S

REQU

Date of

Schedu

TAFF RE

ADOPT

UIREMEN

f Release

uled for C

Off-Road 

EPORT: IN

PRO

TION OF E

TS FOR O

e: June 5, 

Considerat

Motorcycle

NITIAL ST

OPOSED

EVAPORA

OFF-HIGH

2013 

tion: July 2

es Spe

TATEMEN

D RULEMA

ATIVE EM

HWAY RE

25, 2013

cialty Vehic

NT OF RE

AKING

MISSION 

ECREAT

cles A

EASONS 

CONTRO

IONAL VE

All-Terrain V

FOR 

OL 

EHICLES

Vehicles (ATV)
(Page intentionally left blank)
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED 

RULEMAKING 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ADOPTION 

OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 

FOR OFF-HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 

Date of Release: June 5, 2013 

Scheduled for Consideration: July 25, 2013 

Location: California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) 

Headquarters Building 

Byron Sher Auditorium, Second Floor 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and 

approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily 

reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade 

names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

 
(Page intentionally left blank)
ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In spite of a significant reduction in ozone precursors, California needs additional 

reductions of reactive organic gases (ROG) to achieve attainment of the ozone 

standard in all areas of the state. One of the largest sources of ROG is off-highway 

recreational vehicles (OHRV), which include all-terrain vehicles (ATV), off-road 

motorcycles, and specialty off-highway vehicles. Evaporative emissions produced by 

OHRVs operating in California account for 72 percent of the total ROG emissions 

from the category, with exhaust emissions accounting for the remaining 28 percent. 

Although evaporative emissions from these OHRVs are controlled by California 

OHRV permeation standards, this regulatory proposal will further reduce evaporative 

emissions from new OHRVs by more than 70 percent compared to existing OHRVs. 

Control of evaporative emissions from OHRVs will help to reduce ozone levels in 

non-attainment areas throughout California and especially in the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD). This regulatory proposal to control evaporative emissions from 

OHRVs is a key element in the State Strategy for demonstrating attainment with the 

8-hour ozone federal air quality standard. 

BACKGROUND 

Mobile sources have historically been the largest source of ROG emissions in 

California. As vehicles have become progressively cleaner, the emissions 

contribution of off-road equipment and vehicles has become more prominent. The 

8-hour federal ambient air quality standard (AAQS) for ozone is both more 

challenging and more protective of public health than the previous standard; 

therefore, evaporative emissions from all mobile sources, including OHRVs will need 

to be controlled. For the SJVAPCD and SCAQMD, the State Strategy for 

demonstrating attainment with the 8-hour ozone federal air quality standard includes 

the adoption of more stringent emission standards for OHRVs by 2013. 

In 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 

promulgated the first evaporative emissions standards for OHRVs. These standards 

took effect in 2008 and control permeation from fuel tanks and hoses. The standards 

limit fuel tank permeation to 1.5 grams per square meter per day (g/m2

/day) and fuel 

hose permeation to 15 g/m2

/day starting with model year (MY) 2008 OHRVs. The Air 

Resources Board (ARB or Board) harmonized California requirements with these 

standards in 2006. These existing permeation requirements only control a small 

fraction of evaporative emissions from over one million OHRVs operating statewide. 

STAFF PROPOSAL 

More comprehensive evaporative emissions control is an essential piece of the 

enforceable commitments for ROG emissions reductions in the State Strategy. 

The proposed OHRV test procedure and evaporative emissions standard of 1 gram 

per day (g/day) of Total Organic Gas (TOG) for a 3-day diurnal utilizes the available 

evaporative emissions technology currently used in the on-road sector for OHRV 
ES-2 

applications. The standard represents a greater than 90 percent reduction per 

vehicle compared to baseline emissions levels. This regulatory proposal will control 

statewide summertime ROG by 3.4 tons per day (TPD) in 2023 and 12.5 TPD when 

fully implemented (90 percent) in 2042. 

The proposed regulation requires a carbon canister integrity tip test to verify canister 

protection from liquid fuel contamination when an OHRV is tipped. This test is 

especially important for off-road motorcycles, which are more likely to tip over than 

ATVs or specialty vehicles. The tip test is designed to ensure that evaporative 

emissions controls for OHRVs are properly designed for real-world operating 

conditions and last the life of the vehicle. The tip test remains an outstanding 

concern for OHRV manufacturers because it may require fuel tank re-design. As an 

alternative to the proposed tip test, manufacturers may submit an equivalent test 

procedure to ARB for an engineering review and approval by the Executive Officer. 

It is critical that ARB achieves these additional ROG emissions reductions, 

particularly given the magnitude of California’s ozone problem and the State 

Strategy’s reliance on yet-to-be developed technology. These future benefits will be 

especially valuable to California as a warming climate makes ozone attainment more 

difficult. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS 

The proposed regulation will deliver substantial ROG emissions reductions for the 

2023 timeline set for attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard and it will 

continue to deliver air quality benefits far into the future because of the relatively 

long lifetime of OHRVs. 

Staff has determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts would result 

from implementation of the regulatory proposal. This is because the regulatory 

provisions merely propose emission standards to reduce diurnal and spillage 

emissions from OHRVs, which would be easily accomplished by using already 

existing technologies. 

This regulatory proposal has an average cost-effectiveness of 6.93 dollars per 

pound ($/lb.) compared to the inflation adjusted cost of 8.01 $/lb. for the on-road 

motorcycle exhaust regulation adopted in 1998. The cost to control emissions per 

OHRV increases significantly for manufacturers of evaporative families with sales of 

less than 150 OHRVs per year in California. These manufacturers account for a 

small fraction (less than 13 percent) of OHRV sales in the State. The cost of the 

regulation includes cost savings to the end user from reduced fuel consumption due 

to lower evaporative emissions resulting from the proposed diurnal standard. A likely 

indirect effect of this regulatory proposal is that OHRV manufacturers will choose to 

use electronic fuel injection to meet the stringent diurnal standard. Depending on the 

EFI engine control unit calibration, this could result in fuel cost savings from 

increased engine combustion efficiency.

 
ES-3 

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 

Staff recommends that the Board adopt this regulatory proposal to greatly reduce 

evaporative ROG emissions from OHRVs. The standards were developed in close 

collaboration with stakeholders to minimize the cost to comply while still achieving 

the emissions reductions that California needs. In fact, the stringent diurnal standard 

in the proposed regulation was recommended by industry. The final form of the 

proposed emissions standard benefits from the input and knowledge of the OHRV 

manufacturers. In particular, the diurnal emissions test procedure has been 

designed to verify emissions control for running loss and hot soak events while 

minimizing the testing and compliance costs for industry. 

 
(Page intentionally left blank)
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 1

A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

B. VEHICLES IN CATEGORY SUBJECT TO PROPOSED REGULATIONS ........................... 1

C. REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................... 3

1. Authority to Control Mobile Sources under Federal Clean Air Act ....................................... 3

2. Legal Requirement to Submit a SIP ..................................................................................... 4

3. Regulatory Powers and Responsibilities Conferred by State Law ....................................... 4

4. Commitments under 2007 Amendments to the SIP ............................................................. 4

D. REGULATORY HISTORY OF OHRV EMISSIONS CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA ................. 5

1. First Emissions Standards for OHRV Set in 1994 ................................................................ 5

2. Limitations on Use of Uncontrolled OHRV in California ....................................................... 5

3. Federal Regulation of Evaporative (Permeation) Emissions from OHRV ............................ 6

4. Harmonizing with Federal Evaporative Emissions Regulations ........................................... 6

E. NEED FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ..................................................................... 6

F. RATIONALE FOR CONTROLLING OHRV EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS .......................... 7

G. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ............................................................................ 7

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ............................... 9

A. MECHANISMS OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES ..................... 9

B. CHARACTERIZING EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM OHRVS ................................ 10

C. TECHNOLOGY TO CONTROL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES.... 12

1. Low-Permeation Materials .................................................................................................. 12

2. Activated Carbon Canisters ................................................................................................ 13

3. Pressure Relief Valves ....................................................................................................... 13

4. Strategic Placement or Insulation of Fuel Tank .................................................................. 14

5. Connectors, Improved Carburetors, and Fuel Injection ...................................................... 14

D. TEST RESULTS FOR UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED OHRV EQUIPMENT ........ 14

E. RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS ........................................................... 16

F. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSED REGULATION ................. 18

III. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION ................................................................................. 19

A. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION ................................................... 19

1. Comprehensive Evaporative Emissions Standards for OHRVs ......................................... 19

2. Independent Emission Standards for Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions ....................... 19
ii 

3. Flexibility for Certification .................................................................................................... 19

4. Incorporation of New Test Procedure ................................................................................. 20

5. Durability Requirements to Ensure In-Use Control ............................................................ 20

B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED .......................................................... 20

1. No Action ............................................................................................................................ 20

2. Removal of the Tip Test from the Current Proposal ........................................................... 21

3. Propose Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use ......................................................... 22

IV. AIR QUALITY BENEFITS ................................................................................................. 22

A. ROG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OZONE ABATEMENT .................... 23

B. CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................. 24

1. Reduced Fuel Consumption ............................................................................................... 24

2. Indirect Warming Impacts ................................................................................................... 25

C. REDUCTION OF EXPOSURE TO TOXIC EMISSIONS ................................................ 25

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 26

A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 26

B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................. 26

C. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................... 26

D. PROPOSED REGULATION .................................................................................. 27

1. Description .......................................................................................................................... 27

2. Methods of Compliance ...................................................................................................... 27

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................ 28

1. Beneficial Impacts ............................................................................................................... 28

2. Resource Areas with No Impacts ....................................................................................... 28

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................................................ 29

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 30

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 30

B. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION .............................. 31

C. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON BUSINESSES, BUSINESS COMPETITIVENESS, EMPLOYMENT,

AND BUSINESS CREATION, ELIMINATION, OR EXPANSION ............................................ 34

1. Potential Impact on Businesses ......................................................................................... 34

2. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness and Employment ..................................... 35

3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination, or Expansion .................................... 35

4. Potential Impact on Consumers ......................................................................................... 36
iii 

D. POTENTIAL IMPACT TO CALIFORNIA STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES .......................... 36

E. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................. 37

1. Economic Impacts of Taking No Action .............................................................................. 37

2. Economic Impact of Eliminating the Carbon Canister Protection Tip Test ......................... 37

3. Economic Impact of Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use ....................................... 37

VIII. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR EACH REGULATORY PROVISION ....................... 39

IX. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 45

 
iv 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

A) Proposed Regulation Order to Adopt Evaporative Emission Controls for 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

B) Proposed Test Procedure for Determining Evaporative Emissions from 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (TP-933) 

C) Emissions Estimation Methodology for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

D) Supporting Information for Economic Analysis 

E) Public Process for Development of Proposed Action Information 
v 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table I-1: Public Workshops ...................................................................................... 7

Table I-2: Pre-Hearing Meetings and Teleconferences .............................................. 8

Table I-3: Issues Raised by Industry and Stakeholders ............................................. 8

Table II-1: Summary of Results from the OHRV SHED Tests .................................. 16

Table IV-1: Summertime ROG Reductions Expected from the Regulatory Proposal in 

TPD, for Key Attainment Years and Regions in California. ...................................... 23

 
vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I-1: Off-Road Motorcycle ................................................................................. 2

Figure I-2: All-Terrain Vehicle ..................................................................................... 2

Figure I-3: Specialty Vehicle (Off-Road Utility Vehicle) .............................................. 2

Figure I-4: Specialty Vehicle (Sand Car Shown) ........................................................ 2

Figure II-1: Carbon Canister Multi-Day Diurnal Emissions ....................................... 11

Figure II-2: Co-Extruded Fuel Tank Barrier Layers .................................................. 13

Figure II-3: ATV SHED Testing in El Monte ............................................................. 15

Figure II-4: Off-Road Motorcycle SHED Testing in El Monte .................................... 15

Figure II-5: Breakdown of California OHRV Emissions by Usage Mode .................. 17

Figure II-6: 7-Day Diurnal Emission Test Results ..................................................... 17

Figure III-1: Fuel Tank Roll-Over Valve .................................................................... 22

Figure VII-1: Summary of OHRV Cost per Vehicle per Evaporative Family ............. 32

Figure VII-2 Summary of Cost-Effectiveness per Vehicle ......................................... 32

Figure VII-3: OHRV Cost-Effectiveness Compared to Similar Regulations .............. 34

Figure VIII-1: Example of Tamper-Resistant Screw Types ....................................... 43
vii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard 

ARB [California] Air Resources Board 

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle 

CAA [Federal] Clean Air Act 

CCR California Code of Regulations 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

DMV [California] Department of Motor Vehicles 

EVOH Ethylene Vinyl Alcohol 

HSC [California] Health and Safety Code 

ISOR Initial Statement of Reasons 

LSI Large Spark-Ignition [engine] 

MIC Motorcycle Industry Council 

MY Model Year 

OHRV Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

PY Person Year 

ROG Reactive Organic Gases 

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District 

SHED Sealed Housing for Evaporative Determination 

SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SORE Small Off-Road Engine 

TP Test Procedure 

TOG Total Organic Gases 

TPD Tons per Day (emissions rate) 

U.S.C. United States Code 

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

 
viii 

(Page intentionally left blank)
1 

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This report presents the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) in support of 

proposed adoption of comprehensive evaporative emission control requirements 

for off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRV). 

Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff recommend adoption of regulatory 

provisions establishing evaporative emission standards for 2018 and subsequent 

model year (MY) OHRVs manufactured for use in California. The following are key 

aspects of the regulatory proposal: 

 Expands control of evaporative emissions from OHRVs to include a stringent 

diurnal standard as well as a “tip test” to address potential fuel spillage on all 

vehicle modes; 

 Provisions for certification, labeling requirements, enforcement, recall, and use 

restrictions; 

 A flexible 4-year phase-in period (MY 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) where the 

manufacturer must show that 75 percent of their new sales are certified for 

those years; and 

 A new test procedure to determine evaporative emissions from OHRVs. 

The remainder of this section details the regulatory context, legal requirements, 

and need for comprehensive evaporative emission control of OHRVs. The 

rationale for the regulatory proposal, as well as the public process by which it was 

developed, are then briefly summarized. 

Section II describes the problem as well as currently available control measures; 

Section III summarizes the recommended Board Action and its alternatives; 

Section IV presents the air quality benefits of the regulatory proposal; Sections V 

and VI detail the environmental as well as environmental justice impacts of the 

proposed regulation; Section VII offers an analysis of economic and fiscal 

impacts; and Section VIII summarizes the rationale for each regulatory provision. 

The proposed regulation order (Article 3, Chapter 9, Division 3, Title 13, California 

Code of Regulations (CCR)) is presented in Attachment A. The proposed Test 

Procedure for Determining Evaporative Emissions from Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles (TP-933) is in Attachment B. Supporting information detailing relevant 

emission inventories is included in Attachment C. Supporting information relevant 

to economic and cost-benefit analysis is contained in Attachment D. 

B. VEHICLES IN CATEGORY SUBJECT TO PROPOSED REGULATIONS 

Proposed evaporative emission standards and test procedures apply to 

gasoline-fueled OHRVs. Specifically, this regulatory proposal applies to off-road 

motorcycles (also known as dirt bikes) (Figure I-1), all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 

(Figure I-2), and specialty vehicles which includes off-road sport vehicles (Figure 

3), off-road utility vehicles, sand cars (Figure 4),as defined in Cal. Code Regs., 

 tit.13, § 2411. 
2 

Figure I-1: Off-Road Motorcycle 

Figure I-2: All-Terrain Vehicle 

Figure I-3: Specialty Vehicle (Off-Road Utility Vehicle) 

Figure I-4: Specialty Vehicle (Sand Car Shown) 
3 

Gasoline-fueled golf carts and go-karts are not included in this regulatory 

proposal. Rather, they are subject to ARB’s small off-road engine (SORE) or large 

spark ignition (LSI) engine regulations, depending on whether their engines are 

greater than 25 horsepower (see ARB’s OHRV website). Snowmobiles are 

considered federal sources and are not subject to California’s OHRV regulations. 

Competition vehicles, also known as “race-only vehicles” or “racing vehicles” and 

defined as vehicles operated exclusively on closed courses in sanctioned racing 

events, are exempt from California’s OHRV emissions regulations 

(Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 43001). 

C. REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 

Authority to adopt and enforce the proposed regulation is granted to California’s 

Air Resources Board through a combination of federal and State laws. ARB’s 

legal requirement to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is also articulated 

by federal and state legislation. In 2007, the Board adopted amendments to 

California’s SIP that commits ARB to comprehensively address OHRV 

evaporative emissions; current control is limited to permeation from fuel tanks and 

hoses (ARB, 2009). 

1. Authority to Control Mobile Sources under Federal Clean Air Act 

Under Section 209(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the State of 

California has the singular distinction of being granted the power to adopt and 

enforce rules to control emissions from new mobile sources (CAA, 1990). 

California’s exemption from CAA provisions that otherwise prevent states from 

setting their own standards for motor vehicle emissions recognizes California’s 

long-standing air pollution challenges and honors the State’s pioneering efforts 

to reduce motor vehicle emissions (NRC, 2006). 

Section 209(e)(2) of the CAA (42 U.S.C § 7543) requires California to receive 

authorization from the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 

Administrator prior to enforcing regulations on mobile sources, including new 

off-road vehicles and engines. Authorization to regulate exhaust emissions 
4 

from OHRV was granted to California in December 1996 (Cal. Code Regs., 

tit.13, § 2411; 61 Fed. Reg. 69093, December 31, 1996). 

2. Legal Requirement to Submit a SIP 

The CAA also requires, as codified in 42 U.S.C § 7410, each State, including 

California, to submit a plan providing for the “implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement” of primary as well as secondary air quality standards, which 

protect human health and welfare, respectively, within each air quality region 

of the State. SIPs are required to be submitted within three years of the 

promulgation or revision of a national ambient air quality standard (AAQS). 

3. Regulatory Powers and Responsibilities Conferred by State Law 

ARB is named as the agency responsible for control of emissions from motor 

vehicles in the HSC Section 39500 as well as the air pollution control agency 

“for all purposes set forth in federal law” in HSC Section 39602. Specifically 

named among ARB’s general duties and powers (HSC Sections 39600-

39619.8) are the responsibilities to prepare California’s SIP and to coordinate 

all local air quality management district activities necessary to comply with the 

CAA. Furthermore, ARB must achieve the maximum feasible, cost-effective 

reductions of emissions from all mobile source categories under its jurisdiction 

(HSC Sections 43013, 43018). 

4. Commitments under 2007 Amendments to the SIP 

In September 2007, the Board adopted Amendments to the SIP, which 

comprises State and local air quality planning showing how and when 

California will meet AAQSs. The 2007 State Strategy articulated by the 2007 

SIP Amendments is the first to address the federal 8-hour AAQS for ozone 

(0.08 parts per million, ppm) as well as the 24-hour and annual standards for 

fine particles (PM2.5) (65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) and 15 μg/m3

, 

respectively). These federal AAQS were originated by U.S. EPA in 1997 in 

response to scientific evidence substantiating adverse health effects at lower 

levels than had previously been resolved. Due in part to litigation, as well as 

the extensive process required to establish area designations and boundaries, 

the 8-hour ozone standard was not finalized until 2004. 

The 8-hour ozone standard is more stringent than the previous 1-hour 

standard and calls for more extensive emissions control strategies. Although 

California has already significantly reduced ambient ozone concentrations, the 

challenges posed by the more stringent standard provoked the reclassification 

of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South 

Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) nonattainment designations 

as “extreme” with regard to the 8-hour standard. “Extreme” nonattainment 

areas rely on the development of new technologies or improvement of existing 

technologies, in addition to other enforceable commitments, to reduce 

emissions of ozone precursors, namely oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive 

organic gases (ROG) (Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA; 42 U.S.C § 7511(e)(5)). 
5 

Proposed new SIP measures in the 2007 State Strategy include expanded 

evaporative emissions standards from OHRVs. These expanded OHRV 

evaporative emissions standards are projected to deliver necessary ROG 

emissions reductions statewide by 2023, including in California’s most 

challenging regions with regard to ozone control, namely the SCAQMD and 

the SJVACPD. 

When the Board originally adopted the 2007 Amendments to the SIP, the 

Board was expected to take action on expanded evaporative emissions from 

OHRV by 2010, with implementation beginning in the 2012-2015 timeframe 

(ARB 2009). However, the rulemaking was delayed so that the emissions 

inventory could be updated. The creation of a new emissions inventory 

required staff to update emissions factors, perform usage surveys, and modify 

the fundamental assumptions associated with the inventory. To accommodate 

the inventory update, ARB adopted revisions to the rulemaking calendar for 

California’s PM2.5 SIPs on May 18, 2011. The updated calendar commits ARB 

to expanding OHRV emission standards in 2013, with implementation 

schedules to be determined during the rulemaking process. 

D. REGULATORY HISTORY OF OHRV EMISSIONS CONTROL IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. First Emissions Standards for OHRV Set in 1994 

As with light-duty vehicles, California initially led the U.S. in setting emissions 

standards for off-road mobile sources. In 1994, the Board adopted the first 

exhaust emissions standards for OHRVs, including off-road motorcycles and 

ATVs, which were previously not subject to any emissions control 

requirements. These standards established compliance dates starting with 

MY 1997 and MY 1999 for engines greater than and less than 90 cubic 

centimeters (cc) displacement, respectively. Modifications to the original 

rulemaking reclassified the scope of off-highway vehicular controls such that 

specialty vehicles, gasoline-fuel golf carts, and go-karts with less than 25 

horsepower are now subject to SORE regulations, while those producing 25 

horsepower or more are subject to LSI engine regulations. 

2. Limitations on Use of Uncontrolled OHRV in California 

In 1998, the Board approved amendments to OHRV regulations that link 

registration with compliance to exhaust emission standards, creating the 

red/green sticker program. Year-round operation is allowed only for emissioncompliant dirt bikes and ATVs. OHRVs that are not compliant with ARB 

emission standards are issued a limited use red registration sticker through the 

California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). OHRVs with red registration 

stickers can only be operated on public land in accordance with the ARB Red 

Sticker Open Riding Schedule. Although control of competition and racing 

vehicles is beyond the scope of ARB, their use is limited to operation on 

closed courses in sanctioned racing events or by adhering to rules that apply 

for red sticker vehicles. 
6 

3. Federal Regulation of Evaporative (Permeation) Emissions from OHRV 

In 2002, the U.S. EPA promulgated the first evaporative emissions standards 

for OHRVs and engines, including off-road motorcycles and ATVs. These 

standards, which took effect in 2008, control permeation losses from fuel 

tanks and hoses. The standards limit plastic fuel tank permeation to 1.5 

grams per square meter per day (g/m2

/day) and fuel system hose permeation 

at 15 g/m2/day. 

4. Harmonizing with Federal Evaporative Emissions Regulations 

In 2006, ARB amended its OHRV emissions regulations to harmonize with 

evaporative emissions standards adopted by U.S. EPA in 2002, to control 

permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. Additional revisions adopted 

in 2006 addressed the riding seasons for noncompliant vehicles, clarified 

which vehicles are subject to the OHRV regulation, and inserted into the 

regulations labeling requirements that had been previously incorporated by 

reference. 

E. NEED FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

The South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins are currently the only extreme 

nonattainment areas in the nation. The federally approved State Strategy for 

demonstrating 8-hour ozone attainment in these areas relies on the use of a mix 

of currently available technologies in combination with the development of 

advanced technologies. This regulatory proposal is based on the transfer of 

currently available technology from the on-road sector that can be cost-effectively 

scaled for use on OHRVs. 

Evaporative emissions control of OHRVs is currently limited to permeation from 

fuel tanks and hoses, which account for only a fraction of uncontrolled emissions. 

Expanding OHRV evaporative emissions control beyond their current scope is an 

essential piece of the enforceable commitments for ROG emissions reductions 

articulated in the State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy estimates that by 2023, 

the SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD will need an additional 54 tons per day (TPD) 

and 25 TPD of ROG emissions reductions, respectively, from all sources, 

including OHRVs (ARB, 2009). This regulatory proposal will provide ROG 

emission reductions of 0.6 TPD and 1 TPD for SJVAPCD and the SCAQMD 

respectively in 2023. In 2035 the reductions will be over 1.6 TPD and 3 TPD 

respectively when the regulation is 70 percent implemented. 

