State of California
AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR

RULEMAKING

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFO RNIA
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 C alifornia Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not si gnify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the A ir Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products const itute 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) D ESCRIPTION OF C ATEGORY AND E MISSIONS I NVENTORY

................................................... ................. 1 B) C ALIFORNIA R EGULATORY A CTIVITY

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

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

................................................... ................................. 4 C) F EDERAL R EGULATORY A CTIVITY

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

................................................... .......................................... 7 2) Evaporative Emissions...........................

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

................................................... ...................................... 9

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

................................................... 10

A) A PPLICABILITY

................................................... ................................................... .............................. 10 B) E VAPORATIVE E MISSION S TANDARDS

................................................... .............................................. 10 C) ATV S AND ATV-L IKE U TILITY V EHICLES

................................................... ....................................... 11 D) L ABELING R EQUIREMENTS

................................................... ................................................... ............ 13 E) A DJUSTMENTS TO R IDING S EASONS

................................................... .................................................. 1 3

IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS, EN VIRONMENTAL

JUSTICE ............................................

................................................... ................................................... ... 14

A) A IR Q UALITY B ENEFITS

................................................... ................................................... ................ 14 B) CEQA A NALYSIS

................................................... ................................................... .......................... 15 C) C OSTS TO I NDUSTRY

................................................... ................................................... ...................... 16 D) C OSTS TO S TATE A GENCIES

................................................... ................................................... .......... 17 E) C OST -E FFECTIVENESS

................................................... ................................................... .................... 17 F) E CONOMIC I MPACT ON THE E CONOMY OF THE S TATE

................................................... ....................... 17 G) E NVIRONMENTAL J USTICE

................................................... ................................................... ............. 172

V. OUTREACH ...........................................

................................................... ....................................... 18

VI. ALTERNATIVES .......................................

................................................... .............................. 18

A) H ARMONIZE WITH THE FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARD S

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

................................................... ...................................... 18 2) ATVs ............................................

................................................... ................................................ 21 3) Exhaust Emissions Inventory Analysis ............

................................................... ............................ 22 B) P ROPOSE MORE STRINGENT EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS

................................................... ........... 24 C) “N O 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 Amendmentsi 

## Executive Summary

In 1994, the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) app roved the off-highway recreational vehicle (OHRV) regulation. This rulem aking established exhaust emission standards for off-road motorcycles and all -terrain vehicles (ATV), in an effort to reduce ozone. The regulated pollutants w ere hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO).

The OHRV regulation has been amended twice since it s adoption. In 1998, amendments were made to reduce the impact on dealer s and off-road enthusiasts resulting from the limited number of ve hicles meeting the emission standards. Vehicles not meeting the standards beca me eligible for recreational use on public lands, but only at times and places u nlikely to impact ozone levels. Although this was initially implemented in 1998, in accurate registrations necessitated a second amendment to the regulation. In 2003, the Board approved additional amendments that recognized a de lay 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 s imilar OHRV exhaust standards but also included evaporative emission st andards. The federal exhaust standards are not as stringent as Californi a’s, even though oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ) are also regulated, and they do not establish rid ing season restrictions. Moreover, even less stringent standa rds apply to small displacement OHRV engines.

In this rulemaking, staff is proposing the followin g:

• Harmonize with U.S. EPA evaporative emission stand ards

• 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 r educe reactive organic gases statewide by approximately 4.5 tons per day i n 2020. Because the federal and California evaporative emission requirements wo uld 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 e mission standards for these vehicles are more stringent than the current Califo rnia or federal ATV standards,

which will assure that emission reductions are not compromised.ii

Inserting the labeling requirements (with which ind ustry is already familiar) will clarify that these requirements, despite being suns etted for on-road motorcycles in a 2002 rulemaking, continue to apply to OHRVs.

Lastly, revising the riding seasons to coincide wit h current periods of clean air will allow more riding opportunities for owners of non-e mission controlled OHRVs, and other changes will simplify enforcement by publ ic land agency personnel.

The staff recommends the Board approve the proposed amendments.1



## I. INTRODUCTION

The California Clean Air Act, codified in the Healt h 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-veh icular sources (sections 43013 and 43018, Health and Safety Code). This leg islation specifically mandates that ARB adopt measures to reduce emission s from off-highway vehicles and off-highway motorcycles. The off-high way motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) subject to this proposa l are referred to hereafter under the general term “off-highway recreational vehicles ,” or OHRVs.

