[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2398-2445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6]
[[Page 2397]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 9, 86, 90, and 1051
Control of Emissions From Highway Motorcycles; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2004 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 2398]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 86, 90, and 1051
[AMS-FRL-7604-8]
RIN 2060-AJ90
Control of Emissions From Highway Motorcycles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action we are adopting revised exhaust emission
standards for currently regulated highway motorcycles. We are also
adopting new exhaust emissions standards for motorcycles of less than
50 cubic centimeters in displacement, which had not previously been
subject to EPA regulations. Finally, we are adopting new permeation
evaporative emission standards for all classes of highway motorcycles.
Highway motorcycles contribute to ozone and particulate matter (PM)
nonattainment, as well as other types of pollution impacting human
health and welfare.
We expect that manufacturers will be able to maintain or even
improve the performance of their products without compromising safety
when producing highway motorcycles in compliance with these standards.
In fact, we estimate that the fuel costs savings associated with these
regulations will offset about one fourth of the program's cost by the
time the standards are fully phased in (2030). There are also several
provisions to address the unique limitations of small volume
manufacturers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective March 15, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Public Docket Numbers A-2000-01 and A-2000-02 at the following address:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the
Reading Room by telephone at (202) 566-1742, and by facsimile at (202)
566-1741. The telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
You may be charged a reasonable fee for photocopying docket materials,
as provided in 40 CFR part 2.
For further information on electronic availability of this action,
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division hotline, (734) 214-4636,
[email protected]. Carol Connell, (734) 214-4636; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
This action will affect companies that manufacture or introduce
into commerce highway motorcycles subject to the standards. This
includes motorcycles with engines with a displacement of less than 50
cubic centimeters (cc) provided the vehicle otherwise meets the
regulatory definition of a highway motorcycle. Regulated categories and
entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS Codes SIC Codes Examples of potentially regulated
Category \a\ \b\ entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................................... 336991 ........... Motorcycle manufacturers.
Industry....................................... 421110 ........... Independent Commercial Importers
of Vehicles and Parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To
determine whether this action regulates particular activities, you
should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions
regarding the applicability of this action to the person listed in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID Nos. OAR-2002-0024, A-2000-01, and A-2000-02.
The official docket consists of the documents specifically referenced
in this action, any public comments received, and other information
related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the
public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public docket is the collection of materials that is available
for public viewing at Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1742, and the telephone number for
the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the docket facility identified above under the
heading ``Docket.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in
the appropriate docket identification number.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. How Is This Document Organized?
C. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
D. Putting This Action Into Perspective
E. Statutory Authority
F. Modification, Customization and Personalization of
Motorcycles
G. Future Actions
II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
A. What Are The Health and Welfare Effects of Highway Motorcycle
Emissions?
B. What Is the Emission Inventory Contribution From Highway
Motorcycles?
III. Which Vehicles and Engines Are Covered?
[[Page 2399]]
A. What is a Highway Motorcycle?
B. What are Class I, Class II, and Class III Highway
Motorcycles?
IV. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures
A. What are the New Exhaust Emission Standards?
B. Can I Average, Bank, or Trade Emission Credits?
C. What are The Applicable Test Procedures?
D. What Test Fuel Is Required for Emission Testing?
E. Hardship Provisions
F. Special Compliance Provisions for Small Manufacturers
G. Exemption for Motorcycle Kits and Custom Motorcycles
V. Technological Feasibility of the Exhaust Emission Standards
A. Class I Motorcycles and Motorcycle Engines Under 50cc
B. Class I and Class II Motorcycles Between 50 and 180cc
C. Class III Motorcycles
D. Safety and Performance Impacts
E. Non-Conformance Penalties
VI. Permeation Emission Control
A. Overview
B. Permeation Emission Standards
C. Testing Requirements
D. Special Compliance Provisions
E. Technological Feasibility
VII. Environmental Impacts and Program Costs
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Motorcycle Engine and Equipment Costs
C. Aggregate Costs and Cost-Effectiveness
VIII. Public Participation
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Congressional Review Act
K. Plain Language
I. Introduction
A. Background
Air pollution is a serious threat to the health and well-being of
millions of Americans and imposes a large burden on the U.S. economy.
Ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter are linked
to potentially serious respiratory health problems, especially
respiratory effects and environmental degradation, including visibility
impairment in our national parks.
This rule addresses these air pollution concerns by adopting
national emission standards for highway motorcycles, including a
category of motorcycle that is currently unregulated. These new
standards are a continuation of the process of establishing emission
standards for on-highway engines and vehicles under Clean Air Act
section 202(a). We are adopting new exhaust emission standards and new
standards for permeation emissions from highway motorcycles.
Over the past quarter century, state and federal governments have
established emission-control programs that significantly reduce
emissions from numerous types of sources. Many of these sources now
pollute at only a small fraction of their pre-control rates. In
contrast, today's rule revises EPA standards for on-highway motorcycles
for the first time since 1977.\1\ These final standards for motorcycles
reflect the development of emission-control technology that has
occurred since we last set standards for these engines which took
effect in 1978. A review of current motorcycle certification results
clearly indicates that the emissions performance of a majority of
current motorcycles surpasses levels required by current federal
regulations. The standards established in this rule will further lower
emissions in the next 3-7 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 42 FR 1122, Jan. 5, 1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide, highway motorcycles are significant contributors to
mobile-source air pollution, currently accounting for 0.6 percent of
mobile-source hydrocarbon (HC) emissions, 0.1 percent of mobile-source
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, and less than 0.1
percent of mobile-source particulate matter (PM) emissions.\2\ Without
these further regulations, highway motorcycles would account for 2.2
percent of mobile source HC, 0.3 percent of mobile source
NOX, and 0.1 percent of mobile-source particulate matter
(PM) emissions by 2020. These standards will reduce exposure to these
emissions and help avoid a range of adverse health effects associated
with ambient ozone and PM levels, especially in terms of respiratory
impairment and related illnesses. In addition, the standards will help
reduce acute exposure to air toxics and PM for persons who operate or
who work with or are otherwise active in close proximity to these
sources. They will also help address other environmental problems
associated with these sources, such as visibility impairment in our
national parks and other wilderness areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ While we characterize emissions of hydrocarbons, this can be
used as a surrogate for volatile organic compounds (VOC), which
comprises a very similar, but slightly different, set of compounds.
Hydrocarbons are generally easier to test for, and therefore, are
easier to regulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule follows several EPA notices: An Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on December 7, 2000 (65 FR
76797); a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 14,
2002 (67 FR 53050), and an additional notice dated October 30, 2002 (67
FR 66097). In the NPRM we proposed new exhaust emission standards for
highway motorcycles, including motorcycles of less than 50 cubic
centimeters (cc) in displacement, and requested comment on promulgating
standards controlling emissions from fuel tank and hose permeation from
highway motorcycles.\3\ We received comments on the NPRM from a wide
variety of stakeholders, including the motorcycle manufacturing
industry, motorcycle user groups, various governmental bodies,
environmental groups, and the general public. These comments are
available for public viewing in Docket A-2000-02. Our responses to
these comments are detailed in the Summary and Analysis of Comments,
which is available in the docket and on our Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The NPRM also proposed provisions for controlling
evaporative emissions from marine vessels that use spark-ignition
engines. These provisions are not a part of this action; a final
rule addressing these provisions is being developed and will be
published in a separate future action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. How Is This Document Organized?
This final rule covers highway motorcycles, which vary in size from
small scooters with engines of less than 50cc displacement to large
touring models with engines that approach the size of small automobile
engines (over 1000cc). In general the text is often organized by EPA's
definitions of motorcycle classes, which are based on the size of the
engine and are used to distinguish motorcycles for the purposes of
applying emission standards.
Section I describes the general provisions that we are finalizing
and provides some background and context for the final rule.
Section II describes the air quality needs that cause us to publish
this final rule, as well as describing how highway motorcycles
contribute to air pollution.
Section III describes specifically which vehicles are covered by
the final rule.
[[Page 2400]]
Section IV describes the new exhaust emission standards and related
provisions that we are finalizing.
Section V describes our findings regarding the technological
feasibility of the exhaust emission standards for highway motorcycles.
Section VI describes the permeation evaporative emission standards
and related provisions that we are finalizing. It also describes the
permeation testing requirements and our findings regarding the
technological feasibility of the permeation requirements.
Section VII summarizes the projected environmental impacts and
costs of this rule. We expect the costs of this emission control
program to be about $27 million (including fuel savings) annually by
the time the program is fully implemented. The emission benefits of
this program are projected to be approximately 55,000 tons of
HC+NOX annually by the time the program is fully
implemented.
Finally, Sections VIII and IX contain information about public
participation and various administrative requirements.
The remainder of this section summarizes the new requirements and
provides some background and context for the final rule.
C. What Requirements Are We Adopting?
In general, we are harmonizing the federal motorcycle exhaust
emission standards with those of the state of California, but on a
delayed schedule relative to implementation in California and with some
additional provisions that provide additional flexibility in meeting
the standards. The process by which motorcycle manufacturers certify
their motorcycles to the exhaust emission standards, including the test
procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal
program, are generally unchanged. We are also adopting exhaust emission
standards for previously unregulated motorcycles with engines that are
less than 50cc in displacement. In addition, we are adopting standards
that will require the use of low permeability fuel tanks and fuel hoses
on all motorcycles.
1. Class I and II Motorcycles
We are adopting a new exhaust emission standard for Class I and
Class II motorcycles of 1.0 g/km HC, to replace the current federal HC
standard of 5.0 g/km. This standard will become effective starting with
the 2006 model year. Class I and II motorcycles have been meeting a
standard of 1.0 g/km HC in California since 1982, and by 2006 the
European versions of these motorcycles will be meeting HC and
NOX standards that when combined are below 1.0 g/km.\4\ We
are also finalizing an optional HC+NOX standard of 1.4 g/km,
which will be required for manufacturers who decide to take advantage
of provisions that allow the transfer of emission credits and averaging
of Class I and II engine families. Class I and II motorcycles represent
about 5-10 percent of annual U.S. motorcycle sales. Class I and II
motorcycles will also have to meet new requirements regarding low
permeation fuel tanks and fuel hoses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ California standards are met using a test procedure
identical to EPA's, whereas compliance with European standards is
determined using a different test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also adopting a new definition of a Class I motorcycle which
includes motorcycles with engine displacements of less than 50cc. These
motorcycles--which are powered mostly by two-stroke engines currently--
have not been subject to EPA emission regulations until now. We are
finalizing a useful life for the under 50cc category of 5 years or
6,000 km, whichever first occurs. We are also revising the test
procedure for this unique category of Class I motorcycles to ensure
that these small motorcycles are tested appropriately.
2. Class III Motorcycles
We are adopting new exhaust emission standards for Class III
motorcycles. Class III motorcycles represent more than 90 percent of
annual U.S. sales. These standards, which can be met on a corporate-
average basis, are identical to the standards of the California
program. Specifically, we are adopting a ``Tier-1'' standard of 1.4 g/
km HC+NOX starting in the 2006 model year, and a ``Tier-2''
standard of 0.8 g/km starting in the 2010 model year. Because both HC
and NOX are ozone precursors, this new standard will better
reduce ozone than an HC-only standard. Implementation on a nationwide
basis will take place starting two model years after implementation of
identical exhaust emission standards in California, ensuring that
manufacturers have adequate lead time to plan for these new standards
and to have full product lines available for sale. The federal CO
standard of 12.0 g/km is unchanged by this final rule. The process by
which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the
driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program remain
unchanged. Class III motorcycles will also have to meet new
requirements regarding low permeation fuel tanks and fuel hoses.
D. Putting This Action Into Perspective
Federal standards for highway motorcycles were first established in
the 1978 model year (see 42 FR 1126, Jan. 5, 1977). Interim standards
were effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years, and final standards
took effect with the 1980 model year. The interim standards ranged from
5.0 to 14.0 g/km HC depending on engine displacement, while the interim
CO standard of 17.0 g/km applied to all motorcycles. The standards and
requirements effective for 1980 and later model year motorcycles, which
do not include NOX emission standards, currently remain
unchanged from when they were established 25 years ago. Crankcase
emissions from motorcycles have also been prohibited since 1980. The
level of technology required to meet these standards is widely
considered to be comparable to the pre-catalyst technology in the
automobile. These standards, which resulted in the phase-out of two-
stroke engines for highway motorcycles above 50cc displacement,
achieved significant reductions in emissions. There are no current
federal standards for evaporative emissions from motorcycles. The
current federal exhaust emission standards are shown in Table I.D-1.
[[Page 2401]]
Table I.D-1.--Current Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for Motorcycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful life
Class Engine size HC (g/km) CO (g/km) (km)a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I..................................... 50-169.................. 5.0 12.0 12,000
II.................................... 170-279................. 5.0 12.0 18,000
III................................... 279.......... 5.0 12.0 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a ``Useful life'' is the period over which the manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with emission standards.
It is unrelated to how long a consumer can keep or ride a motorcycle.
However, it is clear that the impact of the current federal
standards on motorcycle emission control was fully realized by the end
of the 1980's, and that international and other efforts have been the
driving factor in more recent technology development for motorcycle
emissions control. In the past two decades, other actions in Europe,
Asia, and California have caused motorcycle emission controls to
continue to advance, despite the static U.S. emission standards in that
same time period. In fact, most manufacturers elect to certify many of
their motorcycles to the California standards (described below in
section I.D.2) and market them nationwide. This practice has resulted
in the average certification levels shown in Table I.D-2.
Table I.D-2.--Average Certification Levels for 2003 Model Year Motorcycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Engine size HC (g/km) CO (g/km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................................. 50-169.......................... 1.3 7.2
II............................................ 170-279......................... 0.9 7.2
III........................................... 279.................. 0.9 6.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Manufacturers typically certify at levels that provide them with sufficient ``headroom'' between the
actual certification level and the standard. This ``headroom'' is often 30-50% of the standard, as can be seen
in the CO levels in this table which compare to a standard of 12 g/km.
1. New Federal Emission Standards for Recreational Vehicles
On November 8, 2002, we adopted new standards for all-terrain
vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, and off-highway motorcycles.\5\ These
standards resulted from requirements in the Clean Air Act regarding all
nonroad vehicles. In light of the requirements in the Act and our
subsequent action to control emissions from off-road motorcycle and ATV
emissions, we felt it both necessary and a matter of common sense to
initiate an action to review and update the two-decade-old highway
motorcycle emission standards. Table I.D-3 shows the emission standards
that apply to recreational vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 67 FR 68241 (November 8, 2002). The final rule also
contained new standards for large spark-ignition engines such as
those used in forklifts and airport ground-service equipment and
recreational marine diesel engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with the off-highway motorcycle and ATV standards will
be determined using the same test cycle that is currently used for
highway motorcycles. Therefore the standards are directly comparable.
The current federal highway motorcycle HC standard of 5.0 g/km appears
even more misaligned with the current state of emission control
technology when compared to the standards that their off-highway
cousins will be meeting in the next few years. Today's action rectifies
this imbalance in motorcycle and ATV emission standards.
Table I.D-3.--Recreational Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards
Vehicle Model year ---------------------------------- Phase-in
HC g/kW-hr CO g/kW-hr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snowmobile........................ 2006................. 100 275 50%
2007 through 2009.... 100 275 100%
2010 -option 1....... 75 200
2010 -option 2....... 45 275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC+NOX CO
g/km g/km
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Off-highway....................... 2006................. 2.0 25.0 50%
Motorcycle........................ 2007 and later....... 2.0 25.0 100%
ATV............................... 2006................. 1.5 35.0 50%
2007 and later....... 1.5 35.0 100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. California Emission Standards for Highway Motorcycles
Motorcycle exhaust emission standards in California were originally
identical to the federal standards that took effect in 1980. The
definitions of motorcycle classes used by California ARB continue to be
identical to the federal definitions. However, California ARB has
revised its standards several times in bringing them to their current
levels (see Table I.D-4). In the 1982
[[Page 2402]]
model year the standards were modified to tighten the HC standard from
5.0 g/km to 1.0 or 1.4 g/km, depending on engine displacement.
California adopted an evaporative emission standard of 2.0 g/test for
all three motorcycle classes for 1983 and later model year motorcycles.
California later amended the regulations for 1988 and later model year
motorcycles to further lower emissions and to make the compliance
program more flexible for manufacturers. The 1988 and later standards
could be met on a corporate-average basis, and the Class III
motorcycles were split into two separate categories: 280 cc to 699 cc
and 700 cc and greater. These are the standards that apply in
California now. Like the federal standards, there are currently no
limits on NOX emissions for highway motorcycles in
California. Under the corporate-average scheme, no individual engine
family is allowed to exceed a cap of 2.5 g/km HC. Like the federal
program, California also prohibits crankcase emissions. Current
California exhaust emission standards are shown in Table I.D-4.
Table I.D-4.--Current California Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Engine size (cc) HC (g/km) CO (g/km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I & II........................................ 50-279.......................... 1.0 12.0
III........................................... 280-699......................... 1.0 12.0
III........................................... 700 and above................... 1.4 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 1999, the California ARB adopted new exhaust emission
standards for Class III motorcycles that would take effect in two
phases--Tier 1 standards starting with the 2004 model year, followed by
Tier 2 standards starting with the 2008 model year (see Table I.D-5).
Existing California standards for Class I and Class II motorcycles (see
Table I.D-4), which have been in place since 1982, remain unchanged, as
does their evaporative emissions standard. As with the current
standards in California, manufacturers will be able to meet the
requirements on a corporate-average basis. Perhaps most significantly,
California ARB's Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards control NOX
emissions for the first time by establishing a combined
HC+NOX standard. California ARB made no changes to the CO
emission standard, which remains at 12.0 g/km, equivalent to the
existing federal standard. In addition, California ARB is providing an
incentive program to encourage the introduction of Tier 2 motorcycles
before the 2008 model year. This incentive program allows the
accumulation of emission credits that manufacturers can use to meet the
2008 standards. Like the federal program, these standards will also
apply to dual-sport motorcycles.
Table I.D-5.--Tier 1 and Tier 2 California Class III Highway Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC + NOX (g/
Model year Engine displacement km) CO (g/km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 through 2007 (Tier 1).................... 280 cc and greater.............. 1.4 12.0
2008 and subsequent (Tier 2).................. 280 cc and greater.............. 0.8 12.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California ARB also adopted a new definition of small-volume
manufacturer that will take effect with the 2008 model year. Currently
and through the 2003 model year, all manufacturers must meet the
standards, regardless of production volume. Small-volume manufacturers,
defined in California ARB's recent action as a manufacturer with
California sales of combined Class I, Class II, and Class III
motorcycles not greater than 300 units annually, do not have to meet
the new standards until the 2008 model year, at which point the Tier 1
standard applies.
3. European Union and Other International Actions
The European Union (EU) has established a new phase of motorcycle
standards, which took effect in 2003, and has recently finalized a
second phase that will start in 2006. The 2003 European standards are
more stringent than the existing federal standards, and, with the
exception of the CO standard, are roughly comparable to the California
Tier 1 standards taking effect in 2004. The 2003 standards would
require emissions to be below the values shown in Table I.D-6, as
measured over the European ECE-40 test cycle.\6\ The standards in Table
I.D-6 apply to motorcycles of less than 50cc (e.g., scooters and
mopeds) only if the motorcycle can exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28
miles per hour). Starting in 2002 motorcycles of less than 50cc that
cannot exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28 miles per hour) are subject to
a new HC+NOX standard of 1.2 grams per kilometer and a CO
standard of 1.0 gram per kilometer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The ECE-40 cycle is used by several countries around the
world for motorcycle emission testing. It has its origins in
passenger car driving, being derived from the European ECE-15
passenger car cycle. The speed-time trace is simply a combination of
straight lines, resulting in a ``modal'' cycle, rather than the
transient nature of the U.S. Federal Test Procedure (FTP).
Table I.D-6.--European Union 2003 Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards
for Motorcycles 150cc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC (g/km) CO (g/km) NOX (g/km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 5.5 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New standards that would apply starting in 2006, along with a revised
test cycle (as an interim cycle to bridge between the current EU cycle
and a possible WMTC cycle in the future) have been recently finalized
by the EU. Setting aside the difference in test cycles, the 2006 EU HC
and NOX standards are roughly comparable to and perhaps
somewhat more stringent than the California Tier 2 motorcycle standards
effective in 2008. The 2006 EU standards are shown in Table I.D-7.
[[Page 2403]]
Table I.D-7.--European Union 2006 Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards
for Motorcycles 150cc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC (g/km) CO (g/km) NOX (g/km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.3 2.0 0.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many other nations around the world, particularly in South Asia
where two-stroke small displacement motorcycles can be a majority of
the vehicle population, have also recently improved their emission
standards or are planning to do so in the next several years. For
example, Taiwan has adopted an HC+NOX standard of 1.0 gram
per kilometer for all two-strokes starting in 2003 (as tested on the
European ECE-40 test cycle). (Four-stroke motorcycle engines will have
to meet at standard of 2.0 grams per kilometer.) India has proposed a
standard for all motorcycles of 1.3 grams per kilometer
HC+NOX in 2003 and 1.0 grams per kilometer HC+NOX
in 2005 (as tested on the Indian Drive Cycle, or IDC).\7\ China has
adopted the 2003 European standards described above, implementing them
in 2004, a year later than Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The IDC, although not a transient cycle like the FTP,
appears to be the only cycle currently in use that is based on
actual measurements of motorcycles in use. Although the FTP is based
on real-world driving of passenger cars and not motorcycles, it is
reasonable to argue that the two types of vehicles are driven
similarly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Statutory Authority
Section 202(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to
promulgate, and from time to time revise, standards applicable to
emissions of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor
vehicles that, in the Administrator's judgment cause or contribute to
air pollution which in EPA's judgment may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. Such regulations shall apply for the
useful life of the vehicle and ``shall take effect after such period as
the Administrator finds is necessary to permit the development and
application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate
consideration to the cost of compliance within such period.''
In particular, section 202(a)(3)(E) states that motorcycles shall
be treated as heavy-duty vehicles unless ``the Administrator
promulgates regulations under subsection (a) of this section applying
standards applicable to the emission of air pollutants from motorcycles
as a separate class or category. In any case in which such standards
are promulgated for such emissions as a separate class or category, the
Administrator, in promulgating such standards, shall consider the need
to achieve equivalency of emission reductions between motorcycles and
other motor vehicles to the maximum extent practicable.''
EPA's initial standards regulating motorcycles were promulgated on
December 23, 1976 (42 FR 1122). In that final rule EPA made the finding
that highway motorcycles were a contributor to air pollution and that
control of their emissions is necessary to meet the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards. The air quality analyses conducted for this
final rule (see the Final Regulatory Support Document) continue to
support this conclusion. The standards promulgated in the 1976 rule and
in this final rule treat motorcycles as a separate class of motor
vehicle, and thus are governed by the language in section 202(a)(1) and
(2) and 202(a)(3)(E). In promulgating these standards, EPA has
considered the need to achieve equivalency in emission reduction
between motorcycles and other motor vehicles (see Section 4.1 of the
Final Regulatory Support Document).
F. Modification, Customization and Personalization of Motorcycles
Many motorcycle owners personalize their motorcycles in a variety
of ways. This is one of the aspects of motorcycle ownership that is
appealing to a large number of motorcycle owners, and they take their
freedom to customize their bikes very seriously. However, there are
some forms of customization that are not legal under the provisions of
Clean Air Act section 203(a), which states that it is illegal:
for any person to remove or render inoperative any device or element
of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine
in compliance with regulations under this title prior to its sale
and delivery to the ultimate purchaser or * * * after such sale and
delivery to the ultimate purchaser.* * *
or
for any person to manufacture or sell * * * or install, any part or
component intended for use with * * * any motor vehicle * * * where
a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or
render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or
in a motor vehicle * * * in compliance with regulations under this
title, and where the person knows or should know that such part or
component is being offered for sale or installed for such use or put
to such use. * * *
In other words, under current law, owners of motor vehicles \8\ cannot
legally make modifications that remove, bypass, or disable emission-
control devices installed by the manufacturer.\9\ It is also illegal
for part manufacturers and dealers to manufacture, sell or install a
part or component that the manufacturer or dealer knows or should know
will be sold or used in a manner that defeats the emissions control
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A motorcycle is a ``motor vehicle'' as defined under section
216 of the Clean Air Act, which states that ``[t]he term ``motor
vehicle'' means any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway.''
\9\ See Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, Interim
Tampering Enforcement Policy, Office of Enforcement and General
Council, June 25, 1974 (Docket A-2000-01; document IV-A-27). (http://www.epa.gov/oeca/ore/aed/comp/hcomp.html)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We use the term ``tampering'' to refer specifically to actions that
are illegal under Clean Air Act section 203; the term, and the
prohibition, do not apply generally to the wide range of actions that a
motorcycle enthusiast can take to personalize his or her motorcycle,
but only to actions that remove or disable emission control devices or
cause the emissions to exceed the standards. We know, from anecdotal
reports and from some data collected from in-use motorcycles, that a
portion of the motorcycle riding population has removed, replaced, or
modified the original equipment on their motorcycles. This
customization can include changes that can be detrimental (or, in some
cases, possibly beneficial) to the motorcycle's emission levels. The
NPRM sought comments and data that could better help us understand the
nature of the issue, such that our final rule decisions could be made
with the best understanding possible of current consumer practices. We
did not propose to revise the existing tampering restrictions or to
prohibit many of the things that motorcycle owners are now doing
legally.
The new emission standards that we are adopting do not change this
``tampering'' prohibition, which has been in the Clean Air Act for more
than 20 years. Part manufacturers are still free to make parts, dealers
are free to sell and install parts, and owners are free to customize
their motorcycles in any way, as long as they do not disable emission
controls or cause the motorcycle to exceed the emission standards.
Owners are also free to perform routine maintenance on their
motorcycles to restore or maintain the motorcycle engine and related
components in their original condition and configuration.
[[Page 2404]]
G. Future Actions
1. 2006 Technology Progress Review
The California ARB has indicated plans for a technology progress
review, to take place in 2006, to evaluate manufacturers' progress in
meeting the Tier 2 standards. Specifically, California ARB documents
state that the purpose of the 2006 review would be to ``* * * evaluate
the success, cost, and consumer acceptance of engine modifications
employed to meet Tier-1 * * *'' and to `` * * * review and discuss
manufacturers' efforts to meet Tier-2 * * * ''\10\ As part of that
review, the California ARB has suggested they may reevaluate whether
the Tier 2 standard should be applied to small-volume manufacturers in
the future.\11\ We plan to participate in that review and work with the
California ARB and others. We would intend to make any appropriate
adjustments to the Tier 2 standards or implementation schedule if our
review leads to the conclusion that changes are warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ State of California Air Resources Board, October 23, 1998
``Proposed Amendments to the California On-Road Motorcycle
Regulation'' Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Docket A-
2000-01; document II-D-12).
