State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR 

 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 2, 2006

Scheduled for Consideration: July 20, 2006

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. 
 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 2, 2006

Scheduled for Consideration: July 20, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................I

I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

A) DESCRIPTION OF CATEGORY AND EMISSIONS INVENTORY .................................................................... 1

B) CALIFORNIA REGULATORY ACTIVITY ................................................................................................... 2

1) Initial Rulemaking ............................................................................................................................ 2

2) Activity following the initial rulemaking........................................................................................... 4

C) FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 7

1) Exhaust Emissions ............................................................................................................................ 7

2) Evaporative Emissions...................................................................................................................... 9

3) “ATV-like” Utility Vehicles.............................................................................................................. 9

III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION ......................................................................... 10

A) APPLICABILITY.................................................................................................................................... 10

B) EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 10

C) ATVS AND ATV-LIKE UTILITY VEHICLES .......................................................................................... 11

D) LABELING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................................................. 13

E) ADJUSTMENTS TO RIDING SEASONS..................................................................................................... 13

IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE ..................................................................................................................................................... 14

A) AIR QUALITY BENEFITS ...................................................................................................................... 14

B) CEQA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 15

C) COSTS TO INDUSTRY............................................................................................................................ 16

D) COSTS TO STATE AGENCIES ................................................................................................................ 17

E) COST-EFFECTIVENESS.......................................................................................................................... 17

F) ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY OF THE STATE.......................................................................... 17

G) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE................................................................................................................... 17
 2

V. OUTREACH ..................................................................................................................................... 18

VI. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................ 18

A) HARMONIZE WITH THE FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS ...................................................... 18

1) Off-Road Motorcycles..................................................................................................................... 18

2) ATVs ............................................................................................................................................... 21

3) Exhaust Emissions Inventory Analysis ........................................................................................... 22

B) PROPOSE MORE STRINGENT EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS .............................................................. 24

C) “NO ACTION” ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................................ 24

VII. ISSUES OF CONTROVERSY ................................................................................................... 24

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................... 25

IX. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 26

Attachment A: Proposed Regulatory Amendments 

Attachment B: Proposed Test Procedure Amendments
 i

Executive Summary 

In 1994, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) approved the off-highway 

recreational vehicle (OHRV) regulation. This rulemaking established exhaust 

emission standards for off-road motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV), in an 

effort to reduce ozone. The regulated pollutants were hydrocarbons (HC) and 

carbon monoxide (CO). 

The OHRV regulation has been amended twice since its adoption. In 1998, 

amendments were made to reduce the impact on dealers and off-road 

enthusiasts resulting from the limited number of vehicles meeting the emission 

standards. Vehicles not meeting the standards became eligible for recreational 

use on public lands, but only at times and places unlikely to impact ozone levels. 

Although this was initially implemented in 1998, inaccurate registrations 

necessitated a second amendment to the regulation. In 2003, the Board 

approved additional amendments that recognized a delay in full enforcement of 

the riding season restrictions.

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

promulgated a federal regulation that established similar OHRV exhaust 

standards but also included evaporative emission standards. The federal 

exhaust standards are not as stringent as California’s, even though oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx) are also regulated, and they do not establish riding season 

restrictions. Moreover, even less stringent standards apply to small 

displacement OHRV engines. 

In this rulemaking, staff is proposing the following: 

• Harmonize with U.S. EPA evaporative emission standards 

• Harmonize with U.S. EPA on which utility vehicles may certify using 

the ATV test procedures 

• Insert in the regulatory text proper the labeling requirements that 

are currently incorporated by reference 

• Revise the riding seasons for noncomplying OHRVs 

The proposed evaporative emissions standards will reduce reactive organic 

gases statewide by approximately 4.5 tons per day in 2020. Because the federal 

and California evaporative emission requirements would be the same, industry 

will not incur additional costs due to California’s requirements. 

Allowing certain utility vehicles to certify using the ATV test method will reduce 

industry’s compliance cost. However, the exhaust emission standards for these 

vehicles are more stringent than the current California or federal ATV standards, 

which will assure that emission reductions are not compromised. 
 ii

Inserting the labeling requirements (with which industry is already familiar) will 

clarify that these requirements, despite being sunsetted for on-road motorcycles 

in a 2002 rulemaking, continue to apply to OHRVs. 

Lastly, revising the riding seasons to coincide with current periods of clean air will 

allow more riding opportunities for owners of non-emission controlled OHRVs, 

and other changes will simplify enforcement by public land agency personnel. 

The staff recommends the Board approve the proposed amendments. 
 1

I. INTRODUCTION 

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. The off-highway motorcycles and 

all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) subject to this proposal are referred to hereafter under 

the general term “off-highway recreational vehicles,” or OHRVs. 

The regulatory proposal contains amendments that will lead to additional 

emission reductions and more efficient enforcement of the OHRV regulation. 

The proposed amendments include evaporative emission standards, revision of 

the riding seasons and locations for OHRVs that do not meet California’s exhaust 

emission standards, and addition of exhaust and evaporative standards for a new 

subcategory – recreational utility vehicles. Following a synopsis of previous 

regulatory activity, the proposed amendments to the OHRV regulation are 

discussed in greater detail. 

II. BACKGROUND 

 A) Description of Category and Emissions Inventory

Off-road motorcycles and ATVs comprise the majority of vehicles in the OHRV 

category. Both are powered by two-stroke or four-stroke engines and are used 

primarily on trails and other types of terrain by off-road enthusiasts. Examples of 

each are shown below: 

OHRVs 

 

 Off-Road Motorcycle All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 
 2

The exhaust from uncontrolled OHRVs is high in hydrocarbons (HC), which are 

reactive organic gases (ROG) that form ozone. Table 1, below, shows the ROG, 

carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions inventory for the 

category. 

Table 1. 