The regulatory proposal contains amendments that wi ll lead to additional
emission reductions and more efficient enforcement of the OHRV regulation. The proposed amendments include evaporative emissio n standards, revision of the riding seasons and locations for OHRVs that do not meet California’s exhaust emission standards, and addition of exhaust and eva porative standards for a new subcategory – recreational utility vehicles. Follo wing 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-s troke engines and are used primarily on trails and other types of terrain by o ff-road enthusiasts. Examples of

each are shown below:

OHRVs

Off-Road Motorcycle All-Terrain Vehicle (AT V)2

The exhaust from uncontrolled OHRVs is high in hydr ocarbons (HC), which are reactive organic gases (ROG) that form ozone. Tabl e 1, below, shows the ROG, carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ) emissions inventory for the category.

Table 1.

Statewide Emissions Inventory 1
Annual Average ( tons per day

)

Year Population ROG CO NO x 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 stand ards that the Board adopted in 1994, which are discussed in the next se ction. The minor increase in
NO
x emissions is due to leaner calibrations and a shif t from two-stroke to four-stroke technology, steps taken by OHRV manufac turers to reduce ROG
emissions. The NO
x

increase is more than offset by the greater reduct ions in
ROG emissions achieved.



### B) California Regulatory Activity

1) Initial Rulemaking

The Board first adopted the OHRV regulation (sectio ns 2410-2414, title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the docum ents incorporated by reference therein) in January 1994. The primary go al of the regulation was to control a significant source of ozone-forming emiss ions. To that end, the regulation implemented exhaust emissions standards for a segment of off-road vehicles that, prior to 1994, were not subject to a ny emission control requirements. Specifically, the Board adopted exha ust emission standards for off-road motorcycles and ATVs. Table 2, below, sho ws the exhaust emission standards that the Board adopted for OHRVs, based o n a transient, chassis dynamometer test.

1 Data for 1992 emissions inventory obtained from 19 94 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 ce rtify the on-road motorcycles for many years readily available for off-road motor cycle certification testing. However, many ATV manufacturers did not have compar able testing equipment at their disposal that could properly accommodate A TVs for chassis-based testing. Therefore, the Board agreed to allow indu stry to certify ATVs to comparable standards using a steady-state engine-ba sed 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+NO x (g/kW-hr) CO

(g/kW-hr) 225 cc and greater 13.4 400 ATV

Less than 225 cc 16.1 400 Source: Sections 2403 and 2412, Title 13, CCR

The effective dates for demonstrating compliance wi th California’s exhaust emission standards were: January 1, 1997, for engin e displacements greater than 90 cubic centimeters; and January 1, 1999, for engine displacements equal to or less than 90 cubic centimeters. Generally sp eaking, these dates coincide with the 1998 and 2000 model years, respectively. Because industry was otherwise amenable to the 1994 rulemaking, staff wa s 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, compet ition vehicles (predominantly off-road motorcycles) also remained eligible for sa le in California. However, staff took measures to assure that the usage of these unc ontrolled vehicles would be4

restricted. Specifically, “competition/racing vehi cles” were defined in the OHRV regulation as those vehicles that operated exclusiv ely on closed courses in sanctioned racing events. Additionally, staff coll aborated with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) before and after the rulemaking to make amendments to the procedure by which OHRV registrat ion was issued.



### 2) Activity following the initial rulemaking

At the time of the regulation’s adoption, staff est imated 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 d id not materialize as originally anticipated. Additionally, the population increase d 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 followi ng discussion provides a more detailed explanation for the reasons behind th is discrepancy, which requires an understanding of California’s longstand ing program for off-highway

recreation.

California’s off-highway recreation program dates b ack to the Chappie-Z'berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (section 3800 0 et seq., California Vehicle Code (CVC)). Since then, many areas on pub lic lands have been designated for OHRV use. The majority of these loc ations are managed by the California State Parks, the Bureau of Land Manageme nt (BLM), or the United States Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service), althou gh 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). Regi stration 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. Beca use it is the dominant color (top and bottom sections), this registration sticke r is commonly known as the
“Green Sticker.”

