non-emissionscompliant (red sticker).

C. Comment specifying revised emission standards for OHRVs.

9. Comment: “Please raise the CO standard to that which the EPA has recently

adopted for 2006 OHMs of 25 g/km.” (John Paliwoda)

Agency Response: Staff need not respond to this comment because it is directed

at changing the emissions standards, which is not a subject of the proposal. See

also preceding response.

D. Comment specifying re-evaluating the riding seasons with the intent

to extend the riding time for red sticker OHRVs.

10. Comment: “OHV use area must be re-evaluated with the intent to extend the

riding seasons in areas that warrant it.” (John Paliwoda)

Agency Response: Staff need not respond to this comment because it is directed

at changing the riding seasons (e.,g. their lengths or locations), which are not

subjects of the proposal. However, the comment is similar to an official request by

the California State Parks to ARB. As staffing and other priorities permit, ARB staff

may re-evaluate the riding seasons in order to provide a more uniform schedule for
6

areas that are geographically close to each other or contiguous.

As with all regulations that ARB proposes, industry and other concerned and

involved parties were notified of, and consulted with, during the development

process of these regulations.

BOARD HEARING ORAL TESTIMONY

As previously mentioned the individual that gave testimony at the Board Hearing

expressed approval and/or acceptance of the proposed amendments. These oral

comments added no negative comments in need of response beyond the

responses provided above to parallel written comments.