Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1990's

California Air Resources Board Chairman John Dunlap III By Mark Hoyer ~ nless you've been wandering the California wilderness on your green-stickered two-stroke for the past year in total ignorance of the dark days of doom ahead, you'll know that your two-stroke-riding freedom in the Golden State is, at this moment, on the brink of being curtailed drastically. . On the books for 1997 is an alreadyadopted regulation, written by the California Air Resources Board, which dramatically reduces the allowable emissions levels for newly manufactured off-road "recreation" vehicles used on public land. Though not written with verbiage specifically excluding two-cycle internal-combustion engines, the allowable emissions levels are presently set so low that it is an effective ban on the engine type as it exists today. Even if you don't live in California, watch out: California often leads the way in air-quality standard-setting, and what starts there frequently ends up spreading to the rest of the nation. When word first got out about the regulation, a concerned group, led by AMA District 36, examined what options there were with regard to creating a positive dialogue with CARB about altering or postponing the regulation. Initial examination of the report on which the regulation was founded looked to the eyes of the motorcycling community to be based on outdated or misconstrued information. What this amounted to was what the motorcycling community perceived as an overstatement of projected benefits of limiting emissions, and an understatement of the regulation's effect on the state's economy. Ultimately D-36 hired a consultant experienced in this area who also happened to have very good contacts with CARB. The consultant was quite beneficial in that meetings were arranged and CARB seemed amenable to open discussion about motorcyclists' concerns with the new regulation. So while credit is due these organizations and individuals who approached the California Air Resources Board for a meeting to discuss possible changes to the regulation, CARB deserves a nod as well for not turning its back on the situation and remaining open to dialogue on the subject of possible changes. The man behind the meeting on CARB's end is chairman John Dunlap Ill. Dunlap was appointed chairman by Governor Pete Wilson in December, 1994, and confirmed by the California State Senate in September, 1995. Prior to being appointed to the Air Resources Board, Dunlap served for two years as the chief deputy director at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and before that spent nearly 10 years at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Since the time that this issue was first brought to light, a good deal of rumor and misinformation has clouded exactly who would be affected by the regulation and which bikes would be legal for use on public land. This interview took place to address these issues and came about as a direct result of one of the meetings between D-36, D-37, the AMA and CARB. This telephone interview took place December 6, two days after the final meeting - the last chance for any kind of reprieve - before the regulation was scheduled to go into effect on January 1. Where does the so-called two-stroke ban stand at this moment? Let me start off by saying that the characterization of it as a ban is not some- (W thing that I would agree with. What we're talking about is a set of emissions standards for motorcycles, and that it appears in the short term that fourstroke motorcycles are going to fill the non-competition void because the technological advancement for two-stroke engines has not occurred. It appears that four-stroke motorcycles are going to have a greater role to play in the offroad-use arena than they have in the past: Maybe in the cycling vernacular it's a ban. CompetWon (two-stroke motocross) motorcycles as you know are still allowed. And those who have two.strokes that have been purchased prior to this time frame, of course, are able to (use and operate them) in the way the owners see fi t, provided they are doing it in harmony with green-sticker requirements and any kind of registration requirements they have. I have agreed to set up a task force to look at the implementation of this measure. And we've invited District 36, the to make a change to the regulation. However, as we talked about issues with them, about this implementation committee or task force, if there were things to emerge like - for example they (D-36) are worried about the ability of competitors to be able to practice on competition two-stroke motorcycles. They wanted to know if we would be willing to consider the development of some hybrid sticker that wouldn't be a traditional green sticker, but we would, we'd be wiJJing to engage in conversations about that. (The board would) be willing to help with that in some way. So, basically, the regulation stands. The regulation stands, but we're going to look at implementation issues, we're going to work closely with AMA folks on education programs, we're going to make sUJ:e manufacturers are able to continue, ask them what's going on with new models, make sure that there are models that are offered, that they can adapt and people can acquire compara- o AMA and those who were in our meeting the other day to propose some people to be in a woiking committee with us in monitoring implementation. I've made a commitment to them that the board would back that, that they would support it and that we would have our very best technical people that have expertise in the motorcycle area present and would put together these regular meetings. We would invite people from a variety of organizations to consult with us on the implementation of this program. Those people would be federal land managers, the motorcycle manufacturers, state agency representatives, basically ourselves and the state parks program and that these meetings would be regular and they would be aggressive in their search for answers with those that have an impact on