Harley-Davidson Screamin' Eagle brand aftermarket exhaust system for a Harley-Davidson FLT.
When a state recognizes, and enforces the Noise Control Act and the EPA's motorcycle and motorcycle exhaust system noise emissions regulations, they will be utilizing the highest standard of motorcycle exhaust system technology.
One can easily reason that if a motorcycle muffler cannot meet EPA noise emissions standards, and is easily identifiable by design characteristics (ie., straight pipe, hollow core muffler, or mufflers labeled for competition use), then it should not be permitted on any motorcycle regardless of year of manufacture. This can easily be accomplished by adding the following to state vehicle law:
Every motorcycle regardless of year shall be equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation, free of defects and modifications, that prevents the escape of any excessive or unusual noise. The muffler if not originally equipped, must reduce exhaust noise levels to that of the vehicles original equipment. No motorcycle shall be equipped with a straight pipe exhaust system (regardless of the presence of baffles), or a hollow core muffler, or a muffler that is labeled for off road closed course competition use. No motorcycle shall be equipped with a cut out, by pass, or similar device.
We include detailed photos, descriptions, and definitions of these types of loud aftermarket exhaust systems and mufflers listed above. However there are still aftermarket mufflers that are ineffective, and cannot be identified or classified by the definitions of these prohibited exhaust systems and mufflers.
These poor examples of mufflers can be kept off of pre-federal regulation motorcycles by use of the adjectives "adequate" "excessive" and "unusual" in the description of mufflers in the statute language.
This method of noise control is referred to as a "qualitative" standard. The courts over the years have found this method and statute language to be constitutionally sound13-1 and not vague, as it clearly provides a standard for vehicle owners to meet with to be in conformity with the law. At least fourteen states all ready use this method and similar language in their vehicle codes.
CA, AR, CO, DE, KY, LA, MO, NY, ND, NC, RI, WI, WV, WA have vehicle muffler equipment laws based on this Qualitative standard. Many of these states require mufflers with noise suppression characteristics similar to the vehicles original equipment, or require "adequate" mufflers that prevent the escape of "unusual" or "excessive" noise.
Although this "qualitative" method of noise control may appear to be adequate to control noise emissions for all years of motorcycles, it has the disadvantage of being based on a police officers opinion. This is good enough for the small number of motorcycles made before 1983 that are still on the road today, but for the fleet of newer motorcycles made after 1983 the "label match up" provides a much simpler and more precise method of noise control.
The following section contains photo examples of loud aftermarket exhaust systems, and definitions that are designed to allow police (as well as the vehicle owners) to easily identify them. None of these examples of exhaust systems and mufflers meet EPA noise emissions standards.
An aftermarket exhaust system that replaces the factory installed muffler.
Harley-Davidson Screamin' Eagle brand aftermarket exhaust system for a
Harley-Davidson FLT.
A motorcycle exhaust system that has the outward appearance of a uniform, consistent diameter the entire length of the system.
Straight-pipe exhaust systems are after-market exhaust systems that no motorcycle manufacturer ever installed on a production motorcycle directly from the factory. These systems are all designed simply to make noise, and possess sound levels far in excess (10-20dba) of current EPA manufacturing requirements. This is perceived to the human ear as three to five times louder.
It is impossible for any straight-pipe exhaust system to even come close to being an effective muffler. These exhaust systems do not have any expansion chamber to disperse the sound wave and slow down the exhaust gasses, nor do they incorporate any sound dampening material or reverse flow passages and chambers as have original equipment motorcycle mufflers for the past forty years. They rely on exhaust restriction principals (when baffles are installed) to reduce noise emissions.
A removable aftermarket motorcycle exhaust system component that is designed to reduce exhaust noise.
Baffles are typically small and very ineffective devices that when installed in straight pipe exhaust systems and some hollow-core mufflers, make these exhaust systems legal under most states laws. Below are examples of the most common types.
A muffler where the exhaust inlet is visible from the exhaust outlet.
Open-center or hollow-core mufflers are absorption type mufflers., They utilize an expansion area and usually sound-dampening material, but have an unobstructed internal passage straight through from the muffle inlet to the outlet with very little obstruction. As one might suspect, a muffler that one can see straight through cannot be very effective. These exhaust systems can easily be identified by a simple inspection by police and inspection mechanics.