Due to the long vehicle life of OHRVs, the greatest reductions are expected after 

full implementation in 2042.. This regulatory proposal will deliver substantial 

longer term emissions reductions anticipated for future, more stringent air quality 

standards. 
7 

F. RATIONALE FOR CONTROLLING OHRV EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS 

Mobile sources have historically been the largest source of ROG emissions in 

California. As on-road mobile sources have become progressively cleaner, the 

role of off-road sources, as well as mobile sources under federal and international 

jurisdiction (e.g., ships, locomotives, and aircraft) has become more prominent. To 

attain the 8-hour federal AAQS for ozone, which is both more challenging and 

more protective of public health than the previous standard, it is necessary to 

incorporate expanded off-road mobile source emissions control into California’s 

State Strategy. 

Fortunately, technologies that have been successfully used for controlling 

evaporative emissions from on-road vehicles are readily available and can 

substantially reduce evaporative emissions from OHRVs. It is critical that ARB 

achieve these readily available evaporative emissions reductions from OHRVs, 

particularly given the magnitude of California’s ozone problem and the State 

Strategy’s reliance on yet-to-be developed technologies. 

Specific rationale for each proposed regulatory provision is provided in Section 

VIII, Summary and Rationale for Each Regulatory Provision. 

G. STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 

For the past six years, ARB staff have invited public participation during the 

development of the proposed regulation, test procedure, and analysis of 

underlying data. In early 2006, ARB mailed approximately 1,500 letters to dealers 

and manufacturers of OHRVs in California to invite participation in the rulemaking 

process. In March 2006, at a public workshop in El Monte, ARB introduced the 

idea of comprehensive evaporative emissions standards for OHRVs as a means 

of building on what was then the near-term effort to adopt U.S. EPA’s design 

standards for limiting permeation emissions from fuel tanks and fuel lines. 

Among key stakeholders involved in the initial workshop and ongoing discussions 

was the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), which represents all major 

manufacturers of OHRVs for California markets.[1] Since early 2006, four public 

workshops (Table I-1) and nearly forty stakeholder meetings (Table I-2) have 

been held on all aspects of the regulatory proposal (Table I-3 and Attachment E).

Table I-1: Public Workshops 

LOCATION DATE 

 

[1] “More than 300 members represent manufacturers and distributors of motorcycles, scooters, parts 

and accessories, as well as allied trades such as publishing, insurance and consultants. While dealers, 

clubs and individuals are not eligible for membership, the MIC works with these groups on issues of 

mutual interest.” (http://www.mic.org/ ) 
8 

El Monte 3/24/2006 

Sacramento 9/6/2006 

El Monte 4/20/2010 

El Monte 12/18/2012 

Table I-2: Pre-Hearing Meetings and Teleconferences 

PARTICIPANTS DATES 

MIC and OHRV 

Manufacturers 

1/14/2009, 1/15/2009, 4/7/2010, 4/29/2010, 7/21/2010, 

9/30/2010, 11/8/2010, 11/9/2010, 11/7/2011, 

3/22/2011, 4/27/2011, 8/18/2011, 9/26/2011, 3/5/2012, 

4/17/2012, 4/25/2012, 10/17/2012, 3/6/2013, 

3/25/2013, 4/4/2013, 4/12/2013 

U.S. EPA 3/14/2013 

Harley Davidson 8/26/2010, 9/27/2011, 11/7/2011, 5/4/2012,12/18/2012, 

2/25/2013, 3/14/2013 

MeadWestvaco 7/15/2009, 12/2/2009, 5/3/2011, 9/18/2012 

Honda 11/2/2010, 11/9/2010, 3/27/2013 

Evaporative Emissions 

Consulting Inc. 11/9/2009, 2/8/2010, 2/9/2010 

Standards were developed in close collaboration with stakeholders. The final form 

of the proposed emissions standard represents a general consensus reached 

between ARB and industry (Table II-3). In particular, ARB proposes to adopt the 

diurnal standard proposed by industry. 

Table I-3: Issues Raised by Industry and Stakeholders 

ISSUES STAFF RESOLUTION 

Economic conditions make 

complying with the proposed 

Delay implementation until MY 2018 and allow a 

flexible 4-year phase-in schedule. 
9 

regulation more difficult 

Make evaporative test plan aligned 

with exhaust testing to increase 

cost-effectiveness 

Allow evaporative preconditioning to be completed in 

conjunction with the mileage accumulation for 

exhaust testing, so long as the fuel system 

continuously has E10 (10% ethanol) fuel in it for a 

total of 140 days. 

High cost of vehicle testing Reduce the number of required vehicle evaporative 

tests performed in a Sealed Housing for Evaporative 

Determination (SHED). Running loss and hot soak 

testing are now preconditioning cycles to the 

measured diurnal test. 

High variable volume SHED testing 

cost 

Develop a reduced cost, 24-hour fixed volume SHED 

test with calculated vented emissions. 

Safety concerns with pressurized 

fuel tank 

Require fuel tank pressure to be released before the 

fuel tank can be opened. 

Vehicle tampering may limit 

effectiveness of this regulatory 

proposal 

Include anti-tampering requirements on all OHRVs: 

evaporative component placement, tamper resistant 

fasteners, and a vehicle tag. The vehicle tag is 

expected to increase consumer awareness of illegal 

vehicle tampering. 

Designing for the carbon canister 

integrity test is expensive 

The carbon canister integrity test is essential to an 

effective regulation. To lower the cost of complying, 

the proposed number of required SHED tests was 

reduced. Running loss and hot soak tests are now 

preparation cycles, and a 24-hour SHED test with 

calculated vented emissions is allowed as an 

alternative to the 72 hour SHED test. 

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 

A. MECHANISMS OF EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

The TOG emissions targeted by this regulatory proposal are a class of 

hydrocarbon emissions that are precursors for criteria air pollutants such as 

ozone. Hydrocarbon emissions from OHRVs constitute two general categories, 
10 

namely tailpipe exhaust emissions and evaporative emissions. The proposed 

regulation focuses exclusively on evaporative emission control. Evaporative 

hydrocarbon emissions can be further classified by the mechanism through which 

they enter the ambient air: fuel permeation through fuel system components, 

vented emissions from vapor growth in the fuel tank, vented emissions from the 

carburetor, and liquid leakage and spillage emissions. In practice, vented 

carburetor and liquid leakage emissions are often grouped together because 

routine testing cannot distinguish between the sources. 

Permeation occurs when hydrocarbon molecules diffuse through the walls of the 

fuel tank and fuel lines and is continuous whether the OHRV is in operation or in 

storage. Permeation is a function of fuel and material properties, material 

thickness, and temperature. 

Vented hydrocarbon emissions are driven by two mechanisms. First, emissions 

occur when a rise in the surface temperature of the liquid fuel causes a 

corresponding increase in the hydrocarbon vapor concentration of the head 

space. Second, emissions occur when the vapor volume increases with 

temperature, as described by the ideal gas law. Vented emissions are generated 

by engine heat and natural diurnal temperature swings. 

Carburetors can emit vented hydrocarbon emissions when heated during 

operation or immediately after the engine is shut off. The hydrocarbons that are 

lost due to venting represent the constituents of gasoline that have the highest 

partial pressures and thus evaporate most quickly. 

Liquid fuel leaks seep through loose connection points such as gaskets and fuel 

lines, as well as spillage associated with vehicular tipping. Seeping through fuel 

line connection points can occur when a connection mechanism degrades and 

does not seal properly. Seeping from gaskets is generally from the carburetor and 

occurs because of poor or degrading gasket material. Gasket seepage is 

exacerbated by vibration as well as changes in fuel level associated with changes 

in spatial orientation. Liquid fuel leaks occur during operation and storage. 

B. CHARACTERIZING EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM OHRVS 

For regulatory purposes, mechanisms of evaporative emissions delineated above 

must be subjected to specific usage modes, namely running loss, hot soak, and 

diurnal, which are defined below. As described in the proposed regulation order 

(Attachment A) and Sections III and VIII, the proposed regulation establishes 

emission standards to reduce evaporative emissions produced by OHRVs during 

permeation, venting, liquid leakage, and spillage. The evaporative emission 

testing cycle begins with a fuel system tip test to visually verify the absence of 

liquid leakage. Next, a running loss and hot soak preconditioning cycle is 

conducted to replicate vehicle operation, canister purging, and to subject the 

vehicle to a soak that occurs directly after operation. Upon completion of the 

preconditioning cycles, the diurnal test, which is designed to replicate real-world 

vehicle storage patterns, is performed and measured. The proposed emission 
11 

standards eliminate redundancy in testing and allow manufacturers flexibility to 

choose the combination of technology that works best for their application. 

The proposed diurnal standard is measured in three consecutive 24-hour 

increments over a total test time of 72 hours (Figure II-1), which assesses 

carbon canister breakthrough. The standard ensures that canisters must be 

adequately designed to control long-term diurnal storage emissions. The bottom 

half of Figure 5 shows a evaporative control system including the 

(1) fuel tank, (2) carbon canister, (3) vent line, and (4) intake manifold line. 

Figure II-1: Carbon Canister Multi-Day Diurnal Emissions 

Source: MeadWestvaco, 2013

Running Loss evaporative emissions are emitted while the OHRV is in use. For an 

uncontrolled OHRV, running loss emissions come from carburetor venting, liquid 

leakage, fuel tank venting, and to a lesser degree, permeation. Running loss 

permeation emissions are generally not significant for OHRV because the typical 

duration of engine operation for OHRVs is relatively short. 

Hot soak emissions occur immediately after a running loss event. The sources of 

hot soak emissions arise from the carburetor, leakage, venting, and permeation. 

Venting emissions tend to dominate this mode, because the hot engine transfers 

heat to the fuel tank. Carburetor and leakage emissions can also be significant. 

Permeation emissions tend to be small because the duration associated with hot 

soak emissions is short. 

Diurnal emissions occur while the OHRV is in storage. Permeation and vented 

emissions account for a substantial portion of diurnal emissions. In a poorly 

designed or aged system, carburetor and leakage emissions can also be 

significant. Note that all references to diurnal emissions in this document consist 

of both diurnal and resting loss processes as defined in Attachment C. 
12 

C. TECHNOLOGY TO CONTROL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS FROM 

MOBILE SOURCES 

A variety of technologies are available to help manufacturers meet the proposed 

emission standards. Staff anticipate that this regulatory proposal will encourage 

manufacturers will use downsized and proven on-road automobile technology for 

control of OHRV evaporative emissions. 

1. Low-Permeation Materials 

Permeation is controlled through the use of low permeation barrier layers such 

as post mold barrier treatments, co-extruded barrier layers, resin based 

additives, and/or nylon barriers added during the manufacturing process. Fuel 

tank permeation can be eliminated by using metallic materials like aluminum or 

steel. Where polyethylene resins are necessary, permeation rates can be 

mitigated through the use of post mold barrier surface treatments like 

fluorination. Fluorination exposes the fuel tank to fluorine gas which replaces 

hydrogen atoms with fluorine atoms on the tank surface. The fluorinated 

surface layer ‘blocks’ the path that hydrocarbon molecules would normally take 

through the resin, thereby reducing permeation rates. In addition to barrier 

treatments, permeation rates can be reduced using co-extruded barrier layers 

such as ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH). Co-extruded tanks using an EVOH 

barrier generally consist of six layers, with the EVOH layer sandwiched 

between layers of adhesive and High Density PolyEthylene ,HDPE 

(see Figure II-2). In the case of monolayer applications, a special additive 

called DuPont Selar RB® can be blended with certain polyethylenes during the 

blow molding process. Selar RB® results in a laminar that produces 

overlapping layers within the tank wall. The overlapping layers create a 

“tortuous path” that impedes the permeation of gasoline. For fuel tank 

production processes involving rotational molding, the introduction of nylons 

offer low permeation rates due to its crystalline structure. 
13 

Figure II-2: Co-Extruded Fuel Tank Barrier Layers 

Source: Agri Industrial Plastics, 2013 

In addition to fuel tanks, low-permeation control strategies can be applied to 

fuel lines. Aside from running rigid non-permeable metal lines, there are 

several flexible fuel hoses (many contain a fluoroplastic permeation barrier) 

commercially available for OHRVs. Many of the hoses are capable of meeting 

the proposed 5 g/m2/day design-based small volume design standard. 