\11\ State of California Air Resources Board, ``Final Statement
of Reasons for Rulemaking: Proposed Amendments to the California On-
Road Motorcycle Regulation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the 2006 progress review we will evaluate and
possibly propose regulatory revisions with regard to a number of issues
that are discussed in this final rule. In particular, we intend to
pursue development of a program that would apply emission standards to
motorcycle engine manufacturers. Small-volume manufacturers may be the
primary consumers of motorcycle engines built by others, since they
generally do not have the physical or technical resources to develop,
test, and manufacture their own engines. Although these small
manufacturers are provided with a substantial level of flexibility in
the current program, some additional flexibility may be warranted in
the future, especially with regard to very small manufacturers
producing fewer than 100 motorcycles per year. In evaluating any
potential future actions, we intend to carefully consider the potential
impacts on the small segment of the motorcycle industry represented by
the smallest manufacturers.
It is our view that a program could be structured such that small
volume motorcycle manufacturers could purchase certified engines
directly from an engine manufacturer. We believe that such a program
could be structured such that it is both fair to the engine
manufacturers and beneficial to small volume motorcycle manufacturers.
Under one possible approach, small volume motorcycle manufacturers
could choose to use certified engines and to accept the calibration or
configuration of a certified engine that they purchase for use in their
motorcycles. Small volume manufacturers would not be required to use
certified engines, but if they chose either to use uncertified engines
or to change the calibration or configuration of the certified engines
they use, then they would have to independently certify their
motorcycles to the applicable emission standards.
In the context of the 2006 review we may also evaluate additional
evaporative emission requirements, more stringent CO standards, an
HC+NOX standard for Class I and II motorcycles, and
revisions to the useful life definitions. Further action on these or
any other items would depend on an evaluation of appropriate criteria,
including but not necessarily limited to costs and feasibility. These
items, including the engine program, could be proposed with the world
harmonized motorcycle test cycle discussed below if the timing is
appropriate, or in an independent action if the timing is not
appropriate.
2. Globally Harmonized Motorcycle Test Cycle
In the NPRM we noted the effort underway under the auspices of the
United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) to develop a
global harmonized world motorcycle test cycle (WMTC), and requested
comment on adopting such a test cycle in the future. The United States
is also a participating member of UN/ECE. The objective of the WMTC
project is to develop a scientifically supported test cycle that
accurately represents the in-use driving characteristics of highway
motorcycles, and that could ultimately be integrated into the
requirements of nations around the world. The advantages of such a test
cycle are numerous. First, the industry could have a single test cycle
to meet emission standards in many countries (the process recognizes
that nations will have differing emission standards due the varying
air-pollution concerns). Second, the test cycle could potentially be
better than the existing FTP in that it is expected to better represent
how a wide range of riders drive their motorcycles, which could
ultimately result in further emission reductions.
At this time we are not adopting any modifications to the highway
motorcycle test cycle. We continue to be involved in the WMTC process
and are hopeful that a test cycle meeting the stated objectives can be
agreed on by the international participants, including the United
States. Although a draft test cycle has been developed, some issues
remain unresolved and it will likely be some time before a new cycle
can be issued as a global technical regulation under the process
established by a 1998 international agreement. Under that process, if a
test cycle is brought to a vote and the United States votes in the
affirmative, we will then be committed to initiating a rulemaking that
may lead to an action to adopt the new test cycle. If the timing is
appropriate this action could include proposals relating to the 2006
technology review discussed above.
II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
This final rule establishes revised standards for highway
motorcycles. The current emission standards for these vehicles were set
in 1978 and are based on 1970-era emission control technology. We are
adopting new HC and NOX standards that reflect the
application of more advanced emission control technology. These
standards are harmonized with California's highway motorcycle emission
standards, but on a delayed schedule relative to implementation in
California and with some additional provisions that provide additional
flexibility in meeting the standards. We are also finalizing new
federal emission standards for highway motorcycles under 50cc that are
currently uncontrolled. Finally, we are adopting standards to control
permeation evaporative emissions from the fuel tanks and fuel hoses on
highway motorcycles.
As described below and in the Final Regulatory Support Document,
these standards will help address the contribution of these engines to
air pollution that causes public health and welfare problems. HC and
NOX emissions from highway motorcycles contribute to ambient
concentrations of ozone. They also add to fine particle levels and
contribute to visibility impairment. The standards we are adopting,
which are expected to result in about a 60 percent reduction in HC and
NOX emissions in 2020, will help reduce these harmful
emissions. They will also reduce personal exposure for people who
operate, who work with, or are otherwise in close proximity to these
vehicles. This is important because, in addition to the health effects
associated with exposure to ozone and fine PM, many types of
hydrocarbons are also air toxics.
Based on the most recent data available for this rule (1999-2001),
[[Page 2405]]
ozone and PM air quality problems are widespread in the United States.
There are about 111 million people living in counties with monitored
concentrations exceeding the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and over 65 million
people living in counties with monitored PM2.5 levels
exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS. This emission control program is
another component of the effort by federal, state and local governments
to reduce the health related impacts of air pollution and to reach
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone and particulate matter as well as to improve other environmental
conditions such as atmospheric visibility.
A. What Are The Health and Welfare Effects of Highway Motorcycle
Emissions?
Highway motorcycles generate emissions that contribute to ozone
formation and ambient levels of PM and air toxics. This section
summarizes the general health effects of these pollutants. National
inventory estimates are set out in Section II.B, and estimates of the
expected impact of these programs are described in Section VII.
Interested readers are encouraged to refer to the Regulatory Support
Document for this rule for more in-depth discussions.
1. Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Ground Level Ozone and
Its Precursors
a. Health and Welfare Effects
Highway motorcycles contribute to ambient ozone levels through
their HC and NOX emissions. Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and NOX are precursors in the photochemical reaction which
forms tropospheric ozone. Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in
smog, is formed by complex chemical reactions of VOCs and
NOX in the presence of heat and sunlight. Hydrocarbons are a
set of compounds that are very similar to, but slightly different from,
VOCs, and to reduce mobile-source VOC levels we set maximum limits for
HC emissions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For more information about VOC and HC, see U.S. EPA (1997),
Conversion Factors for Hydrocarbon Emission Components, Report No.
NR-002. A copy of this document is available in Docket A-2000-02,
Document IV-A-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat
irritation, and/or uncomfortable sensation in the
chest.13 14 Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more
difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may become more rapid and
shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's normal activity. Ozone
also can aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require
a doctor's attention and/or the use of additional medication. In
addition, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which
may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue, irreversible reductions
in lung function, and a lower quality of life if the inflammation
occurs repeatedly over a long time period (months, years, a lifetime).
People who are of particular concern with respect to ozone exposures
include children and adults who are active outdoors. Others
particularly susceptible to ozone effects are people with respiratory
disease, such as asthma, and people with unusual sensitivity to ozone,
and children. Beyond its human health effects, ozone has been shown to
injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields and
reducing productivity in forest ecosystems.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/600/P-93/004aF. Docket No. A-99-06.
Document Nos. II-A-15 to 17. More information on health effects of
ozone is also available at http:/www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s.03.index.html.
\14\ U.S. EPA. (1996). Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-96-007. Docket No. A-99-
06. Document No. II-A-22.
\15\ U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants, EPA/600/P-93/004aF. Docket No. A-99-06.
Document Nos. II-A-15 to 17. More information on health effects of
ozone is also available at http:/www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s.03.index.html.
\16\ U.S. EPA. (1996). Review of National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone, Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, EPA-452/R-96-007. Docket No. A-99-
06. Document No. II-A-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8-hour ozone standard, established by EPA in 1997, is based on
well-documented science demonstrating that more people are experiencing
adverse health effects at lower levels of exertion, over longer
periods, and at lower ozone concentrations than addressed by the one-
hour ozone standard.\17\ The 8-hour standard addresses ozone exposures
of concern for the general population and populations most at risk,
including children active outdoors, outdoor workers, and individuals
with pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., 62 FR 38861-62, July 18, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been new research that suggests additional serious health
effects beyond those that were known when the 8-hour ozone health
standard was set. Since 1997, over 1,700 new health and welfare studies
relating to ozone have been published in peer-reviewed journals.\18\
Many of these studies investigate the impact of ozone exposure on such
health effects as changes in lung structure and biochemistry,
inflammation of the lungs, exacerbation and causation of asthma,
respiratory illness-related school absence, hospital and emergency room
visits for asthma and other respiratory causes, and premature
mortality. EPA is currently in the process of evaluating these and
other studies as part of the ongoing review of the air quality criteria
and NAAQS for ozone. A revised Air Quality Criteria Document for Ozone
and Other Photochemical Oxidants will be prepared in consultation with
EPA's Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC). Key new health
information falls into four general areas: development of new-onset
asthma, hospital admissions for young children, school absence rate,
and premature mortality. In all, the new studies that have become
available since the 8-hour ozone standard was adopted in 1997 continue
to demonstrate the harmful effects of ozone on public health and the
need for areas with high ozone levels to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ New Ozone Health and Environmental Effects References,
Published Since Completion of the Previous Ozone AQCD, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711 (7/2002) Docket No. A-2001-28, Document II-A-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these health effects, HC emissions contain several
air toxics that can also have adverse impacts on human health. The
health effects of air toxics are briefly described below and discussed
in more detail in the final Regulatory Support Document for this rule.
Ozone and its precursors also have welfare effects. Ozone has been
shown to injure plants, which has the effect of reducing crop yields,
reducing productivity in forests and other ecosystems. Ozone also
attacks certain materials such as rubbers and plastics. Other
environmental effects, such as acid deposition and eutrophication, are
related to ozone precursors, such as NOX. Acid deposition,
or acid rain as it is commonly known, occurs when SO2 and
NOX react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and oxidants
to form various acidic compounds that later fall to earth in the form
of precipitation or dry deposition of acidic particles.\19\ Acid rain
contributes to damage of trees at high elevations and in extreme cases
[[Page 2406]]
may cause lakes and streams to become so acidic that they cannot
support aquatic life. In addition, acid deposition accelerates the
decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable
buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation's
cultural heritage. To reduce damage to automotive paint caused by acid
rain and acidic dry deposition, some manufacturers use acid-resistant
paints, at an average cost of $5 per vehicle--a total of $80-85 million
per year when applied to all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Much of the information in this subsection was excerpted
from the EPA document, Human Health Benefits from Sulfate Reduction,
written under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, U.S.
EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Acid Rain Division, Washington, DC
20460, November 1995. Available in Docket A-2000-01, Document No.
II-A-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eutrophication is the accelerated production of organic matter,
particularly algae, in a water body. This increased growth can cause
numerous adverse ecological effects and economic impacts, including
nuisance algal blooms, dieback of underwater plants due to reduced
light penetration, and toxic plankton blooms. Algal and plankton blooms
can also reduce the level of dissolved oxygen, which can also adversely
affect fish and shellfish populations. Deposition of nitrogen from on-
highway motorcycle engines contributes to elevated nitrogen levels in
waterbodies.
b. Current and Projected Ozone Levels
Ground level ozone today remains a pervasive pollution problem in
the United States. In 2003, 114 million people (2000 census) lived in
53 areas designated nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.\20\
This sharp decline from the 101 nonattainment areas originally
identified under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 demonstrates the
effectiveness of the last decade's worth of emission-control programs.
However, elevated ozone concentrations remain a serious public health
concern throughout the nation. Unhealthy ozone concentrations exceeding
the level of the 8-hour standard (i.e., not requisite to protect the
public health with an adequate margin of safety) occur over wide
geographic areas, including most of the nation's major population
centers. These monitored areas include much of the eastern half of the
U.S. and large areas of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``One-hour Ozone and PM 10 Nonattainment Status and Air
Quality Data Update,'' Memorandum from Patricia Koman to Docket A-
2000-2, August 11, 2003, Docket A-2000-02, Document IV-B-07. See
also National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1999, EPA,
2001, at Table A-19. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/aqtrnd99/. The data from the Trends report are the
most recent EPA air quality data that have been quality assured. A
copy of this table can also be found in Docket No. A-2000-01,
Document No. II-A-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to data from 1999 to 2001, there are 291 counties where
111 million people live that measured values that violate the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.\21\ An additional 37 million people live in 155 counties
that have air quality measurements within 10 percent of the level of
the standard. These areas, though currently not violating the standard,
will also benefit from the additional emission reductions from this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Additional counties may have levels above the NAAQS but do
not currently have monitors. See U.S. EPA OAQPS Air Quality Data
Analysis 1999-2001 Technical Support Document for Regulatory Actions
(Docket A-2001-28; No. II-A-196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our air quality modeling performed for our recent Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking proposing more stringent emission standards for
nonroad diesel engines and the diesel fuel used in those engines (68 FR
28328, May 23, 2003), we anticipate that without emission reductions
beyond those already required under promulgated regulations and
approved SIPs, ozone nonattainment will likely persist into the future.
With reductions from programs already in place, the number of counties
violating the ozone 8-hour standard is expected to decrease in 2020 to
30 counties where 43 million people are projected to live. Thereafter,
exposure to unhealthy levels of ozone is expected to begin to increase
again. In 2030 the number of counties violating the ozone 8-hour NAAQS
is projected to increase to 32 counties where 47 million people are
projected to live. In addition, in 2030, 82 counties where 44 million
people are projected to live will be within 10 percent of violating the
ozone 8-hour NAAQS.
EPA is still developing the implementation process for bringing the
nation's air into attainment with the ozone 8-hour NAAQS (see proposal,
68 FR 32702, June 2, 2003). The Act contains two sets of requirements
for State plans implementing the national ozone air quality standards
in nonattainment areas. Under subpart 1 of Title I, Part D, a State
must demonstrate that nonattainment areas will attain the ozone 8-hour
standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years
from the date that the area was designated nonattainment. However,
based on the severity of the air quality problem and the availability
and feasibility of control measures, the Administrator may extend the
attainment date ``for a period of no greater than 10 years from the
date of designation as nonattainment.'' Based on these provisions, we
expect that most or all areas covered under subpart 1 will attain the
ozone standard in the 2007 to 2014 time period. For areas covered under
subpart 2, the maximum attainment dates provided under the Act range
from 3 to 20 years after designation, depending on an area's
classification. We anticipate that areas covered by subpart 2 will
attain in the 2007 to 2024 time period.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EPA has proposed that States submit SIPs that address how
areas will attain the 8-hour ozone standard within 3 years after
nonattainment designation for moderate and above areas classified
under subpart 2 and for some areas classified under subpart 1. EPA
is also proposing that marginal areas and some areas designated
under subpart 1 (i.e., those with early attainment dates) will not
be required to submit attainment demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone
standard. We therefore anticipate that States will submit their
attainment demonstration SIPs by April 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the HC and NOX emission reductions expected from
this final rule will go into effect during the period when areas will
need to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the projected reductions in
highway motorcycle emissions are expected to assist States in their
effort to meet and maintain that standard.
2. Health and Welfare Effects Associated With Particulate Matter
a. Health and Welfare Effects
Highway motorcycles contribute to ambient particulate matter in two
ways. First, they contribute through direct emissions of particulate
matter in the exhaust. Second, they contribute through the indirect
formation of PM (namely ammonium nitrate and organic carbonaceous
PM2.5) in the atmosphere through their NOX and
organic carbon emissions, especially HC. Carbonaceous PM2.5
is a major portion of ambient PM2.5, especially in populous
urban areas. The relative contribution of various chemical components
to PM2.5 varies by region of the country.
Particulate matter represents a broad class of chemically and
physically diverse substances. It can be principally characterized as
discrete particles that exist in the condensed (liquid or solid) phase
spanning several orders of magnitude in size. All particles equal to
and less than 10 microns are called PM10 Fine particles can
be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of
2.5 microns or less (also known as PM2.5), and coarse
fraction particles are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter
greater than 2.5 microns, but equal to or less than a nominal 10
microns. Fine particles can remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks
and travel through the atmosphere hundreds to thousands of kilometers,
while coarse particles deposit to the earth within minutes to
[[Page 2407]]
hours and within tens of kilometers from the emission source.
Scientific studies show ambient PM (which is attributable to a
number of sources, including highway motorcycles) is associated with a
series of adverse health effects. These health effects are discussed in
detail in the EPA Criteria Document for PM as well as the draft updates
of this document released in the past year. \23\ \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter--Volumes I, II, and III, EPA, Office of Research and
Development. Report No. EPA/600/P-95/001a-cF. This material is
available in Docket A-99-06, Documents IV-A-30 to 32. It is also
available electronically at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/ticd.html.
\24\ U.S. EPA (2002). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter--Volumes I and II (Third External Review Draft) This material
is available in Docket A-2001-28, Documents II-A-98 and II-A-71. It
is also available electronically at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/partmatt.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in these documents, health effects associated ambient
PM have been indicated by epidemiologic studies showing associations
between short-term exposure and increased hospital admissions for
ischemic heart disease, heart failure, respiratory disease, including
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia. Short-term
elevations in ambient PM have also been associated with increased
cough, lower respiratory symptoms, and decrements in lung function.
Short-term variations in ambient PM have also been associated with
increases in total and cardiorespiratory daily mortality. Studies
examining populations exposed to different levels of air pollution over
a number of years, including the Harvard Six Cities Study and the
American Cancer Society Study suggest an association between exposure
to ambient PM2.5 and premature mortality. 25 26
Two studies further analyzing the Harvard Six Cities Study's air
quality data have also established a specific influence of mobile
source-related PM2.5 on daily mortality \27\ and a
concentration-response function for mobile source-associated
PM2.5 and daily mortality.\28\ Another recent study in 14
U.S. cities examining the effect of PM10 on daily hospital
admissions for cardiovascular disease found that the effect of
PM10 was significantly greater in areas with a larger
proportion of PM10 coming from motor vehicles, indicating
that PM10 from these sources may have a greater effect on
the toxicity of ambient PM10 when compared with other
sources.\29\ Additional studies have associated changes in heart rate
and/or heart rhythm in addition to changes in blood characteristics
with exposure to ambient PM. 30 31 For additional
information on health effects, see the Regulatory Support Document for
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Dockery, DW; Pope, CA, III; Xu, X; et al. (1993). An
association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.
N Engl J Med 329:1753-1759.
\26\ Pope, CA, III; Thun, MJ; Namboordiri, MM; et al. (1995).
Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortality in a
prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:669-
674.
\27\ Laden F; Neas LM; Dockery DW; et al. (2000). Association of
fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality
in six U.S. cities. Environ Health Perspect 108(10):941-947.
\28\ Schwartz J; Laden F; Zanobetti A. (2002). The
concentration-response relation between PM(2.5) and daily deaths.
Environ Health Perspect 110(10): 1025-1029.
\29\ Janssen NA; Schwartz J; Zanobetti A.; et al. (2002). Air
conditioning and source-specific particles as modifiers of the
effect of PM10 on hospital admissions for heart and lung
disease. Environ Health Perspect 110(1):43-49.
\30\ Pope CA III, Verrier RL, Lovett EG; et al. (1999). Heart
rate variability associated with particulate air pollution. Am Heart
J 138(5 Pt 1):890-899.
\31\ Magari SR, Hauser R, Schwartz J; et al. (2001). Association
of heart rate variability with occupational and environmental
exposure to particulate air pollution. Circulation 104(9):986-991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The health effects of PM10 are similar to those of
PM2.5, since PM10 includes all of
PM2.5 plus the coarse fraction from 2.5 to 10 micrometers in
size. EPA also evaluates the health effects of PM between 2.5 and 10
micrometers in the draft revised Criteria Document. As discussed in the
Diesel HAD and other studies, most diesel PM is smaller than 2.5
micrometers.\32\ Both fine and coarse fraction particles can enter and
deposit in the respiratory system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. EPA (1985). Size specific total particulate emission
factor for mobile sources. EPA 460/3-85-005. Office of Mobile
Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. A copy of this document is available in
Docket A-2001-28, Document II-A-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM also causes adverse impacts to the environment. Fine PM is the
major cause of reduced visibility in parts of the United States,
including many of our national parks. Other environmental impacts occur
when particles deposit onto soils, plants, water or materials. For
example, particles containing nitrogen and sulphur that deposit on to
land or water bodies may change the nutrient balance and acidity of
those environments. Finally, PM causes soiling and erosion damage to
materials, including culturally important objects such as carved
monuments and statues. It promotes and accelerates the corrosion of
metals, degrades paints, and deteriorates building materials such as
concrete and limestone.
b. Current and Projected Levels
There are NAAQS for both PM10 and PM2.5.
Violations of the annual PM2.5 standard are much more
widespread than are violations of the PM10 standards. Each
of these are discussed below.
i. PM10 Levels. The current NAAQS for PM10
were established in 1987. The primary (health-based) and secondary
(public welfare based) standards for PM10 include both
short- and long-term NAAQS. The short-term (24 hour) standard of 150
ug/m\3\ is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over
three years. The long-term standard specifies an expected annual
arithmetic mean not to exceed 50 ug/m\3\ averaged over three years.
Currently, 29 million people live in PM10 nonattainment
areas. There are currently 56 moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas with a total population of 6.6 million.\33\ The attainment date
for the initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas,
designated by law on November 15, 1990, was December 31, 1994. Several
additional PM10 nonattainment areas were designated on
January 21, 1994, and the attainment date for these areas was December
31, 2000. There are an additional 8 serious PM10
nonattainment areas with a total affected population of 22.7 million.
According to the Act, serious PM10 nonattainment areas must
attain the standards no later than 10 years after designation. The
initial serious PM10 nonattainment areas were designated
January 18, 1994 and had an attainment date set by the Act of December
31, 2001. The Act provides that EPA may grant extensions of the serious
area attainment dates of up to 5 years, provided that the area
requesting the extension meets the requirements of Section 188(e) of
the Act. Four serious PM10 nonattainment areas (Phoenix,
Arizona; Coachella Valley, South Coast (Los Angeles), and Owens Valley,
California) have received extensions of the December 31, 2001
attainment date and thus have new attainment dates of December 31,
2006.\34\
While all of these areas are expected to be in attainment before
any significant emission reductions from this rule are expected to
occur, these reductions will help these areas in maintaining the
standards.
ii. PM2.5 Levels. The NAAQS for PM2.5 were
established by EPA in 1997 (62 Fed. Reg., 38651, July 18, 1997). The
short term (24-hour) standard is set at a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ based
on the 98th percentile concentration averaged over three years. (This
air quality statistic
[[Page 2408]]
compared to the standard is referred to as the ``design value.'') The
long-term standard specifies an expected annual arithmetic mean not to
exceed 15 ug/m\3\ averaged over three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``One-hour Ozone and PM10 Nonattainment Status
and Air Quality Data Update,'' Memorandum from Patricia Koman to
Docket A-2000-2, August 11, 2003, Docket A-2000-02, Document IV-B-
07.
\34\ EPA has also proposed to grant Las Vegas, Nevada, an
extension until December 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
High ambient levels of PM2.5 are widespread throughout
the country. Current PM2.5 monitored values for 1999-2001,
which cover counties having about 75 percent of the country's
population, indicate that at least 65 million people in 129 counties
live in areas where annual design values of ambient fine PM violate the
PM2.5 NAAQS. There are an additional 9 million people in 20
counties where levels above the NAAQS are being measured, although
there are insufficient data at this time to calculate a design value in
accordance with the standard and thus determine whether these areas are
violating the PM2.5 NAAQS. In total, this represents 37
percent of the counties and 64 percent of the population in the areas
with monitors with levels above the NAAQS. Furthermore, an additional
11 million people live in 41 counties that have air quality
measurements within 10 percent of the level of the standard, with
complete data. These areas, although not currently violating the
standard, will also benefit from the additional HC and NOX
reductions from these motorcycle emission standards.
The air quality modeling performed for our recent Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing more stringent emission standards for
nonroad diesel engines and the diesel fuel used in those engines (68 FR
28328, May 23, 2003) suggests that similar conditions are likely to
continue to exist in the future in the absence of additional measures
to reduce these emissions. For example, in 2020 based on emission
controls currently adopted, we project that 66 million people will live
in 79 counties with average PM2.5 levels above 15 ug/m\3\.
In 2030, the number of people projected to live in areas exceeding the
PM2.5 standard is expected to increase to 85 million in 107
counties. An additional 24 million people are projected to live in
counties within 10 percent of the standard in 2020, which will decrease
to 17 million people in 2030.
By reducing HC and NOX emissions from highway
motorcycles, the standards we are finalizing will assist States as they
implement local controls to reduce PM2.5 levels and help
ensure long term maintenance with the NAAQS.
3. Health Effects Associated With Air Toxics
In addition to the human health and welfare impacts described
above, emissions from the engines covered by this rule also contain
several Mobile Source Air Toxics, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene,
formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein.\35\ The health effects of
these air toxics are described in more detail in the Regulatory Support
Document for this rule. Additional information can also be found in the
Technical Support Document for our final Mobile Source Air Toxics
rule.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ EPA recently finalized a list of 21 Mobile Source Air
Toxics, including VOCs, metals, and diesel particulate matter and
diesel exhaust organic gases (collectively DPM+DEOG). 66 FR 17230,
March 29, 2001. This material is available in Docket No. A-2000-01,
Documents Nos. II-A-42 and II-A-30.
\36\ See our Mobile Source Air Toxics final rulemaking, 66 FR
17230, March 29, 2001, and the Technical Support Document for that
rulemaking. Copies of these documents are available in Docket No. A-
2000-01, Documents Nos. II-A-42 and II-A-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hydrocarbon controls contained in this rule are expected to
reduce exposure to air toxics and therefore may help reduce the impact
of these engines on cancer and noncancer health effects.
B. What Is the Emission Inventory Contribution From Highway
Motorcycles?
The highway motorcycles subject to the standards finalized today
contribute to the national inventories of pollutants that are
associated with the health and public welfare effects described in
Section II.A. Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed
using information on the certification levels of current motorcycles
and information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry.
A more detailed description of the highway motorcycle modeling and our
estimation methodology can be found in the Chapter 6 of the Draft
Regulatory Support Document.