 D&D aftermarket exhaust system for a 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1100 |
 Kerker brand aftermarket exhaust system for a 1976 Kawasaki 1000 |
This proposal will have no effect or impact at all, on any motorcycle that is equipped with its original (from the factory) unmodified exhaust system. It only singles out motorcycles that are equipped with loud aftermarket, or tampered with original equipped, exhaust systems.
When a state or locality implements "label match-up" it is simply enforcing a federal manufacturing regulation, much like many of the other federal safety standards that police and inspection mechanics already enforce. These include ANSI glazing standards, DOT tire requirements, and federal EPA exhaust air emissions standards. Although the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control that created these regulations is dormant, there is no real need for their assistance, since there is more than enough evidence presented to show how this simple "label match-up" plan can be implemented and enforced.
The benefits to the health and welfare of the citizens will be substantial. Based on EPA estimates, if states adopt and enforce "label match-up" and anti tampering provisions15-1, there will be roughly a 61-75% reduction in the number of interruptions of peoples activities (ie., sleeping, conversation, etc) that are caused by just a single loud motorcycle pass by15-2.
The cost to bring a motorcycle in compliance with this proposal can range anywhere from 400 to 1200 dollars. Relatively speaking, this is not much of a burden to this group of motorcyclists, who routinely spend 400 to 1500 dollars on loud aftermarket exhaust systems, chrome wheels, and custom paint jobs.
It should be noted that of these motorcyclists save their quiet original equipment exhaust systems to reinstall when they grow tired of their own noisy vehicles.
From a 1984 Yamaha FJ1100 - Model Specific Sode (MSC) YAM47M1098:
From a 2005 Honda VT 750C "Shadow" - MSC HONMEG0750:
From a 2003 Yamaha XV650 "V Star" - MSC YAM5BN0649:
From a 1985 Honda VF1100C "Magna" - MSC HONMB31098:
The following are examples of tampering to original equipment EPA approved exhaust systems. Most owners who tamper with these mufflers are not content with the resultant increase of noise, unless there is a straight through passage from the muffler inlet to the outlet, ie., "hollow core muffler."
The left photo is what the unmodified original equipment muffler for all 1983 to present Harley Davidson FL touring models looks like. On the right is the tampered with version. Upon a closer inspection you would be able to see straight through from the exhaust outlet to the inlet of this muffler. Note the jagged edges.
Below is an example of tampering to Harley Davidson's own, EPA approved "Screamin' Eagle" line of aftermarket muffler for FL touring modelsii-1. On the left is what the unmodified exhaust outlet end of the muffler looks like. On the right is the result of the owner grinding off the two small opposing beads of welds (left photo), then removing the core of the muffler, sawing off protruding tubes at both ends of the core, and then reinstalling the heavily modified core. Upon a closer inspection, you would be able to see straight through from the exhaust outlet to the inlet of this muffler.
From a 2003 Yamaha YZF600. On the left is what the unmodified exhaust outlet end of the muffler looks like. On the right is the result of the owner grinding off the hardened rivets that secured the end cap, and sawed off the last inch of the muffler. The end cap was reinstalled with common sheet metal screws. Note the jagged edges.
From a 2001 Harley Davidson FXST. The owner turned this original equipped muffler into a hollow core muffler by cutting out the center, and left a jagged and out of round edge.
Examples of loud aftermarket mufflers designed and marketed to be installed on federally regulated motorcycles that are missing the label as required by 40CFR205.169(a)2.
A D&D brand aftermarket muffler designed for a 2003 Kawasaki ZRX1100 hollow core with no EPA label:
A Kerker brand aftermarket muffler designed for a 2001 Harley Davidson FLT, hollow core with no EPA label:
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
[Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory analysis appendices for the noise emissions regulations for motorcycles and motorcycle exhaust systems (Appendix O)]
Motorcycle noise has been rated as the most significant noise problem in numerous community noise surveys. As a result, a number of States and communities currently have programs to control this noise source. Such controls include limits on vehicle pass-by noise, equipment laws, area and time controls, nuisance laws, and, in a few cases, new product emission limits. The EPA, in response to the requirements of the Quiet Communities Act, has identified motorcycles as a major source of noise and has issued noise limits for newly manufactured motorcycles and motorcycle replacement exhaust systems. The Agency's approach in the regulations, which is outlined below, has been to develop programs which will supplement and strengthen these ongoing attempts by cities and States to control motorcycle noise.
