1

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons

For Proposed Rulemaking

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA

REGULATIONS FOR NEW 1997 AND LATER OFF-HIGHWAY

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND ENGINES

Date of Release: June 6, 2003

Scheduled for Consideration: July 24, 2003

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. History

The California Clean Air Act, codified in the Health and Safety Code, requires the

Air

Resources Board (ARB or the Board) to regulate emissions from certain off-road

or non-vehicular engines and other non-vehicular sources (sections 43013 and

43018, Health and Safety Code). This legislation specifically mandates that ARB

adopt measures to reduce emissions from off-highway vehicles and off-highway

motorcycles. ARB has integrated these off-highway categories to include allterrain vehicles (ATVs) and golf carts. The associated regulations are referred to

hereafter under the general term Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles, or OHRV.

The Board first adopted regulations establishing exhaust emission standards,

test procedures, and enforcement provisions for off-highway recreational vehicles

and engines in 1994. See sections 2410-2414, Title 13, Article 3, Chapter 9,

California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the documents incorporated by

reference therein). Amendments to the OHRV regulations were adopted on

December 10, 1998. (1998 OHRV Amendments.) The 1998 OHRV Amendments

provided for a non-emissions-compliant certification and restricted riding seasons

for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRV) so certified.

The primary goal of the OHRV regulations was to implement emissions

standards for a segment of off-road vehicles, which, until 1994, were not subject

to any emissions standards. More importantly, sales data had shown that twostroke engines powered the majority of the OHRVs, and motorcycles in

particular. Due primarily to a process known as “scavenging,” *two-stroke engines

are inherently extremely higher polluting, compared to four-stroke engines.With

some exceptions, before California regulated OHRVs and their engines, most

two-stroke powered motorcycles were marketed as “competition” vehicles. In

 

* Scavenging occurs when the intake and exhaust ports of a two-stroke engine

are opensimultaneously, allowing roughly 20 to 30 percent of the fuel to exit the

engine unburned.
2

order to be operated in non competition settings, (i.e., recreational riding) users

were often required to modify the exhaust systems to meet sound level

requirements as well as to meet safety requirements (in the form of a spark

arrestor). With these modifications, along with the necessary OHRV registration

and identification, users were able to operate these high performance vehicles

both competitively and recreationally. Four-stroke powered vehicles, on the other

hand, were typically used for recreational purposes only.

In 1994, to address the high emissions from and unrestricted use of two-stroke

powered vehicles, which comprise the majority of off-highway recreational

vehicles, the Board adopted OHRV Regulations establishing emissions

standards and definitions for all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), off-road motorcycles,

and competition vehicles. In the definitions, each vehicle type was described and,

most important, usage was clearly outlined. Specifically, ATVs and off-road

motorcycles were defined as those vehicles that could be operated for

recreational riding, provided they complied with the new emission standards

(section 2411, CCR, Title 13, Article 3, Chapter 9). The stringency level of these

standards was purposely set such that only four-stroke engines and advanced

two-stroke engines equipped with a catalytic converter could comply.

After the adoption, but before the January 1, 1997 implementation date of the offhighway recreational vehicle regulations, concerns were raised by certain groups

about impending impacts. Primarily user groups and dealers voiced these

concerns. User groups noted that, as written, the regulations did not provide

legitimate, competitive riders the opportunity to participate in open-land racing

events, nor to practice in preparation for a competition event. Dealers were

concerned that manufacturers would not supply, in a timely fashion, the

anticipated full line of certified off-road motorcycles and ATVs that were

envisioned at the time the regulations were adopted. Especially necessary were

higher performance, four-stroke off-road motorcycles. There was also a need to

change the paradigm in the public’s perception about four-stroke powered

vehicles vis-à-vis their two-stroke counterparts.

In response to those concerns and in order to promote a full product line that

would allow competitive business in California, the 1998 OHRV Amendments

removed the distinction between competition OHRVs, which need not have

complied with the exhaust emission standards, and all other OHRVs, which were

so required. With those Amendments, vehicles that could not comply with the

new exhaust emission standards could be certified as “non-emissions-complaint

and sold in California for purposes other than “competition.” However, this new

class of OHRVs now had their use limited in the seasonal riding areas listed in

new 2415, CCR, Title 13, Article 3, Chapter 9.