In order to determine the relative contribution of highway
motorcycles to overall emissions, we estimated the emissions from all
sources. Overall emission inventory estimates for the years 1996 and
2020 are summarized in Tables II.B-1 through II.B-3 for VOC,
NOX, and PM emissions, respectively.\37\ The estimates shown
for highway motorcycles are baseline estimates and do not account for
the impact of the standards adopted today. These tables show the
relative contributions of the different mobile-source categories to the
overall national mobile-source inventory. Of the total emissions from
mobile sources, highway motorcycles contribute about 0.6 percent, 0.1
percent, and less than 0.1 percent of VOC, NOX, and PM
emissions, respectively, in the year 1996. The projections for 2020 for
the highway motorcycles subject to the standards adopted today show
that emissions from these categories are expected to increase over time
if left uncontrolled. Projections indicate that motorcycles are
expected to contribute 2.3 percent, 0.3 percent, and 0.1 percent of
mobile source VOC, NOX, and PM emissions in the year 2020 if
left uncontrolled. Population growth and the effects of other
regulatory control programs are factored into these projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The inventories cited in Tables II.B-1 through II.B-3 were
developed for the Nonroad Diesel Rulemaking. See 68 FR 28328, May
23, 2003. The inventories for recreational marine engines greater
than 50 horsepower, nonroad spark-ignition engines greater than 25
horsepower, and recreation spark-ignition engines have been updated
using the latest version of EPA's NONROAD model to account for the
new standards adopted by EPA in late 2002. See 67 FR 68242, November
8, 2002.
Table II.B-1.--Annual VOC Baseline Emission Levels for Mobile and Other Source Categories a,b,c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category % of mobile % of mobile
VOC short tons source % of total VOC short tons source % of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Motorcycles.................................... 47,368 0.6 0.3 86,520 2.2 0.6
Highway Light-duty..................................... 4,635,410 55.8 25.0 1,755,119 45.4 13.0
Highway Heavy-duty..................................... 608,607 7.3 3.3 226,641 5.9 1.7
Land-based Nonroad Diesel.............................. 221,403 2.7 1.2 96,855 2.5 0.7
Recreational Marine Diesel <=50 hp..................... 128 0.0 0.0 108 0.0 0.0
Recreational Marine Diesel 50 hp............ 1,199 0.0 0.0 1,531 0.0 0.0
Recreational Marine SI................................. 804,488 9.7 4.3 380,891 9.9 2.8
[[Page 2409]]
Nonroad SI <=25 hp..................................... 1,330,229 16.0 7.2 650,158 16.8 4.8
Nonroad SI 25hp............................. 85,701 1.0 0.5 12,265 0.3 0.1
Recreational SI........................................ 308,285 3.7 1.7 339,098 8.8 2.5
Commercial Marine Diesel............................... 31,545 0.4 0.2 37,290 1.0 0.3
Commercial Marine SI................................... 960 0.0 0.0 998 0.0 0.0
Locomotive............................................. 48,381 0.6 0.3 36,546 0.9 0.3
Aircraft............................................... 176,394 2.1 1.0 239,654 6.2 1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nonroad.......................................... 3,008,713 36 16 1,795,394 46 13
Total Highway.......................................... 5,291,385 64 29 2,068,280 54 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mobile Sources................................... 8,300,098 100 45 3,863,674 100 29
Stationary Point and Area Sources...................... 10,249,136 .............. 55 9,648,376 .............. 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Man-Made Sources................................. 18,549,234 .............. ............... 13,512,050 .............. ..............
Mobile Source Percent of Total......................... 45 .............. ............... 29 .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ These are 48-state inventories. They do not include Alaska and Hawaii.
\b\ The mobile source estimates include both exhaust and evaporative emissions.
\c\ Hydrocarbons (HC) are a set of compounds that are very similar to, but slightly different from, VOCs, and to reduce mobile source VOC levels we set
maximum limits for HC emissions.
Table II.B-2.--Annual NOX Baseline Emission Levels for Mobile and Other Source Categories a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category % of mobile % of mobile
NOX short tons source % of total NOX short tons source % of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Motorcycles.................................... 7,284 0.1 0.0 14,059 0.3 0.1
Highway Light-duty..................................... 4,427,634 33.8 18.0 1,264,342 25.0 8.4
Highway Heavy-duty..................................... 4,626,004 35.3 18.8 696,911 13.8 4.6
Land-based Nonroad Diesel.............................. 1,583,664 12.1 6.4 1,140,727 22.6 7.6
Recreational Marine Diesel <=50 hp..................... 523 0.0 0.0 682 0.0 0.0
Recreational Marine Diesel 50 hp............ 33,468 0.3 0.1 47,675 0.9 0.3
Recreational Marine SI................................. 33,304 0.3 0.1 61,749 1.2 0.4
Nonroad SI <=25 hp..................................... 63,584 0.5 0.3 100,119 2.0 0.7
Nonroad SI 25hp............................. 273,099 2.1 1.1 43,322 0.9 0.3
Recreational SI........................................ 4,297 0.0 0.0 17,129 0.3 0.1
Commercial Marine Diesel............................... 959,704 7.3 3.9 819,201 16.2 5.4
Commercial Marine SI................................... 6,428 0.0 0.0 4,551 0.1 0.0
Locomotive............................................. 921,556 7.0 3.8 612,722 12.1 4.1
Aircraft............................................... 165,018 1.3 0.7 228,851 4.5 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Nonroad.......................................... 4,044,645 31 16 3,076,728 61 20
Total Highway.......................................... 9,060,922 69 37 1,975,312 39 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mobile Sources................................... 13,105,567 100 53 5,052,040 100 33
Stationary Point and Area Sources...................... 11,449,752 .............. 47 10,050,213 .............. 67
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Man-Made Sources................................. 24,555,319 .............. ............... 15,102,253 .............. ..............
Mobile Source Percent of Total......................... 53 .............. ............... 33 .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
a These are 48-state inventories. They do not include Alaska and Hawaii.
Table II.B-3.--Annual Direct PM-2.5 Baseline Emission Levels for Mobile and Other Source Categories a,b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category PM-2.5 short % of mobile PM-2.5 short % of mobile
tons source % of total tons source % of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Motorcycles.................................... 184 0.0 0.0 434 0.1 0.0
Highway Light-duty..................................... 57,534 10.2 2.6 47,136 13.2 2.3
Highway Heavy-duty..................................... 172,965 30.7 7.8 24,806 7.0 1.2
Land-based Nonroad Diesel.............................. 176,510 31.3 8.0 124,334 34.9 6.0
Recreational Marine Diesel <=50 hp..................... 62 0.0 0.0 70 0.0 0.0
Recreational Marine Diesel 50 hp............ 815 0.1 0.0 1,162 0.3 0.1
[[Page 2410]]
Recreational Marine SI................................. 35,147 6.2 1.6 26,110 7.3 1.3
Nonroad SI <=25 hp..................................... 24,130 4.3 1.1 29,998 8.4 1.5
Nonroad SI 25hp............................. 1,374 0.2 0.1 2,302 0.6 0.1
Recreational SI........................................ 7,968 1.4 0.4 9,963 2.8 0.5
Commercial Marine Diesel............................... 36,367 6.5 1.6 41,365 11.6 2.0
Commercial Marine SI................................... 1,370 0.2 0.1 1,326 0.4 0.1
Locomotive............................................. 20,937 3.7 0.9 16,727 4.7 0.8
Aircraft............................................... 27,891 5.0 1.3 30,024 8.4 1.5
Total Nonroad.......................................... 332,571 59 15 283,381 80 14
Total Highway.......................................... 230,683 41 10 72,376 20 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mobile Sources................................... 563,254 100 25 355,757 100 17
Stationary Point and Area Sources...................... 1,653,392 .............. 75 1,712,004 .............. 83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Man-Made Sources................................. 2,216,646 .............. ............... 2,067,761 .............. ..............
Mobile Source Percent of Total......................... 25 .............. ............... 17 .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ These are 48-state inventories. They do not include Alaska and Hawaii.
\b\ Excludes natural and miscellaneous sources.
III. Which Vehicles and Engines Are Covered?
We are adopting new standards for new highway motorcycles,
including those with engines with displacements of less than 50cc.
These requirements apply to manufacturers of motorcycles. Companies
that produce and sell motorcycle engines are not directly covered,
unless such a company also manufactures motorcycles. Every company that
manufactures motorcycles for introduction into commerce in the U.S.,
whether or not they also manufacture motorcycle engines, is covered by
EPA regulations. Engine manufacturers will be indirectly required to
design and build complying engines, because their customers (e.g.,
motorcycle manufacturers that purchase their engines) will require
engines that comply with emission standards.
In order to be defined as a highway motorcycle--and therefore
covered by the new standards--a motorcycle must first be defined as a
motor vehicle under the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations. EPA
regulations then specify the characteristics that cause a motor vehicle
to be defined as a highway motorcycle. EPA regulations also divide
highway motorcycles into three ``classes,'' which are used to determine
the specific compliance requirements applicable to a given motorcycle.
This section explains the definitions and the motorcycle classes
defined by EPA.
A. What Is a Highway Motorcycle?
To reach the conclusion that a two- or three-wheeled vehicle is a
highway motorcycle (a motorcycle legal for use on public roads), the
vehicle must first be defined as a ``motor vehicle'' under the Clean
Air Act.
The Clean Air Act specifies that the term ``motor vehicle,'' as
used in the Act, applies only to vehicles ``designed for transporting
persons or property on a street or highway'' (CAA section 216). In
addition, EPA has promulgated regulations, in 40 CFR 85.1703, that
elaborate on the Act's definition of motor vehicles and set forth three
criteria, which, if any one is met, would cause a vehicle to not be
considered a motor vehicle under the regulations, and therefore not
subject to requirements applicable to motor vehicles. These criteria
are:
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour
over a level paved surface; or
(2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and
practical street or highway use, including such things as a reverse
gear (except motorcycles), a differential, or safety features required
by state and/or federal law; or
(3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street
or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, including tracked
road contact means, an inordinate size, or features ordinarily
associated with military combat or tactical vehicles such as armor and/
or weaponry.
A vehicle that cannot be considered a motor vehicle under the
statutory and regulatory definitions described above is generally
considered under the Clean Air Act to be a ``nonroad'' vehicle. Mopeds
and scooters that do not meet the definition of ``motor vehicle''
(e.g., very small mopeds and scooters) because they can not exceed 25
miles per hour or because they meet some of the other criteria
described above are considered nonroad recreational vehicles and are
subject to the applicable emission standards for off-highway
motorcycles.
Once it is determined that a vehicle is a ``motor vehicle'', EPA
regulations then determine which motor vehicles are highway motorcycles
for the purposes of applying emission standards. Although motorcycles
come in a variety of two- and three-wheeled configurations and styles,
for the most part they are two-wheeled, self-powered vehicles. EPA
regulations currently define a motorcycle as ``any motor vehicle with a
headlight, taillight, and stoplight and having: two wheels, or three
wheels and a curb mass less than or equal to 793 kilograms (1749
pounds)'' (See 40 CFR 86.402-98).
In the past, vehicles that would otherwise meet the definition of a
motorcycle but with an engine displacement of less than 50cc (e.g.,
small scooters and mopeds), have not been subject to any EPA emission
standards. In this final rule we are, for the first time, applying
emission standards to any highway motorcycle, regardless of
displacement.
B. What Are Class I, Class II, and Class III Highway Motorcycles?
Both EPA and California regulations sub-divide highway motorcycles
into classes based on engine displacement. These divisions have been
consistent
[[Page 2411]]
between EPA and the California ARB for many years. However, we are
adopting a revised definition for Class I motorcycles in order to apply
the Class I emission standards to motorcycles with displacements of
less than 50cc. The revised definition will take effect with the 2006
model year. Table V.A-1 shows how these classes are defined before and
after implementation of new standards for motorcycles with engines of
less than 50cc displacement.
Table III.B-1.--Motorcycle and Motorcycle Engine Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine displacement (cubic centimeters)
Motorcycle class -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through 2005 model year 2006 and later model years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I..................... 50-169.................................. 0-169.
Class II.................... 170-279................................. 170-279.
Class III................... 280 and greater......................... 280 and greater.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway motorcycles with engine displacements less than 50cc are
mostly mopeds and motor scooters (``scooters,'' or sometimes,
``motorbikes''). These vehicles are generally powered by 49cc two-
stroke engines, although four-stroke engines are becoming more popular.
Honda, a major player in this market sector, will no longer be
marketing any two-stroke street-use motorcycles as of the 2003 model
year; everything, including their 49cc scooter, will be powered by a
four-stroke engine.
All motorcycles currently certified to EPA emission standards are
powered by four-stroke engines. Class I and II motorcycles, which make
up less than ten percent of unit sales and only 24 out of 175 certified
2002 engine families, consist mostly of dual-sport motorcycles,
scooters, and entry-level sport bikes and cruisers. Class III
motorcycles represent 151 of the 175 certified 2002 engine families,
and more than 90 percent of annual sales. Most Class III motorcycles
are powered by relatively large engines, as demonstrated by an average
displacement in the class of about 1100cc. Although there are some
motorcycles that use eight-cylinder automotive engines and some on the
horizon that may have displacements near 2300cc, the typical top-end
displacement is around 1800cc.
IV. Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures
We are adopting new exhaust emission standards for highway
motorcycles. This section includes a description of the new standards
and other important provisions. A discussion of the technological
feasibility of the standards is in Section V of this document.
A. What Are the New Exhaust Emission Standards?
In general, we are harmonizing the federal exhaust emission
standards for all classes of motorcycles with those of the California
program, but on a delayed schedule relative to implementation in
California. For Class I and Class II motorcycles this means meeting
exhaust emission standards for HC and CO that have applied in
California since 1982. Motorcycles with engine displacements of less
than 50cc (previously unregulated) will be considered Class I
motorcycles, and thus subject to the Class I standards. However, we
have set a useful life of 6,000 km for under 50cc motorcycles. We are
also adopting an optional HC+NOX standard for Class I and II
motorcycles, which will be required of manufacturers wishing to average
their emissions or transfer emission credits across classes. For Class
III motorcycles, the standards will require compliance with two tiers
of exhaust emission standards that California ARB has put in place for
future model years. The existing federal CO standard of 12.0 g/km
remains unchanged. The process by which manufacturers certify their
motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements
of the federal program also remain unchanged.
1. Class I and II Motorcycles
We are adopting the current California ARB Class I and II exhaust
emission standards on a nationwide basis starting with the 2006 model
year. These standards, which have been in place in California since
1982, are shown in Table IV.A-1. In recent years, motorcycles certified
to the California standards have been sold nationwide, and there have
been few, if any, motorcycles in those classes that are limited to 49-
state sales due to their not being able to meet the California
standards.
Table IV.A-1.--Final Class I and II Exhaust Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC (g/ CO (g/
Class and displacement (cc) km) km) Useful life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-A (0-49).................................... 1.0 12.0 5 years/6,000 km \a\.
I-B (50-169).................................. 1.0 12.0 5 years/12,000 km \a\.
II (170-279).................................. 1.0 12.0 5 years/18,000 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ In order to distinguish the two segments within Class I that have differing useful life definitions, the
regulatory text defines Class I-A (0-49cc) and Class I-B (50-169cc).
We are also redefining Class I motorcycles to include those
motorcycles with engine displacements under 50cc; thus, these
previously unregulated motorcycles will be subject to the Class I
standards shown in Table IV.A-1. As described further in Section IV.C,
certain Class I motorcycles with an engine displacement under 50cc will
be tested on a driving cycle that is slightly modified in order to
accommodate the lower speed and acceleration capabilities of these
motorcycles relative to other Class I motorcycles.
For all Class I and II motorcycles we are also adopting an optional
HC+NOX standard of 1.4 g/km. As of 2006 when new Class I and
II standards become effective, the category of motorcycles under 50cc
will be meeting an HC+NOX standard of 1.2 g/km in the EU,
albeit on a different duty cycle. Also in 2006, motorcycles at or above
50cc but less than 150cc in the EU will be meeting an
[[Page 2412]]
HC standard of 0.8 g/km and a NOX standard of 0.15 g/km
(combined HC+NOX of 0.95), and motorcycles over 150cc will
be meeting standards that are even lower. In addition, an
HC+NOX standard of 1.4 g/km is equivalent to the Class III
standard that goes into effect in 2006. We believe that an
HC+NOX standard is the only appropriate way to enable the
transfer of credits across motorcycle classes in the finalized
averaging program, and this optional standard should also be required
of any manufacturer who wants to average Class I and II engine families
(discussed in detail in Section IV.B).
We are providing a few years of lead time before these standards
take effect for several reasons. First, the previously unregulated
Class I category under 50cc will require some lead time to meet new
standards. Second, we are allowing some averaging provisions that
enable manufacturers to transfer Class III emission credits to Classes
I and II, and these provisions will not be applicable until new Class
III standards take effect in 2006. Third, although all Class I and II
engine families in the 2002 model met these standards, that is not the
case with the 2003 model year. This indicates to us that there may
possibly be some models already under development in the context of the
existing federal standard, and an abrupt transition to the new standard
would create some difficulty in such cases. Given that the vast
majority of Class I and II motorcycles do already meet the standards we
are finalizing, it seems unreasonable to potentially disrupt the
introduction and sale of a small number of motorcycles to advance the
standards to an earlier date.
As we noted in the NPRM, the U.S. is a minor market for small
motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds, especially those with engine
displacements of under 50cc. Some manufacturers, such as Piaggio (maker
of the Vespa scooters), may sell only a few thousand units in the U.S.,
but have worldwide sales of scooters that approach the magnitude of
total U.S. motorcycle sales. We believe that an attempt to drive
technology and emission limits for these vehicles beyond those that are
applicable in the major small motorcycle and scooter markets could
result in the outright withdrawal of some manufacturers' products from
the U.S. market. These companies could choose to forego the small
amount of U.S. sales rather than develop specific technologies to
address U.S. requirements.
2. Class III Motorcycles
We are harmonizing the federal Class III motorcycle standards with
the exhaust emission standards of the California program, as shown in
Table IV.A-1. Specifically, we are adopting a Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/
km HC+NOX starting in the 2006 model year, and a Tier 2
standard of 0.8 g/km HC+NOX starting in the 2010 model year.
Because both HC and NOX are ozone precursors, this new
standard would better reduce ozone than an HC-only standard.
Implementation on a nationwide basis will take place starting two model
years after implementation of identical exhaust emission standards in
California, ensuring that manufacturers have adequate lead time to plan
for these new standards. As described in Section IV.B in further
detail, these standards can be met on a corporate-average basis.
Table IV.A-1.--Final Class III Exhaust Emission Standards (g/km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model year HC+NOX CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-2009......................................... 1.4 12.0
2010 and later.................................... 0.8 12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, California ARB plans a technology progress review
in 2006 to evaluate manufacturers' progress in meeting the Class III
Tier 2 standards. We plan to participate in that review and work with
California ARB and others, intending to make any appropriate
adjustments to the standards or implementation schedule if warranted.
B. Can I Average, Bank, or Trade Emission Credits?
To provide flexibility in meeting the standards, we are adopting an
emission-credit program comparable to the existing California ARB
regulations, but with additional flexibility relative to California
ARB's program. The program consists of two parts. The first component,
the averaging program, allows manufacturers to meet the standards on a
fleet-average basis. The second component, the early credits programs,
provides incentives for the early introduction of Class III motorcycles
meeting the Tier 2 standards. We are not adopting any banking
provisions beyond the early credits program, and are not adopting any
form of emissions trading program. The emission-credit program is
described in detail in the following paragraphs.
Under the averaging program, manufacturers are able to balance the
certified emissions of their motorcycles so that the sales-weighted
emissions level meets the applicable standard. This means that some
engine families may have emissions below the standards, while others
have emissions higher than the standards. For enforcement purposes,
manufacturers are required to specify a certification limit, or
``Family Emission Limit'' (FEL) for each engine family. The FEL is the
emission level that a particular engine family is certified as meeting
and, in effect, become the standard for the individual family. The FEL
may be above or below the applicable standard as long as the
manufacturer's sales-weighted emissions level meets the applicable
standard.
We proposed an averaging program for Class III motorcycles only,
and requested comment on whether we should include Class I and II
motorcycles in the averaging program. Based on comments, we are
including Class I and II motorcycles in the averaging program with
certain restrictions intended to address concerns about the relative
stringency of the Class I and II standards relative to the Class III
standards. We are creating two separate averaging sets, one for Class I
and II motorcycles and one for Class III motorcycles. Averaging would
be allowed without constraint within each of these two averaging sets.
However, we are limiting the manner in which credits could be exchanged
between the two averaging sets. Credits from Class III motorcycles
could be used to offset debits from Class I and II motorcycles. These
credits are calculated by multiplying the g/km emission level by the
useful life (in km) to give total grams of credits. Therefore, there is
no need to accommodate the engine size differences between the
different motorcycle classes. However, given that the Class I and II
standards are less stringent than the Class III standards, we are not
allowing Class I and II credits to be used to offset debits from Class
III motorcycles. This also addresses concerns expressed by some
commenters that all manufacturers do not offer products in all classes,
and allowing Class I and II credits to be used for Class III compliance
would inherently disadvantage Class III-only manufacturers. Because the
Class III standards are HC+NOX standards while the primary
Class I and II standards are HC only, we will allow such cross class
averaging only if the manufacturer uses the optional HC+NOX
standards for Classes I and II. In addition, Class I and II motorcycles
could be averaged together, but must be certified to the optional
HC+NOX standards in order to participate in the averaging
program. We believe that this is an appropriate approach for several
reasons. California
[[Page 2413]]
does not currently offer an averaging program for Class I and II
motorcycles. Therefore, the optional standard provides additional
flexibility relative to the California program, and this flexibility
allows the certification of motorcycles that are higher-emitting than
those allowed in California. An averaging program with an HC-only
standard would result in additional flexibility, but also in additional
uncertainty regarding the overall impact on total emissions of ozone
precursors. We have also established that in some recent model years
all Class I and II motorcycles have been in compliance with the primary
HC standard that we are adopting, which is not typically the sort of
situation where additional flexibility is warranted or offered.
However, we believe that additional flexibility can be offered in
exchange for controlling NOX to reasonably achievable
levels.
We believe that it is appropriate to retain our general historical
approach to FEL caps by setting the Class III FEL cap at 5.0 g/km
HC+NOX as proposed, primarily to allow flexibility in the
transition to the new standards. While it is true that this approach
will allow some motorcycle models which do not meet the California FEL
cap of 2.5 g/km HC+NOX to be manufactured and sold outside
of California, the number of models is quite small (less than ten of
the 192 model year 2003 engine families certified as of March, 2003).
However, we also believe that such an approach, while helping to ease
the transition to the new standards, is not defensible for the long
term. Thus, we are adopting an FEL cap of 2.5 g/km HC+NOX
(the level of the California FEL cap) for Class III motorcycles to be
effective with the implementation of the Tier 2 standards in the 2010
model year. Consistent with our approach to FEL caps for Class III
motorcycles, we are adopting 5.0 g/km HC+NOX as an FEL cap
for Class I and II motorcycles, to apply in the 2006 model year when
the new standards and averaging program take effect for these
motorcycles.
To encourage early compliance with the Tier 2 standards for Class
III motorcycles, we are adopting an early credits program similar to
the one in place in California, with timing adjusted due to the
differing federal implementation schedule. We believe the incentives in
this program will encourage manufacturers to introduce Tier 2
motorcycles nationwide earlier than required by the rule. In addition,
we believe some manufacturers can reduce emissions even further than
required by the Tier 2 standard, and we would like to encourage the
early introduction of these very low-emission vehicles.
Under the early credits program, credits will be calculated based
on the amount that a Class III motorcycle is below the Tier 2
standards. These credits are banked and can be used beginning with the
2010 model year. In order to provide incentives for the early
introduction of even cleaner Tier 2 motorcycles, we are also adopting
provisions to increase these early credits by a specific multiplier
factor depending on how far below the Tier 2 standards a motorcycle is
and how long before 2010 it is produced. These multipliers are shown in
Table IV.B-1. Because we expect the Tier 2 technologies to become more
widespread as 2010 approaches, the multipliers decrease linearly in
value from 2006 until 2010, when the early compliance incentive will no
longer have any value (i.e., the multiplier has a value of 1.0) and the
program will terminate.
Table IV.B-1.--Multipliers To Encourage Early Compliance With the Tier 2
Standard and Beyond
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplier (Y) for use in
MY 2010 and later
corporate averaging \a\
Model year sold ---------------------------
Certified at
Early tier 0.4 g/km
2 HC+NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 through 2006........................... 1.5 3.0
2007........................................ 1.375 2.5
2008........................................ 1.250 2.0
2009........................................ 1.125 1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Early Tier 2 motorcycles and motorcycles certified to 0.4 g/km are
counted cumulatively toward the MY 2010 and later corporate average.
In 2010 and later model years the program becomes a basic averaging
program, where each manufacturer has to meet the applicable
HC+NOX standard on a fleet-average basis. See the
regulations at Sec. 86.449.
We are not adopting a required production line testing (PLT)
program for highway motorcycles as part of this action. However, we are
concerned about the integrity of post-certification changes to FELs in
the absence of a PLT program which could be the source of data needed
to justify a downward change in an FEL. Thus, we will not allow post-
certification downward changes to FELs in the absence of supporting
emission data. Further, a manufacturer must provide such data and seek
advance approval from us for a downward FEL change. In addition, any
such downward FEL change could not be inconsistent with the levels
shown in existing certification data. These requirements only apply to
downward FEL adjustments. We will not require such data or advance
notice to justify upward adjustments to FELs. However, any upward
adjustment to FELs must not cause a manufacturer's fleet to violate the
relevant standard.
C. What Are the Applicable Test Procedures?
With the exception of the newly regulated category of motorcycles
with engines of less than 50cc displacement, we are not making any
changes to the motorcycle exhaust emission test procedures. We have
noted the potential for a world harmonized test cycle--which would
likely affect all highway motorcycle classes, and in fact would
possibly redefine the classes--but international discussions regarding
such a test cycle and associated standards are still likely two to
three years away from being completed.
Class I motorcycles are currently provided with a less severe test
cycle than Class II and III motorcycles. This test cycle is essentially
the traditional FTP, but with lower top speeds and reduced acceleration
rates relative to the FTP that is used for Class II and III motorcycles
and other light-duty vehicles. The Class I FTP has a top speed of 58.7
km/hr (36.5 mph), whereas the Class II/III FTP has a top speed of 91.2
km/hr (56.7 mph). In the NPRM we requested comment on whether the
existing Class I driving cycle was appropriate for the under 50cc
category, and manufacturers of these motorcycles commented that it was
not. The manufacturers (MIC and ACEM) noted that many of the machines
in the under 50cc category have top speeds that are less than 36.5 mph,
the highest speed of the current Class I test cycle. Based on these
comments, we are adopting a modified version of the Class I driving
cycle--supported by the manufacturers--that ensures that motorcycles
under 50cc that have top speeds below 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph) are tested
within their operational limits.
