Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

nail i'nto that particular coffin or we will never get our economic house in order in th is country.'" Addition ally, Mr . Davidson showed a film to illustrate the difference in noise levels at stan di ng sta rt an d passby situations between stock and mod ified Harley-Davidson machines. A live demonstration of the same was con du cted on Ind epen den ce Avenue as evidence tha t no one ha d tampered with the film's sou nd tra ck. (T he on ly bone- rattli ng no ises t h a t 1 he a rd em anated fro m a D.C . tra nsit b us, which even drowned out t he sou nd of a modified mach ine.) What follows is the thought provoking ques tio n / ans wer series th at too k pla ce aft er th e Goodling /Da vidson / Youngblood presentations: The AMA's Ed Youngblood uses a graph to illustrate the cost relationship to motorcycles should the EPA noise regulations go into effect. . I . t \ddressing the noiSe pro b le m . EPA proposed noise controls By Mary Grothe Photos by Ron and Mary Grothe WASHINGTON , DC , MAY 3 In an informal briefing on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed noise regulations, Representative Bill Goodling (DPA), American Motorcyclist Association Director of Go vernment Rela.tio n s Ed Youngblood , and AMF/ H a rl ey-Da vidson Chairh David dd d man J0 n avi son a resse 18 co~gressmen and staff mem bers of t he t!mted States Ho use of Rep resenta nves. .. Attendees consisted m amly of staff members , and on ly two congressmen Rep . Ralp h Wal ker (D· PA) and Good ling . No members of loca l or national press attended . Rep . Goodling , the spo nsor of th is meeting , ope ned it with a short speech which follows in part: " In my district in particul a r . after Three Mile "Island and th e devastating results econ omical - Iy that may happen in our area , we don't need any more problems in re lat ionship to business and industry . The problem we're going to talk about could ca use those kinds of problems.. . As I'm sure you know , there ar e som e EPA regulations for no ise levels on motorcycles.. .(which) create quite a problem in relationship to fighting infla tion. "T he three th ings we're concern ed with are: (1) Inflation . (2) excessive government regu la tion , and (3) the fu tu re of the last domesti c product ion of motorcycles in the U.S. Not too long ago I was talking about t he last product ion of bicycle tires in th e U.S. Seems to mew~ better g~t our act. in orde r pretty ql;uckly or we II be talking too many times a bo ut the last (domestic) production of something. " As fa r as inflati on is concerned , the COWPS (Cou ncil on Wage an d Price Stability) opposed th ese regul ati ons for many reasons. They say that according to th e EPA 's own records that th e increased cost to the consumer would be some whe re between $200 and $350 m illion per year - a t a time when we're trying to fight the battl e ag ainst infla tion .. .Inflation figh ters are saying that these particular regulations wou ld not be wise at this particular time. " T hen , the ex cess ive regulations that I referred to: As -we understand from all the research that _we have been able to do , most of the adjustments (exha ust modifications ) that .are ca using the problems are being made by th e (m otorcycle) purchaser, not by the company. So what good are the regulations? ..Who is going to control the consumer? "So, hopefully, as we consider ways to save an industry in this country, we'll be able to come up with som e reasonable solutions to thi s problem... With the kind of inflation ... (and) th e kind of trade deficit we ar e faced with , we just don't want to drive one more Congressman Ralph Walker (D-PA): I'm a motorcyclist ; I've written for motorcycle magazines including the A MA N ews. Let me pose just one qu estion : Is the industry in favor of a position which would say that owners cannot modify exhaust systems sim ila r to the present system that says that owners of cars cannot modify the cata lytic con verter system s on their ca rs? Would you com e down in favor of that kind of position in order to get a t th e heart ofthe problem ? J, Davidson: In my view th e problem is tampering. The onl y way that I know is to enforce against that , and we as a manufacturer would favor a law that would say that you can't modify your motorcycle , and penalties would be stiff. The EPA has taken a position that they really" don't have any funding available. nor do they hav e regulatory authorization to do anything at the loca l or sta te leve \. T hey have said , '"We will encou rage states to help us with the prob lem .'" RW: You know , to get that point across , you need to spend as much time on that as on arguing the posit ion of the industry, because, one th ing I point out constantly to businessmen and others is tha t in pol itics today, in the realm in which we all