To support the 1998 OHRV Amendments, the California Department of Motor

Vehicles (DMV or Department) was to modify registration procedures to reflect

the differentiation in certification. Only California-certified emission-compliant

OHRVs (i.e., vehicles CARB-certified to comply with the exhaust emission

standards and other requirements) would be eligible to obtain the necessary
3

identification (Green Sticker) for unrestricted off-highway recreational use

(section 38020, California Vehicle Code). The California certified non-emissioncompliant OHRVs (i.e., vehicles CARB-certified as not meeting exhaust

emissions standards) would be eligible to obtain the necessary identification

(Red Sticker) for restricted off-highway recreational use (section 38020,

California Vehicle Code). To enable DMV to provide the correct sticker at

registration the regulations required manufacturers to code the vehicle

identification number (VIN) with a distinguishing character in the eighth digit,

which would signify whether a vehicle was an emissions-compliant model or a

non-emissions-compliant model (California Exhaust Emissions Standards and

Test Procedures, incorporating modified version of Code of Federal Regulations

86.413 - 78(b)). The VIN coding is used by DMV to distinguish between the two

types of OHRVs and consequently to properly register the vehicles according to

the way the OHRV is certified with the ARB. Together, these components were to

support the effort to reduce the unrestricted use of competition vehicles while

promoting the use of off-road vehicles that meet California’s exhaust emission

standards.

The adoption of the 1998 OHRV Amendments provided for ample product

availability while preserving the emissions reduction benefits of the original

regulations. The seasonal riding portion of the amendments restricts the use of

non-emissions-compliant (Red Sticker) vehicles at OHRV areas located in

smoggy areas during the smog season. In attainment areas, or in nonattainment

areas during months when exceedances of the state ozone standard are not

expected, a non-emissions-compliant (Red Sticker) vehicle could operate at OHV

areas. Because non-emissions-compliant (Red Sticker) vehicles would only be

able to operate during periods when ozone is not exceeding standards, the

emissions reductions envisioned by the regulations would be achieved during the

smog season.

In addition, the 1998 OHRV Amendments were intended to meet the desire of

some riders to be able to operate a vehicle without regional or seasonal

restrictions, and to continue the demand for cleaner vehicles. And in turn, the

motorcycle manufacturers were expected to respond over time with production of

more high performing, emissions-compliant models.

B. Recent Events

Since the adoption of the amendments in 1998, ARB staff has worked with the

DMV and the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to enforce the

seasonal riding program. One-step in that enforcement effort was ARB’s regular

enforcement of its certification requirements against manufacturers and dealers

to prevent vehicles fromreaching the California market with incorrect or no

California certification. The violating manufacturers and dealers have made

corrections and paid penalties to the Air Pollution Control Fund.

To date DMV uses a non-automated registration system to register OHRVs. This

system, in addition to some miscoded OHRVs reaching California, caused
4

inconsistencies in OHRV registrations. These inconsistencies have resulted in

some non-emissions-compliant OHRVs being registered with Green Stickers and

some emissions-compliant OHRVs being registered with Red Stickers. DMV has

recently renewed their commitment to automate their registration system to better

ensure that OHRVs are registered correctly.

The DPR and other land management agencies were to enforce the riding

seasons based on sticker color. However, DPR did not enforce against pre-2003

OHRVs due to inconsistencies in DMV registration. Based on the DMV’s

renewed commitment to automate the OHRV registration system, DPR has

committed to enforce the riding season limitations beginning in 2003.

In crafting the proposal, the ARB staff met numerous times with DMV and DPR

staff. The proposed rulemaking is being conducted in order to facilitate

enforcement of the regulation and specifically the 1998 OHRV Amendments. The

proposal would modify the existing OHRV regulations to indicate that riding

season use restrictions begin with the 2003 model year. The proposed

amendments will simply reflect the delay in riding season enforcement that

occurred in the field by the land management agencies.

II. SUMMARY OF STAFF PROPOSAL

The regulatory text of the staff proposal is contained in Appendix A. The proposal

is intended to realize the emissions reductions of the current regulations, while

supporting a viable enforcement program.

The proposed regulations are described below.

A. Delay in Riding Season Proposal

The proposal would modify the existing off-highway recreational vehicle

regulations to indicate that riding season use restrictions begin with the 2003

model year. The amended, section 2415, Title 13, Article 2, Chapter 9, California

Code of Regulations (CCR) would apply to all non-emissions-compliant California

off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles model year 2003 and newer. The

proposal does not change exhaust emission standards or certification

requirements, but does provide for a workable enforcement program. As a

result, the proposal preserves the air quality benefits as intended by the 1998

riding season amendments to the off-highway recreational vehicle regulations.