2. Activated Carbon Canisters 

Vented emissions can be controlled by using an activated carbon canister to 

trap hydrocarbon molecules that are forced out of the fuel tank vent line 

(see Figure II-1). Two mechanisms are available to prevent the carbon 

canister from reaching its saturation point and “overflowing” into the ambient 

air. First, passive purging occurs when hydrocarbons are pulled back into the 

tank head space during the contraction associated with diurnal cooling. When 

properly designed, a passively purged carbon canister can be as much as 65 

percent efficient at preventing vented hydrocarbons from being emitted to the 

ambient air. The second mechanism for unloading a carbon canister is to use 

intake manifold vacuum to pull hydrocarbons from the canister into the engine, 

where they are combusted. OHRVs often spend long periods of time in 

storage between uses. During these storage periods, the carbon canister is 

only passively purged because active purging using intake manifold vacuum 

requires the vehicle to be in operation. In practice, this places an upper limit on 

control of diurnal emissions from OHRVs. 

3. Pressure Relief Valves 

Vented emissions can also be controlled by a pressure relief valve on the vent 

of the fuel tank. The valve holds pressure on the fuel and prevents vapors from 

escaping below a predetermined pressure. 
14 

4. Strategic Placement or Insulation of Fuel Tank 

Another means by which to minimize vented emissions is to locate or insulate 

the fuel tank so that the head space and fuel inside the tank are not affected 

by large temperature increases due to engine heat or ambient temperature. 

5. Connectors, Improved Carburetors, and Fuel Injection 

Carburetor and leakage emissions are each controlled in different ways. 

Leakage emissions are controlled by using better fuel line connectors such as 

constant tension spring clamps on properly sized hose barbs or O-ring snap 

connections. Carburetor emissions can be controlled by re-designing the 

carburetor to eliminate gaskets that could be exposed to fuel, improving the 

gasket material, or using fuel injection instead of a carburetor. Fuel injection is 

extremely effective at controlling both leakage and carburetor emissions 

because the higher pressure in the fuel line renders use of proper connections 

imperative for safety and because the closed nature of the fuel system 

eliminates carburetor emissions. Fuel injection also eliminates carburetor 

leakage due to a tipped OHRV. 

D. TEST RESULTS FOR UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED OHRV 

EQUIPMENT 

To verify the effectiveness of using proven automotive technology on OHRVs, 

ARB conducted extensive testing of a popular off-road motorcycle and an ATV for 

baseline emissions as well as emissions with evaporative control technology 

(Figure II-3 and Figure II-4). Both OHRVs were tested over the running loss, hot 

soak, and diurnal emissions modes. The controlled and uncontrolled evaporative 

emissions OHRV test results are summarized in 
15 

Table II-1 in grams (g) of Total Organic Gas (TOG). 

Figure II-3: ATV SHED Testing in El Monte 

Figure II-4: Off-Road Motorcycle SHED Testing in El Monte
16 

Table II-1: Summary of Results from the OHRV SHED Tests 

Emission 

Control 

Status 

Test 

Run 

ID 

ATV 

(g TOG) 

Off-Road Motorcycle 

(g TOG) 

Running 

Loss 

(g)* 

Hot Soak 

(g)** 

Diurnal 

(g)*** 

Running 

Loss 

(g)* 

Hot 

Soak 

(g)** 

Diurnal 

(g)*** 

Uncontrolled 

1 11.649 1.632 5.603 9.802 6.712 20.264 

2 11.511 2.233 5.643 10.342 5.705 17.735 

3 4.211 0.988 5.956 8.366 4.782 19.507 

Uncontrolled Average 

(g): 9.124 1.618 5.734 9.503 5.733 19.169 

Controlled 

1 0.178 0.363 1.242 0.111 0.552 0.761 

2 0.097 0.268 1.093 0.129 0.712 0.968 

3 0.126 0.377 1.222 0.146 0.667 0.876 

Controlled Average (g): 0.134 0.336 1.186 0.129 0.644 0.868 

Percent Reduction: 98.53% 79.23% 79.32% 98.64% 88.77% 95.47% 

*23 minute test at 95°F 

**1.5 hour test conducted at 95°F 

***Diurnal temperature range was 72-96-72°F per 24-hour period

The data demonstrate that by fitting an OHRV with proven evaporative emissions 

control technology, already being used in the automotive sector, such as a carbon 

canister, low-permeation fuel systems, and fuel injection, evaporative emissions 

can be reduced significantly for all usage modes. 

E. RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS 

The proposed standards were defined based on the test results in Section D 

above where existing OHRVs were retrofitted with currently available evaporative 

emissions control technology. The standards reflect an emphasis on diurnal 

emissions control for two reasons. First, OHRV activity patterns include large 

periods of time when they are not operated, such that diurnal emissions contribute 

more than running loss and hot soak emissions. Secondly, the locations of diurnal 

emissions are concentrated where OHRVs are stored, in contrast to hot soak and 

running loss emissions, which occur where they are operated. Since OHRVs 

registered in California tend to be stored in urban areas with greater air pollution 

control issues than the rural areas where they are operated, diurnal emissions 
contr

evap

by fa

OHR

stora

vehic

the r

Calif

inven

Fig

Etha

was 

diurn

emis

perfo

redu

Figur

an O

perio

on a 

rol is even m

porative em

ar the larges

RV in Califo

age periods

cle operatio

emaining 1

fornia. The 

ntory data c

gure II-5: B

nol is majo

chosen as 

nal standard

ssions testin

orm the run

ce evapora

re II-6 show

OHRV over 

od between

3-day diurn

more critica

issions by 

st fraction (

rnia. This is

s for this typ

ons, namely

8% of evap

data used t

contained in

Breakdown

r compone

opposed to

d is very eff

ng data. Th

ning loss a

ative testing

ws controlle

seven days

 weekend u

nal effective

Figure IIDiurna

82%

al. Figure II

usage mod

(82%) of ev

s due large

pe of equipm

y from runn

porative em

to generate

n Attachme

n of Califor

nt of Califo

o ROG, whi

fective at co

e stringent 

and hot soa

g costs (see

ed and unco

s. The 7-da

uses. The c

ely controls

-6: 7-Day D

al, 

17 

-5 shows th

de. As show

vaporative e

ly to the rel

ment. Evap

ing loss an

missions fro

e the graph 

ent C. 

rnia OHRV 

rnia pump f

ich exclude

ontrolling e

diurnal sta

k tests as p

e Attachme

ontrolled diu

ay test lengt

controlled d

s long-term 

Diurnal Em

Hot Soak,

5%

he breakdo

wn, diurnal p

emissions f

latively low 

porative em

nd hot soak 

m the curre

is based o

Emissions

fuel so a st

es ethanol. 

emissions a

andard allow

preparation 

nt D). 

urnal evapo

th is repres

data shows 

storage em

mission Tes

, Runn

Loss, 

own of Calif

processes 

from curren

w usage and

missions ass

processes

ent fleet of O

n the emiss

s by Usage

tandard bas

The 1 g TO

nd is suppo

ws manufac

 cycles to f

orative emi

sentative of 

that a stan

missions. 

st Results 

ning 

13%

fornia OHRV

account for

tly operated

d long 

sociated wit

s, account fo

OHRV in 

sions 

e Mode 

sed on TOG

OG/day 

orted by 

cturers to 

further 

ssions from

an average

ndard based

V

r

d

th 

or 

G

m

e

d
18 

for a Controlled and Uncontrolled OHRV

F. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS INCORPORATED INTO PROPOSED 

REGULATION 

Based on experience with the same technology for on-road vehicles, the 

technology that manufacturers are likely to use has been demonstrated to be 

safe. In general, control technology will make OHRVs safer by limiting 

opportunities for escaped liquid fuel to cause fires. Pressurized fuel systems are a 

notable exception to enhanced safety associated with evaporative emissions 

controls. To address concerns raised by pressurized fuel systems, the proposed 

regulation requires that any pressure built up in the fuel system be slowly released 

before the fuel cap can be removed. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

012345678

Total Mass (grams TOG)

Time (days)

Uncontrolled OHRV

Controlled ATV
19 

III. RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION 

A. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION 

The recommended Board Action will achieve cost-effective emissions reductions 

of ROG (as described in Section VII) through comprehensive evaporative 

emissions standards that allow flexibility in the certification protocol and ensure 

the durability of control technology throughout a vehicle’s useful life. This section 

describes key components of the recommended Board Action, as well as 

alternatives considered. 

1. Comprehensive Evaporative Emissions Standards for OHRVs 

This rulemaking proposes comprehensive control of evaporative emissions 

from OHRVs. This category of vehicles is currently subject to federal 

evaporative permeation standards as well as ARB exhaust standards that 

were originally adopted in 1994 and most recently amended in 2006. This 

rulemaking expands the current federal evaporative permeation standards, 

which are of limited scope, to include emission standards that apply to all 

evaporative emissions from OHRVs. Specifically, the proposed rulemaking 

sets diurnal emission standards. 

2. Independent Emission Standards for Evaporative and Exhaust Emissions 

The proposed evaporative emission standards are handled separately from 

the current, primarily exhaust-oriented, OHRV emissions regulation. Currently, 

OHRVs that do not meet exhaust standards and are issued a red registration 

sticker. The benefit of separate regulations is that the red sticker OHRVs will 

be required to meet evaporative standards, therefore providing a substantial 

reduction in ROG emissions from this class of vehicles. Furthermore, this 

rulemaking is written to avoid any duplicative requirements between the 

current exhaust and proposed evaporative emissions regulations in labeling, 

testing, and certification. 

3. Flexibility for Certification 

This proposal accommodates diversity in vehicle type and testing capabilities 

within the regulated community by offering multiple certification options. 

Manufacturers may certify OHRVs by meeting a stringent 1 g TOG/day diurnal 

standard, proposed by industry stakeholders. Manufacturers can demonstrate 

evaporative family compliance by following the test procedures associated with 

the 72-hour diurnal standard or the steady state diurnal standard. The 

standards associated with this rulemaking are described in detail in Table 1 of 

proposed Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2418 (a)(1). 

Manufacturers that produce less than 50 OHRVs per model year, for three 

consecutive MYs, are eligible to certify to the small volume evaporative 

emission design standard proposed in Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2418(b). The 

small volume manufacturers may apply for a design-based certification that 

does not require a whole-vehicle SHED test. 
20 

The use of advanced fuel system technology is encouraged by allowing 

manufacturers to generate emissions credits from certification using diurnal 

test results that are lower than emission standards, or zero-emission vehicles. 

OHRV manufacturers may use earned credits to produce evaporative families 

above the diurnal standard; however, no single evaporative family may exceed 

three times the proposed diurnal standard (upper limit). The upper limit of 

three times the standard was reached through negotiation with stakeholders 

after considering their need for flexibility to minimize the cost impact of the 

regulatory proposal and ARB’s need for emissions reductions. Placing an 

upper limit on evaporative family certification values, or the evaporative family 

emissions limit, EFEL, is needed because of the relatively long lifetime 

associated with OHRVs. The advanced fuel system credit program is designed 

to encourage the production of zero-emission vehicles, therefore increasing 

the availability of this technology in the off-road market. 

4. Incorporation of New Test Procedure 

A new test procedure, TP-933 (Attachment B), is incorporated into this 

regulatory proposal to determine OHRV evaporative emissions. TP-933 is the 

result of years of collaboration between ARB and industry to develop a testing 

sequence that mimics emissions that occur during real-world use. 

5. Durability Requirements to Ensure In-Use Control 

Both the test procedure and regulation emphasize verifying the durability of 

control technology. The test procedure subjects the vehicle to conditions that 

mimic what the components would endure throughout the useful life of the 

OHRV. These conditions include exposure to vibration, dust, and ultraviolet 

radiation. The proposed regulation includes a warranty period of 30 months for 

components with repair costs under $200 (adjusted for inflation) and 60 

months for more expensive components. Following the precedent set by 

regulations in the light-duty motor vehicle sector, replacement costs are 

established based on dealers’ list prices as well as standard labor price and 

time limits for warrantied components. Further durability provisions include the 

requirement that OHRVs have tamper-resistant emission control components 

and careful placement to help reduce emission control component tampering 

by the end user. 

B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED 

During the development of this regulatory proposal, three other proposals, 

including no action, were considered as alternatives to the proposed package. 

These alternatives are described below along with the rationale for staff’s rejection 

of them. 