Emissions Compliant Off-Highway Vehicle Registration

“Green Sticker”5

With the 1997 implementation date of the OHRV regul ation fast approaching and no noticeable changes in the OHRV manufacturer’s pr oduct lines, California dealers and off-road enthusiast associations began to voice their concerns to ARB staff. Specifically, their interrelated concer ns were two-fold: 1) the popular-selling two-stroke/competition OHRVs did no t 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 enthu siasts 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 Califor nia Motorcycle Dealers Association; off-road enthusiast groups and associa tions, including the American Motorcyclist Association; several OHRV manufacturer s; 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, i t became apparent that the successful implementation of the adopted regulation s was being impeded principally because of a lack of compliant motorcyc les. Also during this time, staff became aware that many off-highway registrati ons were being issued inappropriately, as reported by public land personn el. These factors forced staff
to abandon an “administrative” solution and instead pursue a regulatory solution. The committee considered various strategies to acco mmodate the concerns of the dealers and off-road enthusiasts, while still a chieving meaningful emission reductions. The solution that was ultimately chose n accomplished this objective and was approved by the Board at the December 10, 1 998 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 vehicl e registration. Together these measures provided for the limited use of noncomplyi ng 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 “attainm ent” with the State’s ambient air quality standard for ozone, both the emission compl iant and noncompliant OHRVs may operate year-round. In riding areas with in “nonattainment” air basins for ozone, only the emission compliant OHRVs may operate year-round. The noncompliant OHRVs are subject to riding season s determined by analyzing
historical data for ozone exceedances and consideri ng meteorological conditions,6

such as prevailing wind patterns. The intent of th is 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 seco nd off-highway registration sticker specifically for the registration of noncom pliant OHRVs was created with
the collaboration of DMV. Because of its color sch eme, 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 t he 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 enforc e the riding seasons. The riding seasons specify where and when these noncomp liant vehicles may be used on designated public lands.

On July 24, 2003, the OHRV regulation was again ame nded to reflect the delay in riding season enforcement by the land management agencies, due to inconsistent registrations of newer vehicles. Spec ifically, registrations were issued inconsistently because many manufacturers in correctly identified their noncomplying OHRVs, and there was a delay in the DM V implementation of the appropriate computer programming to process off-hig hway vehicle registrations. At the time of the 2003 amendments, both of these p roblems had been largely
resolved.

Thus, the OHRV regulation as it exists today balanc es the needs of dealers and
off-road enthusiasts with the need for emissions re ductions 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 recrea tional vehicles and engines. Included in this regulation were exhaust and evapor ative 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 chassi s-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+NO x

(g/km) CO

(g/km)

California ALL 1.2 — 15 Motorcycle 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-Igni tion Engines, and Recreational Engines”

Note that California has standards for HC and CO, w hereas the federal
standards are for HC+NO
x and CO. Because the engines used in OHRVs emit
much more HC than NO
x , as corroborated by the emissions inventory in Tab le 1 above, California’s HC standard is considered more stringent than the federal
HC+NO
x standards. California’s CO standard is also more stringent than the
federal CO standards.

Table 5, below, highlights the differences in exhau st emission standards for the alternative set of standards that apply when using an engine test.8 Table 5.

California and Federal Exhaust Emission Standards C omparison

Optional (Engine-Based) Test ( grams per kilowatt-hour – g/kW-hr )

Vehicle Type California

or Federal Engine

Displacement (cubic centimeters) HC+NO x (g/kW-hr) CO

(g/kW-hr)

California N/A N/A N/A Motorcycle

Federal Less than 70 cc 25.0 610

California 225 cc and greater 13.4 400 Large

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 S park-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engines”

U.S. EPA allows smaller off-road motorcycles (<70cc ) to comply using the steady-state test engine-based standards. Californ ia does not allow
manufacturers to use the alternative test and stand ards for off-road motorcycles because: 1) it believes the transient chassis test better represents actual operation, 2) motorcycles are currently being certi fied using this test method, and 3) four-stroke engines are widely available for the se 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 stri ngent exhaust emission standards for ATVs with engine displacements less t han 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 n eeded because a full line of small ATVs meeting the more stringent California st andards is available.9



### 2) Evaporative Emissions

The recent federal regulation contains evaporative emission standards aimed at controlling losses due to permeation from fuel tank s and hoses. California has no comparable standards. Compared to uncontrolled levels, the federal regulation requires an 85-percent reduction in plas tic 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/m 2 /day )

Emission Component Standard Fuel Tank Permeation 1.5 g/m 2 /day Fuel Hose Permeation 15.0 g/m 2 /day Source: 2002: Federal Register Notice: “Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreational Engi nes”



### 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 w ith requirements based on the horsepower of the engine. Vehicles with engines le ss than 25 horsepower are certified based on meeting the SORE regulation, whi le 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 introd uction of utility vehicles
which are

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

.