Starting with the 2006 model year, the existing Class I driving
cycle will be modified for motorcycles under 50cc with vehicle top
speeds of less than 36.5 mph by adjusting each speed point of the
driving cycle by the ratio of the top speed of the motorcycle to 36.5
mpg (the top speed of the existing Class I drive cycle). We are
defining ``vehicle top speed'' in the regulations as the highest
sustainable speed on a flat paved surface with a rider weighing 80 kg
(176
[[Page 2414]]
lbs).\38\ A motorcycle under 50cc with a top speed at or greater than
36.5 mph is required to be tested using the existing and unmodified
Class I driving cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Loaded vehicle mass, as defined in 40 CFR 86.402-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What Test Fuel Is Required for Emission Testing?
The specifications for gasoline to be used by the EPA and by
manufacturers for emission testing can be found in 40 CFR 86.513-94.
These regulations also specify that the fuel used for vehicle service
accumulation shall be ``representative of commercial fuels and engine
lubricants which will be generally available through retail outlets.''
During the last twenty years of regulation of motorcycle emissions, the
fuel specifications for motorcycle testing have been essentially
identical to those for automotive testing. However, on February 10,
2000, EPA published a final rule entitled ``Tier 2 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements'' (65 FR
6697, Feb. 10, 2000). In addition to finalizing a single set of
emission standards that will apply to all passenger cars, light trucks,
and larger passenger vehicles (e.g., large SUVs), the rule requires the
introduction of low-sulfur gasoline nationwide. To provide consistency
with the fuels that will be in the marketplace, the rule amended the
test fuel specifications, effective starting in 2004 when the new
standards will take effect. The principal change that was made was a
reduction in the allowable levels of sulfur in the test fuel, from a
maximum of 0.10 percent by weight to a range of 0.0015 to 0.008 percent
by weight.
Given that low-sulfur fuel will be the existing fuel in the
marketplace when our program will take effect (and therefore required
for service accumulation), we are amending the motorcycle test fuel to
reflect the true nature of the fuels that will be available in the
marketplace. Doing so will remove the possibility that a test could be
conducted with an unrealistically high level of sulfur in the fuel. It
will also ensure that motorcycles are tested using the same fuels found
in the marketplace.
E. Hardship Provisions
We proposed two types of hardship provisions, one of which was
intended specifically for small businesses and the other intended for
all manufacturers. The first type of hardship provision allows a small
volume motorcycle manufacturer to petition for up to three years
additional lead time if the manufacturer can demonstrate that it has
taken all possible steps to comply with the standards but the burden of
compliance would have a significant impact on the company's solvency.
The second type of hardship provision allows a company to apply for
hardship relief if circumstances outside of the company's control cause
a failure to comply, and the failure to sell the noncompliant product
would have a major impact on the company's solvency.
In general, we do not expect that manufacturers will need to use
these hardship provisions. However, having such provisions available
gives us the flexibility to administratively deal with unexpected
situations that may arise as companies work toward compliance with the
regulations. Thus, we are adopting these hardship provisions as
proposed.
F. Special Compliance Provisions for Small Manufacturers
While the highway motorcycle market is dominated by large
companies, there are a large number of small businesses manufacturing
motorcycles and motorcycle engines. They are active in both the federal
and California markets. California has been much more active than EPA
in setting new requirements for highway motorcycles, and indeed, the
California requirements have driven the technology demands and timing
for highway motorcycle emission controls. We have developed our special
compliance provisions partly in response to the technology, timing, and
scope of the requirements that apply to the small businesses in
California's program. The provisions discussed below will reduce the
economic burden on small businesses, allowing harmonization with
California requirements in a phased, but timely manner.
The flexibilities described below will be available for small
entities with U.S. highway motorcycle annual sales of fewer than 3,000
units per model year (combined Class I, II, and III motorcycles) and
fewer than 500 employees worldwide. These provisions are appropriate
because significant research and development resources may be necessary
to meet the emission standards and related requirements. These
provisions will reduce the burden while ensuring the vast majority of
the program is implemented to ensure timely emission reductions. Many
small highway motorcycle manufacturers market unique ``classic'' and
``custom'' motorcycles, often with a ``retro'' appearance, that tends
to make the addition of new technologies a uniquely resource-intensive
prospect.
1. Delay of Standards for Small Volume Manufacturers
We are delaying compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/km
HC+NOX until the 2008 model year for small manufacturers,
and at this time, we are not requiring these manufacturers to meet the
Tier 2 standard. The existing California regulations do not require
small manufacturers to comply with the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/km
HC+NOX. The California Air Resources Board found that the
Tier 2 standard represents a significant technological challenge and is
a potentially infeasible limit for these small manufacturers. As noted
above, many of these manufacturers market specialty products with a
``retro'' simplicity and style that may not easily lend itself to the
addition of advanced technologies like catalysts and electronic fuel
injection. However, the California ARB has acknowledged that, in the
course of their progress review planned for 2006, they will revisit
their small-manufacturer provisions. We plan to participate with the
ARB and others in the 2006 progress review. Following our review of
these provisions, as appropriate, we may decide to propose to make
changes to the emission standards and related requirements through
notice and comment rulemaking, including the applicability of Tier 2 to
small businesses.
2. Broader Engine Families
Small businesses have met EPA certification requirements since
1978. Nonetheless, certifying motorcycles to revised emission standards
has cost and lead time implications. Relaxing the criteria for what
constitutes an engine or vehicle family could potentially allow small
businesses to put all of their models into one vehicle or engine family
(or more) for certification purposes. Manufacturers would then certify
their engines using the ``worst case'' configuration within the family.
This is currently allowed under the existing regulations for small-
volume highway motorcycle manufacturers. These provisions remain in
place without revision.
3. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
An emission-credit program allows a manufacturer to produce and
sell engines and vehicles that exceed the applicable emission
standards, as long as the excess emissions are offset by the production
of engines and vehicles emitting at levels below the standards. The
sales-weighted average of a
[[Page 2415]]
manufacturer's total production for a given model year must meet the
standards. An emission-credit program typically also allows a
manufacturer to bank credits for use in future model years. The
emission-credit program we are implementing for all highway motorcycle
manufacturers is described above. Some credit programs allow
manufacturers to buy and sell credits (trade) between and among
themselves. We are not implementing such a provision at this time, but
such flexibility could be made available to manufacturers as part of
the upcoming technology review.
4. Reduced Certification Data Submittal and Testing Requirements
Current regulations allow significant flexibility for certification
by manufacturers projecting sales below 10,000 units of combined Class
I, II, and III motorcycles. For example, a qualifying manufacturer must
submit an application for certification with a statement that their
vehicles have been tested and, on the basis of the tests, conform to
the applicable emission standards. The manufacturer retains adequate
emission test data, for example, but need not submit it. Qualifying
manufacturers also need not complete the detailed durability testing
required in the regulations. We are incorporating no changes to these
existing provisions.
G. Exemption for Motorcycle Kits and Custom Motorcycles
During the rulemaking we sought comment on the need for emission
control requirements for motorcycle engines distinct and separate from
the current and future requirements for complete motorcycles. We sought
comment in this area because we had identified a small sector in the
motorcycle market where the engine manufacturer and chassis
manufacturer are not the same entity. This includes two very small
parts of the market: one in which motorcycles are assembled by
individuals from parts and subassemblies procured from motorcycle kit
marketers or other separate sources; and another in which elaborate
custom motorcycles are created for display by collectors. At this time,
we are not including any certification requirements for engine
manufacturers. See discussion in Chapter 1.5 of the Summary and
Analysis of Comments. The small volume motorcycle manufacturers who
purchase the vast majority of engines from other entities for
incorporation into the motorcycles will continue to be subject to the
regulations, and will continue to meet the requirements of the
regulations, as they have in the past.
However, for those individuals who put together a single motorcycle
for individual use and businesses that produce a handful of custom
motorcycles for display, we believe it is appropriate not to require
these entities to have to certify their assembled vehicles. Therefore,
we are promulgating provisions for two special exemptions. The first is
a one-time exemption for any person building a motorcycle from a kit
for individual use. We believe that the small benefit of having single
individuals certify to the standards is outweighed by the substantial
burden to these individuals in certifying. Moreover, because the
engines in such kits generally are built by the same companies as those
engines going to the small volume motorcycle manufacturers, who still
must certify and who will represent the majority of the engine-makers'
production, we believe that most of the engines will be the same or
very similar to the engines used in the certified motorcycles.
Individuals may not use this provision as a regulatory loophole to
modify or customize a certified motorcycle in a manner which adversely
affects emissions. This provision is limited to one motorcycle per
individual over the life of the provision.
In the case where the owner of the kit motorcycle is not the
assembler of the motorcycle, the limitation of one motorcycle per
person applies to the purchaser of the kit components of the
motorcycle, who we expect is the end user of the motorcycle, rather
than to the person or persons who actually assemble the motorcycle. A
kit purchaser may have the kit assembled by another party and retain
the one-time exemption for the motorcycle. In order to qualify for the
exemption under these circumstances, the kit must be purchased by the
ultimate owner before assembly begins. Parties or businesses who
purchase kit motorcycles for assembly and retail sale are not covered
by this exemption.
The second exemption is a sales-limited exemption for elaborate
custom motorcycles that are created for display by collectors. The
chassis of these ``display'' motorcycles are usually unique designs,
while the engines are either purchased from independent engine
manufacturers or custom built from engine components. Current
regulations in 40 CFR 85.1707 contain provisions which provide an
exemption applicable for all motor vehicles and engines produced solely
for display purposes. While these regulations are generally appropriate
for display engines, certain aspects of the current custom-built
motorcycle market make it appropriate to add a new provision applicable
only to such motorcycles. In particular, because these motorcycles are
often sold to collectors, the current exemption, which does not apply
to engines that are sold, would not be applicable. Therefore, we are
adding a limited exemption for custom manufacturers to sell a small
number of these engines every year, with the conditions discussed
below. It is our understanding that these motorcycles are rarely
operated on public streets. Therefore, as a condition of this
exemption, these motorcycles would be allowed to operate on public
streets or highways only as necessary to the display purpose, such as
traveling to and from motorcycle shows. No request for the exemption is
necessary for motorcycles that will not be sold or leased. However,
manufacturers planning to sell motorcycles for display under this
exemption will be required to notify EPA of their intent before they
sell any exempted motorcycles. They must also maintain sales records of
exempted motorcycles for at least three years and make them available
to EPA upon request. Sales under this exemption would be limited to
less than 25 per year per manufacturer. Every motorcycle exempted under
this provision must include a label that identifies the manufacturer
and includes the following statement: THIS MOTORCYCLE IS EXEMPT FROM
EPA EMISSION REQUIREMENTS. ITS USE ON PUBLIC ROADS IS LIMITED PURSUANT
TO 40 CFR 86.407-78(c). We will generally allow manufacturers to locate
the label where it will not detract from the appearance of the
motorcycle. For example, We could allow the label to be located under
the seat.
As noted elsewhere, EPA may be revisiting several issues related to
motorcycle standards in the context of the 2006 technology review and
review of a possible World Motorcycle Test Cycle. One of the issues we
may be reviewing at that time is whether it is appropriate to regulate
motorcycle engine manufacturers or motorcycle kit manufacturers under
the motorcycle regulations. If we agree to regulate loose engine sales
at that time, these exemption provisions may no longer be necessary,
since both kit builders and custom manufacturers would be able to
purchase certified engines. Therefore, we may propose to remove or
modify these provisions in the future.
[[Page 2416]]
V. Technological Feasibility of the Exhaust Emission Standards
A. Class I Motorcycles and Motorcycle Engines Under 50cc
As we have described earlier we are applying the current California
standard for Class I motorcycles to motorcycles with displacements of
less than 50cc (e.g., many motor scooters). These motorcycles are
currently not subject to regulation by the U.S. EPA or the State of
California. They are, however, subject to emission standards in Europe
and much of the rest of the world. Historically these motorcycles have
been powered by 2-stroke engines, but a trend appears to be developing
that would result in many of these being replaced by 4-stroke engines
or possibly by advanced technology 2-stroke engines, in some cases with
catalysts. This trend is largely due to emission requirements in the
nations where these types of two-wheelers are popular forms of
transportation.
It has already been demonstrated that the 4-stroke engine is
capable of meeting the standards. Class I motorcycles above 50cc are
already meeting these standards, most of them employing a 4-stroke
engine with minimal additional emission controls. For example, all 2002
model year Class I motorcycles (10 engine families) were certified at
levels ranging from 0.4 to 0.9 grams per kilometer HC. The 2003 Class I
motorcycle models (11 engine families) were certified at similar levels
with the exception of two newly introduced models, each of which is
certified at a level above 3.0 g/km HC. All of these achieve the
standards with 4-stroke engine designs, and only three incorporate
additional technology (secondary air injection or a catalyst). These
current engines range from 80 to 151cc in displacement, which provides
an indication that small 4-stroke scooter engines are capable of
meeting the standards. In a test program conducted by the Japan
Automobile Research Institute, a 49cc 4-stroke achieved average HC
emissions of 0.71 g/km, a level that falls well under the 1.0 g/km
standard we are adopting.\39\ The technological feasibility of meeting
a 1.0 g/km HC standard was also supported by MIC if EPA made
appropriate revisions to the test cycle and the useful life. We
evaluated these recommendations and have adopted both of them in this
final rule. The Association of European Motorcycle Manufacturers (ACEM)
confirmed that European manufactures will seek to export to the U.S.
the same motorcycles under 50cc that they develop for the European
market, and that standards in the E.U. are forcing the transition to 2-
stroke direct injection and 4-stroke EFI technologies in 2002 and
2003.\40\ ACEM also confirmed the feasibility of meeting the new U.S.
standard and aligned with MIC comments regarding the test cycle and
useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ ``WMTC 2nd step validation test results in Japan,'' Japan
Automobile Research Institute, Nov. 29, 2001. Available for review
in Docket A-2000-02.
\40\ ACEM members are: Aprilia, Benelli, BMW, Derbi, Ducati,
Honda, Kawasaki, KTM, Malaguti, MV Augusta, Peugeot, Piaggio,
Suzuki, Triumph, Yamaha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to meet more stringent standards being implemented
worldwide, manufacturers are developing and implementing a variety of
technology approaches. Honda, perhaps the largest seller of scooters in
the U.S., has entirely eliminated 2-stroke engines from its scooter
product lines as of the 2002 model year. They continue to offer a 50cc
model, but with a 4-stroke engine. Both of Aprilia's 49cc scooters
available in the U.S. have incorporated electronic direct injection
technology, which, in the case of one model, enables it to meet the
``Euro-2'' standards of 1.2 grams per kilometer HC and 0.3 grams per
kilometer NOX, without use of a catalytic converter.\41\
Piaggio, while currently selling a 49cc basic 2-stroke scooter in the
U.S., expects to begin production of a direct injection version in
2002, and a 4-stroke 50cc scooter is also in development. Numerous 49cc
models marketed by Piaggio in Europe are available either as a 4-stroke
or a 2-stroke with a catalyst. Piaggio, also an engine manufacturer and
seller, is already offering 50cc 4-stroke and 50cc direct injection 2-
stroke engines that meet the Euro-2 limits to its customers for
incorporation into scooters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Aprila Web site, http://www.apriliausa.com/ridezone/ing/models/scarabeo50dt/moto.htm and http://www.aprilia.com/portale/eng/cafera articolo.phtm1?id=14. Available for review in public docket
A-2000-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. represents a very small portion of the market for small
motorcycles and scooters. There are few, if any, manufacturers that
develop a small-displacement motorcycle exclusively for the U.S.
market; the domestic sales volumes do not appear large enough at this
time to support an investment of this kind. The Italian company Piaggio
(maker of the Vespa scooters), for example, sold about as many scooters
worldwide in 2000 (about 480,000) as the entire volume of highway
motorcycles of all sizes sold in the U.S. in that year. U.S. sales of
Vespas in 2000 amounted to about 4800. The largest scooter markets
today are in South Asia and Europe, where millions are sold annually.
In Taiwan alone almost 800,000 motorcycles were sold domestically. More
than one third of these were powered by 2-stroke engines. Two- and
three-wheelers constitute a large portion of the transportation sector
in Asia, and in some urban areas these vehicles--many of them powered
by 2-stroke engines--can approach 75 percent of the vehicle population.
According to a World Bank report, two-stroke gasoline engine vehicles
are estimated to account for about 60 percent of the total vehicle
fleet in South Asia.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Improving Urban Air Quality in South Asia by Reducing
Emissions from Two-Stroke Engine Vehicles. Masami Kojima, Carter
Brandon, and Jitendra Shah. December 2000. Prepared for the World
Bank. Available in the public docket for a review (Docket A-2000-01;
document II-D-191), or on the Internet at: http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd.esmap/publication/airquality.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many nations are now realizing that the popularity of these
vehicles and the high density of these vehicles in urban areas are
contributing to severe air quality problems. As a consequence, some of
the larger markets for small motorcycles in Asia and India are now
placing these vehicles under fairly strict regulation. It is clear that
actions in these nations will move the emission control technology on
small motorcycles, including those under 50cc, in a positive direction.
For example, according to the World Bank report, as of 2000 catalytic
converters are installed in all new two-stroke engine motorcycles in
India, and 2003 standards in Taiwan will effectively ban new two-
strokes with emission standards so stringent that only a four-stroke
engine is capable of meeting them.
Given the emerging international picture regarding emission
standards for scooters, we believe that scooter manufacturers will be
producing scooters of less than 50cc displacement that meet our
standards well in advance of the 2006 model year, the first year we
will subject this category of motorcycle to U.S. emission standards. We
expect that small entities that import scooters into the U.S. from the
larger scooter markets will be able to import complying vehicles. We
requested comment on this assessment in the NPRM and received none
indicating otherwise.
There are numerous other factors in the international arena that
may affect the product offerings in the less than 50cc market segment.
For example, the European Union recently changed the requirements
regarding insurance and
[[Page 2417]]
helmet use for under 50cc scooters and mopeds. Previously, the
insurance discounts and lack of helmet requirements in Europe provided
two relatively strong incentives to purchasers to consider a 49cc
scooter. Recently, however, the provisions were changed such that
helmets are now required and the insurance costs are comparable to
larger motorcycles. The result was a drop of about 30 percent in
European sales of 49cc scooters in 2001 due to customers perceiving
little benefit from a 49cc scooter relative to a larger displacement
engine.
B. Class I and Class II Motorcycles Between 50 and 180cc
As discussed above, we are adopting a new exhaust emission
standards of 1.0 g/km HC for Class I and Class II motorcycles. The
existing CO standard is unchanged. These standards have been in place
in California since 1982. The question of whether or not these
standards are technically feasible has been answered in the
affirmative, since 21 of the 22 EPA-certified 2001 model year
motorcycle engine families in these classes are already certified to
these standards, all 24 of the 2002 model year engine families meet
these standards, and 22 of 29 2003 model year engine families meet
these standards. These 29 model year 2003 engine families are all
powered by four-stroke engines, with a variety of emission controls
applied, including basic engine modifications on almost all engine
families, secondary air injection on three engine families, and
catalysts on four engine families.
C. Class III Motorcycles
1. Tier 1 Standards
In the short term, the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/km
HC+NOX reflects the goal of achieving emission reductions
that can be met with reasonably available control technologies,
primarily involving engine modifications rather than catalytic
converters. As noted earlier, this standard will be effective starting
with the 2006 model year. Based on current certification data, a number
of existing engine families already could comply with this standard or
will need relatively simple modifications to comply. In other cases,
the manufacturers will need to use control technologies that are
available but are not yet used on their particular cycles (e.g.,
electronic fuel injection to replace carburetors, changes to cam lobes/
timing, etc.). For the most part, manufacturers will not need to use
advanced technologies such as close-coupled, closed-loop three-way
catalysts.
While manufacturers will use various means to meet the Tier 1
standard, there are four basic types of existing, non-catalyst-based,
emission-control systems available to manufacturers. The most important
of these is the use of secondary pulse-air injection. Other engine
modifications and systems include more precise fuel control, better
fuel atomization and delivery, and reduced engine-out emission levels
from engine changes. The combinations of low-emission technologies
ultimately chosen by motorcycle manufacturers are dependent on the
engine-out emission levels of the vehicle, the effectiveness of the
prior emission-control system, and individual manufacturer preferences.
Secondary pulse-air injection, as demonstrated on current
motorcycles, is applied using a passive system (i.e., no air pump
involved) that takes advantage of the flow of gases (``pulse'') in the
exhaust pipes to draw in fresh air that further combusts unburned
hydrocarbons in the exhaust. The extra air causes further combustion to
occur, thereby controlling more of the hydrocarbons that escape the
combustion chamber. This type of system is relatively inexpensive and
uncomplicated because it does not require an air pump; air is drawn
into the exhaust through a one-way reed valve due to the pulses of
negative pressure inside the exhaust pipe. Secondary pulse-air
injection is one of the most effective non-catalytic emission-control
technologies; compared to engines without the system, reductions of 10
to 40 percent for HC are possible with pulse-air injection. Eighty--or
about half--of the 162 2003 model year Class III engine families
certified for sale in the U.S. employ secondary pulse-air injection to
help meet the current California standards. We anticipate that most of
the remaining engine families will use this technique to help meet the
Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. There are 47 2003 engine families that are
certified using only engine management techniques (e.g., no use of
catalysts, fuel injection, secondary air injection, or oxygen sensors).
The average certification HC level of these families is 1.17 g/km. By
comparing this to the certification results of engine families that
employ secondary air injection as the only means of emission control
beyond engine modifications, we can gain some measure of the
effectiveness of secondary air injection. We find that the currently
certified 2003 models which employ secondary air injection have an
average certification level of 0.91 g/km, a reduction of 0.26 g/km (or
22%) relative to those using only engine modification techniques.
Improving fuel delivery and atomization primarily involves the
replacement of carburetors, currently used on most motorcycles, with
more precise fuel injection systems. There are several types of fuel
injection systems and components manufacturers can choose, including
throttle-body injection systems, multi-point injection systems, and
sequential multi-point fuel injection systems. Unlike conventional
multi-point fuel injection systems that deliver fuel continuously or to
paired injectors at the same time, sequential fuel injection can
deliver fuel precisely when needed by each cylinder. The most likely
type of fuel injection manufacturers will choose to help meet the Tier
1 standard is sequential multi-point fuel injection (SFI).
Motorcycle manufacturers are already using sequential fuel
injection (SFI). Of the 162 2003 model year Class III motorcycle engine
families certified to emission standards, at least 29 employ SFI
systems.\43\ We anticipate increased application of this or similar
fuel injection systems to achieve the more precise fuel delivery needed
to help meet the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. We analyzed the EPA
certification data in the same way as done above with secondary air
injection to estimate the effect of using SFI vehicle on emissions.
Again, we identified the baseline of 47 engine families using the
limited technologies and with an average certification level of 1.17 g/
km HC, and compared the emissions of these engines with the emissions
of engines using SFI. What we find is that use of all types of fuel
injection can significantly reduce emissions. If we analyze those
engine families that use some form of fuel injection other than SFI we
see an average HC certification level of 1.09 g/km, a modest reduction
of about 7 percent. However, the engines using SFI had significantly
lower HC emissions on average of 0.72
[[Page 2418]]
g/km, a reduction of almost 40 percent. While this provides some
indication of what can be achieved with fuel injection techniques
(including SFI), it does not necessarily demonstrate the full potential
of this technology. At this point in time it appears that SFI can get
motorcycle certification levels down to about 0.4-0.6 g/km HC
(certification at levels in this range can be seen in several current
motorcycles that employ no other emission controls), but in the context
of more stringent standards the manufacturers are likely to be able to
accomplish even more with SFI, and further reductions by teaming SFI
with additional emission reduction techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ When manufacturers certify to EPA emission standards, they
report the fuel delivery system used by each certified model as
carbureted or fuel injected. They also report the emission control
technologies used on each model to meet the emission standards. When
reporting the fuel delivery system, they only indicate whether the
system is carbureted or fuel injected, but not the specific type of
fuel injection that is installed. When reporting the control
technologies 29 models indicated the use of sequential fuel
injection. However, there may be some inconsistencies in how these
technologies are reported, and we believe that there may be models
that employ sequential fuel injection that are shown in our database
as being fuel injected, but the manufacturer may not have also
specifically listed sequential fuel injection as a control
technology on the motorcycle model. This is why we say ``at least''
29 models are currently using sequential fuel injection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the techniques mentioned above, various engine
modifications can be made to improve emission levels. Engine
modifications include a variety of techniques designed to improve fuel
delivery or atomization; promote ``swirl'' (horizontal currents) and
``tumble'' (vertical currents); maintain tight control on air-to-fuel
(A/F) ratios; stabilize combustion (especially in lean A/F mixtures);
optimize valve timing; and retard ignition timing. Emission performance
can be improved, for example, by reducing crevice volumes in the
combustion chamber. Unburned fuel can be trapped momentarily in crevice
volumes before being subsequently released. Since trapped and re-
released fuel can increase engine-out emissions, the elimination of
crevice volumes would be beneficial to emission performance. To reduce
crevice volumes, manufacturers can evaluate the feasibility of
designing engines with pistons that have reduced, top ``land heights''
(the distance between the top of the piston and the first ring).
Lubrication oil which leaks into the combustion chamber also has a
detrimental effect on emission performance since the heavier
hydrocarbons in oil do not oxidize as readily as those in gasoline and
some components in lubricating oil may tend to foul a catalyst and
reduce its effectiveness. Also, oil in the combustion chamber may trap
HC and later release the HC unburned. To reduce oil consumption,
manufacturers can tighten the tolerances and improve the surface finish
on cylinders and pistons, piston ring design and materials, and exhaust
valve stem seals to prevent excessive leakage of lubricating oil into
the combustion chamber.
Increasing valve overlap is another engine modification that can
help reduce emissions. This technique helps reduce NOX
generation in the combustion chamber by essentially providing passive
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). When the engine is undergoing its
pumping cycle, small amounts of combusted gases flow past the intake
valve at the start of the intake cycle. This creates what is
essentially a passive EGR flow, which is then either drawn back into
the cylinder or into another cylinder through the intake manifold
during the intake stroke. These combusted gases, when combined with the
fresh air/fuel mixture in the cylinder, help reduce peak combustion
temperatures and NOX levels. This technique can be
implemented by making changes to cam timing and intake manifold design
to optimize NOX reduction while minimizing impacts to HC
emissions.