1. No Action 

Were the Board to abstain from adoption of more comprehensive OHRV 

evaporative regulations, the only evaporative emissions regulation for OHRVs 

would be the permeation design standards promulgated by U.S. EPA. 
21 

Although this course of action (inaction) would incur no additional cost to 

OHRV manufacturers, it would default on the State’s 2007 SIP commitment to 

comprehensively address OHRV evaporative emissions. Moreover, to meet 

2007 SIP commitments for specific reductions in ROG by specific dates, the 

ROG shortfall associated with not taking action on OHRV evaporative 

emissions would need to be made up in other areas. Proven ROG controls, 

such as those established in the light-duty motor vehicle sector are ready for 

transfer to OHRVs and do not exist for all other ROG sources. 

2. Removal of the Tip Test from the Current Proposal 

The durability tip test is important because carbon canisters are permanently 

damaged if exposed to liquid fuel when tipped during regular OHRV operation. 

Thus, to ensure that expected emissions reductions are achieved under realworld conditions, the tip test demands that canisters have minimal exposure to 

liquid fuel when tipped. 

If the tip test were removed from the proposed rulemaking, it is expected that 

carbon canisters on OHRVs would not control emissions throughout their 

useful life. An OHRV usage survey suggests that off-road motorcycles are 

typically tipped at least once during each day of use. Without proper design, 

verified through the performance of a tip test, fuel would be repeatedly 

introduced into the carbon canister, causing virtually all off-road motorcycles to 

fail the emissions standard within months of being sold. 

Although canister damage from liquid fuel could be found during enforcement of 

in-use emission standards, the inclusion of a tip test in the certification process 

pre-empts a situation wherein a population of poorly designed OHRVs could be 

introduced into the California market, creating an enforcement burden, 

demanding re-design to address in-use compliance, and ultimately sacrificing 

emissions reductions. In other words, OHRVs that satisfy in-use compliance 

requirements will also satisfy the tip test. Hence, this test is not deemed to add 

additional burden and is retained in the regulatory proposal. 

The solution to the carbon canister contamination issue is a roll-over valve similar 

to the one shown in Figure III-1. In the event of a vehicle roll-over, the valve is 

designed to prevent fuel leakage. The cost of a roll-over valve is approximately 5 

dollars and in some cases may require tank modification; many on-road 

motorcycles already use them. 
22 

Figure III-1: Fuel Tank Roll-Over Valve

3. Propose Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use 

An earlier regulatory proposal required emissions from each OHRV usage 

mode, defined as running loss, hot soak, and diurnal, to be measured in a 

SHED enclosure. During regulatory development, stakeholders proposed a 1 g 

TOG/day diurnal standard. Their proposal requires use of sufficiently 

advanced technology so as to render hot soak and running loss evaporative 

emissions standards redundant. The current proposal removes the running 

loss and hot soak requirements and focuses on the major emissions source 

from this category, which is diurnal emissions (Attachment C). 

The dominance of diurnal emissions reflects the fact that OHRVs are typically 

stored for long periods of time between uses. Moreover, OHRVs are often 

stored in urban areas that are non-compliant with regard to AAQSs for ozone, 

but are typically operated in rural areas, which have less severe air quality 

problems. Accordingly, it is more critical from an air quality perspective to 

control diurnal emissions. 

The proposed standards offer sought-after flexibility to manufacturers while 

focusing on the dominant emissions mode. Relative to running loss and hot 

soak emissions, the diurnal emissions reductions achieved with this regulatory 

proposal are obtained in those parts of the State with the most significant air 

quality issues. 

IV. AIR QUALITY BENEFITS 

The primary air quality benefit associated with the regulatory proposal is the 

curtailment of ambient ozone through emissions reductions of ROG, a family of 

ozone precursors. Quantification of these benefits is supported by extensive 

emissions inventory modeling (Attachment C). The modeling reflects an updated 

population and vehicle life of OHRVs based on DMV registration data (DMV 2010), 

updated activity factors derived from a California-based OHRV user survey, 

technology trends such as the shift from carburetor to fuel injection delivery systems, 
23 

and empirical evaporative emissions factors adjusted for a variety of influences such 

as garage temperature and spatial allocation. 

Evaporative emissions reductions associated with this regulatory proposal are 

modeled based on the emissions inventory methodology described in Attachment C. 

The OHRV emissions inventory includes exhaust emissions and categories of 

vehicles, specifically snowmobiles and gasoline-fueled golf carts that are not subject 

to the proposed regulation. All material relating to these categories have been 

excluded in the calculation of emissions reductions associated with this regulatory 

proposal, unless otherwise noted. Projected ROG emissions reductions associated 

with the proposed regulation are presented below. Although climate change 

considerations are beyond the scope of the OHRV emissions inventory model, a brief 

discussion of the direction of climate change impact associated with this regulatory 

proposal is also included. Also provided is a brief discussion of the co-benefits 

associated with reduced exposure to air toxics, specifically benzene in confined 

garage spaces. 

A. ROG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS IN SUPPORT OF OZONE ABATEMENT 

Ozone is the criteria pollutant that motivates this regulatory proposal, which will 

yield substantial emissions reductions of ROG. These emissions reductions help 

fulfill commitments associated with the 2007 SIP and are necessary to meet the 8-

hour ozone standard in California’s two extreme non-attainment areas, namely the 

air basins for SJVAPCD and SCAQMD. ROG emissions reductions associated 

with the proposed regulation are also necessary, in whole or in part, for attainment 

of the 8-hour federal ozone standard for Ventura, Sacramento, and other areas 

downwind of major urban centers. 

This regulatory proposal is expected to yield substantial statewide and select 

regional summertime ROG emissions reductions as shown in Table IV-1, which 

presents expected emissions reductions in key attainment years identified in the 

2007 SIP as well as in the year 2035. Due to an OHRV’s longer-than-expected 

lifetime, benefits from this regulation accrue further into the future than time 

horizons planned for in the 2007 SIP. Table IV-1 shows that the expected 

statewide emission reductions from the baseline summertime evaporative ROG 

emissions from OHRVs to be 10.7 percent in 2020, 25.8 percent in 2023, and 

65.5 percent in 2035, when the fleet is 70 percent controlled. This degree of 

control will significantly reduce the overall ROG emissions from OHRV as 

evaporative emissions account for approximately three-quarters of the ROG 

emissions from the current fleet of vehicles. 

Table IV-1: Summertime Evaporative ROG Reductions Expected from the Regulatory 

Proposal in TPD, for Key Attainment Years and Regions in California. 
24 

2020 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction 

Statewide 12.50 11.16 1.34 10.7% 

SJVAPCD 2.03 1.81 0.22 10.8% 

SCAQMD 3.86 3.48 0.38 9.8% 

 

2023 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction 

Statewide 13.00 9.65 3.35 25.8% 

SJVAPCD 2.12 1.57 0.55 25.9% 

SCAQMD 4.02 3.05 0.97 24.1% 

2035 Baseline Proposed Rule Benefit Reduction 

Statewide 15.12 5.21 9.91 65.5% 

SJVAPCD 2.46 0.85 1.61 65.4% 

SCAQMD 4.70 1.71 2.99 63.6% 

The magnitude in TPD of emissions reductions is less than those envisioned 

based on the 2007 inventory estimates. The lower emissions reduction estimate is 

due to the fact that the inventory of ROG emissions from this category is, in part 

due to the 2008 economic recession, less than anticipated. Thus, while the 

degree of control of this category is as strong as originally envisioned, the size of 

the problem, and thus the aggregate benefit associated with control, is somewhat 

less. 

B. CLIMATE CHANGE CONSIDERATIONS 

Although the focus of the proposed diurnal emission standard is a criteria air 

pollutant (ROG), this standard is also expected to have a slight benefit in reducing 

emissions of climate change pollutants in California. 

1. Reduced Fuel Consumption 

Evaporative emissions account for a small fraction of the fuel consumed by 

OHRVs. The decrease in OHRV evaporative emissions associated with the 
25 

regulatory proposal will reduce OHRV fuel consumption by over two percent, 

and thus greenhouse gas emissions, by a small amount. 

A more substantial effect that would reduce climate change emissions could 

result from reduced in-use fuel consumption associated with technology 

shifting. One means by which manufacturers are expected to comply with the 

proposed regulation is through shifting from carburetor to fuel injection 

technology. Since fuel injection engines tend to be substantially more fuelefficient, the shift away from carburetor technology could yield substantial 

benefits in terms of reduced fuel consumption and therefore emissions of 

carbon dioxide. 

2. Indirect Warming Impacts 

This regulatory proposal is also expected to exert small, indirect climate 

change impacts through its effects on the burden of climate forcing pollutants 

in the atmosphere. Since ROG emitted into the atmosphere is oxidized within 

a relatively short timeframe, it exerts substantial climate impacts through its 

effects on atmospheric chemistry (Collins et al., 2002). These indirect impacts 

are mediated through changes in the concentrations of tropospheric methane, 

CH4, and tropospheric ozone, O3. For example, curtailment of tropospheric 

ozone associated with ROG emissions reductions is a climate benefit, since 

tropospheric ozone is currently associated with radiative forcing of 

approximately 0.39 Watts per square meter, W/m2 (Shindell et al., 2005). 

Similarly, ROG perturbs atmospheric chemistry such that methane has a 

longer atmospheric lifetime. Since methane is the second most-important of 

the relatively long-lived greenhouse gases tabulated by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (2007) in terms of radiative forcing, averting ROG 

emissions and the associated impacts on methane’s atmospheric lifetime 

constitute a climate benefit. 

C. REDUCTION OF EXPOSURE TO TOXIC EMISSIONS 

One of the expected co-benefits of the proposed regulation is reduced exposure 

to toxic air pollutants, specifically benzene, which makes up about 1 percent of 

current blends of gasoline. More than 80 percent of the evaporative emissions 

from the current fleet of OHRVs in California are produced during diurnal 

processes, or more specifically when these OHRVs are stored, oftentimes in 

enclosed garages for periods of a week or more. During these extended storage 

events, gasoline vapors, including benzene, can build up significantly. The 

concentration of benzene in a garage is dependent on the air exchange rate of the 

garage and the emission rate. The concentration of benzene in a garage can be 

over two orders of magnitude higher than the ambient level with the garage door 

closed. These elevated benzene levels may pose a health risk to individuals in the 

garage or to residents of homes with attached garages. OHRVs equipped with 

evaporative controls compliant with the proposed emission standards, will reduce 

not only total TOG emissions, but also benzene, significantly. 
26 

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides an environmental analysis for the proposed adoption of 

evaporative emission control requirements for OHRVs. Staff has determined that 

implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in any potentially 

significant adverse impacts on the environment. This analysis provides the basis 

for reaching this conclusion. This section of the ISOR also discusses 

environmental benefits expected from implementing the proposed regulation. 

B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 

ARB is the lead agency for this regulatory proposal and has prepared this 

environmental analysis pursuant to its regulatory program certified by the 

Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15251(d); 

Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60005-60007). In accordance with Public Resources 

Code Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), public 

agencies with certified regulatory programs are exempt from the requirements for 

preparing environmental impact reports, negative declarations, and initial studies 

(Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15250). As required by ARB’s certified regulatory 

program, and the policy and substantive requirements of CEQA, ARB has 

prepared as part of this ISOR, an assessment of the potential for significant 

adverse and beneficial environmental impacts associated with the proposed 

regulation and a succinct analysis of those impacts (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, 

§ 60005(b)). The resource areas from the CEQA Guidelines Environmental 

Checklist were used as a framework for assessing the potential for significant 

impacts (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 60005(b)). 

If comments received during the public review period raise significant 

environmental issues, staff will summarize and respond to the comments in 

writing. The written responses will be included in the Final Statement of Reasons 

for the regulation. Prior to taking final action on any proposed action for which 

significant environmental issues have been raised, the decision maker shall 

approve the written responses to these issues (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 

60007(a)). If the proposed regulation is adopted, a Notice of Decision will be 

posted on ARB’s website and filed with the Secretary of the Natural Resources 

Agency for public inspection (Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, §60007(b)).

C. PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In 1994, the Board adopted the first exhaust emissions standards for OHRVs, 

including off-road motorcycles and ATVs, which were previously not subject to 

any emissions control requirements. The regulation adopted in 1994, as well as 

several Board approved revisions, are discussed in Section I (D) of this ISOR. 

The Staff Reports for the original exhaust regulation and its subsequent revisions 

adopted by the Board identified the potential for a slight increase in NOx, due to 

leaner calibrations and a shift from two-stroke to four-stroke technology, which 

was determined to be insignificant. They also identified potential for a small 
27 

increases in toxics, ambient particulate matter (PM) and emissions in attainment 

areas, which were determined to be unavoidable, but less than significant. The 

previous Staff Reports identified no other adverse environmental impacts. 