The proposed amendment will ensure that the emission reductions originally

intended by the riding season amendments are achieved because DMV will be

correctly registering OHRVs and DPR will begin riding season enforcement

beginning with the 2003-riding season. Additionally, the amendment supports

program changes that will reduce registration inconsistencies and lack of

enforcement in the field that may have confused the riding public. The Board’s

adoption of these proposed amendments will reflect that these problems have
5

been substantially corrected such that riding area enforcement can begin. If

adopted, the proposed amendments to postpone the riding season use

restrictions to the 2003 Model Year will support DMV’s registration of all 2002

Model Year and older OHRVs with a green sticker and will support DPRs

enforcement actions beginning with the 2003 riding season.

The current situation demonstrates that the intended emissions reductions of the

off-highway recreational vehicle regulations are not being realized. The majority

of emissions reductions that were predicted in 1994, were based on the

conversion of the population of off-road motorcycles and ATVs from nonemissions-compliant motorcycles to emissions-compliant motorcycles. The

regional/seasonal riding seasons for the non-emissions-compliant OHRVs were

adopted in 1998 to realize the emission reductions anticipated in the original

regulation. Due to the lack of enforcement of those riding seasons the emission

reduction goals have not been met.

As a result of the situation that has occurred, the staff is proposing a regulatory

amendment that will simply reflect the delay in riding season enforcement. This

action will finally achieve the emissions reductions from off-road recreational

vehicles as set out in the original regulation. The proposal would not change the

existing exhaust emission standards adopted in 1994 or any of the certification

requirements associated with the regulation. Model year 2003 and later OHRVs

would receive the proper registration sticker based on their certification status;

either green for emissions-complaint OHRVs allowing year-round use, or red for

non-emission-compliant OHRVs allowing them to be used for noncompetitive use

during periods of clean air. Enforcement of the use requirements using the

sticker system would remain the responsibility of the OHRV area land managers.

Vehicles produced prior to the original implementation of the emission standards

in 1997 would remain unaffected by the regulations.

B. Changes to Existing Regulations

The proposal calls for changes and additions to the existing regulations found in

section

2415 (a), Title 13, Article 3, Section 9, CCR. Specifically, the language “Model

2003 and later” will be added to reflect the delay of the enforcement in the riding

areas.

III. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

A. Off-Highway Vehicle Areas

There currently exists an organized system of OHRV recreation areas throughout

California, many of which offer access to off-road motorcycles and ATVs. The

majority of these OHRV areas are managed by one of three public land

agencies: (1) Department of Parks and Recreation, (2) Bureau of Land

Management, or (3) United States Forest Service. There are more than 100
6

different areas in total and they are found in various locations throughout the

State.

The agencies enforcing riding in these areas have to date been unable to enforce

the riding seasons for OHRVs as set in the OHRV regulation because of the

inconsistencies in the registration of these vehicles. The enforcement agencies

are anxious to begin enforcement of the riding seasons and have committed to

do so when the registrations are processed consistently.

B. Registration/Identification

A key component supporting the operation of OHRV areas has been the

issuance of the OHRV Green and Red Stickers. The registration stickers are

obtained when registering an off-road motorcycle or ATV with the DMV. These

stickers serve as the sole identification device for the peace officers in riding

areas to determine compliance with the riding seasons. Associated registration

fees collected are used to develop and operate OHRV facilities.

At the time of the 1998 OHRV Amendments to the regulation, the DMV

committed to prioritizing ARB’s request to fully automate their registration system

with the necessary programming modifications that would result in facilitating

proper OHRV registrations. To date, that automation has not been put in place.

In light of the enforceability issues over the last 5 years, the DMV has committed

to having the automated registration system in place by June 2003.

C. Enforcement

The various public land agencies that manage these OHRV recreation areas

have Peace

Officers present to patrol and keep order. Included in their duties is to enforce the

California Vehicle Code, as it pertains to OHRVs. Vehicles found without a

sticker, and Red Sticker vehicles found in limited use areas outside of permitted

riding seasons, may be cited for an infraction. See Sections 38020 and 38330,

California Vehicle Code. Unfortunately, for the reasons discussed, that

enforcement has not been carried out. Pending approval of the Board for the

amendment proposed, the enforcement originally intended will take place

beginning with the 2003 MY OHRV and 2003 riding season.