Statewide Emissions Inventory1

Annual Average 

(tons per day) 

Year Population ROG CO NOx

1992 300,000 37.1 85.8 0.4 

2005 644,000 28.8 86.6 1.1 

CHANGE +344,000 –8.3 +0.8 +0.7 

Despite the fact that the OHRV population has more than doubled over the past 

14 years, ROG emissions are continuing to decrease. The reduction in ROG 

emissions is due to the OHRV exhaust emission standards that the Board 

adopted in 1994, which are discussed in the next section. The minor increase in 

NOx emissions is due to leaner calibrations and a shift from two-stroke to 

four-stroke technology, steps taken by OHRV manufacturers to reduce ROG 

emissions. The NOx increase is more than offset by the greater reductions in 

ROG emissions achieved. 

 B) California Regulatory Activity 

1) Initial Rulemaking 

The Board first adopted the OHRV regulation (sections 2410-2414, title 13, 

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

reference therein) in January 1994. The primary goal of the regulation was to 

control a significant source of ozone-forming emissions. To that end, the 

regulation implemented exhaust emissions standards for a segment of off-road 

vehicles that, prior to 1994, were not subject to any emission control 

requirements. Specifically, the Board adopted exhaust emission standards for 

off-road motorcycles and ATVs. Table 2, below, shows the exhaust emission 

standards that the Board adopted for OHRVs, based on a transient, chassis 

dynamometer test. 

 

1

 Data for 1992 emissions inventory obtained from 1994 ISOR for the OHRV regulation. 

Data for 2005 emissions inventory obtained from ARB’s OFFROAD Model. 

Source of population: Department of Motor Vehicles registration records. 
 3

Table 2. 

1997 and Later OHRVs 

Exhaust Emission Standards 

(grams per kilometer – g/km) 

Vehicle Type Engine Displacement HC 

(g/km) 

CO 

(g/km) 

Motorcycle or ATV ALL 1.2 15 

Source: Section 2412, Title 13, CCR 

Many off-road motorcycle manufacturers also make on-road motorcycles, and 

thus had testing equipment that had been used to certify the on-road motorcycles 

for many years readily available for off-road motorcycle certification testing. 

However, many ATV manufacturers did not have comparable testing equipment 

at their disposal that could properly accommodate ATVs for chassis-based 

testing. Therefore, the Board agreed to allow industry to certify ATVs to 

comparable standards using a steady-state engine-based test. Table 3 shows 

these standards. 

Table 3. 

Alternate 1997 and Later ATVs 

Exhaust Emission Standards 

(grams per kilowatt-hour – g/kW-hr) 

Vehicle Type Engine Displacement 

(cc: cubic centimeters) 

HC+NOx

(g/kW-hr) 

CO 

(g/kW-hr) 

ATV 225 cc and greater 13.4 400 

Less than 225 cc 16.1 400 

Source: Sections 2403 and 2412, Title 13, CCR 

The effective dates for demonstrating compliance with California’s exhaust 

emission standards were: January 1, 1997, for engine displacements greater 

than 90 cubic centimeters; and January 1, 1999, for engine displacements equal 

to or less than 90 cubic centimeters. Generally speaking, these dates coincide 

with the 1998 and 2000 model years, respectively. Because industry was 

otherwise amenable to the 1994 rulemaking, staff was confident that the 

manufacturers would use the three to five years of lead-time to produce a variety 

of emission-controlled off-road motorcycle and ATV models for the California 

market. 

Due to limitations on the Board’s authority, competition vehicles (predominantly 

off-road motorcycles) also remained eligible for sale in California. However, staff 

took measures to assure that the usage of these uncontrolled vehicles would be 
 4

restricted. Specifically, “competition/racing vehicles” were defined in the OHRV 

regulation as those vehicles that operated exclusively on closed courses in 

sanctioned racing events. Additionally, staff collaborated with the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) before and after the rulemaking to make 

amendments to the procedure by which OHRV registration was issued. 

2) Activity following the initial rulemaking 

At the time of the regulation’s adoption, staff estimated that the emissions 

inventory for ROG would decrease from 37 to 4 tons per day by 2010. This 

reduction was predicated on two main assumptions: 1) that manufacturers would 

convert their product lines from uncontrolled OHRVs to emission compliant 

models; and 2) that the OHRV fleet population would remain relatively constant. 

Unfortunately, the transition to compliant models did not materialize as originally 

anticipated. Additionally, the population increased significantly. Therefore, as of 

2005, and as noted above in Table 1, the regulation has reduced average annual 

ROG emissions to only 28 tons per day. The following discussion provides a 

more detailed explanation for the reasons behind this discrepancy, which 

requires an understanding of California’s longstanding program for off-highway 

recreation. 

California’s off-highway recreation program dates back to the Chappie-Z'berg 

Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (section 38000 et seq., California 

Vehicle Code (CVC)). Since then, many areas on public lands have been 

designated for OHRV use. The majority of these locations are managed by the 

California State Parks, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or the United 

States Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service), although there are riding areas 

under the jurisdiction of other local authorities. California law requires offhighway registration for all OHRVs that are used on public lands. The program is 

supported by vehicle registration fees ($25). Registration must be renewed 

every two years. Proof of current registration is issued in the form of a selfadhesive sticker that is affixed to the OHRV. Because it is the dominant color 

(top and bottom sections), this registration sticker is commonly known as the 

“Green Sticker.” 

Emissions Compliant 

Off-Highway Vehicle Registration 

“Green Sticker” 
 5

With the 1997 implementation date of the OHRV regulation fast approaching and 

no noticeable changes in the OHRV manufacturer’s product lines, California 

dealers and off-road enthusiast associations began to voice their concerns to 

ARB staff. Specifically, their interrelated concerns were two-fold: 1) the 

popular-selling two-stroke/competition OHRVs did not meet the exhaust emission 

standards and thus they were no longer eligible for off-highway registration, so 

most off-road enthusiasts would not buy them; and, 2) of the few emission 

compliant OHRVs that were available, none possessed performance 

characteristics that were satisfactorily similar to the two-stroke/competition 

models, which a large segment of the off-road enthusiasts desired. Moreover, 

some manufacturers had no emission compliant OHRVs available; thus, many 

dealers would lose business. 