The primary Federal control which the Agency will provide will be the promulgation of regulations in setting permissible noise levels. These regulations, proposed in the Federal Register, March 15, 1978, will provide uniform levels for new motorcycles across the country and will result in quieter motorcycles being developed and produced. The benefits of this action will increase over the next decade as more and more of the motorcycle fleet is made up of regulated vehicles; nevertheless, some initial benefits will be gained in the first years of the regulation, particularly when this action is accompanied by State and local control of pre-regulated vehicles.
Besides controlling all new vehicles to quieter levels, the regulation contains provisions specifically designed to facilitate State and local control of replacement exhaust systems.
Under these provisions, manufacturers will be required to label both the motorcycles and the exhaust systems indicating the types and models of new (Federally regulated) motorcycles for which the exhaust system is designed, and whether the system is designed for pre-regulated or competition vehicles. The manufacturer has to assure that these systems when installed on a regulated motorcycle, will not cause that motorcycle to exceed the Federal standard. Thus, with proper enabling legislation, State or community police could enforce "label match-up" controls against vehicle owners who replace original equipment with noisier exhaust systems. This will not require noise measurement sand, indeed, will not require the vehicle to be in operation or the driver to be present in order for citations to be made. This should greatly facilitate motorcycle noise enforcement.
Another feature of the regulations will also supplement the ongoing State and local noise control program. Under the regulation manufacturers of new motorcycles will be required to identify to EPA those actions which will cause the motorcycle noise levels to increase beyond the legal limits. The Agency will encourage States and localities to adopt programs enforcing against the most obvious acts of tampering which do not necessarily require testing to establish a violation, because such regulations are relatively easy to enforce. Besides tailoring its Federal noise emission regulations to facilitate State and local control, the EPA will further focus its State and local assistance programs to the area of motorcycle control. The Agency has already provided financial assistance to 24 States and 23 localities to start up and operate noise control programs.
The priority source which these States and cities are addressing currently is motor vehicle noise, including motorcycles. Support is also provided in motor vehicle control from the EPA Regional Offices, the Regional Technical Centers, and the ECHO (Each Community Helps Others) peer match. Such assistance includes funds for personnel and equipment, equipment loan, assistance in drafting legislation and advice on test methodology and enforcement. In the next two years these EPA support programs are intended to increasingly be oriented towards mere specific motorcycle controls.
EPA's approach in developing tools which States and localities can adopt has three phases.
The first phase, which is currently in operation, is the development and publication of model legislation for vehicle operation controls (street pass-by-limits) and visual inspection of exhaust systems. This is being carried out in a Joint project with the National Association of Noise Control Officers (NANCO). As indicated earlier, a number of cities have already adopted these types of control. Assistance to communities and States in drafting this type of legislation and in carrying out enforcement is also provided through the ECHO program, Regional Technical Centers and the EPA Regional Offices.
In the second phase, which will precede the effective date of the national emission regulation, the EPA will develop model legislation to Implement the "label match-up" scheme and anti-tampering controls against new (regulated) vehicles.
For this model motorcycle noise control legislation, the Agency will also develop a training manual to be used by police trainers to instruct officers in enforcing the ordinances. This manual will include discussion of instrumentation, enforcement procedures and the rationale behind the model provisions.
In addition, model legislation applicable to pre-regulated motorcycles will be revised to more specifically set out provisions controlling motorcycle modifications, tampering and operations. In all these model laws the Agency will avoid extensive noise measurement requirements and will include among its recommendations ordinances which can be enforced without noise measuring equipment and with only limited additional training for existing Police personnel. The model label "match-up" legislation will also be drafted to include provisions for possible future Federal labeling requirements for automobiles and replacement exhaust systems for these vehicles. The label match-up and tampering list provisions (described earlier) provide a logical extension of the existing State and local control structure. As the percentage of Federally regulated vehicles in the fleet increases, the importance of these provisions will grow. Another feature of this phase will be the development by EPA of posters and brochures informing motorcycle owners, dealers and repair shops of their responsibilities under the Federal law. These will be designed in such a way that State and local officials can add references to applicable State and local laws, and will be available to State and local officials who wish to distribute them to local motorcycle dealers, repair and parts shops. The effectiveness of the motorcycle noise control program depends, in part, on fully informing potential violators of the Federal, State and local laws.