th.e sport of off-road motorcycle riding. What is the plaJ1 for implementation and what did you talk about in the meeting? For example, they (D-37) talked about themes that you would expect them to talk about. They are concerned about misinformation being out there, that the term ban and that you aren't allowed to operate your motorcycle and other false conceptions be left with people who participate in the sport. They wanted to make sure that we were able and equipped here at the Air Resources Board to answer questions, to go out and speak to groups if necessary, to put out a fact sheet or to have our people who answer our phone lines here up to speed - we indicated we would. We also indicated that if there was any kind of outreach or educational program that they could suggest to us we would work with them on it, or a program to get to their members. But at this juncture we have no plans ble motorcycles. In other words, as twostrokes fall off the market because of the regulation, we want to make sure that there are four-strokes of the same horsepower that will fill the gaps that the two-strokes left. So far, what we've been told by the motorcycle manufacturers is that there are going to be comparable products for the horsepower range that they had last year to the next year when this program kicks in. I'm not saying that this is going to be a perfect alignment, but it is going to be continually ample relative to the products that consumers will be able to consider purchasing. I don't mind telling you that (product availability) has been a concern of mine. The last thing we wanted to see occur was to see people opt out of the market, to see consumers with limited choice. And it seems at this point, based upon the conversations we've had with the motorcycle manufacturers, is that will not be the case. What kind of dialogue have you had with the manufacturers? Excellent dialogue. Very complete. As you know, they are compelled because of their relationship with us to share information as it relates - it is a relationship that is unique. Because we regulate them, they have the obligation to be forthcoming with information. They have done that, we've analyzed it and we feel that at this point, based upon the conversations we've had and on the commitment they've made, that we are going to have adequate coverage in the marketplace. As far as the meeting that took place on December 4 - you had D-36, AMA and some other people in there - what were some of the issues that they had? What was their argument as far as letting two-strokes continue to be sold and green stickered? Rather than talk about their arguments, there were three issues that we were concerned about over here. One, what was going to happen in the marketplace relative to product offering. I've already covered that. with you. I reported to them what we have learned, that it didn't appear at this juncture to be a problem. Second, they were concerned about competition and practice. Now I want it very clear to you and others that we aren't talking abou t disallowing or impacting in any way vehicles or motorcycles that are currently in the hands of the consumers. So they have the ability between now and the time frame this kicks in to purchase a new (two-stroke) motorcycle, green sticker the ones they have and use in a manner in which they desire, provided it isn't an illegal operation. The competition people can still buy two-stroke motorcycles and can still compete with them. That's important for people to know. When it comes to practice, and I'm not the expert on this that you are, but when you get into the competition situation, there are limitations set on riders on their ability to practice to keep the element of surprise. The issue about practicing is apparently not a big issue for many, not alJ, people in competition because of the surprise factor (in offroad racing). They wanted consideration from us about practice. They told us about scenarios where the promoter for an event maybe can only afford to rent the facility for two days, one day for practice and one day for the actual event, and they wanted to Iq"low what consideration we would give them relative to having those days extended. Well, upon conversation with them, we found out that it is a very smalJ number of people who are in that situation and it did not seem to be·a big deal from an environmental standpoint, but we would be willing to talk about a role we could play to help them get consideration and practice. Another issue they were concerned about was clearly understanding what this regulation means for technology advancement. It seems that some people have bought wholesale the argument that there are no technological advancements possible for two-strokes to ever be operated under the new emissions standards. And that simply isn't true. .We here at the board have seen time and time again where we set aggressive emission-control standards for engines of alJ sizes - light duty as well as heavy duty, we're getting into that area as welJ - there are lot of technological improvements. We are seeing things occur that we otherwise thought couldn't. I'll give you an example. The best example, one I'm sure you are aware of, is six to 10 years ago people were shouting the death knell for petroleum, for gasoline and diesel fuel, that it couldn't be cleaned up and that we were going to go to so-calJed alternative fuels wholesale because there wouldn't be too much room in the marketplace for traditional gasoline. Well, look what happened. Arco and some of the other oil refiners some years ago, six-plus years ago, saw that they could reformulate gasoline and make it cleaner. This year we're very proud that, beginning in the Mard1 time frame and culminating around June, we have had introduced in California the cleanest gasoline in the world. Gasoline that is apprOXimately 15 to 17 percent cleaner for hydrocarbons, it's 30 to 40 percent cleaner for air toxins, 50 percent cleaner for benzene - tremendous improvements have been made. Six years ago nobody thought that was possible. Some

• Cover