Secondary pulse-air injection and engine modifications already play
an important part in reducing emission levels, and we expect increased
uses of these techniques to help meet the Tier 1 standard. Direct
evidence of the extent to which these technologies can help
manufacturers meet the Tier 1 standard can be found in EPA's highway
motorcycle certification database. This database is comprised of
publicly-available certification emission levels as well as some
confidential data reported by the manufacturers pursuant to existing
motorcycle emission certification requirements.
We do not expect any of these possible changes to adversely affect
performance. Indeed, the transition to some of these technologies
(e.g., advanced fuel injection) is expected to improve performance,
fuel economy, and reliability.
2. Tier 2 Standards
In the long term, the Tier 2 HC+NOX standard of 0.8 g/km
will ensure that manufacturers will continue to develop and improve
emission control technologies. The Tier 2 standard will become
effective in the 2010 model year. We believe this standard is
technologically feasible, though it will present some technical
challenges for manufacturers. Several manufacturers are, however,
already using some of the technologies that will be needed to meet this
standard. In addition, our implementation time frame gives
manufacturers two years of experience in meeting this standard in
California before having to meet it on a nationwide basis. Several
manufacturers already use closed-loop, three-way catalysts on a number
of their product lines. At least one manufacturer has already certified
several models to the Tier 2 standards levels, and at least one of
these models is being sold nationwide. A number of additional models
currently in the market may also meet the Tier 2 standards, depending
on NOX levels, using combinations of catalysts, fuel
injection, secondary air injection, and other engine modifications. The
current average HC certification level for Class III motorcycles is
0.93 g/km, with about forty engine families from a variety of
manufacturers at levels of 0.5 g/km or lower. We expect that the
provided six to seven years of lead time prior to meeting these
standards on a nationwide basis will allow manufacturers to optimize
these and other technologies to meet the Tier 2 standard.
To meet the Tier 2 standard for HC+NOX, manufacturers
will likely use more advanced engine modifications and secondary air
injection. Specifically, we believe manufacturers will use computer-
controlled secondary pulse-air injection (i.e., the injection valve
would be connected to a computer-controlled solenoid). In addition to
these systems, manufacturers will probably need to use catalytic
converters on some motorcycles to meet the Tier 2 standards. There are
two types of catalytic converters currently in use: two-way catalysts
(which control only HC and CO) and three-way catalysts (which control
HC, CO, and NOX). Under the Tier 2 standard, manufacturers
will need to minimize levels of both HC and NOX. Therefore,
to the extent catalysts are used, manufacturers will likely use a
three-way catalyst in addition to engine modifications and computer-
controlled secondary pulse-air injection.
As discussed previously, improving fuel control and delivery
provides emission benefits by helping to reduce engine-out emissions
and minimizing the exhaust variability which the catalytic converter
experiences. One method for improving fuel control is to provide
enhanced feedback to the computer-controlled fuel injection system
through the use of heated oxygen sensors. Heated oxygen sensors (HO2S)
are located in the exhaust manifold to monitor the amount of oxygen in
the exhaust stream and provide feedback to the electronic control
module (ECM). These sensors allow the fuel control system to maintain a
tighter band around the stoichiometric A/F ratio than conventional
oxygen sensors (O2S). In this way, HO2S assist vehicles in achieving
precise control of the A/F ratio and thereby enhance the overall
emissions performance of the engine. At least one manufacturer is
currently using this technology on several 2003 as
[[Page 2419]]
well as previous model year engine families.
In order to further improve fuel control, some motorcycles with
electronic controls may utilize software algorithms to perform
individual cylinder fuel control. While dual oxygen sensor systems are
capable of maintaining A/F ratios within a narrow range, some
manufacturers may desire even more precise control to meet their
performance needs. On typical applications, fuel control is modified
whenever the O2S determines that the combined A/F of all cylinders in
the engine or engine bank is ``too far'' from stoichiometric. The
needed fuel modifications (i.e., inject more or less fuel) are then
applied to all cylinders simultaneously. Although this fuel control
method will maintain the ``bulk'' A/F for the entire engine or engine
bank around stoichiometric, it would not be capable of correcting for
individual cylinder A/F deviations that can result from differences in
manufacturing tolerances, wear of injectors, or other factors.
With individual cylinder fuel control, A/F variation among
cylinders will be diminished, thereby further improving the
effectiveness of the emission controls. By modeling the behavior of the
exhaust gases in the exhaust manifold and using software algorithms to
predict individual cylinder A/F, a feedback fuel control system for
individual cylinders can be developed. Except for the replacement of
the conventional front O2S with an HO2S sensor and a more powerful
engine control computer, no additional hardware is needed in order to
achieve individual cylinder fuel control. Software changes and the use
of mathematical models of exhaust gas mixing behavior are required to
perform this operation.
In order to maintain good driveability, responsive performance, and
optimum emission control, fluctuations of the A/F must remain small
under all driving conditions including transient operation. Virtually
all current fuel systems in automobiles incorporate an adaptive fuel
control system that automatically adjusts the system for component
wear, varying environmental conditions, varying fuel composition, etc.,
to more closely maintain proper fuel control under various operating
conditions. For some current fuel control systems, this adaptation
process affects only steady-state operating conditions (i.e., constant
or slowly changing throttle conditions). However, most vehicles are now
being introduced with adaptation during ``transient'' conditions (e.g.,
rapidly changing throttle positions).
Accurate fuel control during transient driving conditions has
traditionally been difficult because of the inaccuracies in predicting
the air and fuel flow under rapidly changing throttle conditions.
Because of air and fuel dynamics (fuel evaporation in the intake
manifold and air flow behavior) and the time delay between the air flow
measurement and the injection of the calculated fuel mass, temporarily
lean A/F ratios can occur during transient driving conditions that can
cause engine hesitation, poor driveability and primarily an increase in
NOX emissions. However, by utilizing fuel and air mass
modeling, vehicles with adaptive transient fuel control are more
capable of maintaining accurate, precise fuel control under all
operating conditions. Virtually all cycles will incorporate adaptive
transient fuel control software; motorcycles with computer controlled
fuel injection can also benefit from this technique at a relatively low
cost.
Three-way catalytic converters traditionally utilize rhodium and
platinum as the catalytic material to control the emissions of all
three major pollutants (hydrocarbons (HC), CO, NOX).
Although this type of catalyst is very effective at converting exhaust
pollutants, rhodium, which is primarily used to convert NOX,
tends to thermally deteriorate at temperatures significantly lower than
platinum. Recent advances in palladium and tri-metal (i.e., palladium-
platinum-rhodium) catalyst technology, however, have improved both the
light-off performance (light-off is defined as the catalyst bed
temperature where pollutant conversion reaches 50-percent efficiency)
and high temperature durability over previous catalysts. In addition,
other refinements to catalyst technology, such as higher cell density
substrates and adding a second layer of catalyst washcoat to the
substrate (dual-layered washcoats), have further improved catalyst
performance from just a few years ago.
Typical cell densities for conventional catalysts used in
motorcycles are less than 300 cells per square inch (cpsi). To meet the
Tier 2 standard, we expect manufacturers to use catalysts with cell
densities of 300 to 400 cpsi. If catalyst volume is maintained at the
same level (we assume volumes of up to 60 percent of engine
displacement), using a higher density catalyst effectively increases
the amount of surface area available for reacting with pollutants.
Catalyst manufacturers have been able to increase cell density by using
thinner walls between each cell without increasing thermal mass (and
detrimentally affecting catalyst light-off) or sacrificing durability
and performance.
In addition to increasing catalyst volume and cell density, we
believe that increased catalyst loading and improved catalyst washcoats
will help manufacturers meet the Tier 2 standards. In general,
increased precious metal loading (to a point) will reduce exhaust
emissions because it increases the opportunities for pollutants to be
converted to harmless constituents. The extent to which precious metal
loading is increased will be dependent on the precious metals used and
other catalyst design parameters. We believe recent developments in
palladium/rhodium catalysts are very promising since rhodium is very
efficient at converting NOX, and catalyst suppliers have
been investigating methods to increase the amount of rhodium in
catalysts for improved NOX conversion.
Double layer technologies allow optimization of each individual
precious metal used in the washcoat. This technology can provide
reduction of undesired metal-metal or metal-base oxide interactions
while allowing desirable interactions. Industry studies have shown that
durability and pollutant conversion efficiencies are enhanced with
double layer washcoats. These recent improvements in catalysts can help
manufacturers meet the Tier 2 standard at reduced cost relative to
older three-way catalysts.
New washcoat formulations are now thermally stable up to 1050
[deg]C. This is a significant improvement from conventional washcoats,
which are stable only up to about 900 oC. With the improvements in
light-off capability, catalysts may not need to be placed as close to
the engine as previously thought. However, if placement closer to the
engine is required for better emission performance, improved catalysts
based on the enhancements described above would be more capable of
surviving the higher temperature environment without deteriorating. The
improved resistance to thermal degradation will allow closer placement
to the engines where feasible, thereby providing more heat to the
catalyst and allowing them to become effective quickly.
It is well established that a warmed-up catalyst is very effective
at converting exhaust pollutants. Recent tests on advanced catalyst
systems in automobiles have shown that over 90 percent of emissions
during the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) are now emitted during the
first two minutes of testing after engine start up. Similarly, the
[[Page 2420]]
highest emissions from a motorcycle occur shortly after start up.
Although improvements in catalyst technology have helped reduce
catalyst light-off times, there are several methods to provide
additional heat to the catalyst. Retarding the ignition spark timing
and computer-controlled, secondary air injection have been shown to
increase the heat provided to the catalyst, thereby improving its cold-
start effectiveness.
In addition to using computer-controlled secondary air injection
and retarded spark timing to increase the heat provided to the
catalyst, some vehicles may employ warm-up, pre-catalysts to reduce the
size of their main catalytic converters. Palladium-only warm-up
catalysts (also known as ``pipe catalysts'' or ``Hot Tubes'') using
ceramic or metallic substrates may be added to further decrease warm-up
times and improve emission performance. Although metallic substrates
are usually more expensive than ceramic substrates, some manufacturers
and suppliers believe metallic substrates may require less precious
metal loading than ceramic substrates due to the reduced light-off
times they provide.
Improving insulation of the exhaust system is another method of
furnishing heat to the catalyst. Similar to close-coupled catalysts,
the principle behind insulating the exhaust system is to conserve the
heat generated in the engine for aiding catalyst warm-up. Through the
use of laminated thin-wall exhaust pipes, less heat will be lost in the
exhaust system, enabling quicker catalyst light-off. As an added
benefit, the use of insulated exhaust pipes will also reduce exhaust
noise. Increasing numbers of manufacturers are expected to utilize air-
gap exhaust manifolds (i.e., manifolds with metal inner and outer walls
and an insulating layer of air sandwiched between them) for further
heat conservation.
Besides the hardware modifications described above, motorcycle
manufacturers may borrow from other current automobile techniques.
These include using engine calibration changes such as a brief period
of substantial ignition retard, increased cold idling speed, and leaner
air-fuel mixtures to quickly provide heat to a catalyst after cold-
starts. Only software modifications are required for an engine which
already uses a computer to control the fuel delivery and other engine
systems. For these engines, calibration modifications provide
manufacturers with an inexpensive method to quickly achieve light-off
of catalytic converters. When combined with pre-catalysts, computer-
controlled secondary air injection, and the other heat conservation
techniques described above, engine calibration techniques may be very
effective at providing the required heat to the catalyst for achieving
the Tier 2 standard.
D. Safety and Performance Impacts
We noted in the NPRM that the nature of motorcycling makes riders
particularly aware of any safety issues that confront them. Many
motorcycle riders and their organizations submitted comments on the
NPRM regarding their concerns that the proposed standards would
adversely affect both performance and safety. These issues are
discussed in detail in the Summary and Analysis of Comments; the
remainder of this section summarizes our key findings regarding these
issues.
Motorcycle riders are inherently closer to the engine and exhaust
pipes than the driver of an enclosed vehicle, and the engine components
tend to be more exposed and accessible as well. Because of this fact,
we received many comments regarding the potential safety risk of
catalytic converters, and many questioned whether this emission control
device could be implemented on motorcycles without increasing the risk
of injury to the rider and/or passenger. An economic impact study
submitted by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation claimed that ``EPA
ignores the issue of rider safety,'' apparently basing this claim on a
word search of the rulemaking documents for the terms ``rider safety''
and ``consumer safety.'' In fact, the NPRM contained several paragraphs
regarding the issue of safety as it relates to the use of catalytic
converters on motorcycles.
Because of the serious nature of the concerns expressed by riders
we expanded our assessment of the potential risks of using catalytic
converters as an emission control device on motorcycles. Our complete
analysis, described in the Summary and Analysis of Comments, involved
the following:
[sbull] An improved assessment of the current use of catalytic
converters on motorcycles, both in the U.S. and worldwide;
[sbull] Feedback from the motorcycle manufacturers regarding this
issue;
[sbull] An analysis of exhaust- and catalyst-based complaints filed
by consumers with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
Office of Defects Investigation, including feedback from manufacturers
on the nature of these complaints; and
[sbull] An assessment of the technological approaches to isolating
the rider and/or passenger from the heat of a catalytic converter.
We found that in the last five years at least 16 manufacturers have
certified dozens of models equipped with catalytic converters. In the
last two years sales of catalyst-equipped models in each year have
approached twenty percent of all motorcycles sold in the U.S., and we
conservatively estimate that there are at least 150,000 catalyst-
equipped motorcycles of all sizes and styles on the roads in the U.S.
today. Given that the total annual mileage accumulated on these
motorcycles in the U.S. likely exceeds 300 million miles, the rider
experience with the emission control devices is not trivial. Given this
experience, we believe that there has been ample opportunity to assess
the issue of catalyst safety, not just on a hypothetical basis but on
the basis of actual manufacturing and on-road riding experience. Any
serious concerns would be likely to be brought to the attention of
manufacturers and/or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). Our analysis of the NHTSA database on consumer complaints
revealed a small number related to the exhaust pipe, and only seven
related to heat from the exhaust pipe. (In 1998 there were an estimated
5.4 million on-highway motorcycles in use in the United States.) These
seven complaints are detailed in Table V.D-1.
Table V.D-1.--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of
Defects Investigation; Database of Consumer Complaints: Complaints
Regarding Excess Heat from Exhaust Pipes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................... Passenger on motorcycle
received burns on leg from hot
mufflers.
2...................................... Muffler not designed with heat
shield, causing burn injury to
driver when motorcycle turned
over.
3...................................... Exhaust manifold reaches
temperatures so high that it
has an orange glow.
Manufacturer knows of problem,
and there isn't a solution.
Consumer will add additional
information.
[[Page 2421]]
4...................................... Consumer states that when at a
stop the exhaust pipe will
glow red and this can cause
injuries to the consumer.
Dealer notified.
5...................................... Exhaust system cross over pipe
is located too close to seat,
causing driver to be burned
while driving, even if
properly dressed.
6...................................... Consumer states exhaust pipes
are positioned below foot pegs
so that when you come to a
stop and put feet down, it's
very likely that pant leg will
at least brush up against
pipe. Consumer has ruined
clothes because of this.
Manufacturer does not feel
this is a problem, they
suggested to consumer that he
buy after market exhaust
guards, which are expensive.
7...................................... Exhaust pipes are positioned
below foot pegs so that when
you come to a stop and put
your foot down you will brush
up against hot pipe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of
Defects Investigation. Consumer Complaints Database. See http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/complain/.
Two of the seven (Nos. 1 and 2 in the table above) were clearly
regarding motorcycles without catalysts, and of the remaining five only
two were regarding models that clearly did have catalysts (Nos. 6 and
7). We are unable to determine whether complaints numbered 3-5 involve
motorcycles with catalysts; although the manufacturer has been using
catalysts for a number of years, sales of these motorcycles have been
limited to California to date. The complaints shown in the table
originated from Ohio, New York, and Arizona. The manufacturers of the
motorcycles reflected in these five complaints unanimously stated their
belief that these are isolated cases, that they have no record of
consumer complaints indicating that widespread problems exist, and that
they make every effort to protect the rider from injury or harm.
We are confident that manufacturers can design and produce
motorcycles that respond to these safety concerns, and information
submitted by the manufacturers supports our assessment that catalytic
converters can be safely integrated into motorcycle designs. There are
a number of approaches that manufacturers are using today to protect
the rider from excessive heat. Some motorcycle designs permit the
catalyst to be placed on the underside of the motorcycle where it is
unable to contact the rider. Other manufacturers will use a double-pipe
exhaust system to reduce heat loss, allowing the exhaust gases to
remain hot before reaching the catalyst while maintaining lower
exterior temperatures. Some manufacturers are placing the catalyst
inside the muffler or close to the manifold in areas where it is
unlikely to be contacted by the rider or passenger. Footrests can be
shielded and pipes can be insulated to reduce the exterior transmission
of heat. The fact that these approaches are already being successfully
employed, combined with the significant lead time provided for the Tier
2 standard, leads us to conclude that catalysts can be safely
integrated into both current and future motorcycle designs.
Every motorcycle manufacturer who either testified at the public
hearing or provided written comments on the proposed rule has
unequivocally stated that they can build motorcycles that will meet the
standards with no negative impact on safety or performance relative to
motorcycles manufactured today. Finally, MECA addressed this issue at
the public hearing by noting that catalyst technology has been applied
to over 15 million two- and three-wheelers worldwide. There is no
indication from any nation worldwide--some of which are far more
dependent on motorcycles as daily transportation than we are in the
U.S.--that the use of catalysts on motorcycles presents a significant
risk to the rider.
We do not expect any of these possible technology changes to
adversely affect performance. Indeed, the transition to some of these
technologies (e.g., advanced fuel injection) would be expected to
improve performance, fuel economy, and reliability. In the last ten
years, and especially within the last few years, there has been an
increasing use of the technologies that we expect will be used to meet
the new standards (i.e., secondary air injection, sequential fuel
injection, and catalytic converters). There is no evidence to suggest
that motorcycle performance has declined during that period, and every
reason to believe that manufacturers have been able to continue to
develop products that make continual improvements in performance. There
are too many examples to repeat here that demonstrate that emission
controls can be incorporated into motorcycles concurrent with increases
in performance and handling, as well as decreases in weight. Consider
the redesigned 2003 Yamaha YZF-R6, a 600cc high performance motorcycle
in the highly competitive middleweight super sport/racing category.
Relative to the 2002 model, the 2003 YZF-R6 is eight pounds lighter,
several horsepower stronger, is being very well-reviewed in the press,
and has about half the emissions of the 2002 model (0.6 g/km HC in 2003
versus 1.1 g/km HC in 2002). It's also being sold at the same price as
the 2002 model. Emission-related improvements for 2003 include the
addition of fuel injection and a catalytic converter. Even with the
addition of a catalytic converter, the use of advanced materials
enables the exhaust system of the 2003 model to be more than two pounds
lighter than the 2002 model. We recognize that these are examples and
do not address all combinations of technology and all sizes and styles
of motorcycles, but they are clear demonstrations of what is achievable
with the technology and materials available today.
Finally, motorcycle manufacturers have a tremendous amount at stake
with respect to the issues of performance and safety, as well as the
greatest amount of experience and technological expertise. They have
every reason to balk at new emission standards if they believe that
catalytic converters will raise in-use safety concerns and cause rider
injuries and deaths as some have alleged. However, the manufacturers
have not raised concerns. In fact, more than a dozen manufacturers from
Indian to Honda and Harley-Davidson have unequivocally stated in the
public record--directly or through their industry association--that
motorcycles produced under the new standards will be as safe and have
the same or better performance as motorcycles today.
E. Non-Conformance Penalties
Clean Air Act section 206(g) (42 U.S.C. 7525(g)), allows us to
issue a
[[Page 2422]]
certificate of conformity for heavy-duty engines or for highway
motorcycles that exceed an applicable section 202(a) emissions
standard, but do not exceed an upper limit associated with that
standard, if the manufacturer pays a nonconformance penalty (NCP)
established by rulemaking. Congress adopted section 206(g) in the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977 as a response to perceived problems with
technology-forcing heavy-duty engine emissions standards. If strict
standards were maintained, then some manufacturers, ``technological
laggards,'' might be unable to comply initially and would be forced out
of the marketplace. NCPs were intended to remedy this potential
problem. The laggards would have a temporary alternative that would
permit them to sell their engines or vehicles by payment of a penalty.
Through regulation, we established three criteria for determining the
eligibility of emission standards for NCPs in any given model year.
First, the emission standard in question must become more difficult to
meet, either by becoming more stringent itself or by its interaction
with another emission standard that has become more stringent. Second,
substantial work must be required to meet the emission standard. We
consider ``substantial work'' to mean the application of technology not
previously used in that vehicle or engine class/subclass, or a
significant modification of existing technology, to bring that vehicle/
engine into compliance. We do not consider minor modifications or
calibration changes to be classified as substantial work. Third, it
must be likely that a company will become a technological laggard. A
technological laggard is defined as a manufacturer who cannot meet a
particular emission standard due to technological (not economic)
difficulties and who, in the absence of NCPs penalties, might be forced
from the marketplace.
We do not believe that the three criteria could be satisfied with
respect to the Tier 1 standards. Thus, we are not at this time planning
to offer NCPs for the Tier 1 standards. Furthermore, it is too early to
determine whether the criteria will be satisfied with regards to the
Tier 2 standards. Thus, we are also not offering NCPs at this time for
the Tier 2 standards. However, we will monitor the manufacturers'
efforts to comply with the Tier 2 standards and will consider proposing
NCPs for the standards in the future if we believe conditions warrant
them.
VI. Permeation Emission Control
A. Overview
In the proposal we specified only exhaust emission controls for
motorcycles. However, we provided a detailed discussion of permeation
emissions from motorcycles and technological strategies for reducing
such emissions. We requested comment on whether we should finalize
standards that would require low permeation fuel tanks and hoses and on
the possible forms that regulations on permeation emissions from
motorcycles could take. In a supplemental Federal Register notice (67
FR 66097, October 30, 2002), we stated that if we were to finalize
permeation requirements for motorcycles, that it was highly likely that
they would be modeled after those in the recreational vehicle
regulations which had been recently finalized. Motorcycle manufacturers
initially expressed concern about the feasibility of the proposed
standards. However, through discussions between EPA and industry,
manufacturers' concerns about the feasibility of permeation standards
were largely resolved.
We are adopting performance standards intended to reduce permeation
emissions from motorcycles. The standards, which apply to new
motorcycles starting in 2008, are nominally based on manufacturers
reducing these permeation emissions from new motorcycles by
approximately 90 percent overall. We are also adopting several special
compliance provisions to reduce the burden of permeation emission
regulations on small businesses. These special provisions are the same
as for the exhaust emission standards, as applicable.
B. Permeation Emission Standards
1. What Are the Emission Standards and Compliance Dates?
We are finalizing new standards that will require an 85-percent
reduction in plastic fuel tank permeation and a 95-percent reduction in
fuel system hose permeation from new motorcycles beginning in 2008.
These standards and their implementation dates are presented in Table
VI.B-1. Section VI.C presents the test procedures associated with these
standards. Test temperatures are presented in Table VI.B-1 because they
represent an important parameter in defining the emission levels.
The permeation standards are based on the inside surface areas of
the hoses and fuel tanks. We sought comment on whether the potential
permeation standards for fuel tanks should be expressed as grams per
gallon of fuel tank capacity per day or as grams per square meter of
inside surface area per day. Although volume is generally used to
characterize fuel tanks, we base the standard on inside surface area
because permeation is a function of surface area. In addition, the
surface to volume ratio of a fuel tank changes with capacity and
geometry of the tank. Two similar shaped tanks of different volumes or
two different shaped tanks of the same volume could have different g/
gallon/day permeation rates even if they were made of the same material
and used the same emission-control technology. Therefore, we believe
that using a g/m2/day form of the standard more accurately
represents the emissions characteristics of a fuel tank and minimizes
complexity. This is consistent with the permeation standards for
recreational vehicles.
Table VI.B-1.--Permeation Standards for Motorcycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation
Emission component date Standard Test temperature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Tank Permeation.................. 2008 1.5 g/m2/day............ 28[deg]C (82[deg]F)
Hose Permeation....................... 2008 15 g/m2/day............. 23[deg]C (73[deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These standards are revised compared to the values we sought
comment on in the notice. This revision is intended to accommodate
emissions test variability and in-use deterioration associated with low
permeation technology. Since the notice, we have received test
information that suggests that a tank permeation standard representing
an 85 rather than a 95-percent reduction is appropriate to accommodate
these factors. Nonetheless, we continue to believe that manufacturers
will target control technologies and strategies focused on achieving
reductions of 95 percent in production tanks. With regard to the
permeation standard for hoses, we have adjusted the standard slightly
to give the manufacturers more freedom in selecting their hose material
and to accommodate the fact that we
[[Page 2423]]
selected a certification test fuel based on a 10-percent ethanol blend,
which would be prone to greater permeation than neat gasoline. The
final standards are consistent with the recreational vehicle standards
that were finalized after the motorcycle NPRM.
Cost-effective technologies exist to significantly reduce
permeation emissions. Because essentially all of the plastic fuel tanks
are made from high density polyethylene (HDPE), manufacturers would be
able to choose from several technologies for providing a permeation
barrier in HDPE tanks. The use of metal fuel tanks would also meet the
standards, because fuel does not permeate through metal. The hose
permeation standard can be met using barrier hose technology or through
using low permeation automotive-type tubing. These technologies are
discussed in Section VI.E. The implementation date gives manufacturers
four years to comply. This will allow manufacturers time to implement
controls in their tanks and hoses in an orderly business manner.
2. Will I Be Able To Average, Bank, or Trade Emissions Credits?
Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) refers to the generation and
use of emission credits based on certified emission levels relative to
the standard. The general ABT concept is discussed in detail in Section
IV.C. In many cases, an ABT program can improve technological
feasibility, provide manufacturers with additional product planning
flexibility, and reduce costs which allows us to consider emission
standards with the most appropriate level of stringency and lead time,
as well as providing an incentive for the early introduction of new
technology.
We are finalizing ABT for non-metal fuel tanks to facilitate the
implementation of the standard across a variety of tank designs. To
meet the standard on average, manufacturers would be able to divide
their fuel tanks into different emission families and certify each of
their emission families to a different Family Emissions Level (FEL).
The emission families would include fuel tanks with similar
characteristics, including wall thickness, material used (including
additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV inhibitors), and the
emission-control strategy applied. The FELs would then be weighted by
sales volume and fuel tank inside surface area to determine the average
level across a manufacturer's total production. An additional benefit
of a corporate-average approach is that it provides an incentive for
developing new technology that can be used to achieve even larger
emission reductions or perhaps to achieve the same reduction at lower
costs or to achieve some reductions early.