In the federal regulation, these utility vehicles n ow 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 di stinctions between ATVs and certain ATV-like utility vehicles. Staff is propos ing 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 of f-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 2 008 and subsequent OHRVs. By adopting these standards and test procedures, Ca lifornia would harmonize with the federal requirements, allowing ARB to enfo rce the standards and requirements. The proposed evaporative standards a nd 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/m 2 /day )

Emission Component Standard Test Temperature Fuel Tank Permeation 1.5 g/m 2 /day 28 ̊ C (82 ̊ F) Fuel Hose Permeation 15.0 g/m 2 /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 platel ets, sulfonation treatment, fluorination treatment, and barrier fuel hose. A d iscussion 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 reg ulation, ATVs have evolved into much larger and specialized vehicles, with fea tures that no longer meet the existing ATV definition. Some of the features foun d on new ATVs include:

• seating for two persons (i.e., the operator plus o ne 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 th ree categories, or classes, that include these new features and better distinguish t oday’s ATVs.

Class I: ATVs designed to travel on four or more lo w-pressure tires, having a seat designed to be straddled by the operator and h andlebars 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 ha ving straddle seating for one operator and one passenger.

Class III: An off-road utility vehicle that has fou r 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 mo re 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 kilowa tts, and is capable of speeds over 25 miles per hour.

With the creation of these three ATV “Classes,” sta ff proposes amending the definition of “Off-Highway Recreational Vehicle Eng ines” or “Engines” in section 2411, title 13, CCR, to remove unnecessary language within it. Manufacturers have questioned whether the existing language exemp ts certain ATV-like utility vehicles from the LSI regulation. However, those u tility vehicles are proposed for coverage under the new ATV Class III definition; th erefore, the phrase “... but not
limited to use in ...” is no longer at issue. Removing it and adding t he Class III definition will clarify the applicability of the OH RV regulation.

Since the promulgation of the federal regulation, s ome utility vehicle
manufacturers have asked California to harmonize wi th the federal requirements, which require utility vehicles meeting the Class II I definition (above) to certify to12

the federal ATV standards. In California, utility vehicles have been required to comply with exhaust emission standards for LSI engi nes, or the exhaust standards for small engines typically used in lawn and garden equipment (i.e., SORE). Table 8, below, shows the exhaust em ission standards for both;
note that the federal ATV standard for HC+NO
x 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+NO x (g/kW-hr) CO

(g/kW-hr)

California
LSI/SORE Less than 1 liter 12.0 549 Utility
Vehicle

Federal ATV Less than 1 liter 13.4 400

Because many of the utility vehicles that are eligi ble to certify to the federal ATV standards use the same engines that are installed i n ATVs, and recognizing the cost to manufacturers of testing an otherwise ident ical engine according to two different test procedures, staff proposes harmonizi ng insofar as allowing Cass III utility vehicles to certify using the ATV test proc edure. The proposal would also harmonize California’s less stringent CO standard w ith that of U.S. EPA’s (i.e., 400 g/kW-hr). However, because of the potential lo ss of emission reductions if compliance with the less stringent federal standard for HC+NO
x were allowed, staff proposes to maintain the more stringent Calif ornia 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+NO x

( 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 nonco mpliant certification or Red Sticker registration. Unlike off-road motorcycles, the federal regulation does not13

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 compl ying with the proposed levels using four-stroke technologies, California h as little reason to explore a less protective noncompliant certification option f or this category. Moreover, noncompliant certification is unnecessary since the se vehicles are already meeting LSI emission standards.



### D) Labeling Requirements

Dating back to the initial 1994 OHRV rulemaking, th e 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, C CR, and the incorporated
document entitled: “California Motor Vehicle Emissi on Control and Smog Index Label Specifications.”

At a December 12, 2002 Public Hearing, the Board ap proved 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-ro ad motorcycles also manufacture OHRVs. Although the incorporated docum ents remained in effect for OHRVs and manufacturers have continued to compl y, industry had uncertainty about the applicability of the “Specifi cations” document for the OHRV labeling requirements. The staff’s proposal would insert into section 2413 the labeling requirements that were previously containe d in the “Specifications” and incorporated by reference.