op erate, the perception of reality is as important as the reality itself. You can show that film and you can esta blish th e facts of th e matter, and the fact is that mos r people out there think that motorcycles are wild , and the y don't like the m. If vou' re going to the public and the politicians a nd saying, "This will force all motorcycles off th e road ," you' ll hav e a lot of th e public out there that will say, "Good .' The problem stems from the fact t hat pra ct icall y every small town in the coun try has what we have in Lancaster - a loop that people ride around a t nigh t, includ ing mo torcycles , a nd even though there a re loud cars out th er e, the motorcycles are identified as being the theme of the problem, not the loud cars. Those people would come down solidly in favor of anything the EPA wants to do in terms of decibel levels. They're no t going to worry about the state of the' Am erican business. They're not going to worry about any of that. They're going to worry about the loud motorcycles and getting them off the streets, and 1 think that, from my position as a motorcyclist who 's interested in seeing the survival of Harley-Davidson, absolutely, you've got to go to the public and say, '"We want loud motorcycles off the road and we're willing to do what's necessary to get loud motorcycles off the road. '" JD: We have been do ing that , but I don't know if we've been doing that as 'effectively as we should. Ed Youngblood: The AMA has been doing that since 1947 . We 've con- ·sidered the noise problem a major one . RW: The other problem that our industry has is that motorcycles , to a lot of people are socially unacceptable. We've seen mo vies, Th e Wild On es, and all those good th ings . And 1 think th a t pa rt of the onsl a ught of regulation tha t we see is tha t th ere are _people ou t there t hat would just as soon not see motorcycles anymore. You will no t evoke much sympathy from peo ple who a re not familiar with how mu ch · fun motorcycling re ally is or how much of a fac tor it is in Ame ric an business. Whatever the rationale, you won't get much sympathy. EY: I can't d isprove an ything you've said. I've presented data t his morning indi cating that , quantitatively, it is a m inority problem. As you point out, perception is more important than reality. For me and our association , the biggest headaches I've had in the last three years ar e all in some way related to excessive no ise. We encourage strict-enforcement... (a nd) we are recommending today that EPA turn more of its attention in the direction of local enforcement at the reasonable standard [83 dB(A»), rather than taking a killer standard and hoping that that's going to wash out the problem. RW: You know the cost problem - it seems to me I'm right on catalytic con -, verters and the way they got around that. The didn't hav e to have any cost for that. What they did was im pose huge fines on anybody or any dealer or repairshop or on anybody who modified machines . That doesn't get you away from owner modifications. You can handle (tha t) through inspec tion standards if they're good, and that doesn't cost them any money. I think you' re going to hav e to push ' hard in that area . JD: When 1 listened to som e of th e" states testify at 'p u blic hearings, their posture was, '"Yes, we agree that modification is a problem. The EPA agrees. We 're glad the industry feels that wa y." . .. Will the fed eral government fund some folks that can go out with meters so that we can kill the modification problem? And the EPA's response is that funding isn't available. So, going to a fed eral standard, 83 = 80 - 78 , to me, will not resolve the problem at all . In fact , we could have more people that modify because they don't like it qu ite as quiet as EPA wan ts it , and nobody is enforcing it ag ainst them. That's our main consideration. Below are the highlights of Ed Youngblood 's address to m em bers of th e United Stat es H ouse of R epr esenta tives on EPA 's propos ed motorcycle noise regulations on May J. As you know , we have asked for an opportunity to talk about EPA 's proposed motorcycle noise regulations. Mr. Davidson will talk to you about the disastrous impact EPA 's plan can have on a domestic ind ustry. I will confine my comments to their effect on the American motorcycle owner. After all , it is always the consumer who bears the brunt of inflation after compliance , development, cer tification, and other regulatory costs are passed on by the manufacturers. We are in favor of a uniform nationwide standard for motorcycle noise because we believe that an enforceable. uniform pn>gram of noise abatement is beneficial to the image of motorcycling, and can lead to better public acceptance of our activity. We also support the concept of a uniform nationwide standard. which is far preferable to a hodgepodge of con -

• Cover