For purposes of ABT we will not consider metal tanks as part of any
sort of credit program. In other words, metal fuel tanks will not be
able to generate permeation credits. We do not want to provide an
opportunity for ``windfall'' credits for metal fuel tanks because this
would undermine the value of the standard. The standard is based on
feasible technology for plastic fuel tanks. If averaging were allowed
between plastic and metal fuel tanks (which are used on most
motorcycles), the standard would have to be adjusted accordingly.
If a manufacturer were to certify the majority of their fuel tanks
to a level below the permeation standard, they would have the option of
leaving a small number of their fuel tanks uncontrolled. In this case,
manufacturers would have the option of either testing the uncontrolled
fuel tanks or using an assigned family emission level of 12 g/
m2/day.
Any manufacturer could choose to certify each of its evaporative
emission control families at levels which would meet the standard. Some
manufacturers may choose this approach as they could see it as less
complicated to implement.
We are also finalizing a voluntary program intended to give an
opportunity for manufacturers to prove out technologies earlier than
2008. Manufacturers will be able to use permeation control strategies
early, and even if they do not meet the 1.5 g/m2/day
standard, they can earn credit through partial emission reduction that
will give them more lead time to meet the standard. This program will
allow a manufacturer to certify fuel tanks early to a less stringent
standard of 3.0 g/m2/day and thereby delay meeting the 1.5
g/m2/day fuel tank permeation standard by 1 tank-year for
every tank-year of early certification. As an alternative, this delay
could be applied to other fuel tanks provided that these tanks have an
equal or smaller inside surface area and meet a level of 3.0 g/
m2/day. As an example, suppose a manufacturer were to sell
50 motorcycles in 2006 and 75 motorcycles in 2007 with fuel tanks that
meet a level of 3.0 g/m2/day. This manufacturer would then
be able to sell 125 vehicles with fuel tanks that meet a level of 3.0
g/m2/day in 2008 and later years. No uncontrolled tanks
could be sold after 2007. In addition to providing implementation
flexibility to manufacturers, this option, if used, would result in
additional and earlier emission reductions.
For hoses, we do not believe that ABT provisions would result in a
significant technological or cost benefit to manufacturers. We believe
that all fuel hoses can meet the permeation standards using
straightforward technology as discussed in Section VI.E. From EPA's
perspective, including an ABT program in the rule creates a long-term
administrative burden that is not worth taking on since it does not
provide the industry with useful flexibility.
3. How Do I Certify My Products?
We are finalizing a certification process similar to our existing
program for other mobile sources. Manufacturers test representative
prototype designs and submit the emission data along with other
information to EPA in an application for a Certificate of Conformity.
As discussed in Section VI.C.3, we will allow manufacturers to certify
based on either design (for which there is already data) or by
conducting its own emissions testing. If we approve the application,
then the manufacturer's Certificate of Conformity allows the
manufacturer to produce and sell the vehicles described in the
application in the U.S.
Manufacturers certify their fuel systems by grouping them into
emission families that have similar emission characteristics. The
emission family definition is fundamental to the certification process
and to a large degree determines the amount of testing required for
certification. The regulations include specific characteristics for
grouping emission families for each category of tanks and hoses. For
fuel tanks, key parameters include wall thickness, material used
(including additives such as pigments, plasticizers, and UV
inhibitors), and the emission-control strategy applied. For hoses, key
parameters include material, wall thickness, and emission-control
strategy applied. To address a manufacturer's unique product mix, we
may approve using broader or narrower engine families. The
certification process for vehicle permeation is similar as for the
process for certifying engines.
4. What Durability Provisions Apply?
We are adopting several additional provisions to ensure that
emission controls will be effective throughout the life of the
motorcycle. This section discusses these provisions for permeation
emissions from motorcycles.
a. How Long Do My Vehicles Have To Comply?
Manufacturers would be required to build fuel systems that meet the
[[Page 2424]]
emission standards over each motorcycle's useful life. For the
permeation standards, we use the same useful life as for exhaust
emissions from motorcycle engines based on the belief that fuel system
components and engines are intended to have the same design life. This
useful life is 5 years or 6,000 km for Class I <50cc, 12,000 km for
Class I =50cc, 18,000 km for Class II, and 30,000 km for
Class III. Further, we are applying the same warranty period for
permeation emission related components of the fuel system as for
exhaust emission-related components of the motorcycle.
b. How Do I Demonstrate Emission Durability?
We are adopting several additional provisions to ensure that
emission controls will be effective throughout the life of the vehicle.
Motorcycle manufacturers must demonstrate that the permeation emission-
control strategies will last for the useful life of the vehicle. Any
deterioration in performance would have to be included in the family
emissions limit. This section discusses durability provisions for fuel
tanks and hoses.
For plastic fuel tanks, we are specifying a preconditioning and
four durability steps that must be performed in conjunction with the
permeation testing for certification to the standard. These steps,
which include fuel soaking, slosh, pressure-vacuum cycling, temperature
cycling, and ultra-violet light exposure, are described in more detail
in Section VI.C.1. The purpose of these preconditioning steps is to
help demonstrate the durability of the fuel tank permeation control
under conditions that may occur in use. For fuel hoses, the only
preconditioning step that we are requiring is a fuel soak to ensure
that the permeation rate is stabilized prior to testing. Data from
before and after the durability tests would be used to determine
deterioration factors for the certified fuel tanks. The durability
factors would be applied to permeation test results to determine the
certification emission level of the fuel tank at full useful life. The
manufacturer would still be responsible for ensuring that the fuel tank
and hose meet the permeation standards throughout the useful life of
the motorcycle.
We recognize that motorcycle manufacturers will likely depend on
suppliers/vendors for complying tanks and fuel hoses. We believe that,
in addition to normal business practices, our testing requirements will
help assure that suppliers/vendors consistently meet the performance
specifications laid out in the certificate.
C. Testing Requirements
To obtain a certificate allowing sale of products meeting EPA
emission standards, manufacturers generally must show compliance with
such standards through emission testing. The test procedures for
determining permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses on
motorcycles are described below. This section also discusses design-
based certification as an alternative to performing specific testing.
These test procedures are the same as those existing for recreational
vehicles.
1. What Are the Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions From
Fuel Tanks?
Prior to testing the fuel tanks for permeation emissions, the fuel
tank must be preconditioned by allowing the tank to sit with fuel in it
until the hydrocarbon permeation rate has stabilized. Under this step,
the fuel tank must be filled with a 10-percent ethanol blend in
gasoline (E10), sealed, and soaked for 20 weeks at a temperature of 28
+/- 5[deg]C. Once the soak period has ended, the fuel tank is drained,
refilled with fresh fuel, and sealed. The permeation rate from fuel
tanks is measured at a temperature of 28 +/- 2[deg]C over a period of
at least 2 weeks. Consistent with good engineering judgment, a longer
period may be necessary for an accurate measurement for fuel tanks with
low permeation rates. Permeation loss is determined by measuring the
weight of the fuel tank before and after testing and taking the
difference. Once the mass change is calculated, it is divided by the
manufacturer determined tank surface area and the number of days of
soak to get the emission rate. As an option, permeation may be measured
using alternative methods that will provide equivalent or better
accuracy. Such methods include enclosure testing as described in 40 CFR
part 86. The fuel used for this testing will be a blend of 90-percent
gasoline and 10-percent ethanol.
To determine permeation emission deterioration factor, we are
specifying three durability tests: slosh testing, pressure-vacuum
cycling, and ultra-violet exposure. The purpose of these deterioration
tests is to help ensure that the technology is durable and the measured
emissions are representative of in-use permeation rates. For slosh
testing, the fuel tank is filled to 40-percent capacity with E10 fuel
and rocked for 1 million cycles. The pressure-vacuum testing contains
10,000 cycles from -0.5 to 2.0 psi. These two durability tests are
based on draft recommended SAE practice.\44\ The third durability test
is intended to assess potential impacts of UV sunlight (0.2 [mu]m-0.4
[mu]m) on the durability of the surface treatment. Because most of the
irradiance from sunlight in this range is seen in wavelengths above 0.3
[mu]m, we recommend testing with an average wavelength above 0.3 [mu]m
such as the UVA lamp described in SAE J2020.\45\ In the UV exposure
test, the tank must be exposed to a UV light of at least 24 W/
m2 (0.4 W-hr/m2/min) on the tank surface for 15
hours per day for 30 days. Alternatively, it can be exposed to direct
natural sunlight for an equivalent period of time. To allow for
weekends and rainy days, these exposure days do not need to be
continuous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Draft SAE Information Report J1769, ``Test Protocol for
Evaluation of Long Term Permeation Barrier Durability on Non-
Metallic Fuel Tanks,'' (Docket A-2000-01, document IV-A-24).
\45\ SAE Surface Vehicle Standard J2020, ``Accelerated Exposure
of Automotive Exterior Materials Using a Fluorescent UV and
Condensation Apparatus,'' Revised February, 2003 (Docket A-2000-02,
document, IV-A-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What Are the Test Procedures for Measuring Permeation Emissions From
Fuel System Hoses?
The permeation rate of fuel from hoses would be measured at a
temperature of 23 +/- 2[deg]C using SAE method J30 \46\ with E10. The
hose must be preconditioned with a fuel soak to ensure that the
permeation rate has stabilized. The fuel to be used for this testing
would be a blend of 90-percent gasoline and 10-percent ethanol. This
fuel is consistent with the test fuel used for highway evaporative
emission testing. Alternatively, for purposes of submission of data at
certification, permeation could be measured using alternative equipment
and procedures that provide equivalent results. To use these
alternative methods, manufacturers would have to apply to us and
demonstrate equivalence. Examples of alternative approaches that we
anticipate manufacturers may use are the recirculation technique
described in SAE J1737,\47\ enclosure-type testing such as in 40 CFR
part 86, or weight loss testing such as described in SAE J1527.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ SAE Recommended Practice J30, ``Fuel and Oil Hoses,'' June
1998 (Docket A-2000-01, document IV-A-92).
\47\ SAE Recommended Practice J1737, ``Test Procedure to
Determine the Hydrocarbon Losses from Fuel Tubes, Hoses, Fittings,
and Fuel Line Assemblies by Recirculation,'' 1997 (Docket A-2000-01,
document, IV-A-34).
\48\ SAE Recommended Practice J1527, ``Marine Fuel Hoses,'' 1993
(Docket A-2000-01, document IV-A-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2425]]
3. Can I Certify Based on Engineering Design Rather Than Through
Testing?
In general, test data would be required to certify fuel tanks and
hoses to the permeation standards. Test data could be carried over from
year to year for a given emission-control design. We do not believe the
cost of testing tanks and hose designs for permeation would be
burdensome especially given that the data could be carried over from
year to year, and that there is a good possibility that the broad
emission family concepts embodied in this program would lead to minimum
testing. However, there are some specific cases where we would allow
certification based on design. These special cases are discussed below.
We would consider a metal fuel tank to meet the design criteria for
a low permeation fuel tank because fuel does not permeate through
metal. However, we would not consider this design to be any more
effective than any other low permeation fuel tank for the purposes of
any sort of credit program. Although metal is impermeable, seals and
gaskets used on the fuel tank may not be. The design criteria for the
seals and gaskets would be that either they would not have a total
exposed surface area exceeding 1000 mm2, or the seals and
gaskets would have to be made of a material with a permeation rate of
10 g/m2/day or less at 23[deg]C as measured under ASTM
D814.\49\ A metal fuel tank with seals that meet this design criteria
would readily pass the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ ASTM Standard Test Method D 814-95 (Reapproved 2000),
``Rubber Property--Vapor Transmission of Volatile Liquids,'' (Docket
A-2000-01, document IV-A-95).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another technology that we considered for design-certification was
multi-layer fuel tank construction with low-permeation (EVOH) barrier.
This technology is widely used in automotive applications to meet the
vehicle evaporative emission standards. However, we believe that a
manufacturer must demonstrate that their design meets the standards
prior to certification. For instance, if the layers are not sealed well
at a seam or if the fuel tank is prone to delamination in-use,
permeation emissions could be above the standard without a noticeable
fuel leak. Therefore, we would require the manufacturer to submit test
data on the effectiveness and durability of the fuel tank. As discussed
above, test data could be carried over from year-to-year and across
product lines provided that a worst case configuration is tested.
Similarly, if manufacturers were to produce fuel tanks out of low-
permeability materials other than metal (such as an acetal copolymer),
permeation testing on a worst case configuration would initially need
to be performed. This test data could then be used to certify other
fuel tanks which are otherwise similar and using the same material
(including additives). Because permeation is a function of wall
thickness, the worst case configuration, in this case, would likely be
the fuel tank design with the thinnest walls. If new test data
demonstrates that the use of other technology designs will ensure
compliance with the applicable emission standards, we may establish
additional design certification options for these technologies such as
those we are finalizing for metal fuel tanks. \2\
Fuel hoses can be certified by design as being manufactured in
compliance with certain accepted SAE specifications. Specifically, a
fuel hose meeting the SAE J30 R11-A or R12 requirements could be
design-certified to the standard. In addition, fuel line meeting the
SAE J2260 \50\ Category 1 requirements could be design-certified to the
standard. These fuel hoses and fuel line specifications are based on
15-percent methanol fuel and higher temperatures. We believe that fuel
hoses and lines that are tested and meet these requirements would also
meet our hose permeation standards because both are generally
acknowledged as representing more stringent test parameters. In the
future, if new SAE specifications are developed which are consistent
with our hose permeation standards, we would consider including hoses
meeting the new SAE requirements as being able to certify by design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ SAE Recommended Practice J2260, ``Nonmetallic Fuel System
Tubing with One or More Layers,'' 1996, (Docket A-2000-01, document
IV-A-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At certification, manufacturers will have to submit an engineering
analysis showing that the tank or hose designs will meet the standards
throughout their full useful life. The tanks and hoses will remain
subject to the emission standards throughout their useful lives. The
design criteria relate only to the issuance of a certificate.
4. Technical Amendments to 40 CFR Part 1051 Test Procedures
We are updating the figure in Sec. 1051.515 that presents a flow
chart of the fuel tank test procedures to help better clarify the
procedures. In addition, we are updating the structure of the language
in Sec. 1051.515 to be parallel to the construction of the flow chart.
In the UV exposure test, we are simplifying the units from W-hr/
m2/min to W/m2 (0.40 W-hr/m2/min
equals 24 W/m2). These changes are for clarity only and do
not result in substantive changes to the test procedures. One other
change we are making is to make the length of the UV exposure test in
the regulations match the length specified in the preamble for the
recreational vehicles FRM. Therefore, we are changing the specification
of 4 weeks in the regulatory text to 30 days. The UV exposure test is
contained in Sec. 1051.515(d)(2). All of these changes were developed
in the process of the motorcycle rulemaking. However, we decided to
make the amendments applicible to recreational vehicles as well for
several reasons. These reasons include: (1) The motorcycle permeation
requirements are essentially the same as for recreational vehicles, (2)
the motorcycle test procedures are in the same body of regulatory text
as for recreational vehicles, (3) the amendments are not substantive,
and (4) the amendments help clarify the test procedures.
D. Special Compliance Provisions
We believe that the permeation control requirements will be
relatively easy for small businesses to meet, given the relatively low
cost of the requirements and the availability of materials and
treatment support by outside vendors. In addition, this regulatory
program is structured in such a way to minimize burdens on all
manufacturers by including design-based certification, ABT, broad
emission families, minimized compliance requirements, and hardship
provisions. Low permeation fuel hoses are available from vendors today,
and we would expect that surface treatment would be applied through an
outside company if that is the compliance approach used. However, to
minimize any additional burden these requirements may impose on small
businesses, we are delaying the implementation date of the permeation
standards for small business manufacturers to 2010.
E. Technological Feasibility
We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use
to meet our permeation emission standards. This section gives an
overview of this technology. See Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final
Regulatory Support Document for more detail on the technology discussed
here.
1. Implementation Schedule
The permeation emission standards for fuel tanks become effective
in the 2008 model year. Several technologies are available that could
be used to meet this standard. Surface treatments to reduce tank
permeation are widely used
[[Page 2426]]
today in other container applications, and the technology and
production facilities needed to conduct this process exist. Selar[reg]
is used by at least one portable fuel tank manufacturer and has also
been used in automotive applications. Plastic tanks with coextruded
barriers have been used in automotive applications for years. However,
plastic fuel tanks used in motorcycles are primarily high-density
polyethylene tanks with no permeation control. We received comment that
they it would be unreasonable for manufacturers to have to comply
before 2008 because this is the date already established for
recreational vehicles. Manufacturers will need lead time to allow for
durability testing and other development work associated with applying
this technology to motorcycles. This is especially true for
manufacturers or vendors who choose to set up their own surface barrier
treatment equipment in-house.
We believe that the low permeation hose technology can also be
applied in the 2008 time frame. A lower permeation fuel hose exists
today known as the SAE R9 hose that is as flexible as the SAE R7 hose
used in most motorcycle applications today. These SAE hose
specifications are contained in SAE J30 cited above. This hose would
meet our permeation standard on gasoline, but probably not on a 10-
percent ethanol blend. As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory
Support Document, barrier materials typically used in R9 hose today may
have permeation rates 3 to 5 times higher on a 10-percent ethanol blend
than on straight gasoline. However, there are several lower
permeability barrier materials that can be used in rubber hose that
will comply with the hose permeation requirement on a 10-percent
ethanol blend and still be flexible and durable enough for use in
motorcycles. This hose is available for automotive applications at this
time, but some lead time may be required to apply these hoses to
motorcycles if hose connection fitting changes were required. This
would enhance both in-use effectiveness and safety. For these reasons,
we are implementing the hose permeation standard on the same schedule
as the tank permeation standards.
2. Standard Levels
We have identified several strategies for reducing permeation
emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. We recognize that some of these
technologies may be more desirable than others for some manufacturers,
and we recognize that different strategies for equal emission
reductions may be better for different applications. A specific example
of technology that could be used to meet the fuel tank permeations
would be surface barrier treatments such as sulfonation or
fluorination. With these surface treatments, more than a 95-percent
reduction in permeation emissions from new fuel tanks is feasible.
However, variation in material tolerances and in-use deterioration can
reduce this effectiveness. Given the lead time for the standards,
manufacturers will be able to provide fuel tanks with consistent
material quality, and the surface treatment processes can be optimized
for a wide range of material qualities and additives such as pigments,
plasticizers, and UV inhibitors. We do not expect a large deterioration
in use; however, data on slosh testing suggest that some deterioration
is likely. To accommodate variability and deterioration, we are
finalizing a standard that represents about an 85-percent reduction in
permeation emissions from plastic fuel tanks. It is our expectation
that manufacturers will aim for an effectiveness rate as near to 100
percent as practical for new tanks. Therefore, even with variability
and deterioration in use, control rates are likely to exceed 85
percent. Several materials are available today that could be used as a
low permeation barrier in rubber hoses. We present more detail on these
and other technological approaches below.
3. Technological Approaches
a. Fuel Tanks
Blow molding is widely used for the manufacture of fuel tanks for
motorcycles. Typically, blow molding is performed by creating a hollow
tube, known as a parison, by pushing high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
through an extruder with a screw. The parison is then pinched in a mold
and inflated with an inert gas. In highway applications, non-permeable
plastic fuel tanks are produced by blow molding a layer of ethylene
vinyl alcohol (EVOH) or nylon between two layers of polyethylene. This
process is called coextrusion and requires at least five layers: the
barrier layer, adhesive layers on either side of the barrier layer, and
HDPE as the outside layers which make up most of the thickness of the
fuel tank walls. However, multi-layer construction requires additional
extruder screws which significantly increases the cost of the blow
molding process. Multi-layer fuel tanks can also be formed using
injection molding. In this method, a low viscosity polymer is forced
into a thin mold to create each side of the fuel tank. The two sides
are then welded together. To add a barrier layer, a thin sheet of the
barrier material is placed inside the mold prior to injection of the
polyethylene. The polyethylene, which generally has a much lower
melting point than the barrier material, bonds with the barrier
material to create a shell with an inner liner.
A less expensive alternative to coextrusion is to blend a low
permeable resin in with the HDPE and extrude it with a single screw.
The trade name typically used for this permeation control strategy is
Selar[reg]. The low permeability resin, typically EVOH or nylon,
creates non-continuous platelets in the HDPE fuel tank which reduce
permeation by creating long, tortuous pathways that the hydrocarbon
molecules must navigate to pass through the fuel tank walls. Although
the barrier is not continuous, this strategy can still achieve greater
than a 90-percent reduction in permeation of gasoline. EVOH has much
higher permeation resistance to alcohol than nylon; therefore, it would
be the preferred material to use for meeting our standard which is
based on testing with a 10-percent ethanol fuel.
Another type of low permeation technology for fuel tanks would be
to treat the surfaces of plastic fuel tanks with a barrier layer. Two
ways of achieving this are known as fluorination and sulfonation. The
fluorination process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen
atoms are replaced by larger fluorine atoms to create a barrier on the
surface of the fuel tank. In this process, a batch of fuel tanks are
generally processed post production by stacking them in a steel
container. The container is then voided of air and flooded with
fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is
forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. As a result of this
process, both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel tank are
treated. As an alternative, fuel tanks can be fluorinated on-line by
exposing the inside surface of the fuel tank to fluorine during the
blow molding process. However, this method may not prove as effective
as off-line fluorination which treats the inside and outside surfaces.
Sulfonation is another surface treatment technology where sulfur
trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed
polyethylene to form sulfonic acid groups on the surface. Current
practices for sulfonation are to place fuel tanks on a small assembly
line and expose the inner surfaces to sulfur trioxide, then
[[Page 2427]]
rinse with a neutralizing agent. However, sulfonation can also be
performed using a batch method. Either of these processes can be used
to reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent.
Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can
expand by as much as three percent due to saturation of the plastic
with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the concern that this hydrocarbon
expansion could affect the effectiveness of surface treatments like
fluorination or sulfonation. We believe this will not have a
significant effect on the effectiveness of these surface treatments. We
and California ARB have performed extensive permeation testing on HDPE
fuel tanks with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the ARB
permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by first performing a
durability procedure where the fuel container is cycled a minimum of
1000 times between -1 psi and 5 psi. In addition, for both the EPA and
ARB testing, the fuel containers were soaked with fuel to stabilize
permeation rates. The test data, presented in Chapter 4 of the Final
Regulatory Support Document show that fluorination and sulfonation are
still effective after this testing.
Manufacturers have also commented that fuel sloshing in the fuel
tank, under normal in-use operation, could wear off the surface
treatments. However, we do not believe that this is likely. These
surface treatments actually result in an atomic change in the structure
of the outside surface of the fuel tank. To wear off the treatment, the
plastic would need to be worn away on the outside surface. In addition,
testing by California ARB shows that the fuel tank permeation standard
can be met by fuel tanks that have been sloshed for 1.2 million cycles.
Test data on an sulfonated automotive HDPE fuel tank after five years
of use showed no deterioration in the permeation barrier. This data are
presented in Chapter 4 of the Final Regulatory Support Document.
Permeation can also be reduced from fuel tanks by constructing them
out of a lower permeation material than HDPE. For instance, metal fuel
tanks would not permeate. In addition, there are grades of plastics
other than HDPE that could be molded into fuel tanks. An example of
materials which have excellent permeation resistance, even with
alcohol-blended fuels, are acetal copolymers and thermoplastic
polyesters.
b. Hoses
Fuel hoses produced for use in motorcycles are generally extruded
nitrile rubber with a cover for abrasion resistance. Lower permeability
fuel hoses produced today for other applications are generally
constructed in one of two ways: either with a low permeability layer or
by using a low permeability rubber blend. By using hose with a low
permeation thermoplastic layer, permeation emissions can be reduced by
more than 95 percent. Because the thermoplastic layer is very thin, on
the order of 0.1 to 0.2 mm, the rubber hose retains its flexibility.
Two thermoplastics which have excellent permeation resistance, even
with an alcohol-blend fuel, are ETFE and THV.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Ethylene-tetrafluoro-ethylene (ETFE), tetra-fluoro-
ethylene, hexa-fluoro-propylene, and vinyledene fluoride (THV).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In automotive applications, multilayer plastic tubing, made of
fluoropolymers is generally used. An added benefit of these low
permeability lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to conduct
electricity and therefore can prevent the buildup of static charges.
Although this technology can achieve more than an order of magnitude
lower permeation than barrier hoses, it is relatively inflexible and
may need to be molded in specific shapes for each motorcycle design.
Manufacturers have commented that motorcycle hose would need to be
designed for elements such as location, exposure, and vibration that
are unique to motorcycle design.
4. Conclusions
The standards for permeation emissions for motorcycles reasonably
reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of
available technology. Manufacturers will have several years of lead
time to select, design, and produce permeation emission-control
strategies that will work best for their product lines. We expect that
meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is
feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of
technology, lead time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these
factors is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final
Regulatory Support Document.
The permeation standards are based on the effective application of
low permeable materials or surface treatments. This is a step change in
technology; therefore, we believe that even if we set a less stringent
permeation standard, these technology options would likely still be
used. In addition, this technology is relatively inexpensive and can
achieve meaningful emission reductions. The standards are expected to
achieve more than an 85-percent reduction in permeation emissions from
fuel tanks and more than 95 percent from hoses. We believe that more
stringent standards could result in significantly more expensive
materials without corresponding additional emission reduction. In
addition, the control technology would generally pay for itself over
time by conserving fuel that would otherwise evaporate. The projected
costs and fuel savings are discussed in Section VII.B.
VII. Environmental Impacts and Program Costs
The following section summarizes the emission benefits, costs, and
cost per ton of pollutant reduced of the new motorcycle emission
standards. Further information on these and other aspects of the
environmental and economic impacts of this rule are presented in more
detail in the Regulatory Support Document for this rulemaking.
A. Environmental Impacts
Emission estimates for highway motorcycles were developed using
information on the emission levels of current motorcycles and updated
information on motorcycle use provided by the motorcycle industry.
Permeation emissions for highway motorcycles were developed based on
known material permeation rates as a function of surface area and
temperature. A more detailed description of the methodology used for
projecting inventories and projections for additional years can be
found in the Chapter 6 of the Regulatory Support Document.
Tables VII.A-1 and VII.A-2 contain the projected emission
inventories for the years 2010 and 2020, respectively, from the
motorcycles subject to this rulemaking. The inventories are presented
for the base case which assumes no change from current conditions
(i.e., without the standards taking effect) and assuming the standards
being adopted today take effect. The inventories for 2010 and 2020
include the effect of growth. The percent reductions based on a
comparison of estimated emission inventories with and without the
emission standards are also presented.