Although the EPA's approach includes an emphasis on use by States and cities of the label match-up and other controls which will not require noise measurement tests, some States and communities may desire a stationary test which correlates well with the Federal pass-by test to facilitate State and local enforcement against tampering and in identifying motorcycle exhaust systems which degrade rapidly in their noise attenuation capabilities. Accordingly, EPA will coordinate with interested parties the development of a "short test." If this proves feasible, the Agency will use it to develop and publish model implementation procedures and operational equipment ordinances based on this "short test," Such an effort would also include development of a compatible in-use street side traffic measurement test. It should be noted, however, that communities will still be able to use existing operational ordinances controlling the use of motorcycles. Operational limits are analogous to street limits which only cover the operator performance and do not specify equipment limits.
In the development of all model legislation (and particularly the label "match-up" and anti-tampering provisions) the EPA will seek extensive review by State and local noise central personnel, police and legal officials and the industry. If there are difficult points, it may be necessary to field test some of the model laws prior to publication for voluntary adoption by interested States and cities.
The primary orientation of most State and local motorcycle noise control programs is to prevent excessive noise produced by Individual motorcyclists. The programs here outlined assume that this orientation will continue in most States and cities while the Federal Government will have responsibility for enforcing the noise emission standards for new motorcycles and replacement exhaust systems, and the labeling provisions which require compliance by manufacturers. In one or two States, however, where there are currently noise programs with sufficient equipment and technical expertise, and where the replacement exhaust manufacturing industry is concentrated, the State may want to enforce compliance by the manufacturers. Such enforcement would require adoption of the Federal limits and test procedure. The EPA would strongly encourage this and will be prepared to assist any State that wishes to initiate such a program.
EPA's approach to control off-road vehicles at the state and local level is more oriented toward controlling the time and place of the use of these vehicles, rather than controlling individual vehicle emission limits. This is achieved by land use controls and curfews. The street motorcycle enforcement approach outlined above should facilitate control of illegal use of these vehicles on streets. EPA will also make available information various programs to control use and influence driver habits (such as off road and minibike "round-up where younger drivers are instructed safe and legal use of these vehicles). The Agency, will also develop legislation covering land use and area controls. This part of the EPA program will probably not begin until after the first standards go into effect.
The final feature of the EPA program will be ongoing surveillance of the rate of motorcycle exhaust system (noise related) modifications and tampering. The Agency expects to initiate this program after the effective date of the first standards to provide a means of determining the effectiveness of the State, local, and Federal controls.
EPA's over-all technical assistance objective is to promote at least 400 local programs covering a minimum urbanized population of 72 million and 40 State programs by 1985. The agency's regulatory programs are designed to fit into this State and local control structure. This is consistent with congressional intent, in the Quiet Communities Act, that noise control ought to be primarily the responsibility of State and local governments. The Federal motorcycle noise emission levels and the programs described above will help achieve the goal of a quieter nation through strengthened and expanded local control of this environmental problem.
Here is example marketing material from the motorcycle aftermarket exhaust industry.
Parts Magazine is a dealer publication. The motorcycle on the cover features a straight pipe exhaust system.
Shogun Exhaust (Samson Motorcycle Products, Inc.) offers a line of pipes for metric cruisers that are as "bad" as Harley pipes. Baffles are sold as optional.
Rinehart Racing (Bub Enterprises, Inc.) offers "racetrack roar" in its line of aftermarket exhaust systems for street use motorcycles.
Caliber High Performance Exhaust (Samson Motorcycle Products, Inc.) dealer catalog of exhaust systems for stock motorcycles. They claim that "the sound of each of the Caliber pipes is a deep rumble". The 98-page catalog includes a disclaimer that "the exhaust systems appearing throughout this catalog are not intended for use on noise or pollution controlled vehicles [except those used in organized and sanctioned racing or competition events] when the installation of the same would be in violation of state and federal laws governing noise or emission standards".
Bike runs are sponsored events for riders to cruise the roadways in large packs. It also serves as a public relations event to improve the image of motorcyclists by collecting money and resources for charities representing war veterans, children's hospitals, and toys for children programs.
This bike run event promises to donate fifty-percent (50%) of collected monies to a children's hospital. They also promise to "end the summer with the loudest pipes in the area".
3-1 42 U.S.C. § 4901(b). The Noise Control Act is also referred to here as the "NCA."
3-2 EPA Notice, 40 FR 23105 (May 28, 1975).
3-3 Regulatory Analysis Appendices for the Noise Emissions Regulations for Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems, Appendix O (EPA 1980) (included in Appendix IV of this work)
4-1 EPA Regulatory Analysis for the Noise Emissions Regulations for Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems, section 5, p. 24 (hereinafter "Regulatory Analysis").
4-2 Regulatory Analysis, section 5, p. 2.
4-3 Regulatory Analysis, section 5, p. 3. See also "Community Noise" (World Health Organization 2001).
4-4 "NOISE EFFECTS HANDBOOK: A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise," section 3, p.5 (EPA 1981)
4-5 "NOISE EFFECTS HANDBOOK," supra, section 3. See also "Community Noise," supra.
4-6 "Noise: A Hazard for the Fetus and Newborn," Pediatrics (American Academy of Pediatrics), Vol. 100, No. 4, at pp. 724-727 (October 1997).
4-7 "Community Noise," supra.
5-1 "NOISE EFFECTS HANDBOOK," supra, section 1, p. 3
5-2 American Housing Survey for the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area: 2004 (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development).
5-3 "The New York City Police Department’s Civil Enforcement of Quality-of-Life Crimes," 3 Journal of Law & Policy 447 (1995).
6-1 Environmental Impact Statement for the Noise Emissions Regulations for Motorcycles and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems, p. 3 (EPA 1980).
6-2 45 FR (Federal Register) 86694, p. 20.
6-3 "New Model Forecast Statistics," Dealer News (Vol. 41, Issue #6, p. 92, May 2005).
7-1 Docket Analysis for the Noise Emission Regulations for Motorcycle and Motorcycle Exhaust Systems, section 9, p. 5 (hereinafter "Docket Analysis").
7-2 Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures. Volume 1 (the "Hurt Report").
8-1 40 CFR 205 parts D and E (published in the Federal Register, 45 FR 86644).
8-2 42 U.S.C. § 4913 of NCA ("Quiet Communities, Research, and Public Information").
9-1 "Street motorcycle" (to include mopeds), means (as defined in 40 CFR § 205.151(2)): any motorcycle regardless of engine displacement or horsepower, that can achieve (with a rider) at least 25 mph, and is equipped with features such as but not limited to, rear view mirrors, turn signals, horn, and lights.
9-2 "Off road motorcycle" (as defined in 40 CFR § 205.151(4)) means: any motorcycle that is not a "street motorcycle" or "competition motorcycle."
9-3 "Competition motorcycle" (as defined in 40 CFR § 205.151(a)(3)), means: "any motorcycle designed and marketed solely for use in closed course competition events."
9-4 40 CFR § 205.169(a)(2), (3), (4).
9-5 40 CFR § 205.158(a)(9)(a): label for "competition motorcycle."
9-6 40 CFR § 205.152 (motorcycles); and 40 CFR § 205.166 (aftermarket exhaust systems).
9-7 This test procedure (j331a) measures the total noise (including exhaust, tire, wind, and engine mechanical noise), from the vehicle at 50 feet. The vehicle tested is in second gear, wide-open throttle, with the engine RPM at a pre-determined percentage of the engine’s maximum RPM. 40 CFR § 205, Appendix I, contains this complex test procedure.
9-8 This model specific code includes a 3-character abbreviation of the manufacturer's name, unique model code, and the engine displacement in cc's (3 to 4 digits).
9-9 See footnote 12-17
10-1 Excluding California. See infra, footnote 11-6.
10-2 42 U.S.C. § 4909(a)(2).
10-3 The Environmental Protection Agency has more recently addressed this noise issue, and replied that it is aware of a problem but that it does not have the funding from Congress to deal with it at this time. See Summary and Analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from Highway Motorcycles (EPA No. 420-R-03-106) (December 2003); and Summary and analysis of Comments: Control of Emissions from Unregulated Nonroad Engines (EPA, No. 420-R-02-023) (September 2002).
10-4 Congressional Findings and Statement of Policy, 42 U.S.C. § 4901(a)(3) of the NCA.
10-5 40CFR205.169(a)2
10-6 See definition of competition motorcycle; Supra. footnote.9-3
10-7 Federal Register 45FR86694 at p.6
10-8 45FR86694 at p.13
10-9 Toward a National Strategy for Noise Control, P. 24 (EPA Office Of Noise Abatement and Control, 1977)
10-10 See Regulatory Analysis, supra, Appendix O.(appendix 4 of this work)
11-1 These powers or rights of states and political subdivisions are listed in section 4905(e)(2) of the NCA.
11-2 Regulatory Analysis, supra, Appendix O. See also 45 FR 86694, pp. 1, 13 and 27.
11-3 42 U.S.C. § 4905(e)(2). This provision provides that, "subject to sections 4916 (railroad) and 4917 (motor carrier), nothing in this section precludes or denies the right of any state or political subdivision thereof to establish and enforce controls on environmental noise (or one or more sources thereof) through the licensing, regulation, or restricting the use, operation, or movement of any product or combination of products."
11-4 It is very important to use the phrase "shall be equipped with labeled exhaust systems," because this shows the intent to regulate motorcycle exhaust systems by their labels. This statute also reflects the "prohibited acts," as referenced in section 4909(a) of NCA, which prevents any person from using these motorcycles with any "element of design" removed or disabled [i.e., mufflers, muffler pre-chambers, and the required chassis mounted label]. It also provides an adequate description of required equipment to head off judicial conclusions that a prohibitory statute is unconstitutionally vague. That is, it gives the vehicle owners a clear definition of what is required to be compliant with the law.
11-5 This needs to be stated because there are EPA provisions (40 CFR part 203), to build low noise emissions products. These would have a lower dBA muffler rating.
11-6 This statute was drafted based in part on California Vehicle Code § 27200(e), as an example. It is the only state law in the nation to make reference to the NCA. Unfortunately, this California provision only applies to the selling of a new federally regulated motorcycle to the first owner, and does not apply to subsequent owners.
11-7 42 USC § 4911.
11-8 This includes motorcycle dealerships who replace EPA approved exhaust systems with loud competition types, while on the showroom floor before the motorcycle is sold to the first owner (in violation of section 4909(a)(2)(a)); and aftermarket exhaust system manufacturers who build exhaust systems without any label, as required by federal regulations 40 CFR § 205.169 (in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 4909(a)(1)).
11-9 11-9 Statement of Mr. Charles L. Elkins, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control Programs, U.S. EPA, at the Hearing before the "Committee on Environment and Public Works." Senate Serial No. 97H10.
12-1 Article IV, clause 2, U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
12-2 Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 91 L. Ed. 1447, 67 S. Ct. 1146 (1947).
12-3 Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85 (1985).
12-4 42 USC § 4901(b).
12-5 42 USC § 4905(e)(1).
12-6 Comments of Representative Ryan (New York), regarding section 4905(e)(2). See Congressional Record Vol. 118, p. 6045. This congressman introduced in the 91st Congress one of the earlier versions of the NCA.
12-7 Comments of Representative Springer regarding section 4905(e)(2) in the Congressional Record, Vol. 118, p. 6048.
12-8 Comments of Senator Tunney, on section 4905(e)(2) in the Congressional Record, Vol. 118, p. 35419.
12-9 Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
12-10 Comments of Senator Boggs on section 4905(e)(2) in the Congressional Record, Vol. 118, p. 35419.
12-11 42 U.S.C. § 4913 of the NCA, as well as several other additions throughout the NCA.
12-12 David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator Air and Waste Management EPA, Hearings Before Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works. Serial No. 95-h55, p. 103.
12-13 42 U.S.C. § 4909(a)(2).
12-14 From EPA's Model Community Noise Ordinance (1975)
12-15 45 FR 86694, page 13.
12-16 Docket Analysis, supra (EPA 1980).
12-17 From "National Motorcycle Noise Control Emphasis Plan" in Appendix of Regulatory Analysis, supra (EPA 1980).
13-1 Annotation, "Validity, Under Federal Constitution, of Federal, State or Local Antinoise Laws and Regulations," 36 L.Ed2d 1041 (1973).
15-1 This includes preventing the installation of competition use mufflers, as well as gutting or modifying EPA approved mufflers.
15-2 The percentage is based on reducing the size of the modified (loud) motorcycle fleet (nationwide) from twelve percent (12%), to three percent (3%), by utilizing states as a tool do to so. See 45 FR 86694, p. 5.
ii-1 This model of aftermarket muffler has a selection of different cosmetic outlet tips.