To address these unintended situations, a committee of stakeholders was 

formed. Comprising the committee were: the California Motorcycle Dealers 

Association; off-road enthusiast groups and associations, including the American 

Motorcyclist Association; several OHRV manufacturers; public land agency 

managers from the California State Parks, BLM, and the U.S. Forest Service; 

representatives from DMV’s registration policy unit; and ARB staff. 

The committee held several meetings over the course of approximately a year 

and a half. During the course of these meetings, it became apparent that the 

successful implementation of the adopted regulations was being impeded 

principally because of a lack of compliant motorcycles. Also during this time, 

staff became aware that many off-highway registrations were being issued 

inappropriately, as reported by public land personnel. These factors forced staff 

to abandon an “administrative” solution and instead pursue a regulatory solution. 

The committee considered various strategies to accommodate the concerns of 

the dealers and off-road enthusiasts, while still achieving meaningful emission 

reductions. The solution that was ultimately chosen accomplished this objective 

and was approved by the Board at the December 10, 1998 Public Hearing. 

The two main elements of the 1998 rulemaking were: 1) a schedule of dates for 

the land agencies’ OHRV riding areas, known as the “riding seasons,” during 

which ambient ozone was low and noncomplying OHRVs could be ridden; and 

2) the creation of a new form of off-highway vehicle registration. Together these 

measures provided for the limited use of noncomplying OHRVs, as explained 

below. 

Because air quality in California varies, the dates of the riding areas also vary. In 

riding areas within air basins that are in “attainment” with the State’s ambient air 

quality standard for ozone, both the emission compliant and noncompliant 

OHRVs may operate year-round. In riding areas within “nonattainment” air 

basins for ozone, only the emission compliant OHRVs may operate year-round. 

The noncompliant OHRVs are subject to riding seasons determined by analyzing 

historical data for ozone exceedances and considering meteorological conditions, 
 6

such as prevailing wind patterns. The intent of this provision is to allow the 

noncompliant OHRVs to operate when ozone levels are predictably below 

ambient air quality standards. [The complete list of riding areas and riding 

seasons is contained in section 2415, title 13, CCR.] 

To enable enforcement of the riding seasons, a second off-highway registration 

sticker specifically for the registration of noncompliant OHRVs was created with 

the collaboration of DMV. Because of its color scheme, it is commonly referred 

to as the “Red Sticker.” 

Emissions Noncompliant 

Off-Highway Vehicle Registration 

“Red Sticker” 

Registration with the Red Sticker is identical to the Green Sticker in terms of 

registration/renewal fees and renewal periods (two years). The difference is that 

the Red Sticker identifies an OHRV as noncompliant with California’s emission 

standards. This distinction is necessary to enforce the riding seasons. The 

riding seasons specify where and when these noncompliant vehicles may be 

used on designated public lands. 

On July 24, 2003, the OHRV regulation was again amended to reflect the delay 

in riding season enforcement by the land management agencies, due to 

inconsistent registrations of newer vehicles. Specifically, registrations were 

issued inconsistently because many manufacturers incorrectly identified their 

noncomplying OHRVs, and there was a delay in the DMV implementation of the 

appropriate computer programming to process off-highway vehicle registrations. 

At the time of the 2003 amendments, both of these problems had been largely 

resolved. 

Thus, the OHRV regulation as it exists today balances the needs of dealers and 

off-road enthusiasts with the need for emissions reductions for public health. The 

success of the OHRV regulation is partly reflected in the fact that air quality has 

not suffered and, in fact, has improved in a number of areas. 
 7

 C) Federal Regulatory Activity 

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

promulgated a federal regulation for nonroad recreational vehicles and engines. 

Included in this regulation were exhaust and evaporative emission standards for 

off-road motorcycles and ATVs. 

 1) Exhaust Emissions 

Table 4, below, highlights the differences between California and federal exhaust 

emission standards applicable when using the chassis-based test method. 

Table 4. 

California and Federal Exhaust Emission Standards 

When Using the Chassis Test 

(grams per kilometer – g/km) 

Vehicle 

Type

California 

or 

Federal

Engine 

Displacement 

(cubic centimeters)

HC 

(g/km) 

HC+NOx

(g/km) 

CO 

(g/km) 

Motorcycle California ALL 1.2 — 15 

Federal 70 cc and greater — 2.0 25 

 

ATV California ALL 1.2 — 15 

 Federal 100 cc and greater --- 1.5 35 

Sources: Section 2412, Title 13, CCR; and the 2002: Federal Register Notice: 

“Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and 

Recreational Engines” 

Note that California has standards for HC and CO, whereas the federal 

standards are for HC+NOx and CO. Because the engines used in OHRVs emit 

much more HC than NOx, as corroborated by the emissions inventory in Table 1 

above, California’s HC standard is considered more stringent than the federal 

HC+NOx standards. California’s CO standard is also more stringent than the 

federal CO standards. 

Table 5, below, highlights the differences in exhaust emission standards for the 

alternative set of standards that apply when using an engine test. 
 8

Table 5. 

California and Federal Exhaust Emission Standards Comparison 

Optional (Engine-Based) Test 

(grams per kilowatt-hour – g/kW-hr) 

Vehicle 

Type

California 

or 

Federal

Engine 

Displacement 

(cubic centimeters)

HC+NOx

(g/kW-hr) 

CO 

(g/kW-hr) 

Motorcycle California N/A N/A N/A 

Federal Less than 70 cc 25.0 610 

 

Large California 225 cc and greater 13.4 400 

ATV Federal 225 cc and greater 13.4 400 

 

California Less than 225 cc 16.1 400 

Federal 100ccc – 225 cc 16.1 400 

Small 

ATV 

Federal Less than 100 cc 25.0 500 

Sources: Sections 2403 and 2412, Title 13, CCR; and the 2002: Federal Register 

Notice: “Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and 

Recreational Engines”

U.S. EPA allows smaller off-road motorcycles (<70cc) to comply using the 

steady-state test engine-based standards. California does not allow 

manufacturers to use the alternative test and standards for off-road motorcycles 

because: 1) it believes the transient chassis test better represents actual 

operation, 2) motorcycles are currently being certified using this test method, and 

3) four-stroke engines are widely available for these smaller motorcycles which 

can easily meet the chassis-based standards. 