### E) Adjustments to Riding Seasons

The 1998 rulemaking made provisions for the Executi ve Officer to periodically review the riding season schedule and make adjustme nts and revisions, if warranted. Since riding seasons became effective, staff has received feedback from both the land agencies and off-road enthusiast s. One common theme throughout has been the desire for a more uniform s chedule of dates, particularly
for those areas that are near other areas or betwee n areas that are connected by common trails. With this in mind, staff has analyz ed recent ozone data and revised the riding season schedule accordingly. Al though changes to the riding seasons can be made by the Executive Officer with p roper notice, staff has opted to include this amendment with this rulemaking.

The majority of riding areas are under the jurisdic tion of the U.S. Forest Service. Because of the numerous connecting and adjacent rid ing areas, these riding seasons are proposed for consolidation for each par ticular ranger district, with each district having one riding season that applies throughout. For the most part, riding areas under the jurisdiction of the Californ ia State Parks or BLM do not14

connect with other areas. However, in cases where they do, the proposed riding seasons are uniform between neighboring areas, as i n 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 fro m 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 Califo rnia-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 tho se areas that are designated for OHRV usage.

Lastly, within section 2415, the Governor’s Executi ve Order (W144-97) review provision has been deleted both because it expired by operation of law and because the 2003 OHRV rulemaking fulfilled its requ irement.



## IV. AIR QUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

A) Air Quality Benefits

A summary of the benefits from the regulatory propo sal is shown in Table 10, below. The emission reductions were determined by assuming the same amount of permeation control that the federal regulation r equires. By 2020, the proposal would provide a reduction of 4.5 tons per day of re active organic gases.

Table 10.

Statewide Evaporative Emission Benefits Reactive Organic Gases ( tons per day

)

Year Vehicle Type Baseline Controlled Benefit

Motorcycle 8.62 7.50 1.18 2010

ATV 6.38 5.73 0.65
TOTAL — 15.00 13.23 1.83 2020 Motorcycle 11.33 8.61 2.7215 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 vehicle s 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 i ncrease to the emissions inventory. However, because these additional ridin g opportunities occur when ozone levels are expected to be below the ambient a ir quality standards, the increase will not significantly impact nonattainmen t air basins.



### B) CEQA Analysis

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an analysis to determine the potential adverse environ mental impacts of proposed regulations. Because the ARB’s program involving th e adoption of regulations has been certified by the Secretary of Resources (s ee Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis r equirements are allowed to be included in the ARB Staff Report or Technical Do cument in lieu of preparing an environmental impact report or negative declarat ion. 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 hea ring. 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 t he 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 alternati ve means of compliance with the regulations.

The staff’s proposal lists additional riding opport unities for noncomplying OHRVs, which could theoretically present the opportunity f or 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 som e cases will allow for enforcement to reduce emissions in areas currently used for riding with no restrictions. Together, this will reduce incidence s of inappropriate usage of noncomplying OHRVs during periods of high ozone lev els 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 clarificat ion that riding is to be done only16

in designated riding areas protects other media tha t 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 signi ficant negative effects on the environment. Therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures are proposed to avoid or reduce any signif icant effects on the

environment.



### C) Costs to Industry

Because of its harmonizing aspects, the staff propo sal is not expected to impose costs on industry. Although the California standar ds 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 wil l likely result in savings for the manufacturers, not costs.

California’s harmonization with the evaporative sta ndards 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 th e incremental costs for OHRV manufacturers to meet the federal evaporative emiss ion standards.

Table 11.

Permeation Control Technologies and Incremental Cos ts

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 $0.5217

The costs industry would incur to maintain a separa te line of OHRVs for California with uncontrolled fuel system components would exceed the
incremental costs listed above because it would inv olve additional labor to remove and replace the low-permeation tanks and hos es on “American-bound” product, as well as the effort to manage the accura te distribution of an uncontrolled, “California-only” product.



### D) Costs to State Agencies

Staff believes there would be no real incremental c ost increase associated with adopting the federal evaporative standards as the C alifornia standards. Any ARB compliance testing performed would be done with existing resources. Accordingly, the proposed requirements are not expe cted to result in an overall increase in costs for state and local agencies. Th e 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 e mission standard was determined by U.S. EPA to be about $0.11 per pound of ozone precursors reduced, which compares favorably with the cost-eff ectiveness of California mobile source and motor vehicle fuels regulations a dopted 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 eva porative 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 evapor ative emission standards and utility vehicle requirements, no negative impac t on the economy of the state is expected. At the retail level, California deale rs will not be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the country because the eva porative requirements in this proposal are identical to the federal requirements. However, because of the revisions to the riding seasons, dealers may experi ence increased sales.



