State of California

Biltmore Hotel
Gold Room
515 South Olive
Los Angeles, CA

June 26, 1980
10:00 a.m.



80-12-1 Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Title 001
13, California Administrative Code, Regarding the
Extension of the Compliance Date for Class 3
Motorcycles with the Evaporative Emissions Standard.

80-12-2 Public Hearing to Consider Motorcycle 025
Manufacturers' Petitions Requesting the Board
Reevaluate the 1.0 gram per kilometer Hydrocarbon
Exhaust Emission Standard for 1982 and Subsequent
Model Year Motorcycles.

80-12-3 Other Business
a. Research Proposals
b. Delegations to Executive Officer
c. Executive Session

-- Emergency Action: re SCAQMD Rule 1135.1 and
Venture Rule 59.1 (request to
stay implementation)

-- Bay Area Lead Agency Status (request to withdraw
earlier EO delegated designation, to consider MTC
Memo of Agreement, and renotice EO delegation for
Tri-lead agencies, if appropriate).

ITEM NO.: 80-12-1

Proposed Amendments to Title 13, California Administrative Code,
Regarding the Extension of California's 1983 and 1985 Evaporative
Emission Standards for Class III Motorcycles until 1984 and 1986.


In March 1977, staff reported to the Air Resources Board that
tests conducted on motorcycles showed that their evaporative
emissions were over three times higher than the 6.0 grams of
hydrocarbons per test allowed for passenger cars in 1978.
Prompted by this information, the Board instructed staff to
investigate the feasibility of establishing evaporative emission
standards and test procedures for motorcycles. After completing
this assignment, the staff recommended a 2.0 grams per test
evaporative emissions standard beginning with the 1982 model

A public hearing was held in December, 1977 to consider the
staff's recommendation, and the Board tentatively set the
standards at 6.0 grams per test commencing in 1983 and 2.0 grams
per test commencing in 1985. The extra lead time was provided to
allow the manufacturers and the staff to resolve problems such as
selecting the heating apparatus, determining the test
methodology, improving the methods of durability testing, and
developing bench test procedures.

After a series of studies and workshops, a public hearing was
held in August 1979 to consider all the proposed revisions to the
evaporative emission test procedure for motorcycles and, in
October 1979, the California Evaporative Emissions Standards and
Test Procedures for 1978 and Subsequent Model Gasoline-Powered
Motor Vehicles were amended to include the motorcycle test

In February, 1980, Honda Motor Company petitioned for a one year
extension of the effective dates of 1983 and 1985 evaporative
emission standards for its Class III (280 cc and larger)
motorcycles. It also recommended that the Air Resources Board
adopt the evaporative emission standards of 5.8 and 1.8 grams per
test with the effective dates described above and drop completely
the enforcement of the fill pipe regulation for motorcycles. It
stated that problems such as the larger float bowl fuel volume
associated with larger motorcycles, the larger charcoal capacity
required by these vehicles, and the vibration associated with
current frame designs, make compliance with the standards on the
existing schedule technologically infeasible.

After reviewing the issues outlined by Honda, the staff concurs
with Honda's petition while, at the same time, pointing out that
Executive Order G-70-16-D already exempts motorcycles equipped
with evaporative emission control systems certified at .2 grms
per test or more below the applicable emission standards from the
Board's fill-pipe specification. Therefore, since the fill-pipe
issue has been resolved, the staff recommends that the Board
adopt Resolution 80-26 which extends the current evaporative
emission standards for Class III motorcycles for one year.

ITEM NO.: 80-12-2

Response to the Motorcycle Manufacturers' Petition Requesting the
Board Reevaluate the 1.0 Gram Per Kilometer Exhaust Emission
Standard for 1982 and Subsequent Model Year Motorcyles.


The May 8, 1980, release of staff report 80-12-2 contains the
following statement on page two of the Summary: "In the absence
of relevant supporting data in the various petitions, the staff,
at this time, does not believe it can provide a thorough
evaluation of the manufacturers' ability to comply with the 1.0
g/km HC standard". Consequently, a staff recommendation was
withheld pending a request for additional data and workshop
interaction with the manufacturers' representatives. Industry
workshops were scheduled for the week of May 12-16.
Subsequently, seven individual confidential workshops were held
with the manufacturers to discuss the items which are shown in
Appendix II of the initial staff report. These items included
research goals and milestones, development and testing programs,
emission control system capabilities, and costs.

After a thorough analysis of the manufacturers petitions, the
workshop submissions, and the confidential discussions held with
each of the manufacturers' representatives, the staff has
concluded that the 1.0 g/km HC standard is technologically
feasible; that it is cost effective; and that it will not create
any economic hardship upon the state's economy. A minor fuel
economy penalty will result from the hydrocarbon standard for
Class III motorcycles which should average approximately five
percent for the industry. Class I and II motorcycles should get
better fuel economy due to conversions from 2-stroke engines to
4-stroke engines. Several manufacturers, however, indicated that
the lead time needed to meet the 1982 1.0 g/km HC standard is not
sufficient to allow for the introduction of new control
technologies. These manufacturers stated that the 1982 standards
would result in late model introductions that would put them and
their dealers at a competitive disadvantage. One manufacturer is
uncertain of its catalyst supply, since commitments from the
vendor have only been verbal. Several manufacturers hope to
revise their engine designs and additional lead time would
facilitate these efforts. The final deadline for the decision to
certify and produce 1982 1.0 gm/km engines was June 1, 1980 for
most manufacturers which has already passed.

Because of these conflicts, the staff is recommending that the
Board delay the 1.0 g/km HC standard for one additional year
until 1983. This action will prevent possible market disruptions
and economic hardships for the motorcycle industry. The industry
has made a significant effort toward meeting the 1.0 g/km HC
standard, and all the manufacturers, except possibly for very
small manufacturers, have the necessary technology for compliance
available to them. The additional year will ensure that
compliance is achieved with durable systems which minimize
performance, fuel economy, and driveability penalties. It will
also provide additional system development time for the small
manufacturers, and it will allow those manufacturers which have
new systems under development to introduce them.

In addition to the proposal for a one year delay of the 1.0 gm/km
hydrocarbon standard, the staff believes that additional studies
should be performed in order to develop a proposal for the 1985
and 1986 model year. One area of concern is that NOx emissions
from 1980 model year motorcycles are significantly higher than
pre-control models due to the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
control strategies currently being used. Also the catalyst
control technologies which will be used in 1983 by some
manufacturers should be capable for further HC and CO reductions
without any significant increase in cost with additional
development time and production experience. Emissions of HC and
CO are related to both engine size and engine configuration, so
standards could be designed which require the use of only the
cleanest engines, or corporate average emission standards could
be adopted which require low average emissions but which provide
the manufacturers with some latitude in choosing their model

In order to investigate these concerns, the staff proposes to
hold additional workshops with the manufacturers to discuss
emission controls for the mid to late 1980's. The staff would
then give the Board a report on its findings and provide a