D. Outreach

The staff will work with the dealers, user groups, the DMV and the land

managers to develop and distribute informative materials to educate current and

prospective OHRV purchasers and users of the delay in riding season

enforcement.
7

IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. Air Quality and Environmental Impacts

Since the proposed amendments simply reflect a delay of the program as

intended by the 1998 OHRV Amendments, the analysis provided in the 1998

Staff Report remains pertinent. The following excerpt is reprinted from the 1998

Staff Report:

”The 1994 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Ozone is

California’s master plan for achieving the federal ozone

standard in all areas of the state by 2010. Because the offhighway recreational vehicle regulations were already

adopted at the time the Ozone SIP was developed, emission

reductions from those regulations were incorporated into the

SIP baseline. The off-highway recreational vehicle

regulations adopted in 1994 were expected to reduce

emissions of HC from off-road motorcycles and ATVs by 33

tons per day statewide, from an uncontrolled baseline of 37

tons per day, in 2010. Emissions of NOx, which were

determined to be 0.4 tons per day in an uncontrolled

baseline, were expected to increase no more than 0.05 tons

per day because controlled engines would operate under

leaner fuel calibrations. However, the NOx increase was

deemed relatively insignificant and would be more than

compensated for by the associated HC benefits. Compared

to the projected 1994 statewide estimates, implementation of

the 1998 OHRV Amendments were to affect emissions in

nonattainment areas and attainment areas (and, thus, also

on a statewide basis) differently. In a nonattainment area

such as the South Coast, riding was expected to decrease

during the smog season due to the use restrictions on nonemissions-compliant vehicles. That means that emissions

will be lower, since the regulatory assessment had assumed

purchasers would have only bought emissions-compliant

products and there would have been no reduction in riding.

In the long term, however, it was expected that

manufacturers would introduce a full line of highperformance emissions-compliant motorcycles, and when

that occurred, emissions reductions in the nonattainment

areas would be the same as had been predicted.

In the attainment areas, and in the nonattainment areas

during months without smog violations, emissions would

increase, however this would have no impact on ozone air

quality since exceedances of the ozone standard do not
8

occur during the period in which riding is allowed. To the

extent that HC emissions, which are the principal pollutant

emitted from these vehicles, contribute to PM ambient air

quality exceedances during these months, or to toxics, a

small adverse impact may occur. On a statewide basis, HC

emissions will be higher because of the use of nonemissions-compliant vehicles in clean areas.”

By delaying enforcement of the riding seasons, the same environmental and air

quality impacts will materialize as predicted in the 1998 Staff Report. To date,

non-emissions-compliant OHRVs 2002 MY and older have not been restricted to

the riding times as intended by the regulation. Consequently, while most 1998

and later OHRVs reaching the California market were correctly certified and

registered, the delay in enforcement means ARB cannot accurately determine

the level of emissions reductions achieved from the riding season restrictions to

date. This is because there has been no enforcement in the California riding

areas and therefore the non-emissions-compliant OHRVs have had the ability to

ride year-round. The lack of use restriction likely has not provided for the

anticipated hydrocarbon reductions. Therefore this proposed amendment will not

result in any additional emissions going forward; at most it acknowledges

reductions that may not have been achieved. The proposed amendments will

reflect that we will now begin to realize the full benefits anticipated from the riding

season provisions of the 1998 OHRV Amendments.

B. CEQA Analysis

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an

analysis to determine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed

regulations. Because the ARB’s program involving the adoption of regulations

has been certified by the Secretary of Resources (see Public Resources Code

section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis requirements are allowed to

be included in the ARB Staff Report or Technical Document in lieu of preparing

an environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition, the ARB will

respond in writing to all significant environmental points raised by the public

during the public review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be

contained in the Final Statement of Reasons for the proposed amendments to

the regulations.