In 2006, the Board adopted amendments to the OHRV regulation which included 

harmonizing with evaporative emissions standards adopted by U.S. EPA in 2002. 

The staff report identified air quality benefits due to the reduction of evaporative 

emission. The evaporative emissions standards identified no adverse 

environmental. 

D. PROPOSED REGULATION 

1. Description 

The proposed regulatory provisions are described in detail in Section III (A) of 

this Staff Report. Briefly, the regulatory proposal includes the following: 

 Expands control of evaporative emissions from OHRVs to include a 

stringent diurnal standard as well as a “tip test” to address potential fuel 

spillage on all vehicle modes; 

 Provisions for certification, labeling requirements, enforcement, recall, and 

use restrictions; 

 A flexible 4-year phase-in period (MY 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021) where 

the manufacturer must show that 75 percent of their new sales are 

certified for those years; and 

 A new test procedure to determine evaporative emissions from OHRVs 

(TP-933). 

2. Methods of Compliance 

The proposed regulation introduces OHRV evaporative emission standards to 

control diurnal and spillage emissions. A variety of technologies are available 

to help manufacturers meet the proposed amended standards. Staff 

anticipates that manufacturers will use downsized, proven on-road automobile 

technology to reduce emissions from OHRVs. A detailed description of the 

available technologies to meet each proposed emission standard is included in 

Section II of this Staff Report. 

This regulatory proposal accommodates diversity in vehicle type and testing 

capabilities within the regulated community by offering two diurnal testing 

options, and a small volume manufacturer design based standard. Additional 

flexibility is granted by allowing manufacturers to certify using advanced fuel 

system credits. Manufacturers may produce OHRVs both above and below 

diurnal emission standards so long as no single evaporative family exceeds 

three times the diurnal standard; provided that all yearly fleet credits and 

debits are equal to or below zero at the end of each model year. Corporate 

fleet averaging can encourage manufacturers to produce more zero-emission 

OHRVs and thus increase available zero-emission technology. 
28 

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

1. Beneficial Impacts 

The proposed regulatory provisions would curtail ROG emissions released into 

the atmosphere, resulting in improved air quality that will help California meet 

the federal 8-hour air quality standard for ozone. Additionally, the proposed 

regulation would result in reduced exposure to benzene, a toxic air 

contaminant. Due to reduced fuel consumption as well as ROG emissions 

reductions, climate co-benefits are also anticipated. These air quality benefits 

are detailed in Section IV. 

2. Resource Areas with No Impacts 

Based on ARB’s review of the regulatory proposal, staff concludes that the 

regulatory proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the 

environment. Compliance with the proposed regulatory provisions would not 

result in any physical change to the existing environment. The proposed 

regulatory provisions will reduce evaporative emissions from OHRVs by 

setting emission standards that are easily met by incorporating currently 

available technologies during vehicle construction. Thus, the regulatory 

proposal would not involve or result in any physical changes to the existing 

environment, such as new development, modifications to existing buildings or 

facilities, or new land use designations. ARB staff finds that it is not reasonably 

foreseeable that there will be any adverse impacts on aesthetics, air quality, 

agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, 

geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, hydrology and 

water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and 

housing, public services, recreation, or traffic and transportation. The proposed 

regulatory provisions would not require any action by regulated parties that 

could affect these resources. 

No discussion of alternatives or mitigation measures to address significant 

adverse environmental impacts is necessary because no significant adverse 

environmental impacts would result from implementation of the regulatory 

proposal. This is because the regulatory provisions merely propose emission 

standards to reduce diurnal and spillage emissions from OHRVs, which would 

be easily accomplished by using already existing technologies. 

 
29 

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

California Government Code (Section 65040.12(e)) defines environmental justice as 

the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the 

development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. ARB is committed to supporting the achievement of 

environmental justice. In 2001, the Board adopted a framework for incorporating 

environmental justice into the ARB's programs consistent with the directives of State 

law (ARB, 2001). Although ARB’s environmental justice policies apply to all 

communities in California, they recognize that environmental justice issues have 

been raised more often in the context of low-income and minority communities. 

As a result of ARB’s work with the public, the business sector, local government, and 

air districts, California’s ambient air is the cleanest since air quality measurements 

have been recorded (ARB, 2013a). Whereas the Los Angeles Air Basin experienced 

148 smog alerts in 1970, by the year 2000, there was not a single smog alert 

(ARB, 2013b). However, large numbers of Californians live in areas that continue to 

experience episodes of unhealthy concentrations of ozone and PM2.5. 

The proposed rulemaking was designed to achieve ROG emissions reductions in 

support of attainment of the federal 8-hour ozone standard. In particular, the proposed 

rulemaking supports attainment in the only two areas nationwide whose nonattainment 

status has been classified as “extreme,” namely the SJVAPCD and SCAQMD. Both 

areas have strong environmental justice groups that have lobbied ARB to take 

aggressive action in pursuit of ozone attainment to ease air quality-related health 

burdens on their communities. The air quality impacts of this regulatory proposal 

promote environmental justice by improving California’s air quality is areas that are 

simultaneously the most adversely affected with respect to ground level ozone and 

home to many minority and low-income groups. 

 
30 

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

This section analyzes the economic impacts of the regulatory proposal on OHRV 

manufacturers inside and outside California, individual consumers, and local and 

state government agencies. At present, there are no major OHRV manufacturers 

affected by this regulation headquartered in California, therefore all discussions of 

manufacturer cost in this section is related to facilities located outside of the State. 

The estimated cost to comply with this regulatory proposal is based on self-reported 

industry estimates. The increased cost for OHRVs is from higher manufacturing and 

certification costs, which are expressed both as incremental costs per vehicle and in 

fixed costs per evaporative family. Large volume manufacturers, which account for 

nearly 86 percent of California’s annual OHRV sales (see Attachment D), can spread 

the evaporative control implementation costs across many OHRVs to cost-effectively, 

comply with this regulatory proposal. 

A potential outcome of this regulatory proposal is that OHRV models with low sales 

volumes may be adversely impacted, resulting in a disproportionate price increase for 

their model offerings or decreased model availability in California. To mitigate this, a 

small volume evaporative emission design standard is proposed in the regulation, to 

provide further flexibility for manufacturers that produce fewer than 50 new OHRVs 

per MY. Consumers will have similar types of OHRVs available. However, they may 

have fewer options within a given OHRV class if manufacturers are unable to 

consolidate low volume models into higher volume evaporative families. In a situation 

where a specialized OHRV is no longer available, a consumer could have a custom 

OHRV built using the small volume design standard. 

Despite the current reduction in OHRV sales due to the state of the economy, 

projected OHRV sales are expected to move towards pre-recession levels before MY 

2018 (see Attachment C). Over the longer term, OHRV sales are expected to 

rebound as the economy continues to improve and disposable income increases. 

Staff remained sensitive to this topic by working closely with industry to develop a 

regulatory proposal with cost-effective evaporative emission reductions. The average 

cost to comply with this regulatory proposal ranges from $216 to $465 per OHRV, or 

a 4 to 9 percent increase (based on an OHRV costing $5,000), across all OHRV 

evaporative families. All the cost data used to calculate the cost of this regulation was 

self-reported by industry. Over time the cost of compliance is expected to decline as 

manufacturers develop more innovative solutions to meet the evaporative emission 

standards, and as scaled down evaporative components are more widely produced. 

Additionally, staff has developed the proposed regulations and test procedures with 

support from major manufacturers that produce vehicles for the on-road motorcycle 

industry. Future implementation of similar requirements for on-road motorcycles 

would further reduce the cost of compliance for OHRV manufacturers. 

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 

Section 11346.3 of the California Government Code requires State agencies to 

assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business 

enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative 
31 

regulation. The assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of the 

regulatory proposal on California jobs; business expansion, elimination or 

creation; and the ability of California business to compete with business in other 

states. 

State agencies are also required to estimate the cost or savings to any State or 

local agency and school district in accordance with instructions adopted by the 

Department of Finance. The estimate is to include any non-discretionary cost or 

savings to the local agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the 

State. 

The determinations made by the Board’s Executive Officer concerning the costs 

or savings necessarily incurred by public agencies and private persons and 

businesses to comply with the proposed regulatory action are presented in the 

following sections. 

B. ESTIMATED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION 

The proposed rulemaking reflects several years of active collaboration between 

ARB staff and industry stakeholders to collectively agree upon proposed 

emissions standards that maximize emission reductions while avoiding 

unnecessary costs. On January 22, 2013, a cost survey was sent out to 

manufacturers to determine the incremental and fixed costs associated with 

implementation of the regulatory proposal. Staff received responses from four 

OHRV manufacturers representing approximately 50 percent of the total California 

market share. The respondents represented large and small manufacturers. After 

careful review and clarification of cost data and responses, staff omitted data for 

eight of the OHRV evaporative families received because projected sales and 

manufacturer information was not included. Based on survey responses, staff 

sought to reduce the cost of compliance by streamlining certification testing. Hot 

soak and running loss standards were removed from the proposal. The test 

procedure was revised to require running loss and hot soak events as preparation 

cycles. In spite of the procedural change, the emissions reductions remained the 

same but the certification costs were reduced. A second survey was sent out on 

April 18, 2013, to update vehicle cost information. Only one response was 

received from industry, and was used to replace the manufacturer’s previous cost 

numbers. All the costs used to calculate costs for the regulatory proposal are 

industry supplied and self-reported. The cost associated with the warranty 

requirement of this regulatory proposal are estimated to be small as discussed in 

attachment D. Data from the surveys were used to generate cost values used in 

this document (see Attachment D). 

The total incremental and fixed costs per evaporative family are used to 

summarize the total additional OHRV cost per vehicle, as shown in Figure VII-1. 
The w

evap

estim

recei

Figu

Figu

base

famil

wide range

porative fam

mate”, “low 

ived from m

ure VII-1: S

ure VII-2 sh

ed on the re

ly cost decr

Figure

e of this data

milies with v

estimate”, a

manufacture

Summary o

ows a sum

esults of AR

reases as p

e VII-2 Sum

a is explain

very few OH

and “averag

ers for each

of OHRV Co

mary of OH

RB’s cost su

projected sa

mmary of C

32 

ned by the h

HRV sales i

ge estimate

h evaporativ

ost per Ve

HRV cost pe

urvey. The g

ales increas

Cost-Effect

high cost of

in California

e” are base

ve family. 

hicle per E

er pound pe

graph show

se. 

tiveness p

f complianc

a per year. 

ed on the co

Evaporativ

er evaporat

ws that the 

per Vehicle

ce for 

The “high 

ost numbers

ve Family 

tive family 

evaporative

e

s

e
The t

D, ra

of the

whic

prop

moto

per p

by th

the y

total cost o

anges from 

e regulatory

h falls withi

osal is lowe

orcycle exha

pound of th

he Board. H

year of adop

f the regula

$90 million

y proposal 

in the range

er than the 

aust regula

is regulator

Historic cost

ption. 

ation, based

n to $215 m

in terms of 

e of previou

inflation ad

ation adopte

ry proposal

t-effectivene

33 

d on the me

illion over 2

ROG emis

us regulatio

djusted cost

ed in 1998. 

to the cost

ess values 

ethodology 

21 years. T

ssions redu

ons. The co

t of 8.01 $/l

 Figure VII

t from other

are adjuste

detailed in

The cost-eff

ctions is $6

ost-effective

lb. for the o

-3 compare

r regulation

ed to 2013 

Attachmen

fectiveness

6.93/lb., 

eness of this

on-road 

es the cost 

ns adopted 

dollars from

nt 

s
Figu

The 

techn

fixed

four 

2018

Manu

their 

and a

C. P

E

E

1

S

C

m

p

m

p

p

st

st

s

ure VII-3: O

cost of com

nology com

d costs such

years of im

8, 75 percen

ufacturers a

needs, so 

all evapora

POTENTIAL

EMPLOYME

EXPANSION

. Potential

Staff verified

California, a

manufacture

opulation c

manufacture

urchase AR

romulgated

torage syst

tandards. G

and car ma

OHRV Cost

mpliance is 

mponents, a

h as redesig

mplementatio

nt in 2019, 

are given th

long as 75 

tive control

L IMPACT 

ENT, AND 

N

l Impact on 

d that there 

nd that tho

er vehicle d

consists of a

ers that mee

RB complia

d, staff antic

tems in ord

Given their 

anufacturers

t-Effectiven

calculated 

and the ann

gn, testing,

on follow a 

75 percent

he flexibility

percent of 

ls are fully i

ON BUSIN

BUSINESS

Businesse

are no maj

se listed as

istribution f

a few small

et small bu

ant engines 

cipate that t

er to comp

low annual 

s are expec

34 

ness Comp

based on th

ualized per

and certific

vehicle pha

 in 2020, an

y to adjust t

the MY 20

implemente

NESSES, B

S CREATIO

es 

jor OHRV m

s manufactu

facilities. Ca

 volume sp

siness crite

and fuel m

they will als

ly with the p

production

cted to qua

pared to S

he increme

r-OHRV co

cation. It is 

ase-in sche

nd 100 perc

the phase-i

18-2021 OH

ed for 2022

USINESS C

ON, ELIMIN

manufactur

uring locatio

alifornia’s O

park ignition

eria. These 

managemen

so purchase

proposed e

n volumes (

alify for the s

Similar Reg

ental cost fo

sts associa

assumed t

edule of 50 

cent in 202

n schedule

HRVs have

2 and subse

COMPETIT

NATION, O

rers located

ons are act

OHRV man

n sand car 

manufactu

nt packages

e ARB cert

evaporative

(50 or less)

small volum

gulations 

or control 

ated with 

that the first

percent in 

21. 

 to best fit 

e controls 

equent MYs

TIVENESS,

R 

d in 

tually large 

ufacturing 

urers alread

s, and if 

tified fuel 

 emission 

, California

me OHRV 

t

s. 

