On Deaf Ears
ON DEAF EARS
A year ago, give or take, the gummint incarnated as the EPA proposed motorcycle noise regulations which have since been reported on at length. Now the EPA has published a summary of comments about the proposal and the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the summary is that most of the people who felt strongly enough about the matter to write don’t like the proposal.
More than 2000 people commented about the regulations. That boils down to 1855 private citizens, 25 self-appointed public interest groups, 49 motorcycle interest groups, 69 motorcycle distributors or dealers, 111 state and local governments and 10 who could not be categorized.
Of course the EPA couldn’t actually read 2000 letters and make sense out of them, so a separate firm, Science Applications Inc. of McLean, Virginia was hired to categorize the comments.
Of the private citizens, 1124 opposed the proposal, 689 supported it and 42 made comments neither supporting or opposing it. Self-appointed public interest groups, on the other hand, favor regulation 21 to 3. Obviously the motorcycle interest groups and dealers/distributors opposed the plan but state and local governments supported it 42 to 7. The miscellaneous responses were split two for, two against and six neither for nor against.
The summary also breaks down each comment by category, indicating what specific points were made. As an example, 39 percent of those favoring the proposal supported the regulation in general. However, only 1 percent of those in favor of the proposal actually said new motorcycles need to be quieted further. Most of the supporting comments “expressed concern over nrotorcycle operator behavior” or “concern over enforcement.”
Two different comments were made most often by those opposed to the proposal. A full 61 percent, or 764 people, felt the proposal increased costs too much, was cost ineffective or would have an adverse effect on the balance of trade and inflation. A smaller group, 606 people, or 49 percent,
said new motorcycles are quiet enough already. Other important points raised by large numbers of people opposed to the regulations are that the regulations would require a major sacrifice in performance and limit design freedom, that HarleyDavidson and the smaller European mo•torcycle manufacturers might not be able to meet the standards, that the only noise problem is because of inoperable mufflers and that the government regulates too much.
All the comments were broken down further into categories for private citizens, public interest groups, motorcycle interest groups, motorcycle dealers/distributors and state and local governments.
Of particular interest are the comments of state and local governments. There were responses from 111 governmental agencies and only 49 indicated support or opposition. Most, 62 responses and 56 percent, gave no indication.
According to the summary, 71 percent “support regulation in general.” Fifty-six agencies returned the EPA questionnaire but many of the questions weren’t answered. Of those returned, 61 percent felt motorcycle noise was a problem in their area, 32 percent felt most of the noise problem was caused by modified vehicles, 33 percent felt the EPA should require the manufacture of quieter motorcycles, and 14 percent anticipate increased motorcycle noise enforcement.
Besides the summary, four categories of respondents were identified but not categorized. Comments from the aftermarket manufacturers, motorcycle and moped manufacturers, motorcycle trade associations and the “biomedical community” will be analyzed separately for the final tabulation.
What all the numbers actually mean is less apparent. Obviously many people told the EPA that the proposed motorcycle noise regulations were excessive. Whether the EPA chooses to listen to the people or not is fhe big question. And with fhe EPA as judge, jury and prosecuting attorney, the room for error is large.