Both California and U.S. EPA allow any size ATV to comply with the alternative 

engine-based standards and nearly all manufacturers elect to do so, primarily for 

cost reasons. However, U.S. EPA requires less stringent exhaust emission 

standards for ATVs with engine displacements less than 100 cc. The standards 

they have adopted are the same as the standards for non-handheld small 

off-road engines (SORE). These standards are not needed because a full line of 

small ATVs meeting the more stringent California standards is available. 
 9

 2) Evaporative Emissions 

The recent federal regulation contains evaporative emission standards aimed at 

controlling losses due to permeation from fuel tanks and hoses. California has 

no comparable standards. Compared to uncontrolled levels, the federal 

regulation requires an 85-percent reduction in plastic fuel tank permeation and a 

95-percent reduction in fuel system hose permeation. The standards, which will 

take effect in 2008, are shown in Table 6 below. 

Table 6. 

Federal Evaporative Emission Standards 

(grams per meter-squared per day – g/m2/day) 

Emission Component Standard 

Fuel Tank Permeation 1.5 g/m2/day 

Fuel Hose Permeation 15.0 g/m2/day 

Source: 2002: Federal Register Notice: “Control of Emissions from Nonroad 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines”

 3) “ATV-like” Utility Vehicles 

Utility vehicles are typically small, low-speed off-road vehicles, commonly seen 

on college campuses carrying miscellaneous supplies and equipment. In 

California, these vehicles are required to comply with requirements based on the 

horsepower of the engine. Vehicles with engines less than 25 horsepower are 

certified based on meeting the SORE regulation, while those above 25 

horsepower are certified based on meeting the large spark-ignition (LSI) engines 

regulation. Historically, these vehicles generally have not used ATV or off-road 

motorcycle engines and have not been characterized as “ATV-like” vehicles. 

However, a recent trend has emerged with the introduction of utility vehicles 

which are more “ATV-like,” as in the example described below. 

In the federal regulation, these utility vehicles now certify according to the same 

standards and test procedures as ATVs. Differences between these vehicles 

and traditional ATVs include bench or bucket seats versus straddled seating, a 

steering wheel versus handlebars, and heavier cargo carrying capacities. The 

images below illustrate some of the more obvious distinctions between ATVs and 

certain ATV-like utility vehicles. Staff is proposing to partially align with the new 

federal definitions to accommodate these vehicles. 
 10

ATV and Utility Vehicle Comparison 

 

 All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) ATV-Like Utility Vehicle 

III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION 

 A) Applicability 

The regulatory proposal is primarily directed at off-road motorcycles and ATVs, 

although certain types of utility vehicles are also affected. 

 B) Evaporative Emission Standards 

The proposed evaporative emission standards control permeation losses from 

fuel tanks and fuel hoses, and would apply to new 2008 and subsequent OHRVs. 

By adopting these standards and test procedures, California would harmonize 

with the federal requirements, allowing ARB to enforce the standards and 

requirements. The proposed evaporative standards and the associated 

temperatures for evaporative testing are as follows in Table 7: 

Table 7. 

Proposed Evaporative Emission Standards 

(grams per meter-squared per day – g/m2

/day) 

Emission Component Standard Test Temperature 

Fuel Tank Permeation 1.5 g/m2/day 28 ̊ C (82 ̊ F) 

Fuel Hose Permeation 15.0 g/m2/day 23 ̊ C (73 ̊ F) 
 11

Several technologies are available to manufacturers to control evaporative 

permeation losses. As outlined in U.S. EPA’s Final Regulatory Support 

Document, these technologies include barrier platelets, sulfonation treatment, 

fluorination treatment, and barrier fuel hose. A discussion of the cost of these 

technologies is presented in Part IV of this report. 

 C) ATVs and ATV-Like Utility Vehicles 

Since the time the Board first adopted the OHRV regulation, ATVs have evolved 

into much larger and specialized vehicles, with features that no longer meet the 

existing ATV definition. Some of the features found on new ATVs include: 

• seating for two persons (i.e., the operator plus one passenger) 

• cargo capacities that exceed 350 pounds 

• vehicles with six wheels 

• unladen vehicle weight in excess of 600 pounds. 

Staff proposes to revise the ATV definition into three categories, or classes, that 

include these new features and better distinguish today’s ATVs. 

Class I: ATVs designed to travel on four or more low-pressure tires, having a 

seat designed to be straddled by the operator and handlebars for steering 

controls, and intended for use by a single operator and no other passengers. 

Class II: The same features as Class I ATVs, but having straddle seating for one 

operator and one passenger. 

Class III: An off-road utility vehicle that has four or more wheels, has bench or 

bucket seating for two or more persons, is designed for operation over rough 

terrain, has either a rear payload 350 pounds or more or seating for six or more 

passengers, has an engine displacement less than or equal to one liter, 

maximum brake power less than or equal to 30 kilowatts, and is capable of 

speeds over 25 miles per hour. 

With the creation of these three ATV “Classes,” staff proposes amending the 

definition of “Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle Engines” or “Engines” in section 

2411, title 13, CCR, to remove unnecessary language within it. Manufacturers 

have questioned whether the existing language exempts certain ATV-like utility 

vehicles from the LSI regulation. However, those utility vehicles are proposed for 

coverage under the new ATV Class III definition; therefore, the phrase “...but not 

limited to use in...” is no longer at issue. Removing it and adding the Class III 

definition will clarify the applicability of the OHRV regulation. 

Since the promulgation of the federal regulation, some utility vehicle 

manufacturers have asked California to harmonize with the federal requirements, 

which require utility vehicles meeting the Class III definition (above) to certify to 
 12

the federal ATV standards. In California, utility vehicles have been required to 

comply with exhaust emission standards for LSI engines, or the exhaust 

standards for small engines typically used in lawn and garden equipment 

(i.e., SORE). Table 8, below, shows the exhaust emission standards for both; 

note that the federal ATV standard for HC+NOx is less stringent than the 

California LSI/SORE standard. 