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact

analysis conducted by ARB include the following: (1) an analysis of the

reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of compliance, (2)

an analysis of reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures, and (3) an

analysis of reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the

regulations. In 1998, the ARB determined that the 1998 OHRV Amendments

would not have any significant or potentially significant effects on the

environment and therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures were proposed

to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the environment.
9

This proposal will provide for the reductions and small increases in emissions as

expected by the 1998 staff report. The following excerpt is reprinted from the

1998 Staff Report:

“Reductions in ozone nonattainment areas will be achieved

due to use restrictions, at least in the short term. In the long

term the reductions will be equal to or greater than expected

from current regulations. The proposal will also provide for

the originally anticipated increased emissions in attainment

areas and in other areas during months in which ozone

violations do not occur. Additionally as originally predicted in

the 1998 OHRV Amendments, small increases in toxics and

ambient PM may occur, however the staff is aware of no

means of mitigating these potential impacts. The staff is

unaware of any other alternatives that avoid increases of

emissions in clean areas, while increasing the likelihood that

the emissions reductions envisioned by the original [1994]

regulations are achieved, and avoid an adverse impact on

businesses, especially the dealers who sell off-road

motorcycles.”

Because this regulatory proposal identifies no new potentially significant

environmental effects, it would not have any significant or potentially significant

effects on the environment. Therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are

proposed to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the environment.

C. Economic Impact

There are a few possible economic concerns associated with the implementation

of this proposal. Staff has considered these concerns as follows, but asserts that

they present issues no different from the anticipated costs and benefits that were

considered or are assumed to have been considered in the 1998 OHRV

rulemaking.
10

Table 1 portrays the possible economic concerns associated with the

implementation of this proposal.

Table 1.

Possible Economic Concerns Summary

Affected Group Economic Concern

1997 MY* and older owners Resale value potentially

decreased

1998-2002 MY non-emissions-compliant

owners

Resale value potentially

increased

1998-2002 MY emissions-compliant owners Resale value potentially

decreased

Resale ability potentially

decreased

Dealers selling 2003 MY and later Sale ability potentially

decreased

*Model Year

i. 1997 Model Year and Older OHRV Owners

When the 1998 OHRV Amendments were implemented, a 1997 MY OHRV may

have had a higher market value than prior to implementation. This was because

a purchaser may have made the decision to buy an OHRV one model year older

in order to obtain a green sticker with unrestricted use rather than buying a newer

model that would receive a red sticker with restricted use associated. With the

implementation of the proposed amendment, any higher market value that may

remain for a 1997 MY OHRV would disappear because there would be 5 newer

model years available, 1998-2002, that are eligible for green stickers. The 1998-

2002 MY OHRVs would be more desirable to a purchaser than an older 1997

MY. Conversely, the higher market value of a 1997 MY OHRV may have already

been lost simply based on the age of the vehicle in 2003. To the extent these

concerns could be considered an economic impact, it simply reflects a delay in

an impact, previously analyzed and considered, that would have started

occurring in 1998 had enforcement begun then.

ii. 1998-2002 Model Year Non-Emissions-Compliant Owners

When the 1998 OHRV Amendments were implemented, non-emission-compliant

1998 MY and later OHRVs were to receive a Red Sticker at the time of

registration denoting the vehicle’s restricted use. Theoretically, the value of the

emissions-complaint OHRVs would be higher than the value of the nonemissions-compliant OHRVs because purchasers would make their purchasing

decision based on their desire to have unrestricted use of their OHRV. This

theory may not have been true in many cases based on the technical differences
11

found between an emissions-compliant and non-emissions-compliant OHRV.

Purchase decisions may have been based solely on the technology and

performance of the OHRV without much consideration to the use restrictions.

This type of purchase decision was likely because it was general knowledge that

the riding seasons were not being enforced and therefore having a Red Sticker

was not a detriment to the owner’s riding ability.

In order to facilitate enforcement of the regulation and to obtain the anticipated

emission reductions associated with the regulation, the proposal will result in this

group of OHRVs receiving Green Sticker registrations. Implementation of the

proposal will most likely remove any price differential found between nonemissions-compliant OHRVs and emission-compliant OHRVs that might have

provided for a higher value and better resale ability of the non-emissionscompliant OHRVs. Again, to the extent these concerns could be considered an

economic impact, it simply reflects a delay in an impact, previously analyzed and

considered, that would have started occurring in 1998 had enforcement begun

then.