,

dy 

’s 
35 

manufacturer design-based standard. As such, the typical small business in 

California will not find it necessary to assume costs associated with 

certification and redesign as long as they purchase ARB certified components. 

Annual reporting and incremental component costs are estimated to be the 

only impacts to small business. The cost of this regulatory proposal, if added 

to a sand car, is expected to be virtually indistinguishable within the overall 

price of these typically expensive vehicles. 

Most OHRV manufacturers sell their products through distributors and 

dealerships, most of which are independently owned and carry OHRVs from 

multiple manufacturers. This regulatory proposal will have some indirect 

impact, although not significant, on small businesses that buy and sell OHRVs. 

During the initial years of implementation, the increased cost of OHRVs may 

lead to a slight drop in demand that could result in lower profits. The retailer 

would carry unsold stock over to the next year, possibly incurring less profit on 

the sale of these units. However, these impacts have been mitigated by the 

flexible phase-in schedule of emission controls, the ability for manufacturers to 

certify OHRVs with credits, and an implementation year that coincides with a 

steady increase in projected vehicle sales. Manufacturers will incur the costs 

associated with annual reporting, however the costs are small compared with 

fixed and technology costs. All manufacturers are required to submit similar 

annual reports for compliance with the OHRV exhaust emission regulation, 

therefore, the additional costs associated the evaporative reporting 

requirements is expected to be minimal. 

2. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness and Employment 

This regulatory proposal would have no significant impact on the ability of any 

OHRV manufacturing business to sell outside or within California. Specific to 

California sales, all OHRV manufacturers are subject to the proposed 

regulations regardless of where they are manufactured. The California 

businesses impacted by this regulatory proposal are indirectly affected as they 

are affiliated businesses such as vehicle dealers, aftermarket parts shops, and 

excursion companies that rent OHRVs to vacationers. These businesses 

compete within the State and are generally not subject to competition from outof-state businesses. Therefore, this regulatory proposal is not expected to 

impose significant competitive disadvantages on affiliated businesses. 

A potential indirect employment impact could be that dealers, distributors, or 

importers downsize their staff due to a decrease in OHRV sales associated 

with the increase in costs to control evaporative emissions from OHRVs. 

However, these losses could be offset by increases from new technology 

development and demand. 

3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination, or Expansion 

This regulatory proposal is not expected to have a noticeable impact on any 

OHRV manufacturers located within California because there are no major 

OHRV manufacturing facilities located in the state. OHRV sales in California 
36 

represent only about 10 percent of national sales (MIC, 2012). However, some 

small businesses operating outside of California may decide to discontinue 

producing vehicles for the California market due to cost increases, which 

would result in a decrease in model availability. For the first time, the 

regulatory proposal allows zero-emission OHRVs to generate advanced fuel 

system credits. This allowance will provide an incentive for OHRV 

manufacturers to expand existing zero-emission vehicle production or to begin 

investing in the technology. Additionally, the several small zero-emission 

OHRV manufacturing facilities that exist in California may benefit from an 

increase in demand and market availability. 

4. Potential Impact on Consumers 

The cost of implementation is expected to be passed down to the consumer 

and is estimated to result in a 4 to 9 percent cost increase per OHRV (based 

on an average retail cost of $5,000 per vehicle) (see Attachment D). A retail 

price increase would be less noticeable for OHRVs that can more readily 

absorb fixed cost increases, such as OHRVs with high sales volumes or higher 

priced OHRVs. The end user will save an average of $53 in fuel costs over the 

life of the vehicle as a result of reduced evaporative emissions. Consumers 

who purchase OHRVs with fuel injection will also see a reduction in fuel 

consumption depending on the fuel control tune. There may be fewer options 

in a particular OHRV segment, but there is expected to be at least one OHRV 

model available for sale in each significant segment. Segments that are very 

specialized can be filled with OHRVs certified to meet the small volume 

manufacturer design standard. 

D. POTENTIAL IMPACT TO CALIFORNIA STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES 

Staff anticipates that the regulatory proposal will have little to no adverse impacts 

on local, state and federal agencies that purchase OHRVs. OHRVs are typically 

an incidental component of certain public fleets that are used on a fractional basis. 

Although future OHRV procurement patterns are unknown, staff does not believe 

that the marginal per unit cost increases imposed by this regulation are significant 

enough to require budgetary baseline augmentations. With respect to local 

agencies (cities, counties and school districts), this regulation will not trigger the 

subvention clauses enumerated in Article 13 B, Section 6 of the State Constitution 

and Sections 17500 et. seq. of California Government Code. This regulatory 

proposal applies to all residents generally and equally, and does not represent a 

new or expanded program for local agencies. 

Although this regulatory proposal will have no adverse fiscal impacts on local and 

federal agencies, there is a small impact to the State. Staff estimates that the ARB 

will require an additional 2.5 person years (PY) to certify new OHRVs and ensure 

compliance. Staff recommends that the additional 1.5 PYs associated with 

certification will be needed in perpetuity starting during the 2016-2017 fiscal year, 

followed by the 1.0 PY for enforcement starting in fiscal year 2017-2018. 
37 

E. ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives to the proposed rulemaking are described in Section III, part B. 

Economic impacts of these alternatives are considered below. 

1. Economic Impacts of Taking No Action 

Under this alternative, it is likely that no vehicle manufacturers would 

voluntarily incorporate additional emission control technology into their 

designs. A manufacturer that did would be at a competitive disadvantage. No 

additional direct costs would be imposed on manufacturers or stakeholders. 

However, no benefits in the form of ROG emissions reductions would be 

realized. Moreover, failure to meet 2007 SIP commitments could lead to a 

finding of non-implementation resulting in sanctions under Section 110(m) of 

the CAA. 

2. Economic Impact of Eliminating the Carbon Canister Protection Tip Test 

Staff considered industry’s request to remove the carbon canister protection tip 

test from the proposal. However, after consideration and analysis it was 

retained. Eliminating a carbon canister protection tip test would reduce the 

redesign costs for manufacturers that must comply with the proposed 

regulation. However, both ATVs and off-road motorcycles operate at extreme 

angles and off-road motorcycles tip onto their sides during typical use. Without 

a carbon canister protection tip test there is no way to verify that the carbon 

canister is not exposed to liquid fuel during a tip over, which could permanently 

damage the canister within the first few running events. Adding a carbon 

canister protection tip test during certification is a proactive means to prevent 

manufacturers and consumers from bearing the cost of control technology that 

does not fully control emissions. Poorly designed evaporative emissions 

control systems could create an enforcement burden, demand re-design to 

address in-use compliance, and forfeit expected emission reductions. 

TP-933 introduces a carbon canister protection tip test that is designed to be 

inexpensive but effective at verifying protection. In the case where 

manufacturers would like to use other methods, the test procedure outlines the 

general guidelines for developing a carbon canister protection test that 

ensures compliance with the emission standards at full useful life. For further 

details on estimated vehicle redesign costs see Attachment D. 

3. Economic Impact of Separate Standards for Each Mode of Use 

A possible alternative to the proposed regulation would be to adopt separate 

standards for each mode of use: running loss, hot soak, and diurnal. This 

alternative was proposed during the regulatory development period, but it was 

withdrawn due to the added regulatory complexity, which provided little or no 

emissions benefit. Originally this regulatory proposal required all OHRVs to 

measure emissions from each usage mode in a SHED enclosure. The vehicle 

could certify to emission standards by comparing test data to a variety of 

standard options. The additional flexibility of multiple standards for each test 
38 

would have made the record keeping of credit calculations unnecessarily 

complicated and time-consuming for both manufacturers and ARB. 

Furthermore, the need for additional variable volume SHED enclosures to 

perform all three of these tests on each vehicle family would place an 

unnecessary financial burden on manufacturers. The proposed rulemaking 

reduces SHED testing to only one test per vehicle, which substantially cuts 

manufacturers’ testing costs. 
39 

VIII. SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR EACH REGULATORY 

PROVISION 

The proposed changes address the 2007 SIP commitments for comprehensive 

OHRV evaporative emissions reductions. The purpose and implications of each 

section of the proposed regulation order are explained below. The Proposed 

Regulation Order (Attachment A) presents the full text of proposed changes, which 

comprise the adoption of Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, § 2416-2419.5. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2416 - APPLICABILITY 

Section 2416 states that MY 2018 and later OHRVs that are sold or offered for sale in 

California must meet the evaporative emissions requirements of this regulation. OHRVs 

excluded from this regulatory proposal include electric golf carts, zero-emissions OHRVs 

(apart from OHRVs used to generate emission credits), snowmobiles, and diesel-powered 

OHRVs. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2417 - DEFINITIONS 

This section incorporates definitions previously set forth (Cal. Code Regs., tit.13, 

§ 1900(b)) with several additional of terms needed to support the proposed regulatory 

language. 

The following definitions are added in addition to references to existing definitions: 

(1) The definition of “Conventional Tool” is being added to reduce end-user tampering 

with the evaporative emission control system by requiring that common tools are 

not used to secure visible evaporative system components. 

(2) The definition of “Diurnal Emissions” is being added to clarify evaporative 

emissions produced when the vehicle is subject to the specific 24-hour 

temperature profile indicated in associated test procedures. 

(3) A definition for “Fuel Injection” is being added to clarify the type of technology 

required by the small volume manufacturer design standard. 

(4) A definition for “Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHRV)” is being amended so 

it includes any vehicle powered by an OHRV engine. 

(5) A definition for “Off-Highway Recreational (OHRV) Certification Value” has been 

added to clarify the emissions value measured during testing that is used to certify 

a specific evaporative family. An OHVR certification value that is different than the 

applicable emission standard will result in the generation or deficit of evaporative 

emission credits, as applicable. 

(6) A definition for “Permeation emissions” or “Permeation” is being added to clarify 

emissions due to diffusion through fuel system components. 

(7) A definition for “SAE J1737”, is being added to incorporate the test procedure for 

certifying fuel hoses for the design-based standard by reference and include the 

title: Test Procedure to Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, 

Hoses, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assembly by Recirculation, revised November 

2004 (SAE, 2004). 
40 

(8) A definition for “Small Volume Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle (OHRV) 

Manufacturer” is being added to limit the exemption to vehicle manufacturer that 

sell less than or equal to 50 new OHRVs per MY, on average for three years. 

(9) A definition for “Tampering” is being added to clarify tampering vs. tamper which 

for this regulation will mean the same thing. 

(10) A definition for “Total Organic Gases” or “TOG” is being added to clarify all gases 

containing carbon, except carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, 

metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which are not 

required to be measured by the diurnal emission standards. 

(11) A definition for “Vehicle Identification Number (VIN)” is being added as to clarify 

the alphanumeric code assigned by a manufacturer to identify a specific OHRV. 