Table 8. 

Utility Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards 

(grams per kilowatt-hour – g/kW-hr) 

Vehicle 

Type

California 

or 

Federal

Engine 

Displacement 

(cubic centimeters) 

HC+NOx 

(g/kW-hr) 

CO 

(g/kW-hr) 

California 

LSI/SORE 

Utility Less than 1 liter 12.0 549 

Vehicle 

Federal ATV Less than 1 liter 13.4 400 

Because many of the utility vehicles that are eligible to certify to the federal ATV 

standards use the same engines that are installed in ATVs, and recognizing the 

cost to manufacturers of testing an otherwise identical engine according to two 

different test procedures, staff proposes harmonizing insofar as allowing Cass III 

utility vehicles to certify using the ATV test procedure. The proposal would also 

harmonize California’s less stringent CO standard with that of U.S. EPA’s (i.e., 

400 g/kW-hr). However, because of the potential loss of emission reductions if 

compliance with the less stringent federal standard for HC+NOx were allowed, 

staff proposes to maintain the more stringent California standard, as shown in 

Table 9, below. 

Table 9. 

2007 and Later: ATV Class III 

Exhaust Emission Standards 

(grams per kilowatt-hour – g/kW-hr) 

Vehicle 

Type

Engine 

Displacement 

(cubic centimeters)

HC+NOx 

(g/kW-hr) 

CO 

(g/kW-hr) 

ATV Class III Less than 1 liter 12.0 400 

Additionally, the staff proposal makes off-highway vehicles meeting the ATV 

Class III definition ineligible for emissions noncompliant certification or Red 

Sticker registration. Unlike off-road motorcycles, the federal regulation does not 
 13

make exemptions for the sale of competition ATVs to the general public; and by 

2007, the federal regulation will require all ATVs to meet exhaust emission 

standards. Because manufacturers are already complying with the proposed 

levels using four-stroke technologies, California has little reason to explore a 

less protective noncompliant certification option for this category. Moreover, 

noncompliant certification is unnecessary since these vehicles are already 

meeting LSI emission standards. 

D) Labeling Requirements 

Dating back to the initial 1994 OHRV rulemaking, the labeling requirements for 

OHRVs were specified in section 2413, title 13, CCR. These requirements are 

based on, and reference, the labeling requirements applicable to on-road 

motorcycles, contained in section 1965, title 13, CCR, and the incorporated 

document entitled: “California Motor Vehicle Emission Control and Smog Index 

Label Specifications.” 

At a December 12, 2002 Public Hearing, the Board approved revisions to section 

1965 and the incorporated “Specifications” as they relate to on-road motorcycles. 

Specifically, since 2004, on-road motorcycles have been following the federal 

labeling requirements. Many manufacturers of on-road motorcycles also 

manufacture OHRVs. Although the incorporated documents remained in effect 

for OHRVs and manufacturers have continued to comply, industry had 

uncertainty about the applicability of the “Specifications” document for the OHRV 

labeling requirements. The staff’s proposal would insert into section 2413 the 

labeling requirements that were previously contained in the “Specifications” and 

incorporated by reference. 

 E) Adjustments to Riding Seasons 

The 1998 rulemaking made provisions for the Executive Officer to periodically 

review the riding season schedule and make adjustments and revisions, if 

warranted. Since riding seasons became effective, staff has received feedback 

from both the land agencies and off-road enthusiasts. One common theme 

throughout has been the desire for a more uniform schedule of dates, particularly 

for those areas that are near other areas or between areas that are connected by 

common trails. With this in mind, staff has analyzed recent ozone data and 

revised the riding season schedule accordingly. Although changes to the riding 

seasons can be made by the Executive Officer with proper notice, staff has opted 

to include this amendment with this rulemaking. 

The majority of riding areas are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. 

Because of the numerous connecting and adjacent riding areas, these riding 

seasons are proposed for consolidation for each particular ranger district, with 

each district having one riding season that applies throughout. For the most part, 

riding areas under the jurisdiction of the California State Parks or BLM do not 
 14

connect with other areas. However, in cases where they do, the proposed riding 

seasons are uniform between neighboring areas, as in the case of Hungry Valley 

(State Parks) and the Mt. Pinos Ranger District (U.S. Forest Service). Similar 

efforts at making uniform riding areas are proposed for western Imperial County, 

where State Parks and BLM riding areas are in close proximity. 

Although none of the proposed riding season changes were due to the 

reclassification of an air basin’s ozone status from nonattainment to attainment, 

there are a few additional areas staff proposes be amended to year-round status. 

Some of these riding areas were not known to staff and were located in an 

attainment area, such as riding areas in the Nevada City and American River 

Ranger Districts. Others are existing riding areas whose actual location has 

been clarified to be either in an attainment area, like Mammoth Bar, or to be 

located at or near the California-Arizona or California-Nevada border and with 

which the year-round riding season would not impact air quality, such as riding 

areas in the Imperial Sand Dunes. Also, to address a misinterpretation of the 

riding season program, the regulatory language has been amended to clarify that 

riding in these public lands is limited to only those areas that are designated for 

OHRV usage. 

Lastly, within section 2415, the Governor’s Executive Order (W144-97) review 

provision has been deleted both because it expired by operation of law and 

because the 2003 OHRV rulemaking fulfilled its requirement. 

IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

 A) Air Quality Benefits 

A summary of the benefits from the regulatory proposal is shown in Table 10, 

below. The emission reductions were determined by assuming the same amount 

of permeation control that the federal regulation requires. By 2020, the proposal 

would provide a reduction of 4.5 tons per day of reactive organic gases. 

Table 10. 

Statewide Evaporative Emission Benefits 

Reactive Organic Gases 

(tons per day) 

Year Vehicle Type Baseline Controlled Benefit 

2010 Motorcycle 8.62 7.50 1.18 

ATV 6.38 5.73 0.65 

TOTAL — 15.00 13.23 1.83 

2020 Motorcycle 11.33 8.61 2.72 
 15

ATV 8.34 6.60 1.74 

TOTAL — 19.67 15.21 4.46 

No other emission benefits are expected as a result of staff’s other proposed 

amendments. That is, including the utility vehicles that qualify as Class III ATVs 

into this regulation at the proposed standards will preserve expected exhaust 

emission reductions from these vehicles. 