### G) Environmental Justice

The environmental justice implications of the regul atory proposal remain unchanged from the existing regulation. OHRVs typi cally are not used in or near environmental justice communities. Because the Red Sticker program ensures that higher-polluting OHRVs are not used when ambie nt air quality exceeds the standards for ozone, all California communities sha re the benefits.18



## V. OUTREACH

Shortly after the federal regulation was promulgate d in 2002, there was a noticeable increase in stakeholder activity, includ ing numerous meetings and correspondence regarding harmonizing utility vehicl es to the ATV standards in the same fashion as the federal regulation, request s to harmonize completely with the federal regulation, and recommendations to revise the riding seasons. Additional meetings between staff, industry, and of f-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 fr om industry, off-road enthusiast groups, and the public land agencies. A t the workshop, staff summarized the amendments that would be proposed to the Board. These amendments included adopting evaporative emission s tandards that harmonize with the federal standards, revising the riding sea son schedule for noncomplying vehicles, and inserting into title 13, CCR the labe ling requirements that were previously incorporated by reference. Staff also in formed 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 a sked for their comments and suggestions.



## VI. ALTERNATIVES

A) Harmonize with the federal exhaust emission stan dards

Staff considered harmonizing with the federal exhau st emission standards as an alternative to this proposal, but rejected it becau se it would increase emissions compared to the proposed amendments. Manufacturers have suggested that aligning with the federal exhaust emission standard s would provide California dealers more off-road motorcycle models to sell, wh ich would reduce the off-road enthusiasts’ frustration of having to abide by ridi ng season limitations. The following discussion will explain staff’s reasons f or 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 c ontrol strategies that had proved successful with on-road motorcycles; such as more precise fuel metering, and engine and cooling modifications. A comparison of the uncontrolled19

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 NO
x emissions

Since 1997, emissions-compliant off-road motorcycle s have certified to levels between 0.5 and 1.0 g/km for HC and between 5 and 1 2 g/km for CO. Thus,
manufacturers have demonstrated that California’s s tandards are indeed achievable, often by comfortable margins. The prim ary complaint against the emission-compliant off-road motorcycles is that the y do not exhibit the same performance characteristics as do the two-stroke mo dels 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) NO x

(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 emi ssion-compliant models,
and because the emissions from uncontrolled four-st roke models are very close to compliance levels, maintaining the existing HC e mission standards remains the reasonable and environmentally-responsible emis sion standard for California. Although harmonizing with U.S. EPA’s 2.0 g/km HC+NO
x standard would seemingly ensure that all four-stroke models would be eligible for certification,
such a standard does not demonstrate an effort to r educe 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 beca use U.S. EPA wanted to determine whether these vehicles were capable of fo llowing the driving schedule. In their rulemaking, U.S. EPA expressed concerns ab out the representativeness of the existing engine-based test cycle, which they will phase-out in 2010. Efforts by industry to create a suitable, replacement engin e-based test cycle are in progress; however, there is uncertainty as to the c ompletion date of the project. In the event a replacement test cycle does not mate rialize, 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+NO
x standard in the federal regulation for ATVs is ess entially equivalent to California’s 1.2 g/km HC standard, bu t the federal 35 g/km CO standard is much less stringent. U.S. EPA agreed w ith industry that a stringent
CO standard could make it more difficult to meet th e HC+NO
x standard. However the emission data generated by U.S. EPA sho wed 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+NO
x 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) NO x

(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 s tandards should be set to levels that result in emission reductions, not at l evels reflecting the status quo. Moreover, the standards should not be skewed unnece ssarily upward because of a small number of poorly calibrated models.



### 3) Exhaust Emissions Inventory Analysis

Staff considered this complete harmonization altern ative thoroughly, but has
determined that the current exhaust emission standa rds 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 standar ds. At this time, staff has not
identified an alternative that would be more effect ive in achieving the goal of expanding riding opportunities and product selectio n without harming air quality.23 Table 15.