[[Page 2428]]
Table VII.A-1--2010 Projected On-Highway Motorcycle Emissions Inventories
[thousand short tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards With Percent With Percent
Base case standards reduction Base case standards reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust.......................... 11 10 9 45 41 10
Permeation....................... ........... ........... ............ 16 13 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 11 10 9 61 54 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VII.A-2--2020 Projected On-Highway Motorcycle Emissions Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX HC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards With Percent With Percent
Base case standards reduction Base case standards reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust.......................... 14 7 50 58 28 51
Permeation....................... ........... ........... ............ 21 3 85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 14 7 50 79 31 61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section II, there will also be environmental
benefits associated with reduced haze in many sensitive areas.
Finally, anticipated reductions in hydrocarbon emissions will
correspond with reduced emissions of the toxic air emissions referenced
in Section II. In 2020, the projected reduction in hydrocarbon
emissions should result in an equivalent percent reduction in air toxic
emissions.
B. Motorcycle Engine and Equipment Costs
In assessing the economic impact of setting emission standards, we
have made a best estimate of the technologies and their associated
costs to meet the standards. In making our estimates for the final rule
we have relied on our own technology assessment, which includes
information supplied by individual manufacturers, and we have made
revisions after considering information provided by commenters.
Estimated costs include variable costs (for hardware and assembly time)
and fixed costs (for research and development, retooling, and
certification). We projected that manufacturers will recover the fixed
costs over the eight years of production and used an amortization rate
of 7 percent in our analysis. The analysis also considers total
operating costs, including maintenance and fuel consumption. Cost
estimates based on the projected technologies represent an expected
change in the cost of engines as they begin to comply with new emission
standards. All costs are presented in 2001 dollars. Full details of our
cost analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the Regulatory Support
Document.
Cost estimates based on the current projected costs for our
estimated technology packages represent an expected incremental cost of
vehicles in the near term. For the longer term, we have identified
factors that would cause cost impacts to decrease over time. First, as
noted above, we project that manufacturers will spread their fixed
costs over the first eight years of production. After the eighth year
of production, we project that the fixed costs would be retired and the
per unit costs could be reduced as a result.
For highway motorcycles above 50cc, the analysis also incorporates
the expectation that manufacturers and suppliers will apply ongoing
research and manufacturing innovation to making emission controls more
effective and less costly over time. Research in the costs of
manufacturing has consistently shown that as manufacturers gain
experience in production and use, they are able to apply innovations to
simplify machining and assembly operations, use lower cost materials,
and reduce the number or complexity of component parts.\52\ (see the
Final Regulatory Support Document for additional information). The cost
analysis generally incorporates this learning effect by decreasing
estimated variable costs by 20 percent starting in the third year of
production. Long-term impacts on costs are expected to decrease as
manufacturers fully amortize their fixed costs and learn to optimize
their designs and production processes to meet the standards more
efficiently. The learning curve has not been applied to the motorcycles
under 50cc because we expect manufacturers to use technologies that
will be well established prior to the start of the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For further information on learning curves, see previous
final rules for Tier 2 highway vehicles (65 FR 6698, February 10,
2000), marine diesel engines (64 FR 73300, December 29, 1999),
nonroad diesel engines (63 FR 56968, October 23, 1998), and highway
diesel engines (62 FR 54694, October 21, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We project average costs of $30 per Class III highway motorcycle to
meet the Tier 1 standard and $45 to meet the Tier 2 standards,
incremental to Tier 1. We anticipate the manufacturers will meet the
emission standards with several technologies, including electronic fuel
injection, catalysts, pulse-air systems, and other general improvements
to engines. For motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc, we project
average costs of $44 per motorcycle to meet emission standards. We
anticipate the manufacturers of these small motorcycles (mostly
scooters) will meet the emission standards by replacing any remaining
two-stroke engines with four-strokes. The costs are based on the
conversion to 4-stroke because we believe this to be the most likely
technology path for the majority of scooters. Manufacturers could also
choose to employ advanced technology two-stroke (e.g., direct injection
and/or catalysts) designs. The process of developing clean technologies
is very much underway already as a result of regulatory actions in
Europe and the rest of world where the primary markets for small
motorcycles exist. Chapter 4 of the Regulatory Support Document
describes these technologies further.
[[Page 2429]]
We received comments that our costs appeared to be underestimated.
We have considered these comments and, where further data and
information was provided, we have made revisions to our cost estimates
when they were appropriate. Chapter 5 for the Summary and Analysis of
Comments provides our detailed response to comments. It is important to
note that the above cost estimates are average costs and are based on
both the current state of technology and projections of technology
needed to meet standards. Our average cost estimates consider, for
example, that almost half of current production is already equipped
with fuel injection and about 20 percent of production is equipped with
catalysts. To estimate average per unit costs, the costs associated
with the increased use of emission control technologies due to the new
standards are spread over all units produced. Costs for individual
models would be higher or lower than the average depending on the
changes manufacturers decide to make for their various models. Models
already equipped with fuel injection, pulse air, and a catalyst are
likely to have low incremental costs compared to models that are not
currently equipped with these technologies. The averaging program for
the standards provides manufacturers with flexibility in determining
what technologies to use on their various models. Because several
models are already available with the anticipated long-term emission-
control technologies, we believe that manufacturers and consumers will
be able to bear the added cost associated with the new emission
standards.
We have also estimated a per unit cost for fuel tank and hose
permeation control for motorcycles. About 10 percent of motorcycles
sold have plastic fuel tanks which would be subject to the fuel tank
permeation requirements. We project the additional cost per tank,
assuming sulfonation treatment, to be less than $2 per fuel tank. This
cost includes shipping, handling, and overhead costs. Weighting
technology cost for plastic tanks with zero costs for metal tanks which
will not need to apply permeation control, we get an average cost of
less than $0.20 per motorcycle. Hose permeation costs are based on the
costs of existing barrier-lined hoses products used in marine and
automotive applications. We projected an incremental cost of less than
$2 per motorcycle for barrier hoses. This cost includes upgrades to the
hose clamps. Therefore, the average cost per motorcycle for permeation
emission control is projected to be about $2.
Because evaporative emissions are composed of otherwise usable fuel
that is lost to the atmosphere, measures that reduce evaporative
emissions will result in fuel savings. We estimate that the average
fuel savings, due to permeation control, be about 9 gallons over the
12.5 year average operating lifetime. This translates to a discounted
lifetime savings of nearly $7 at an average fuel price of $1.10 per
gallon (non-tax). Therefore, we anticipate that the fuel savings will
more than offset the technology costs.
C. Aggregate Costs and Cost-Effectiveness
The above section presents unit cost estimates for each of the
standards being adopted for motorcycles. These average costs represent
the total set of costs the engine manufacturers will bear to comply
with emission standards. With current and projected estimates of
vehicle sales, we translate these costs into projected direct costs to
the nation for the new emission standards in any year. A summary of the
annualized costs to manufacturers is presented in Table VII.C-1. (The
annualized costs are determined over the first twenty-years that the
new standards will be effective.) The annual cost savings for highway
motorcycles are due to reduced fuel costs (from the <50cc motorcycle
standards and the permeation controls). The total fleetwide fuel
savings start slowly, then increase as greater numbers of compliant
motorcycles enter the fleet. Table VII.C-1 presents a summary of the
annualized reduced operating costs as well.
Table VII.C-1.--Estimated Annualized Cost to Manufacturers and
Annualized Fuel Savings Due to the New Motorcycle Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost Annualized fuel
Standards to manufacturers savings (millions/
(millions/year) year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhaust......................... $32.0 $0.2
Permeation...................... 1.4 4.2
Aggregate \a\................... 33.4 3.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Because of the different implementation dates for the exhaust and
permeation standards, the aggregate is based on a 22 year (rather than
20 year) annualized cost. Therefore, the aggregate is not equal to the
sum of the costs for the two standards.
We calculated the cost per ton of emission reductions for the
standards. For these calculations, we attributed the entire cost of the
program to the control of ozone precursor emissions (HC or
NOX or both). Table VII.C-2 presents the discounted cost-
per-ton estimates for this action. Reduced operating costs offsets a
portion of the increased cost of producing the cleaner highway
motorcycles under 50cc. Reduced fuel consumption also offsets the costs
of permeation control.
Table VII.C-2.--Estimated Cost-per-Ton of the Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted Discounted cost per ton
Effective reductions -------------------------------
Category date per engine Pollutants Without fuel With fuel
(short tons) savings savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway motorcycles 50cc.
Highway motorcycles 50cc.
Highway motorcycles <50cc..... 2006 0.02 Exhaust HC...... 2,130 1,750
Permeation control............ 2008 0.02 Evaporative HC.. 103 ($260)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2430]]
Because the primary purpose of cost-effectiveness is to compare our
program to alternative programs, we made a comparison between the cost
per ton values presented in this chapter and the cost-effectiveness of
other programs. Table VI.C-3 summarizes the cost effectiveness of
several recent EPA actions for controlled emissions from mobile
sources. Additional discussion of these comparisons is contained in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Table VII.C-3.--Cost-Effectiveness of Previously Implemented Mobile
Source Programs
[Costs Adjusted to 2001 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program $/ton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 2 vehicle/gasoline sulfur.......................... 1,437-2,423
2007 Highway HD diesel.................................. 1,563-2,002
2004 Highway HD diesel.................................. 227-444
Off-highway diesel engine............................... 456-724
Tier 1 vehicle.......................................... 2,202-2,993
NLEV.................................................... 2,069
Marine SI engines....................................... 1,255-1,979
On-board diagnostics.................................... 2,480
Marine CI engines....................................... 26-189
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Public Participation
A wide variety of interested parties participated in the rulemaking
process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided
opportunity for public comment following the proposal that we published
August 14, 2002 (67 FR 53050). We held a public hearing on the proposal
in Ann Arbor, Michigan on September 17, 2002. At that hearing, oral
comments on the proposal were received and recorded. We published an
additional notice for comment in two areas on October 30, 2002 (67 FR
66097). A written comment period remained open until January 7, 2003.
Comments and hearing testimony have been placed in the docket for this
rule. We considered these comments in developing the final rule.
We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments
document, which describes the comments we received on the proposal and
our response to each of these comments. The Summary and Analysis of
Comments is available in the docket for this rule and on the Office of
Transportation and Air Quality Internet home page at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/roadbike.htm.
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of this Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as any regulatory action
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
[sbull] Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, Local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
[sbull] Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
[sbull] Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
[sbull] Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
A Final Regulatory Support Document has been prepared and is
available in the docket for this rulemaking and at the internet address
listed under ADDRESSES above. Annual initial costs of this rulemaking
are estimated to be well below $100 million per year, even when
excluding annualized operating cost savings of approximately $3.7
million per year. Even so, OMB has informed us that it considers this
rule to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' Thus, this action was
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866. Written comments from OMB and responses from EPA
to OMB comments are in the public docket for this rulemaking.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (ICR
No. 0783.46). The reporting requirements in this final rule are not
enforceable until the Office of Management and Budget approves them.
The information being collected is to be used by EPA to ensure that
new highway motorcycles comply with applicable emissions standards
through certification requirements and various subsequent compliance
provisions.
The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 32 hours per
response, with collection required annually. The estimated number of
respondents is 46. The total annual cost for the first 3 years of the
program is estimated to be $79,428 per year, including $23,686 in
operating and maintenance costs and no capital costs, at a total of
1,449 hours per year.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjusting the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and to requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, then we will publish a technical amendment to
[[Page 2431]]
40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
We have determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. We have also
determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is
primarily engaged in the manufacture of motorcycles, as defined by
NAICS code 336991, with less than 500 employees (based on Small
Business Administration size standards); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
In accordance with section 609 of the RFA, we conducted outreach to
small entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR)
Panel prior to proposing this rule, to obtain advice and
recommendations of representatives of the small entities that
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Through the
Panel process, we gathered advice and recommendations from small-entity
representatives who would be affected by the provisions in the rule
relating to large SI engines and land-based recreational vehicles, and
published the results in a Final Panel Report, dated July 17, 2001. We
also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in
accordance with section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA
is found in chapter 8 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. The
Panel report and the IRFA have been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking (Public Docket A-2000-01, item II-A-85, and Public Docket A-
2000-02, item III-B-01).
We proposed the majority of the Panel recommendations, and took
comments on these and other recommendations. Since highway motorcycles
have had to meet emission standards for more than twenty years, we have
good information on the number of companies that manufacture or market
highway motorcycles for the U.S. market in each model year. In addition
to the largest six manufacturers (BMW, Harley-Davidson, Honda,
Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha), we find as many as several dozen more
companies that have operated in the U.S. market in the last couple of
model years. Most of these are U.S. companies that are either
manufacturing or importing motorcycles, although a few are U.S.
affiliates of larger companies in Europe or Asia. Some of the U.S.
manufacturers employ only a few people and produce only a handful of
custom motorcycles per year, while others may employ several hundred
and produce up to several thousand motorcycles per year. These new
emission standards impose no new development or certification costs for
any company producing compliant engines for the California market. In
fact, implementing the California standards with a two-year delay also
allows manufacturers to streamline their production to further reduce
the cost of compliance. The estimated hardware costs are less than one
percent of the cost of producing a highway motorcycle, so none of these
companies should have a compliance burden greater than one percent of
revenues. We expect that a small number of companies affected by EPA
emission standards will not already be certifying products in
California. For these companies, the modest effort associated with
applying established technology will add compliance costs representing
between 1 and 3 percent of revenues. The flexible approach we are
adopting to limit testing, reporting, and recordkeeping burden prevents
excessive costs for all these companies. Thus, EPA has determined that
this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We prepared
a Small Business Flexibility Analysis that examines the impact of the
rule on small entities, along with regulatory alternatives that could
reduce that impact. This analysis would meet the requirements for a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), had that analysis been
required. The Small Business Flexibility Analysis can be found in
Chapter 8 of the Final Regulatory Support Document, which is available
for review in the docket and is summarized below. The key elements of
our Small Business Flexibility Analysis include:
--The need for, and objectives of, the rule.
--The significant issues raised by public comments, a summary of the
Agency's assessment of those issues, and a statement of any changes
made to the proposed rule as a result of those comments.
--The types and number of small entities to which the rule will apply.
--The reporting, record keeping and other compliance requirement of the
rule.
--The steps taken to minimize the impact of the rule on small entities,
consistent with the stated objectives of the applicable statute.
A fuller discussion of each of these elements can be found in the
Small Business Flexibility Analysis (Chapter 8 of the Final Regulatory
Support Document).
1. The Need for and Objectives of This Rule
The current HC and CO emission standards for highway motorcycles
were set in 1978 and are based on 1970s technology. There are currently
no NOX standards for highway motorcycles. We expect that
implementation of the standards will result in about a 50 percent
reduction in HC emissions and NOX emissions from highway
motorcycles in 2020. These emission reductions would reduce ambient
concentrations of ozone, and fine particles, which is a health concern
and contributes to visibility impairment. The standards would also
reduce personal exposure for people who operate or who work with or are
otherwise in close proximity to these engines and vehicles. As
described more fully in the Final Regulatory Support Document for this
rule, many types of hydrocarbons are air toxics.
The reductions in emissions are a part of the effort by federal,
state and local governments to reduce the health related impacts of air
pollution and to reach attainment of the NAAQS for ozone and
particulate matter (PM) as well as to improve other environmental
effects such as atmospheric visibility. Based on the most recent data
available for this rule (1999-2001), ozone and PM air quality problems
are widespread in the United States. There are 111 million people
living in counties with monitored concentrations exceeding the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and over 65 million people living in counties with
monitored PM2.5 levels exceeding the PM2.5 NAAQS.
[[Page 2432]]
2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment
We received a number of comments during the public comment process,
these comments mainly focused on 8 specific areas of concern for
commenters: (1) Impact on small/independent and aftermarket motorcycle
shops, and the belief EPA did not fulfill its SBREFA obligations; (2)
customer rejection of products; (3) fewer options for customers and
lower sales; (4) cost of ownership will increase, and consumers will be
unable to service their own motorcycles; (5) reduction/elimination of
competition from aftermarket and specialty shops (for major
manufacturers); (6) elimination of aftermarket supplies and services;
(7) consumers will be forced to purchase only manufacturer-offered
products; and (8) the Barcia Act/H.R. 5433. A detailed summary of the
comments that we received regarding the NPRM can be found in the Final
Summary and Analysis of Comments located in the public docket for this
rulemaking.
3. Numbers and Types of Small Entities Affected
The following table provides an overview of the primary SBA small
business categories potentially affected by this regulation.
Table IX.C-1--Primary SBA SBA Small Business Categories Potentially
Affected by This Proposed Regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defined by SBA as a
Industry NAICS\a\ codes small business If: \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle manufacturers....... 336991 <500 employees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ According to SBA's regulations (13 CFR 121), businesses with no more
than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are
considered ``small entities'' for purposes of a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
Of the numerous manufacturers supplying the U.S. market for highway
motorcycles, Honda, Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW
are the largest, accounting for 95 percent or more of the total U.S.
sales. Harley-Davidson is the only company manufacturing highway
motorcycles exclusively in the U.S. for the U.S. market.
Since highway motorcycles have had to meet emission standards for
the last twenty years, we have good information on the number of
companies that manufacture or market highway motorcycles for the U.S.
market in each model year. In addition to the big six manufacturers
noted above, we find as many as several dozen more companies that have
operated in the U.S. market in the last couple of model years. Most of
these are U.S. companies that are either manufacturing or importing
motorcycles, although a few are U.S. affiliates of larger companies in
Europe or Asia. Some of the U.S. manufacturers employ only a few people
and produce only a handful of custom motorcycles per year, while others
may employ several hundred and produce up to several thousand
motorcycles per year.
4. Potential Reporting, Record Keeping, and Compliance
For any emission control program, we must have assurances that the
regulated engines will meet the standards. Historically, EPA programs
have included provisions placing manufacturers responsible for
providing these assurances. The program that we are adopting for
manufacturers subject to this rule include testing, reporting, and
record keeping requirements. Testing requirements for some
manufacturers may include certification (including deterioration
testing). Reporting requirements would likely include test data and
technical data on the engines including defect reporting. Manufacturers
would likely have to keep records of this information.
5. Steps Taken To Minimize the Impact on Small Entities
The SBAR Panel considered a variety of provisions to reduce the
burden of complying with new emission standards and related
requirements. Some of these provisions (such as emission-credit
programs and hardship provisions) would apply to all companies, while
others would be targeted at the unique circumstances faced by small
businesses. A complete discussion of the regulatory alternatives
recommended by the Panel can be found in the Final Panel Report.
The following Panel recommendations are being finalized in this
rule:
i. Delay of Proposed Standards
We are delaying compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/km
HC+NOX until the 2008 model year for small manufacturers,
and at this time, we are not requiring these manufacturers to meet the
Tier 2 standard. The existing California regulations do not require
small manufacturers to comply with the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/km
HC+NOX. The California Air Resources Board found that the
Tier 2 standard represents a significant technological challenge and is
a potentially infeasible limit for these small manufacturers. As noted
above, many of these manufacturers market specialty products with a
``retro'' simplicity and style that may not easily lend itself to the
addition of advanced technologies like catalysts and electronic fuel
injection. However, the California ARB has acknowledged that, in the
course of their progress review planned for 2006, they will revisit
their small-manufacturer provisions. We plan to participate with the
ARB and others in the 2006 progress review. Following our review of
these provisions, as appropriate, we may decide to propose to make
changes to the emission standards and related requirements through
notice and comment rulemaking, including the applicability of Tier 2 to
small businesses. The hardship provisions described below could be used
to provide a small manufacturer with yet additional lead time if
justified.
ii. Broader Engine Families
Small businesses have met EPA certification requirements since
1978. Nonetheless, certifying motorcycles to revised emission standards
has cost and lead time implications. Relaxing the criteria for what
constitutes an engine or vehicle family could potentially allow small
businesses to put all of their models into one vehicle or engine family
(or more) for certification purposes. Manufacturers would then certify
their engines using the ``worst case'' configuration within the family.
[[Page 2433]]
This is currently allowed under the existing regulations for small-
volume highway motorcycle manufacturers. These provisions remain in
place without revision.
iii. Averaging, Banking, and Trading
An emission-credit program allows a manufacturer to produce and
sell engines and vehicles that exceed the applicable emission
standards, as long as the excess emissions are offset by the production
of engines and vehicles emitting at levels below the standards. The
sales-weighted average of a manufacturer's total production for a given
model year must meet the standards. An emission-credit program
typically also allows a manufacturer to bank credits for use in future
model years. The emission-credit program we are implementing for all
highway motorcycle manufacturers is described above. Some credit
programs allow manufacturers to buy and sell credits (trade) between
and among themselves. We are not implementing such a provision at this
time, but such flexibility could be made available to all small
manufacturers as part of the upcoming technology review.
iv. Reduced Certification Data Submittal and Testing Requirements
Current regulations allow significant flexibility for certification
by manufacturers projecting sales below 10,000 units of combined Class
I, II, and III motorcycles. For example, a qualifying manufacturer must
submit an application for certification with a statement that their
vehicles have been tested and, on the basis of the tests, conform to
the applicable emission standards. The manufacturer retains adequate
emission test data, for example, but need not submit it. Qualifying
manufacturers also need not complete the detailed durability testing
required in the regulations. We are incorporating no changes to these
existing provisions.
v. Hardship Provisions
We proposed two types of hardship provisions, one specifically for
small businesses and one available to all manufacturers. The first type
of hardship provision allows a manufacturer to petition for additional
lead time if the manufacturer can demonstrate that it has taken all
possible steps to comply with the standards but the burden of
compliance would have a significant impact on the company's solvency.
The second type of hardship provision allows a company to apply for
hardship relief if circumstances outside of the company's control cause
a failure to comply, and the failure to sell the noncompliant product
would have a major impact on the company's solvency.
6. Conclusion
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have conducted a substantial outreach program designed to gather
information as to the effect of this final rulemaking on small
entities. This process included an SBAR Panel, which sought advice and
recommendations from potentially affected small entities regarding ways
to minimize their compliance burden. We published both an ANPRM and an
NPRM which requested comments from potentially affected entities, as
well as other interested parties in the public at large. We have
determined, from the information that we have gathered during the
SBREFA process, that there are 42 manufacturers that certified
motorcycles in the year 2003. Of these, 30 manufacturers are small by
the SBREFA definition given above. However, certification emission data
indicates that essentially all of these 30 manufacturers are currently
meeting the Tier 1 exhaust emission standard. Given small costs of
complying with the permeation evaporative emission requirements and the
lead time and other flexibilities that are being finalized in this
rulemaking, these manufacturers will not be significantly affected by
the rule.
Therefore, we have determined that this final rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
This rule contains no Federal mandates for state, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the provisions of Title II of the UMRA. The
rule imposes no enforceable duties on any of these governmental
entities. Nothing in the rule would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments.
We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated expenditures of more than $100
million to the private sector in any single year. We believe that this
final rule represents the least costly, most cost effective approach to
achieve the air quality goals of the rule. The costs and benefits are
discussed in Section VII and in the Final Regulatory Support Document.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance
[[Page 2434]]
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements
for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not
have federalism implications (i.e., the rules will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those
requirements include providing all affected State and local officials
notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the
development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on
express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the
extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials
regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected
interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Although Section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA did consult with representatives of various State and local
governments in developing this rule. EPA has also consulted
representatives from STAPPA/ALAPCO, which represents state and local
air pollution officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This rule contains no Federal mandates for tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, section 5-501 of the Order directs the Agency to
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule
on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks that
may disproportionately affect children.
The effects of ozone and PM on children's health were addressed in
detail in EPA's rulemaking to establish the NAAQS for these pollutants,
and EPA is not revisiting those issues here. EPA believes, however,
that the emission reductions from the strategies proposed in this
rulemaking will further reduce air toxics and the related adverse
impacts on children's health.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The standards have
for their aim the reduction of emissions from highway motorcycles, and
have no effect on fuel formulation, distribution, or use. Generally,
the program leads to reduced fuel usage due to the reduction of wasted
fuel through evaporation.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This final rule involves technical standards. The following
paragraphs describe how we specify testing procedures for engines
subject to this proposal.
We are adopting provisions to test exhaust emissions from highway
motorcycles with the Federal Test Procedure, a chassis-based transient
test. There is no voluntary consensus standard that would adequately
address engine or vehicle operation for suitable emission measurement.
For permeation emissions, we are adopting testing provisions which
utilize consensus standards where applicable. For fuel hose testing we
are adopting the hose permeation standard developed by the Society of
Automotive Engineers. There is no voluntary consensus standard for
testing permeation emissions from fuel tanks. Therefore, we are
adopting provisions to use the permeation emission test procedures
recently adopted for nonroad recreational vehicles.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
[[Page 2435]]
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
before the rule is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. Plain Language
This document follows the guidelines of the June 1, 1998 Executive
Memorandum on Plain Language in Government Writing. To read the text of
the regulations, it is also important to understand the organization of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The CFR uses the following
organizational names and conventions.
Title 40--Protection of the Environment
Chapter I--Environmental Protection Agency
Subchapter C--Air Programs. This contains parts 50 to 99, where the
Office of Air and Radiation has usually placed emission standards for
motor vehicle and nonroad engines.
Subchapter U--Air Programs Supplement. This contains parts 1000 to
1299, where we intend to place regulations for air programs in future
rulemakings.
Part 1045--Control of Emissions from Marine Spark-ignition Engines
and Vessels
Part 1068--General Compliance Provisions for Engine Programs.
Provisions of this part apply to everyone.
Each part in the CFR has several subparts, sections, and
paragraphs. The following illustration shows how these fit together.
Part 1045
Subpart A
Section 1045.1
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
A cross reference to Sec. 1045.1(b) in this illustration would
refer to the parent paragraph (b) and all its subordinate paragraphs. A
reference to ``Sec. 1045.1(b) introductory text'' would refer only to
the single, parent paragraph (b).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 86
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Labeling, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research, Warranties.
40 CFR Part 1051
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Imports,
Labeling, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Warranties.
Dated: December 23, 2003.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
PART 9--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342
1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-
1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-
1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3,
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-
9657, 11023, 11048.
0
2. Section 9.1 is amended in the table by adding the entries under the
existing center heading in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control of Air Pollution From New and In-Use Motor Vehicles and New and
In-Use Motor Vehicle Engines; Certification and Test Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
86.446-2006............................................... 2060-0460
86.447-2006............................................... 2060-0460
86.448-2006............................................... 2060-0460
86.449-2006............................................... 2060-0460
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 86--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE HIGHWAY VEHICLES
AND ENGINES
0
3. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.