The revisions to the riding seasons result in more riding opportunities for off-road 

enthusiasts; therefore, there will be a minor ROG increase to the emissions 

inventory. However, because these additional riding opportunities occur when 

ozone levels are expected to be below the ambient air quality standards, the 

increase will not significantly impact nonattainment air basins. 

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. 

The staff’s proposal lists additional riding opportunities for noncomplying OHRVs, 

which could theoretically present the opportunity for more emissions in certain 

locations. However, statewide, and particularly in nonattainment areas, the 

proposed revisions to the riding seasons will make enforcement of the riding 

restrictions more efficient than before, and in some cases will allow for 

enforcement to reduce emissions in areas currently used for riding with no 

restrictions. Together, this will reduce incidences of inappropriate usage of 

noncomplying OHRVs during periods of high ozone levels and more than offset 

any potential local emission increases. Also, any potential increases in 

emissions will be further offset by the reductions from the proposed evaporative 

standards. Additionally, the regulatory clarification that riding is to be done only
 16

in designated riding areas protects other media that would be otherwise impacted 

by inappropriate OHRV use. 

Because this regulatory proposal identifies no new potentially significant 

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

negative effects on the environment. Therefore no alternatives or mitigation 

measures are proposed to avoid or reduce any significant effects on the 

environment. 

 C) Costs to Industry 

Because of its harmonizing aspects, the staff proposal is not expected to impose 

costs on industry. Although the California standards will be more stringent than 

the federal standards for the utility vehicles that meet the proposed ATV Class III 

classification, the proposal provides manufacturers a harmonized test method for 

demonstrating compliance. Moreover the California standards are at levels they 

are currently meeting. Therefore, the proposal will likely result in savings for the 

manufacturers, not costs. 

California’s harmonization with the evaporative standards would not impose 

additional costs above the costs to comply with the federal regulation, which 

would apply in California in the absence of an ARB requirement. Therefore, staff 

believes that the regulatory proposal would have no noticeable impact on 

business competitiveness, California employment, or on business creation, 

elimination, and expansion. 

Table 11, below, contains U.S. EPA’s analysis of the incremental costs for OHRV 

manufacturers to meet the federal evaporative emission standards. 

Table 11. 

Permeation Control Technologies and Incremental Costs 

Technology Option Off-Road Motorcycles 

3 gallon tank 

1.5 feet hose

ATVs 

4 gallon tank 

1 foot hose

Barrier Platelets $1.20 $1.50 

Sulfonation Treatment 

Shipping/Handling 

$1.20 

$0.22 

$1.20 

$0.30 

Fluorination 

Shipping/Handling 

$2.42 

$0.22 

$3.23 

$0.30 

Barrier Fuel Hose 

Hose Clamps 

$1.16 

$0.52 

$0.77 

$0.52 
 17

The costs industry would incur to maintain a separate line of OHRVs for 

California with uncontrolled fuel system components would exceed the 

incremental costs listed above because it would involve additional labor to 

remove and replace the low-permeation tanks and hoses on “American-bound” 

product, as well as the effort to manage the accurate distribution of an 

uncontrolled, “California-only” product. 

 D) Costs to State Agencies 

Staff believes there would be no real incremental cost increase associated with 

adopting the federal evaporative standards as the California standards. Any 

ARB compliance testing performed would be done with existing resources. 

Accordingly, the proposed requirements are not expected to result in an overall 

increase in costs for state and local agencies. The revisions to the riding 

seasons may result in cost savings because the more uniform riding season 

schedule is expected to simplify enforcement duties for land agency personnel. 

 E) Cost-Effectiveness 

The cost-effectiveness of the federal evaporative emission standard was 

determined by U.S. EPA to be about $0.11 per pound of ozone precursors 

reduced, which compares favorably with the cost-effectiveness of California 

mobile source and motor vehicle fuels regulations adopted over the past decade. 

Compared to the existing California OHRV regulation for exhaust emissions, 

which was determined to be $0.03-0.35 per pound for HC and $0.03-0.31 for CO 

in 1994, aligning with the federal proposal for evaporative emissions is an equally 

cost-effective control measure. 

F) Economic Impact on the Economy of the State 

Because there is no cost associated with the evaporative emission standards 

and utility vehicle requirements, no negative impact on the economy of the state 

is expected. At the retail level, California dealers will not be at a disadvantage 

compared to the rest of the country because the evaporative requirements in this 

proposal are identical to the federal requirements. However, because of the 

revisions to the riding seasons, dealers may experience increased sales. 

 G) Environmental Justice 

The environmental justice implications of the regulatory proposal remain 

unchanged from the existing regulation. OHRVs typically are not used in or near 

environmental justice communities. Because the Red Sticker program ensures 

that higher-polluting OHRVs are not used when ambient air quality exceeds the 

standards for ozone, all California communities share the benefits. 
 18

V. OUTREACH 

Shortly after the federal regulation was promulgated in 2002, there was a 

noticeable increase in stakeholder activity, including numerous meetings and 

correspondence regarding harmonizing utility vehicles to the ATV standards in 

the same fashion as the federal regulation, requests to harmonize completely 

with the federal regulation, and recommendations to revise the riding seasons. 

Additional meetings between staff, industry, and off-road enthusiasts were held to 

identify possible solutions. These efforts lead to a Public Workshop held in El 

Monte on March 23, 2006. Attending were members from industry, off-road 

enthusiast groups, and the public land agencies. At the workshop, staff 

summarized the amendments that would be proposed to the Board. These 

amendments included adopting evaporative emission standards that harmonize 

with the federal standards, revising the riding season schedule for noncomplying 

vehicles, and inserting into title 13, CCR the labeling requirements that were 

previously incorporated by reference. Staff also informed industry about additional 

evaporative control measures for OHRVs, which staff is in the process of 

evaluating for a possible future regulatory action. After the workshop, staff 

provided interested parties with the data that was analyzed for determining the 

revisions to the riding seasons. Recipients were asked for their comments and 

suggestions. 