Emissions Impact of Full Harmonization with U.S. EP A Standards

( tons per day – annual

)

Year Standards HC CO NO x

California 28.0 60.2 0.5 2010
Federal 29.7 77.5 0.5
INCREASE — 1.7 17.3 —

California 38.4 82.8 0.7 2020
Federal 40.8 106.4 0.7
INCREASE — 2.4 23.6 —

Additionally, the Red Sticker program, with its rid ing seasons, better serves California’s air quality needs than would the feder al regulation. The primary intent of the OHRV regulation was to reduce ozone-f orming emissions. With OHRV engines, these are primarily HC or ROG emissio ns. By restricting the usage of the noncomplying OHRVs during the summer m onths, when ozone levels are highest, significant ROG emission reduct ions are achieved.

Bearing in mind that OHRVs are most often used on w eekends, staff conducted a statewide analysis comparing the summer weekend d ay emissions inventory for 2010, as shown in Table 16, below. Staff's ana lysis was done on a statewide basis because data regarding the number of OHRVs op erating at each riding area is not available. Thus, the analysis slightly overestimates the benefits of the Red Sticker program, as it assumes that noncomplyin g OHRVs would not be operated, even at those riding areas that allow yea r-round riding. However, the directional effect of the program is clear.

Table 16.

2010 Summer Weekend Day Impact of Red Sticker Progr am (tons per day)

Scenario ROG CO NO x 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 r iding areas with restrictions on noncomplying OHRVs, the ROG emissions are reduced v ery 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 standard s

This proposal is focused on addressing near term is sues and assuring that
California realizes the full benefits of the recent ly adopted federal evaporative emission standards. Staff has not completed an eva luation on the feasibility or viability of more stringent exhaust or evaporative emission standards for OHRVs, and thus has not proposed more stringent requiremen ts as part of this proposal.

Staff intends to do further evaluation of more stri ngent standards in the near future. Upcoming State Implementation Plan revisio ns are expected to reaffirm
the need for additional emission reductions. OHRVs do not utilize catalytic converters, a technology used on nearly all other s park ignited engines. In addition, the evaporative emission requirements ado pted by U.S. EPA do not include control of diurnal emissions, and thus ther e is the potential for further evaporative emission reductions. Based on staff’s evaluation, additional requirements for OHRVs and other similar vehicles a nd/or engines may be proposed in the future.



### C) “No action” alternative

If no action were taken to amend the OHRV regulatio n, ARB would not be able to enforce the evaporative emission standards in Calif ornia if noncompliance was determined. Additionally, by not revising the ridi ng seasons, enforcement of the riding restrictions in the Red Sticker program woul d continue to be unnecessarily burdensome for public land personnel in those locat ions where riding areas with different riding seasons have connecting trails, an d the off-road enthusiasts can repeatedly travel from unrestricted to restricted r iding areas.



## VII. ISSUES OF CONTROVERSY

The most prominent controversy related to the OHRV regulation is the Red Sticker program, with its usage restrictions impose d upon noncomplying, high-emitting OHRVs. Since 2003, the off-road comm unity has engaged in highvolume letter writing campaigns to the Governor and the Chair of the Board seeking a repeal of the restrictions. Understood i n its proper context, however, the Red Sticker program is actually a generous comp romise 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 hav e 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 bel ieves repeal would be unacceptable, and that the Red Sticker program that allows operation of uncontrolled OHRVs during months without ozone poll ution remains the best alternative, balancing the desires of riders and th e 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 additio n of evaporative standards to the OHRV regulation will reduce ozone-forming emiss ions, as well as provide the foundation for subsequent evaporative control measu res. The inclusion of eligible utility vehicles into the OHRV regulation reduces t he manufacturers’ testing burden without compromising emission reductions. L astly, the revisions to the riding seasons will allow additional riding and res ult in a program that operates more efficiently.

Staff recommends that the Board approve this regula tory 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 w ould be as effective or less burdensome to affected private persons than the pro posed alternative.26



## IX. REFERENCES

ARB 1994. Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consid er the Adoption of Regulations Regarding California Exhaust Emission S tandards and Test Procedures for Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles an d Engines”

ARB 1998. Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consid er Amendments to the California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-H ighway Recreational Vehicles and Engines”

ARB 2003: Staff Report: “Public Hearing to Consid er Amendments to the California Regulations for New 1997 and Later Off-H ighway Recreational Vehicles and Engines”

U.S. EPA 2002: Federal Register Notice: “Control of Emissions from Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engines, and Recreatio nal Engines (Marine and Land Based)”

U.S. EPA 2002: “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines”