Motorcycle Related Legislation and Rulemaking
Motorcyclists only make up about five percent of licensed motor vehicle operators in New York State. It stands to reason that motorcyclists are not well represented in legislature and various rulemaking bodies. As a result, motorcyclists are subject to legislation and rulemaking that may not be in their best interests. Here we break down the issues, offering examples and help.
Various levels of government are intimately involved in many aspects of motorcycling. The Federal government writes the requirements for motorcycle safety helmets and specifies performance standards which govern everything from the light output of headlamps and turn signals to the accessibility of ignition switchgear. State governments establish requirements for protective eyewear and helmets, and stipulate other equipment restrictions, inspection requirements, road use regulations and noise limits. At the city level, motorcyclists are further governed by parking restrictions and community noise standards.
Many citizens, frustrated by difficulties lobbying their federal and state representatives, have found it easy to make their cases heard at the city level. This tactic can be insidiously successful, as city governments present less bureaucratic roadblocks and their activities often fly under the radar of people and organizations who might be opposed.
City legislation which would be adverse to motorcyclists will not be noticed by the AMA or other statewide motorcycle rights organizations. That is where the NYMSTF steps in. Our goal is to write legislation and make policies to improve the quality of life for motorcyclists in New York City, instead of just reacting to legislation which treats motorcyclists unfairly.
Our elected officials need to be reminded that motorcycles are fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly, practical solutions to pollution and traffic congestion. It is particularly important that city residents watch their city governments. Motorcyclists need to watch for legislation which mistreats motorcyclists, and we too can leverage easy access to city representatives to make laws, regulations and policies which favor motorcyclists.
The New York City Council
Certain members of the New York City Council have been crafting ways to harass the city's motorcyclists for many years. In the 1990s, Council Member Alan J. Gerson attempted to ban all motorcycles from NYC's Greenwich Village. In 2002, Resolution 286 insisted on requiring motorcycle inspections every six months! In 2003, Introduction 355 tried to make "unreasonable noise" a misdemeanor crime - only for motorcyclists - including penalties of confiscation. Introduction 357 the same year would have made a crime "increasing the speed of the motor of a motorcycle whether or not the motorcycle is in motion". Yes, they really wrote that. Introduction 356 attempted to ban the sale and installation of motorcycle racing exhaust systems, regardless of intended use. The following year Introduction 53 tried the exact same thing, and yet again in 2006 with Introduction 291.
Then in 2006 the NYC Council attempted to pass Introduction 416A, which would have made the financial penalties for the mere perceived potential to make noise - i.e. the lack of an EPA stamp on a parked vehicle's muffler - equal to the criminal penalties for Second Degree Vehicular Manslaughter! They followed this in 2009 with Introduction 1086, which was being sold as a watered down and "more acceptable" version of 416A but with many sneaky, draconian provisions and a list of legal defects as long as the bill itself.
NYC's 416A and 1086 bills have become well-known throughout motorcycling communities across the United States as the bills which galvanized and coalesced motorcyclists of every kind in New York City. Riders from every walk of life - sportbike enthusiasts and H-D riders, club members and independents, commuters and hobbyists - all came together and soundly defeated these unfair bills. NYC's motorcycling community set an amazing precedent for teamwork which continues to this day with the help of organizations like the NYMSTF.
The primary sponsor of much of the anti motorcycle legislation - Alan J. Gerson - was voted out of office in 2009. We recommend that New York City residents watch Peter Vallone Jr. very carefully. He sponsored Introduction 1086 just before the 2009 elections.
EPA Label "Noise" Laws
Hundreds of members of a few very well organized anti-noise groups have been instrumental in concerted efforts in many cities - including NYC - to write and pass laws which rely solely on the presence of EPA labeling on motorcycle mufflers to indicate whether or not a motorcycle's exhaust system was "legal" or not.
A law which relies on a label is not a noise law. A label does not make an exhaust system quiet and the lack of a visible label does not make an exhaust system loud.
The proponents of these EPA label laws rely greatly on propaganda, misinformation and outright lies to promote these laws to elected officials. Then ironically, they accuse motorcyclists of using misinformation in their objections. These bills all rely on misinterpretations of Federal laws regulating motorcycles and requiring the application of an EPA approval mark to motorcycles' mufflers at the time of manufacturer. Like mattress tags, the law does not require the owners of motorcycles to maintain the presence or visibility of those markings, ever.
There is a Noise Law FAQ page which presents all of the arguments from both sides:
http://noiselawfacts.bytebrothers.net
This FAQ page is an excellent resource for fighting local laws based on EPA labels. It does a remarkable job of answering virtually all the propaganda used to argue for local EPA label laws, both as it has been presented to elected officials and as it has been found argued in various on-line forums, commentaries and blogs.
The politicians writing, sponsoring and supporting these bills - and the misguided anti-noise activists who pull their strings - must be made to understand that the Federal law does not require the ongoing maintenance of those marks and that legislation which relies on their presence actually violates the Noise Control Act of 1972, which forbids municipalities from passing laws which are not identical to regulations covered by the Act.
New York City Council EPA Label Bills
These NYC Council bills discriminatorily treat motorcycles as if they are the sole source of motor vehicle noise in the city. Given that NYC just spent two years completely re-tooling its Noise Code, with motorcycle -specific language included, additional new laws should be absolutely unnecessary.
NYC Intro 416A
Text of current proposal (hosted here - check the Council web site for latest legislation)
The Federal EPA label laws that the New York City Council has been trying to introduce and pass as local laws, are clearly repugnant. The Council's goal is purportedly to address noise issues in New York City but motorcycle noise complaints have dropped to an all-time low. Bills such as 416A would have applied to parked motorcycles only, which obviously make no noise and whose potential to make noise is impossible to evaluate.
Introduction 416A has a long and fascinating history, which makes the claim of "final draft" seen in this latest proposal somewhat amusing regardless of context. This legislation has been through several major revisions over nearly a decade and the current proposal you see in the above link has not even been introduced to the Committee yet.
What we find interesting about this proposed version of the legislation is that it now acknowledges the existence of exhaust systems marked for competition use only, yet still insists on requiring the presence and visibility of STOCK OEM exhaust markings, even if those exhaust systems are compliant with applicable Federal noise regulations. This oddity is consistent with what we have been claiming all along, which is that these proposed laws are more about randomly punishing motorcyclists than they are about mitigating noise.
We also remain intrigued by the Council's insistence on its "red is blue unless it has a stamp certifying that it is red" logic. That is, New York already legally defines straight pipes (i.e. exhaust systems without baffles), and these proposed laws attempt to define a muffler not bearing the required EPA marking as a "straight pipe".
The version we fought last is Introduction 0416-2006, which you may notice is much longer and spends so much time defining how the city can permanently confiscate your motorcycle that it forgets to define the city's responsibilities to return it to you when you are found innocent.
NYC Intro 1086-2009
Text of bill (copy hosted on this web site - always check the Council web site for latest legislation)
Like much of the Council's motorcycle -related legislation, this too is poorly thought out and poorly written by inexperienced legal staff at the direction of people whose hatred of motorcycles trumps the slightest smidgen of sensibility.
This legislation, which would have gone into the "Specific Noise Sources Plainly Audible and Other Standards" section of the NYC Administrative Code, zeroes in specifically on Section 205.169 of CFR Title 40, which we remind you is a manufacturing requirement only per the very first paragraph of that section. As a result the law effectively excludes all other elements of a forty page section of law that is meant to be used as a whole.
This Introduction would also affect ATVs, presumably unintentionally, even though their regulation is covered under a completely different section of the CFR, and would also end up applying to the maintenance and sales of racing motorcycles and their parts, even though Federal law specifically allows for them. Literally interpreted and practically speaking, the law could even prohibit fixing a flat rear tire on a motorcycle without the required exhaust marking, since some motorcycles require the removal and replacement of the muffler to permit wheel removal.
Most people don't realize that the large fines also make the owners vulnerable to vehicle confiscation, even though confiscation is not explicitly mentioned in the legislation.
The matter of defining where a sales transaction is being conducted is also problematic in this legislation, when conducting business across city borders, and the law may interfere with laws governing interstate commerce.
Background Information
In order to understand why the proposed laws are repugnant it is necessary to read and understand the laws upon which they are supposedly based, the legislative intents of those laws, the reality of how these laws have been marginally enforced and why laws based solely on EPA stamps or labels are inappropriate.
Noise Control Act of 1972 (U.S. Code Title 42 Chapter 65)
Part 205 (Transportation Equipment Noise Emission Controls) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) EPA Title 40 (Protection of Environment), a.k.a. CFR Title 40.
Of course there is a lot to these laws and that is part of the reason for the vastly differing interpretations, but most of what the anti-noise lobby claims really is wishful thinking.
Here is the reality:
Many members of the anti-noise lobby believe that field enforcement of the presence of EPA labels on motorcycle mufflers will be the only effective way to deal with the problem of excessive motorcycle noise. They are also claiming that this approach is fair, reasonable and easy to enforce. We disagree on both counts.
In terms of the NCA and the EPA regulations in 40 CFR 205, the responsibility of motorcycle owners is in fact limited to maintaining their exhaust systems within federal guidelines for noise output only. Motorcyclists are permitted to make any cosmetic changes they please as long as they don't increase noise. There are no laws in the NCA or the CFR prohibiting removing, defacing or obscuring the labeling on mufflers. Since the Noise Control Act forbids states and political subdivisions from enacting legislation which supersedes Federal regulations, this legislation requiring ongoing maintenance of the EPA labels could actually violate the Noise Control Act. And any law which requires a motorcycle owner to replace his or her muffler with OEM equipment only could fall into conflict with the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 USC 2301.
A substantial number of motorcycles delivered from OEMs with legal exhaust systems fully compliant with the EPA's noise regulations, fail to comply with CFR Title 40 section 205.169 paragraph (c) which requires the label or mark to be "readily visible". A survey of new motorcycles was conducted at a variety of NYC dealerships and we found that more than half of these markings - either due to cosmetic considerations, engineering needs or simple coincidence - were facing the ground, or toward the rear tire, or into heat shields or body panels, or were placed so that aftermarket saddlebags and even factory luggage options would obscure them.
In our opinion, the need for inspection mirrors, inspection lights, cleaning rags and asbestos work gloves (to prevent burn injuries while wiping road grime from mufflers) does not qualify as "readily visible". Since law enforcement will expect those marks to be "readily visible", and since it is becoming increasingly difficult even for motorcycle enthusiasts to visually differentiate aftermarket (legal or not) exhaust components from stock parts, we predict that many errors in judgment will be made.
Nearly ALL unmodified motorcycles fail to comply with 205.169 paragraph (d) which specifies the lettering be in a "color that contrasts with its background." Most marks are merely embossed or engraved, which provides diffraction contrast only, not color contrast. Depth of the embossing is not regulated, and some are subsequently painted or powder-coated, which further eliminates any contrast and obscures the visibility and readability of the mark and strictly speaking, makes nearly ALL exhaust systems non-compliant with 205.169. So far in surveys of hundreds of models from over a dozen brands, we have found just ONE motorcycle that would comply with all the labeling requirements.
It is repugnant to enact legislation which would punish the owners of legal equipment for decades of malfeasance of the manufacturers and for the malfeasance of the EPA, both of whom have ignored their obligations to comply with and enforce the Noise Control Act for over 25 years.