VI. ALTERNATIVES 

A) Harmonize with the federal exhaust emission standards 

Staff considered harmonizing with the federal exhaust emission standards as an 

alternative to this proposal, but rejected it because it would increase emissions 

compared to the proposed amendments. Manufacturers have suggested that 

aligning with the federal exhaust emission standards would provide California 

dealers more off-road motorcycle models to sell, which would reduce the off-road 

enthusiasts’ frustration of having to abide by riding season limitations. The 

following discussion will explain staff’s reasons for rejecting exhaust emission 

harmonization as an alternative. 

1) Off-Road Motorcycles 

When ARB determined the exhaust emission standards for OHRVs in 1994, it 

first averaged the emissions from a sample of 1990 four-stroke OHRVs. A 

standard was then adopted that reflected emission control strategies that had 

proved successful with on-road motorcycles; such as more precise fuel metering, 

and engine and cooling modifications. A comparison of the uncontrolled 
 19

emissions, California’s adopted emission standards, and the federal emission 

standards are shown in Table 12, below: 
 20

Table 12. 

Uncontrolled and Controlled OHRV Exhaust Emissions Comparison 

(grams per kilometer – g/km) 

OHRV Emissions HC 

(g/km) 

CO 

(g/km) 

1990 Uncontrolled 1.5 32.0 

1994 California Standards 1.2 15.0 

2002 Federal Standards 1.7* 25.0 

* Assumes 0.3 g/km for NOx emissions 

Since 1997, emissions-compliant off-road motorcycles have certified to levels 

between 0.5 and 1.0 g/km for HC and between 5 and 12 g/km for CO. Thus, 

manufacturers have demonstrated that California’s standards are indeed 

achievable, often by comfortable margins. The primary complaint against the 

emission-compliant off-road motorcycles is that they do not exhibit the same 

performance characteristics as do the two-stroke models or the highperformance, but noncomplying, four-stroke models. U.S. EPA tested a number 

of these uncontrolled high-performance four-strokes. The emission levels they 

measured are listed in Table 13, below: 

Table 13. 

Uncontrolled, High-Performance Four-Stroke Off-Road Motorcycles 

Exhaust Emissions Comparison 

(grams per kilometer – g/km) 

Make Model Model 

Year 

Engine 

Displacement.

HC 

(g/km) 

CO 

g/km) 

NOx

(g/km) 

Yamaha WR250F 2001 249 cc 1.46 26.74 0.110 

Yamaha WR450F 1999 398 cc 1.07 20.95 0.155 

KTM 400EXC 2001 398 cc 1.17 28.61 0.050 

Husaberg FE501 2001 498 cc 1.30 25.81 0.163 

Average 1.25 25.52 0.109 

Source: 2002: “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from 

Unregulated Nonroad Engines” – U.S. EPA. 

On average, the HC emissions from these motorcycles are very close to 

California’s standards. The CO emissions are above compliance levels; 

however, both HC and CO are correctable with better calibrations and other 

improvements. 
 21

Because manufacturers have been able to produce emission-compliant models, 

and because the emissions from uncontrolled four-stroke models are very close 

to compliance levels, maintaining the existing HC emission standards remains 

the reasonable and environmentally-responsible emission standard for California. 

Although harmonizing with U.S. EPA’s 2.0 g/km HC+NOx standard would 

seemingly ensure that all four-stroke models would be eligible for certification, 

such a standard does not demonstrate an effort to reduce emissions from 

existing, uncontrolled four-stroke engines. 

2) ATVs 

Similarly, U.S. EPA tested 11 four-stroke ATVs (see Table 14, below). Although 

ATVs currently certify to the engine-based emission standards, the 11 ATVs 

were tested under the chassis-based test cycle because U.S. EPA wanted to 

determine whether these vehicles were capable of following the driving schedule. 

In their rulemaking, U.S. EPA expressed concerns about the representativeness 

of the existing engine-based test cycle, which they will phase-out in 2010. Efforts 

by industry to create a suitable, replacement engine-based test cycle are in 

progress; however, there is uncertainty as to the completion date of the project. 

In the event a replacement test cycle does not materialize, ATVs would be 

subject to the same chassis-based exhaust emission standards and test 

procedures as the off-road motorcycles. 

The 1.5 g/km HC+NOx standard in the federal regulation for ATVs is essentially 

equivalent to California’s 1.2 g/km HC standard, but the federal 35 g/km CO 

standard is much less stringent. U.S. EPA agreed with industry that a stringent 

CO standard could make it more difficult to meet the HC+NOx standard. 

However the emission data generated by U.S. EPA showed that this was not 

always the case. Those engines with the lowest CO emissions (highlighted in 

italics) are often the ones with the lowest HC+NOx emissions. 
 22

Table 14. 

ATV Exhaust Emissions Comparison 

(grams per kilometer – g/km) 

Make Model Model 

Year 

Engine 

Displacement. 

HC 

(g/km) 

CO 

(g/km) 

NOx

(g/km) 

Kawasaki Bayou 1989 280 cc 1.17 14.09 0.640 

Honda 300EX 1997 298 cc 1.14 34.60 0.155 

Polaris Trail Boss 1998 324 cc 1.56 43.41 0.195 

Yamaha Warrior 1998 349 cc 0.98 19.44 0.190 

Polaris Sportsman 2001 499 cc 2.68 56.50 0.295 

Arctic Cat 375 Auto 2001 375 cc 1.70 49.70 0.190 

Yamaha Big Bear 2001 400 cc 2.30 41.41 0.170 

Honda Rancher 2001 400 cc 1.74 33.98 0.150 

Bombardier 4x4 AWD 2001 500 cc 1.62 20.70 0.740 

Polaris Sportsman 2001 499 cc 1.56 19.21 0.420 

Yamaha Raptor 2001 660 cc 0.97 16.56 0.210 

Average 1.58 31.78 0.305 

Source: 2002: “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from 

Unregulated Nonroad Engines” – U.S. EPA. 