iii. 1998-2002 Model Year Emissions-Compliant Owners

By delaying the enforcement of the riding seasons as is proposed, the possibility

of a price differential between emission-compliant and non-emission-compliant

OHRVs is also delayed. The current owners of 2002 and older emissionscompliant OHRVs may have expected their Green Sticker OHRV to fetch a

higher resale price because of the vehicle’s unrestricted use. The Green Sticker

OHRV may have had a higher resale value than a similar non-emissionscompliant or Red Sticker OHRV. With the proposed amendment that potential

differential disappears and may make it more difficult for those owners to sell

their 1998-2002 MY used OHRVs. A purchaser of a used OHRV would more

likely choose to buy a non-emissions-compliant OHRV that is perceived to be a

superior vehicle over an emissions-compliant OHRV since they would both be

eligible for a Green Sticker. Again, to the extent these concerns could be

considered an economic impact, it simply reflects a delay in an impact, previously

analyzed and considered, that would have started occurring in 1998 had

enforcement begun then.

iv. Dealers Selling 2003 MY and Later OHRVs

As was anticipated in 1998 with the 1997 MY OHRVs, there may be a larger

market for used 2002 and older OHRVs than there will be for new 2003 MY. This

market may continue for one model year or more depending on manufacturing

advances and other purchasing decision factors. Some manufacturers make

significant changes in their product from one model year to the next making it

desirable to purchase the newest product on the market. Other products are built

from one model year to the next without significant changes made to the vehicle.

The products that have not changed very much from 2002 MY to 2003 MY and

beyond may experience decreased sales for one year or more. OHRV

purchasers may decide to purchase a used 2002 MY OHRV that is eligible for a
12

Green Sticker and in turn unrestricted use rather than purchasing a new 2003

MY OHRV that would receive a Red Sticker and restricted use. This could cause

some concern for dealers that are selling those OHRVs. To the extent this could

be considered an economic impact, it would have occurred to dealers in 1998 if

the regulation had been enforced properly.

Again, the possible decrease in 2003 MY sales is the same concern that was

present in 1998 when those amendments were implemented. This concern is

based on many different factors such as: personal preference of the potential

customers, personal purchase decisions, new model availability and

technological differences. Most of these determining factors are present with or

without considering the proposed amendment.

In conclusion, while the proposed amendments present economic concerns,

most are difficult if not impossible to isolate from other market factors that

affected OHRV sales post-1998 OHRV Amendments. To the extent any such

concerns could be isolated and treated as economic impacts, they were

considered in the 1998 OHRV rulemaking. Thus these are not concerns

affecting small business or creating economic impacts requiring further analysis

or response.

V. ISSUES OF CONTROVERSY

The proposed amendment will ensure that the emission reductions originally

intended by the riding season amendments are achieved because DMV will be

correctly registering OHRVs and DPR will begin riding season enforcement

beginning with the 2003-riding season. Additionally, the amendment supports

program changes that will reduce registration inconsistencies and lack of

enforcement in the field that may have confused the riding public. The Board’s

adoption of these proposed amendments will reflect that these problems have

been substantially corrected such that riding area enforcement can begin. If

adopted, the proposed amendments to postpone the riding season use

restrictions to the 2003 Model Year will support DMV’s registration of all 2002

Model Year and older OHRVs with a green sticker and will support DPRs

enforcement actions beginning with the 2003 riding season.

This proposal simply clarifies what is already happening in the field. Staff

believes there would be more controversy if the amendment were not made than

if the proposal is adopted. If these clarifications are not made, the confusion in

the field will continue and controversy over a regulation that is not being enforced

will ensue.

VI. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

Retaining the regulations as they currently stand would not be a preferred

alternative. As already noted, the emissions reductions set by the 1998 OHRV

Amendments have not been met due to lack of enforceability. It the regulations

are left as they are, enforcement in the riding areas cannot occur and the
13

emission reductions will continue to fall short of what is required by the OHRV

regulations. On the other extreme, repealing the regulations would not be a

recommended alternative. Although legislation was introduced that attempted to

do this (SB 1726, Johannessen), it has been shown that these vehicles produce

significant amounts of emissions, thereby necessitating emission control

regulations on this segment of off-road mobile sources. Furthermore, by

repealing the regulations, mitigating measures would certainly have to be

developed to make up for the shortfall because the current regulations and the

proposal are very cost effective. Obtaining the needed reductions from other

sources is likely to be more costly.

VII. CONCLUSION

Staff recommends that the Board approve this regulatory proposal. The proposal

described herein would facilitate enforcement of a program in place. No

alternative considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the

purpose for which the regulations are proposed or would be as effective or less

burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed alternative.