(12) A definition for “TP-902” is being added to incorporate the test procedure for 

certifying carbon canister for the design-based standard by reference and include 

the title: Test Procedure for Determining Diurnal Evaporative Emissions from 

Small Off-Road Engines, adopted July 26, 2004, which is incorporated by 

reference herein (ARB, 2004). 

(13) A definition for “TP-933” is being added incorporate the test procedure by 

reference and include the title: Test Procedure for Determining Evaporative 

Emissions from Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles, adopted [adoption date]. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2418 - EVAPORATIVE 

EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES 

Section 2418(a) specifies that TP-933 must be used to measure the emissions detailed 

in Table 1 of this section. To offer flexibility to manufacturers, the regulation offers two 

test options by which an OHRV can meet evaporative emissions standards. 

Table 1 presents the two test options for evaporative emission standards. Both test 

options include a 1 g TOG/day diurnal emission standard and a zero liquid leakage 

allowance during a fuel system leakage tip test. The “72-Hour Diurnal Standard” 

option requires three 24-hour diurnal SHED tests to directly measure vehicle 

emissions per day. The “Steady State Diurnal Standard” requires a 24-hour SHED 

test to demonstrate control of permeation emissions and proper evaporative system 

construction, in addition to vented emission calculations (evaluated and approved by 

Dr. Reddy of Evaporative Emissions Consulting, Inc.) to show compliance with the 

standard. Manufacturers that choose to certify OHRVs using the “Steady State 

Diurnal Standard” are permitted to use a pressurized fuel system with a relief 

pressure of 2 pounds per square inch gauge. 

To maximize emissions control from refueling, ATVs with fuel tanks over 3.5 gallons 

that are redesigned to be geometrically different after MY 2017, must meet the same 

fuel tank sealing surface specifications as on-road vehicles (International Standards 

Organization 13331:1995(E)). 

Section 2418(b) allows manufacturers who sell less than 50 OHRVs in California for 

an average of three years, to certify using a design-based standard with prescriptive 

technology. The intent of this section is to mitigate per-vehicle certification testing 

costs. As shown in Table 2, required control technology for small volume 

manufacturers includes low permeation fuel hoses, carbon canisters, and fuel 
41 

injection. The fuel tank permeation standard remains unchanged from the current 

federal standard. 

Section 2418(c) specifies the test procedures required for certification testing to 

comply with the required standards. 

Section 2418(d) describes the phase-in schedule for OHRV manufacturers to meet 

the proposed evaporative standards. The phase-in provides flexibility over a 

four-year timeframe as long as the average compliance of the total California OHRV 

fleet over this time period is greater than or equal to 75 percent. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.1 - 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION CONTROL LABELS 

All OHRV manufacturers subject to this regulation must attach an evaporative 

emissions label that provides the requisite information for proper vehicle identification 

and maintenance. To eliminate duplicative language, OHRVs that are certified to both 

exhaust and evaporative emissions standards are permitted to use an integrated 

emissions label. All requirements for the exhaust emission label remain as specified 

in Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, §2413. This section describes the evaporative labeling 

requirements. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.2 - DEFECTS 

WARRANTY REQUIREMENTS FOR EVAPORATIVE EMISSION SYSTEMS OF 

2018 AND SUBSEQUENT MODEL OFF-HIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 

All OHRV manufacturers subject to the proposed regulation must warranty their “high 

priced” evaporative emissions components including labor for 60 months, 5000 miles, 

or 500 hours, whichever comes first, from the date of final sale to the end user. Any 

part which costs $200, adjusted for inflation, or more is considered 

“high priced”. All other evaporative components must have a warranty of 30 months, 

or 2500 miles, or 250 hours, whichever comes first. The warranty covers all parts not 

scheduled for replacement as required by the Air Resources Board “Emissions 

Warranty Parts List” dated December 14, 1978, as amended on February 22, 1985. 

Parts scheduled for replacement as required maintenance in the written instructions 

are warrantied for the period of time prior to the first scheduled replacement point for 

that part. Each manufacturer must provide written instructions for the maintenance 

and use of the vehicle by the owner and a list of warranted parts installed on that 

vehicle or engine. The only warranty exclusion is if the manufacturer can demonstrate 

that the vehicle was abused, neglected, or improperly maintained, and that such 

abuse, neglect, or improper maintenance was the direct cause of the need for the 

repair or replacement of the part. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2419.3 - EVAPORATIVE 

EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEM WARRANTY STATEMENT 

The manufacturer must provide a copy of the warranty statement for all OHRVs sold in 

compliance with this regulation in California. The warranty statement is a general 
42 

description of the obligations and rights of the vehicle manufacturer and owner as they 

relate to this regulation. The format of the statement shall follow the outline below. 

CALIFORNIA EMISSION CONTROL WARRANTY STATEMENT 

 YOUR WARRANTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 

 MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY COVERAGE 

 OWNER'S WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITIES 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, §2419.4 - NEW OFFHIGHWAY RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ENGINE EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

STANDARDS, ENFORCEMENT AND RECALL PROVISIONS, WARRANTY, 

QUALITY AUDIT, AND NEW ENGINE TESTING 

All OHRVs subject to this regulation must follow the same vehicle emission-related 

recall procedures that have been used for light-duty vehicles since 1982. 

PROPOSED ADOPTION OF CAL. CODE REGS., TIT.13, § 2419.5 - 

EVAPORATIVE SYSTEM TESTING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 

Section 2419.5(a) states that manufacturers must meet all other applicable codes 

and regulations. 

Section 2419.5(b) outlines the requirements for manufacturers to certify OHRVs to 

the emission standards in 2418(a) or the OHRV small volume manufacturer 

design-based standards in 2418(b). Manufacturers must obtain an Executive Order 

of Certification from ARB for any OHRV offered for sale in California. Manufacturers 

that certify to the emission standards must supply data showing test results at or 

below the standard, generated in compliance with the regulation using TP-933 or 

another approved test procedure. 

A small-volume manufacturer can choose to certify using the evaporative 

design-based standards of section 2418(b). The application for design-based 

certification must include test results showing compliance for each component used 

or reference an Executive Order that documents compliance. Component certification 

can be done by following the requirements of Section 2767.1 of the SORE 

evaporative regulation 

Section 2419.5(c) specifies how manufacturers can use advanced fuel system credits 

to certify their fleet, where credits are generated based on certification values or zeroemission vehicle credits; credits can only be applied within the MY they were 

generated and can not to be sold or traded; eligible zero-emission OHRVs are 

awarded a 0.75 g/day TOG credit per OHRV; and no single family of OHRVs can 

have a certification value over 300 percent of the standard. Manufacturers must 

certify zero-emission OHRVs to generate evaporative emission credits. To certify a 

zero-emission vehicle evaporative family, a manufacturer only needs to comply with 

administrative requirements. Zero-emission golf carts are not eligible for credits 

because their gasoline-powered counterparts are regulated under SORE provisions. 
43 

Manufacturers may use credits to certify OHRVs that exceed evaporative emission 

standards. Manufacturers certifying evaporative families using credits must submit 

calculations detailing their annual production plans and certification test results, and 

they must submit their actual sales data at the end of each MY. If a shortfall of credits 

is documented, based on final sales, all OHRVs sold under that Executive Order of 

Certification will be considered non-compliant. Manufacturers that participate in the 

advanced fuel system credits program must follow the administrative and final 

reporting requirements of Section 2419.5(d). 

Section 2419.5(d) describes the administrative requirements manufacturers must 

follow, as required by an Executive Order of Certification. An OHRV manufacturer is 

responsible for establishing, maintaining, and retaining records for each evaporative 

family for a minimum of eight years including vehicle identification data, projected 

sales, actual sales, and certification test results. Additionally, manufacturer 

calculations associated with vehicle phase-in and advanced fuel system credits must 

be included in the evaporative family records. Actual sales volumes are defined as 

shipments to distributors of products intended for sale in California. 

Section 2419.5(e) requires manufacturers to submit final reports within 90 days of the 

end of a MY. The final reports must include projected sales volumes, actual sales 

volumes, and certification values. Additional requirements for compliance 

demonstrations by calculation apply for manufacturers that participate in the vehicle 

phase-in period or advanced fuel system credits. 

Section 2419.5(f) specifies evaporative testing requirements including compliance 

test procedures and notification of failure. 

Section 2419.5(g) expresses the terms and conditions for suspension or revocation of 

an Executive Order of Certification. 

Section 2419.5(h) tamper resistant vehicle design is required by the regulation to 

discourage end users from removing evaporative emission components from OHRVs. 

The carbon canister must be installed within the cross-sectional profile of the vehicle, 

or mounted such that non-conventional tools are required to remove it and the vapor 

line connections to the canister. Non-conventional tools are defined by the regulation 

as tools an owner would not have in their tool box, for example the screw types in 

Figure VIII-1, therefore making removal of the evaporative components more 

challenging. A vehicle tampering statements is also required as part of the antitampering provisions, to educate owners about the legal requirement to maintain the 

OHRVs emission control system. Manufacturers are encouraged to place the vehicle 

tampering statement on a tag that will visibly hang from the vehicle prior to sale, to 

educate both the final purchaser, and all other customers that view the vehicle at the 

dealership. However, in cases where this is not possible, the tag may be adhered to 

the front cover of the owner’s manual. 

Figure VIII-1: Example of Tamper-Resistant Screw Types 
Section 

Failure o

purpose

Certifica

2419.5(f) a

of a manufa

es may be g

ation, as sta

allows staff 

acturer, dist

grounds for 

ated in subd

to periodica

tributor, or 

suspensio

division (g).

44 

ally inspect

retailer to a

n or revoca

. 

t OHRV ma

allow acces

ation of an E

anufacturing

ss for inspe

Executive O

g facilities. 

ction 

rder of 
45 

IX. REFERENCES 

Agri Industrial Plastics Company. Multi-Layer Co-Extrusion. 

http://www.agriindustrialplastics.com/epa-fuel-tanks/multi-layer-co-extrusion/

(accessed May 9, 2013). 

 

ARB, 2001. Policies and Actions for Environmental Justice. ARB, 

December 13, 2001. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/programs/ej/ejpolicies.pdf (accessed May 2, 2013).

 

ARB, 2004. Test Procedure for Determining Permeation Emissions from Small 

Off-Road Engine Equipment Fuel Tanks, TP-901. California Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, 2004. 

 

ARB, 2013a. History of Air Resources Board. Air Resources Board (ARB) website. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/knowzone/history.htm (accessed 5/2/13). 

 

ARB, 2013b. Clearing California Skies. Video. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/videos/clskies.htm (accessed May 2, 2013). 

 ARB, 2009. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy. Public Release Date: March 24, 2009. 

Board Hearing Date: April 23-24, 2009. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/meetings/sipupdatereport.pdf (accessed May 14, 2013)

 

Collins, W.J., R. G. Derwent, C. E. Johnson, and D. S. Stevenson, 2002. The 

oxidation of organic compounds in the troposphere and their global warming 

potentials. Climatic Change, 52: 453-479. 

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1014221225434?LI=true#page-1

(accessed May 6, 2013). 

 

CAA, 1990. Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Incorporated into United States Code 

(U.S.C.) as Title 42, Chapter 85. 1990. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/ (accessed May 14, 2013).

 

DMV, 2010. Department of Motor Vehicle Registration Data for 2001 to 2010 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment 

Report. Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. See 

section 2.10.3.3., http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-3-

2.html (accessed May 6, 2013). 

 

MIC, 2012. 2012 Statistical Annual, Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), 2012 

Copyrighted. 

  
46 

MeadWestvaco (MWV). Automotive Carbons Multiday Diurnals Video. 

http://www.meadwestvaco.com/SpecialtyChemicals/AboutMWVSpecialtyChemicals/V

ideos/MWV027790 (accessed May 1, 2013). 

 

National Research Council (NRC), 2006. State and Federal Standards for MobileSource Emissions. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2006. 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11586 (accessed May 6, 2013).

 

Society of Automotive Engineers, 2004. J1737: Test Procedure to Determine the 

Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings, and Fuel Line Assemblies by 

Recirculation, Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice, Revised 

November 2004. http://standards.sae.org/j1737_200411/.

 

Shindell, D. T., G. Faluvegi, N. Bell, and G. A. Schmidt, February 2005. An 

emissions-based view of climate forcing by methane and tropospheric ozone.

Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04803, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021900.