As argued above, staff believes that the emission standards should be set to 

levels that result in emission reductions, not at levels reflecting the status quo. 

Moreover, the standards should not be skewed unnecessarily upward because of 

a small number of poorly calibrated models. 

3) Exhaust Emissions Inventory Analysis 

Staff considered this complete harmonization alternative thoroughly, but has 

determined that the current exhaust emission standards in the OHRV regulation 

achieve more reductions of ozone-forming emissions than would be achieved 

with the federal standards. Moreover, there would be a significant increase in 

CO emissions, due to the great differences between the California and federal 

standards Table 15, below, compares the emissions inventory and shows the 

increases that would occur with the federal standards. At this time, staff has not 

identified an alternative that would be more effective in achieving the goal of 

expanding riding opportunities and product selection without harming air quality. 
 23

Table 15. 

Emissions Impact of Full Harmonization with U.S. EPA Standards 

(tons per day – annual) 

Year Standards HC CO NOx 

2010 California 28.0 60.2 0.5 

Federal 29.7 77.5 0.5 

INCREASE — 1.7 17.3 — 

2020 California 38.4 82.8 0.7 

Federal 40.8 106.4 0.7 

INCREASE — 2.4 23.6 — 

Additionally, the Red Sticker program, with its riding seasons, better serves 

California’s air quality needs than would the federal regulation. The primary 

intent of the OHRV regulation was to reduce ozone-forming emissions. With 

OHRV engines, these are primarily HC or ROG emissions. By restricting the 

usage of the noncomplying OHRVs during the summer months, when ozone 

levels are highest, significant ROG emission reductions are achieved. 

Bearing in mind that OHRVs are most often used on weekends, staff conducted 

a statewide analysis comparing the summer weekend day emissions inventory 

for 2010, as shown in Table 16, below. Staff's analysis was done on a statewide 

basis because data regarding the number of OHRVs operating at each riding 

area is not available. Thus, the analysis slightly overestimates the benefits of the 

Red Sticker program, as it assumes that noncomplying OHRVs would not be 

operated, even at those riding areas that allow year-round riding. However, the 

directional effect of the program is clear. 

Table 16. 

2010 Summer Weekend Day Impact of Red Sticker Program 

(tons per day) 

Scenario ROG CO NOx 

Unlimited Riding 39.44 129.49 1.52 

Restricted Riding 2.76 70.17 1.51 

Emission Reductions 36.68 59.32 0.01 

Percent Reductions 93% 46% <1% 
 24

What can be gleaned from this analysis is that in riding areas with restrictions on 

noncomplying OHRVs, the ROG emissions are reduced very significantly during 

periods of high ozone. These emissions reductions would be forfeit if California 

harmonizes with the federal program. 

B) Propose more stringent exhaust emission standards 

This proposal is focused on addressing near term issues and assuring that 

California realizes the full benefits of the recently adopted federal evaporative 

emission standards. Staff has not completed an evaluation on the feasibility or 

viability of more stringent exhaust or evaporative emission standards for OHRVs, 

and thus has not proposed more stringent requirements as part of this proposal. 

Staff intends to do further evaluation of more stringent standards in the near 

future. Upcoming State Implementation Plan revisions are expected to reaffirm 

the need for additional emission reductions. OHRVs do not utilize catalytic 

converters, a technology used on nearly all other spark ignited engines. In 

addition, the evaporative emission requirements adopted by U.S. EPA do not 

include control of diurnal emissions, and thus there is the potential for further 

evaporative emission reductions. Based on staff’s evaluation, additional 

requirements for OHRVs and other similar vehicles and/or engines may be 

proposed in the future. 

C) “No action” alternative 

If no action were taken to amend the OHRV regulation, ARB would not be able to 

enforce the evaporative emission standards in California if noncompliance was 

determined. Additionally, by not revising the riding seasons, enforcement of the 

riding restrictions in the Red Sticker program would continue to be unnecessarily 

burdensome for public land personnel in those locations where riding areas with 

different riding seasons have connecting trails, and the off-road enthusiasts can 

repeatedly travel from unrestricted to restricted riding areas. 

VII. ISSUES OF CONTROVERSY 

The most prominent controversy related to the OHRV regulation is the Red 

Sticker program, with its usage restrictions imposed upon noncomplying, 

high-emitting OHRVs. Since 2003, the off-road community has engaged in highvolume letter writing campaigns to the Governor and the Chair of the Board 

seeking a repeal of the restrictions. Understood in its proper context, however, 

the Red Sticker program is actually a generous compromise that has been 

extended by the Board. The opportunity to purchase and operate a 

noncomplying vehicle in California is unique to the OHRV regulation. 
 25

Had the Board not adopted the Red Sticker program, the purchase and use of 

noncomplying high performance motorcycles would have ceased. The only other 

alternative would have been to repeal the emission standards for OHRV 

motorcycles, with a substantial loss of the 33 tons per day of ROG emission 

reductions noted in the 1994 rulemaking. Staff believes repeal would be 

unacceptable, and that the Red Sticker program that allows operation of 

uncontrolled OHRVs during months without ozone pollution remains the best 

alternative, balancing the desires of riders and the need to reduce the health 

effects of air pollution in California. 

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The regulatory proposal addresses near-term issues, and will lead to improved 

implementation of the OHRV regulation. The addition of evaporative standards to 

the OHRV regulation will reduce ozone-forming emissions, as well as provide the 

foundation for subsequent evaporative control measures. The inclusion of eligible 

utility vehicles into the OHRV regulation reduces the manufacturers’ testing 

burden without compromising emission reductions. Lastly, the revisions to the 

riding seasons will allow additional riding and result in a program that operates 

more efficiently. 

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. 
 26

IX. REFERENCES 

ARB 1994. Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of 

Regulations Regarding California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines” 

ARB 1998. Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the 

California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines” 

ARB 2003: Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the 

California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines” 

U.S. EPA 2002: Federal Register Notice: “Control of Emissions from 

Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines (Marine 

and Land Based)” 

U.S. EPA 2002: “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions 

from Unregulated Nonroad Engines”