Subpart E--[Amended]
0
4. A new Sec. 86.401-2006 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.401-2006 General applicability.
This subpart applies to 1978 and later model year, new, gasoline-
fueled motorcycles built after December 31, 1977, and to 1990 and later
model year, new methanol-fueled motorcycles built after December 31,
1989 and to 1997 and later model year, new natural gas-fueled and
liquefied petroleum gas-fueled motorcycles built after December 31,
1996 and to 2006 and later model year new motorcycles, regardless of
fuel.
0
5. Section 86.402-98 is amended by adding definitions for ``Designated
Compliance Officer'', ``Motor vehicle'', and ``Useful life'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 86.402-98 Definitions.
* * * * *
Designated Compliance Officer means the Manager, Engine Programs
Group (6405-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., Washington, DC 20460.
* * * * *
Motor vehicle has the meaning we give in 40 CFR 85.1703.
* * * * *
Useful life is defined for each class (see Sec. 86.419) of
motorcycle:
(1) Class I-A--5.0 years or 6,000 km (3,728 miles), whichever
occurs first.
(2) Class I-B--5.0 years or 12,000 km (7,456 miles), whichever
occurs first.
(3) Class II--5.0 years or 18,000 km (11,185 miles), whichever
occurs first.
(4) Class III--5.0 years or 30,000 km (18,641 miles), whichever
occurs first.
0
6. Section 86.407-78 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.407-78 Certificate of conformity required.
(a) General requirement. Every new motorcycle manufactured for
sale, sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction
into commerce, or imported into the United States which is subject to
any of the standards prescribed in this subpart is required to be
covered by a certificate of conformity issued pursuant to this subpart,
except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, or otherwise
exempted from this requirement.
[[Page 2436]]
(b) Interim personal use exemption. An individual may manufacture
one motorcycle for personal use without a certificate of conformity,
subject to the following provisions:
(1) The motorcycle may not be manufactured from a certified
motorcycle. The motorcycle may not be manufactured from a partially
complete motorcycle that is equivalent to a certified motorcycle,
unless the emission controls are included in the final product. The
motorcycle must be manufactured primarily from unassembled components,
but may incorporate some preassembled components. For example, fully
preassembled transmissions may be used.
(2) The motorcycle may not be sold within five years of the date of
final assembly.
(3) No individual may manufacture more than one motorcycle during
his or her lifetime under this exemption. This restriction applies with
respect to the person who purchases the components and/or uses the
motorcycle, rather than to the person(s) who actually assemble(s) the
motorcycle.
(4) This exemption may not be used to circumvent the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section or the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. For example, this exemption would not cover a case in which an
entity purchases a kit, assembles the kit, and then sells it to another
party; this would be considered to be the sale of the complete
motorcycle.
(c) Interim display exemptions. Uncertified custom motorcycles that
are used solely for display purposes are exempt from the standards
provided they conform to the requirements of this paragraph (c). Unless
a certificate of conformity has been received for such motorcycles,
they may not be operated on the public streets or highways except for
that operation incident and necessary to the display purpose.
(1) No request is necessary for display motorcycles that will not
be sold or leased.
(2) The following requirements apply for exempting display
motorcycles that will be sold or leased:
(i) Manufacturers planning to sell motorcycles for display must
notify EPA of their intent to do so before they sell any exempted
motorcycles. They must also maintain sales records of exempted
motorcycles for at least three years and make them available to EPA
upon request.
(ii) No manufacturer may sell or lease more than 24 exempted
display motorcycles in any single calendar year.
(iii) Anyone selling or leasing a motorcycle exempt under this
paragraph (c) must ensure that the buyer or lessee agrees to comply
with the display exemption terms in the regulations.
(3) Each motorcycle exempt under this paragraph (c) must include a
label that identifies the manufacturer and includes the following
statement: THIS MOTORCYCLE IS EXEMPT FROM EPA EMISSION REQUIREMENTS.
ITS USE ON PUBLIC ROADS IS LIMITED PURSUANT TO 40 CFR 86.407-78(c). EPA
may allow manufacturers to locate the label in a location where it is
obscured or hidden by a readily removable component. For example, EPA
may allow the label to be located under the seat.
(4) As described in 40 CFR part 1051, motorcycles that are not
considered to be motor vehicles according to 40 CFR 85.1703(a) may be
exempt under this paragraph (c) from the standards and requirements of
40 CFR part 1051. Such motorcycles shall be combined with the
manufacturer's highway motorcycles with respect to the sales
restriction described in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
(5) This exemption may not be used to circumvent the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section or the requirements of the Clean Air
Act.
0
7. A new Sec. 86.410-2006 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.410-2006 Emission standards for 2006 and later model year
motorcycles.
(a)(1) Exhaust emissions from Class I and Class II motorcycles
shall not exceed the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006-1.--Class I and II Motorcycle Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards (g/km)
Model year ---------------------------
HC CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 and later.............................. 1.0 12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Exhaust emissions from Class III motorcycles shall not exceed
the standards listed in the following table:
Table E2006-2.--Class III Motorcycle Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission standards
(g/km)
Tier Model year -------------------
HC + NOX CO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................. 2006-2009.................. 1.4 12.0
Tier 2................. 2010 and later............. 0.8 12.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The standards set forth in paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this
section refer to the exhaust emitted over the driving schedule as set
forth in subpart F and measured and calculated in accordance with those
procedures.
(c) Compliance with the HC+NOX standards set forth in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section may be demonstrated using the
averaging provisions of Sec. 86.449.
(d) No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient
atmosphere from any new motorcycle subject to this subpart.
(e) Manufacturers with fewer than 500 employees worldwide and
producing fewer than 3,000 motorcycles per year in the United States
are considered small-volume manufacturers for the purposes of this
section. The following provisions apply for these small-volume
manufacturers:
(1) Small-volume manufacturers are not required to comply with the
Tier 1 standards applicable to Class III motorcycles until model year
2008.
(2) Small-volume manufacturers are not required to comply with the
Tier 2 standards applicable to Class III motorcycles.
(f) Manufacturers may choose to certify their Class I and Class II
motorcycles to an HC + NOX standard of 1.4 g/km instead of
the 1.0 g/km HC standard listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Engine families certified to this standard may demonstrate compliance
using the averaging provisions of Sec. 86.449.
(g) Model year 2008 and later motorcycles must comply with the
evaporative emission standards described in 40 CFR 1051.110.
Manufacturers may show compliance using the design-based certification
procedures described in 40 CFR 1051.245. Manufacturers may comply with
the tank permeation standards using the averaging provisions in 40 CFR
part 1051, subpart H, but may not include any motorcycles equipped with
metal fuel tanks in their average emission level. Manufacturers may not
average between highway motorcycle engine families and recreational
vehicle families.
0
8. Section 86.416-80 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(viii) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.416-80 Application for certification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(viii) Beginning with model year 2008, a description of the
evaporative emission controls and applicable test data.
* * * * *
[[Page 2437]]
(b) New motorcycles produced by a small-volume manufacturer (as
defined in Sec. 86.410(e)) or by any other manufacturer whose
projected sales in the United States is less than 10,000 units (for the
model year in which certification is sought) are covered by the
following:
* * * * *
(f) Upon request, the Administrator may allow a manufacturer to use
alternate certification procedures that are equivalent in terms of
demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this part.
0
9. A new Sec. 86.419-2006 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.419-2006 Engine displacement, motorcycle classes.
(a)(1) Engine displacement shall be calculated using nominal engine
values and rounded to the nearest whole cubic centimeter, in accordance
with ASTM E 29-93a (incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1).
(2) For rotary engines, displacement means the maximum volume of a
combustion chamber between two rotor tip seals, minus the minimum
volume of the combustion chamber between those two rotor tip seals,
times three times the number of rotors, according to the following
formula:
cc = (max. chamber volume - min. chamber volume) x 3 x no. of rotors
(b) Motorcycles will be divided into classes based on engine
displacement.
(1) Class I--0 to 169 cc (0 to 10.4 cu. in.).
(i) Class I motorcycles with engine displacement less than 50 cc
comprise the Class I-A subclass.
(ii) Class I motorcycles with engine displacement 50 cc or higher
comprise the Class I-B subclass.
(2) Class II--170 to 279 cc (10.4 to 17.1 cu. in.).
(3) Class III--280 cc and over (17.1 cu. in. and over).
(c) At the manufacturer's option, a vehicle described in an
application for certification may be placed in a higher class (larger
displacement). All procedures for the higher class must then be
complied with and compliance with emission standards will be determined
on the basis of engine displacement.
0
10. A new Sec. 86.445-2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.445-2006 What temporary provisions address hardship due to
unusual circumstances?
(a) After considering the circumstances, the Director of the Office
of Transportation and Air Quality may permit you to introduce into
commerce highway motorcycles that do not comply with emission standards
if all the following conditions and requirements apply:
(1) Unusual circumstances that are clearly outside your control and
that could not have been avoided with reasonable discretion prevent you
from meeting requirements from this chapter.
(2) You exercised prudent planning and were not able to avoid the
violation; you have taken all reasonable steps to minimize the extent
of the nonconformity.
(3) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your
company.
(4) No other allowances are available under the regulations of this
part to avoid the impending violation, excluding those in Sec. 86.446.
(b) To apply for an exemption, you must send the Designated
Compliance Officer a written request as soon as possible before you are
in violation. In your request, show that you meet all the conditions
and requirements in paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all
the applicable requirements as quickly as possible.
(d) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it.
(e) We may include reasonable additional conditions on an approval
granted under this section, including provisions to recover or
otherwise address the lost environmental benefit or paying fees to
offset any economic gain resulting from the exemption. For example, in
the case of multiple tiers of emission standards, we may require that
you meet the less stringent standards.
(f) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in
English, to a readily visible part of each motorcycle exempted under
this section. This label must include at least the following items:
(1) The label heading ``EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''.
(2) Your corporate name and trademark.
(3) Engine displacement (in liters) and model year of the engine or
whom to contact for further information.
(4) The statement ``THIS MOTORCYCLE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 86.445-
2006 FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''.
0
11. A new Sec. 86.446-2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.446-2006 What are the provisions for extending compliance
deadlines for small-volume manufacturers under hardship?
(a) After considering the circumstances, the Director of the Office
of Transportation and Air Quality may extend the compliance deadline
for you to meet new or revised emission standards, as long as you meet
all the conditions and requirements in this section.
(b) To be eligible for this exemption, you must qualify as a small-
volume manufacturer under Sec. 86.410-2006(e).
(c) To apply for an extension, you must send the Designated
Compliance Officer a written request. In your request, show that all
the following conditions and requirements apply:
(1) You have taken all possible business, technical, and economic
steps to comply.
(i) In the case of importers, show that you attempted to find a
manufacturer capable of supplying complying products as soon as you
became aware of the applicable requirements, but were unable to do so.
(ii) For all other manufacturers, show that the burden of
compliance costs prevents you from meeting the requirements of this
chapter.
(2) Not having the exemption will jeopardize the solvency of your
company.
(3) No other allowances are available under the regulations in this
part to avoid the impending violation, excluding those in Sec. 86.445.
(d) In describing the steps you have taken to comply under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, include at least the following
information:
(1) Describe your business plan, showing the range of projects
active or under consideration.
(2) Describe your current and projected financial standing, with
and without the burden of complying fully with the regulations in this
part.
(3) Describe your efforts to raise capital to comply with
regulations in this part (this may not apply for importers).
(4) Identify the engineering and technical steps you have taken or
plan to take to comply with the regulations in this part.
(5) Identify the level of compliance you can achieve. For example,
you may be able to produce engines that meet a somewhat less stringent
emission standard than the regulations require.
(e) Include in your request a plan showing how you will meet all
the applicable requirements as quickly as possible.
(f) You must give us other relevant information if we ask for it.
[[Page 2438]]
(g) An authorized representative of your company must sign the
request and include the statement: ``All the information in this
request is true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge.''
(h) Send your request for this extension at least nine months
before new standards apply. Do not send your request before the
regulations in question apply to other manufacturers.
(i) We may include reasonable requirements on an approval granted
under this section, including provisions to recover or otherwise
address the lost environmental benefit. For example, we may require
that you meet a less stringent emission standard or buy and use
available emission credits.
(j) We will approve extensions of up to one year. We may review and
revise an extension as reasonable under the circumstances.
(k) Add a permanent, legible label, written in block letters in
English, to a readily visible part of each motorcycle exempted under
this section. This label must include at least the following items:
(1) The label heading ``EMISSION CONTROL INFORMATION''.
(2) Your corporate name and trademark.
(3) Engine displacement (in liters) and model year of the
motorcycle or whom to contact for further information.
(4) The statement ``THIS MOTORCYCLE IS EXEMPT UNDER 40 CFR 86.446
FROM EMISSION STANDARDS AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.''.
0
12. A new Sec. 86.447-2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.447-2006 What are the provisions for exempting motorcycles
under 50 cc from the requirements of this part if they use engines
certified under other programs?
(a) This section applies to you if you manufacture engines under 50
cc for installation in a highway motorcycle (that is, a motorcycle that
is a motor vehicle). See Sec. 86.448-2006 if you are not the engine
manufacturer.
(b) The only requirements or prohibitions from this part that apply
to a motorcycle that is exempt under this section are in this section
and Sec. 86.448-2006.
(c) If you meet all the following criteria regarding your new
engine, it is exempt under this section:
(1) You must produce it under a valid certificate of conformity for
one of the following types of engines or vehicles:
(i) Class II engines under 40 CFR part 90.
(ii) Recreational vehicles under 40 CFR part 1051.
(2) You must not make any changes to the certified engine that we
could reasonably expect to increase its exhaust emissions. For example,
if you make any of the following changes to one of these engines, you
do not qualify for this exemption:
(i) Change any fuel system parameters from the certified
configuration.
(ii) Change any other emission-related components.
(iii) Modify or design the engine cooling system so that
temperatures or heat rejection rates are outside the original engine's
specified ranges.
(3) You must make sure the engine has the emission label we require
under 40 CFR part 90 or part 1051.
(4) You must make sure that fewer than 50 percent of the engine
model's total sales, from all companies, are used in highway
motorcycles.
(d) If you produce only the engine, give motorcycle manufacturers
any necessary instructions regarding what they may or may not change
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Upon request, send EPA a list
the motorcycle models you expect to be produced under this exemption in
the model year (including motorcycles produced under Sec. 86.448-
2006), and the manufacturers of those motorcycles.
(e) If you produce both the engine and motorcycle under this
exemption, you must do all of the following to keep the exemption
valid:
(1) Make sure the original emission label is intact.
(2) Add a permanent supplemental label to the engine in a position
where it will remain clearly visible after installation in the vehicle.
In your engine's emission label, do the following:
(i) Include the heading: ``Highway Motorcycle Emission Control
Information''.
(ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(iii) State: ``THIS ENGINE WAS ADAPTED FOR HIGHWAY USE WITHOUT
AFFECTING ITS EMISSION CONTROLS.''.
(iv) State the date you finished installation (month and year).
(3) Send the Designated Compliance Officer a signed letter by the
end of each calendar year (or less often if we tell you) with all the
following information:
(i) Identify your full corporate name, address, and telephone
number.
(ii) List the motorcycle models you expect to produce under this
exemption in the coming year.
(iii) State: ``We produce each listed model as a highway motorcycle
without making any changes that could increase its certified emission
levels, as described in 40 CFR 86.447.''.
(f) If your vehicles do not meet the criteria listed in paragraph
(c) of this section, they will be subject to the standards and
prohibitions of this part. Producing these vehicles without a valid
exemption or certificate of conformity would violate the prohibitions
in Clean Air Act section 203 (42 U.S.C. 7522).
(g) Upon request, you must send to EPA emission test data on the
duty cycle for Class I motorcycles. You may include the data in your
application for certification or in your letter requesting the
exemption.
(h) Vehicles exempted under this section are subject to all the
requirements affecting engines and vehicles under 40 CFR part 90 or
part 1051, as applicable. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR
part 90 or 1051 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone
manufacturing vehicles that use these engines, and all other persons in
the same manner as if these engines were used in a nonroad application.
0
13. A new Sec. 86.448-2006 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.448-2006 What are the provisions for producing motorcycles
under 50 cc with engines already certified under other programs?
(a) You may produce a highway motorcycle (that is, a motorcycle
that is a motor vehicle) under 50 cc using a nonroad engine if you meet
four criteria:
(1) The engine or vehicle is certified to 40 CFR part 90 or part
1051.
(2) The engine is not adjusted outside the engine manufacturer's
specifications, as described in Sec. 86.447-2006(c)(2) and (d).
(3) The engine or vehicle is not modified in any way that may
affect its emission control.
(4) Fewer than 50 percent of the engine model's total sales, from
all companies, are used in highway motorcycles.
(b) If you produce a motorcycle under this exemption, you must do
all of the following to keep the exemption valid:
(1) Make sure the original emission label is intact.
(2) Add a permanent supplemental label to the motorcycle in a
position where it will remain clearly visible.
(i) Include the heading: ``Highway Motorcycle Emission Control
Information''.
(ii) Include your full corporate name and trademark.
(iii) State: ``THIS MOTORCYCLE WAS PRODUCED WITH A NONROAD ENGINE
FOR HIGHWAY USE WITHOUT AFFECTING THE ENGINE'S EMISSION CONTROLS.''.
(c) This section does not apply if you manufacture the engine
yourself; see Sec. 86.447-2006.
[[Page 2439]]
(d) Upon request, you must send to EPA emission test data on the
duty cycle for Class I motorcycles.
(e) Vehicles exempted under this section are subject to all the
requirements affecting engines and vehicles under 40 CFR part 90 or
part 1051, as applicable. The requirements and restrictions of 40 CFR
part 90 or 1051 apply to anyone manufacturing these engines, anyone
manufacturing vehicles that use these engines, and all other persons in
the same manner as if these engines were used in a nonroad application.
0
14. A new Sec. 86.449 is added to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 86.449 Averaging provisions.
(a) This section describes how and when averaging may be used to
show compliance with applicable HC+NOX emission standards.
Emission credits may not be banked for use in later model years, except
as specified in paragraph (j) of this section.
(1) Compliance with the Class I and Class II HC+NOX
standards set forth in Sec. 86.410-2006 (f) may be demonstrated using
the averaging provisions of this section. To do this you must show that
your average emission levels are at or below the applicable standards
in Sec. 86.410-2006.
(2) Compliance with the Class III HC+NOX standards set
forth in Sec. 86.410-2006 (a)(2) may be demonstrated using the
averaging provisions of this section. To do this you must show that
your average emission levels are at or below the applicable standards
in Sec. 86.410-2006.
(3) Family emission limits (FELs) may not exceed the following
caps:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEL cap (g/
km)
Class Tier Model year ------------
HC+NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I or II............................ Tier 1..................... 2006 and later............. 5.0
Class III................................ Tier 1..................... 2006-2009.................. 5.0
Tier 2..................... 2010 and later............. 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Do not include any exported vehicles in the certification
averaging program. Include only motorcycles certified under this
subpart and intended for sale in the United States.
(c) To use the averaging program, do the following things:
(1) Certify each vehicle to a family emission limit.
(2) Calculate a preliminary average emission level according to
paragraph (d) of this section using projected production volumes for
your application for certification.
(3) After the end of your model year, calculate a final average
emission level according to paragraph (d) of this section for each
averaging set for which you manufacture or import motorcycles.
(d) Calculate your average emission level for each averaging set
for each model year according to the following equation and round it to
the nearest tenth of a g/km. Use consistent units throughout the
calculation. The averaging sets are defined in paragraph (k) of this
section.
(1) Calculate the average emission level as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA04.000
Where:
FELi = The FEL to which the engine family is certified.
ULi = The useful life of the engine family.
Productioni = The number of vehicles in the engine family.
(2) Use production projections for initial certification, and
actual production volumes to determine compliance at the end of the
model year.
(e)(1) Maintain and keep five types of properly organized and
indexed records for each group and for each emission family:
(i) Model year and EPA emission family.
(ii) FEL.
(iii) Useful life.
(iv) Projected production volume for the model year.
(v) Actual production volume for the model year.
(2) Keep paper records of this information for three years from the
due date for the end-of-year report. You may use any additional storage
formats or media if you like.
(3) Follow paragraphs (f) through (i) of this section to send us
the information you must keep.
(4) We may ask you to keep or send other information necessary to
implement this subpart.
(f) Include the following information in your application for
certification:
(1) A statement that, to the best of your belief, you will not have
a negative credit balance for any motorcycle when all credits are
calculated. This means that if you believe that your average emission
level will be above the standard (i.e., that you will have a deficit
for the model year), you must have banked credits pursuant to paragraph
(j) of this section to offset the deficit.
(2) Detailed calculations of projected emission credits (zero,
positive, or negative) based on production projections. If you project
a credit deficit, state the source of credits needed to offset the
credit deficit.
(g) At the end of each model year, send an end-of-year report.
(1) Make sure your report includes the following things:
(i) Calculate in detail your average emission level and any
emission credits based on actual production volumes.
(ii) If your average emission level is above the allowable average
standard, state the source of credits needed to offset the credit
deficit.
(2) Base your production volumes on the point of first retail sale.
This point is called the final product-purchase location.
(3) Send end-of-year reports to the Designated Compliance Officer
within 120 days of the end of the model year. If you send reports
later, EPA may void your certificate ab initio.
(4) If you generate credits for banking pursuant to paragraph (j)
of this section and you do not send your end-of-year reports within 120
days after the end of the model year, you may not use the
[[Page 2440]]
credits until we receive and review your reports. You may not use
projected credits pending our review.
(5) You may correct errors discovered in your end-of-year report,
including errors in calculating credits according to the following
table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If . . . And if . . . Then we . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Our review discovers an The discovery occurs Restore the credits
error in your end-of-year within 180 days of for your use.
report that increases your receipt.
credit balance.
(ii) You discover an error The discovery occurs Restore the credits
in your report that within 180 days of for your use.
increases your credit receipt.
balance.
(iii) We or you discover an The discovery occurs Do not restore the
error in your report that more than 180 days credits for your
increases your credit after receipt. use.
balance.
(iv) We discover an error in At any time after Reduce your credit
your report that reduces receipt. balance.
your credit balance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Include in each report a statement certifying the accuracy and
authenticity of its contents.
(i) We may void a certificate of conformity for any emission family
if you do not keep the records this section requires or give us the
information when we ask for it.
(j) You may include Class III motorcycles that you certify with
HC+NOX emissions below 0.8 g/km in the following optional
early banking program:
(1) To include a Class III motorcycle in the early banking program,
assign it an emission rate of 0.8 g/km when calculating your average
emission level for compliance with the Tier 1 standards.
(2)(i) Calculate bankable credits from the following equation:
Bonus credit = Y x [(0.8 g/km - Certified emission level)] x
[(Production volume of engine family) x (Useful life)]
(ii) The value of Y is defined by the model year and emission
level, as shown in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplier (Y) for use in MY 2010 or later corporate
averaging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Model year If your certified emission
level is less than 0.8 g/km, If your certified emission
but greater than 0.4 g/km, level is less than 0.4 g/km,
then Y = . . . then Y = . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 through 2006................................... 1.500 3.000
2007................................................ 1.375 2.500
2008................................................ 1.250 2.000
2009................................................ 1.125 1.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Credits banked under this paragraph (j) may be use for
compliance with any 2010 or later model year standards as follows:
(i) If your average emission level is above the average standard,
calculate your credit deficit according to the following equation,
rounding to the nearest tenth of a gram:
Deficit = (Emission Level - Average Standard) x (Total Annual
Production) x (Useful Life)
(ii) Credit deficits may be offset using banked credits.
(k) Credits may not be exchanged across averaging sets except as
explicitly allowed by this paragraph (k).
(1) There are two averaging sets:
(i) Class I and Class II motorcycles certified to HC+NOX
standards.
(ii) Class III motorcycles.
(2) Where a manufacturer's average HC+NOX emission level
for Class III motorcycles (as calculated under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section) is below the applicable standard, the manufacturer may
generate credits that may be used show compliance with
HC+NOX standards for Class I and Class II motorcycles during
the same model year. Use the following equations to calculate credits
and credit deficits for each class or subclass:
Credit = (Average Standard - Emission Level) x (Total Annual
Production) x (Useful Life)
Deficit = (Emission Level - Average Standard) x (Total Annual
Production) x (Useful Life)
(l) Manufacturers participating in the averaging program of this
section may modify FELs during the model year as specified in this
paragraph (l).
(1) Upon notifying EPA, manufacturers may raise the FEL for an
engine family and begin labeling motorcycles with the new FEL.
(2) Manufacturers may ask to lower FELs based on test data of
production vehicles showing that the motorcycles in the engine family
have emissions below the new FEL. Manufacturers must test the
motorcycles according to 40 CFR part 1051, subpart D. Manufacturers may
not begin labeling motorcycles with the new FEL until they have
received EPA approval to do so.
(3) Manufacturers may not change the FEL of any motorcycle that has
been placed into service or that is no longer in their possession.
Subpart F--[Amended]
0
15.A new Sec. 86.505-2004 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.505-2004 Introduction; structure of subpart.
(a) This subpart describes the equipment required and the
procedures to follow in order to perform exhaust emission tests on
motorcycles. Subpart E sets forth the testing requirements and test
intervals necessary to comply with EPA certification procedures.
Alternate equipment, procedures, and calculation methods may be used if
shown to yield equivalent or superior results, and if approved in
advance by the Administrator.
(b) Three topics are addressed in this subpart. Sections 86.508
through 86.515 set forth specifications and equipment requirements;
Sec. Sec. 86.516 through 86.526 discuss calibration methods and
frequency; test procedures and data requirements are listed (in
approximate order of performance) in Sec. Sec. 86.527 through 86.544.
[[Page 2441]]
(c) For diesel-fueled motorcycles, use the sampling and analytical
procedures and the test fuel described in subpart B of this part for
diesel-fueled light-duty vehicles. PM measurement is not required.
0
16.A new Sec. 86.513-2004 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 86.513-2004 Fuel and engine lubricant specifications.
Section 86.513-2004 includes text that specifies requirements that
differ from Sec. 86.513-94. Where a paragraph in Sec. 86.513-94 is
identical and applicable to Sec. 86.513-2004, this may be indicated by
specifying the corresponding paragraph and the statement ``[Reserved].
For guidance see Sec. 86.513-94.'' Where a corresponding paragraph of
Sec. 86.513-94 is not applicable, this is indicated by the statement
``[Reserved].''
(a) Gasoline. (1) Gasoline having the following specifications will
be used by the Administrator in exhaust emission testing of gasoline-
fueled motorcycles. Gasoline having the following specifications or
substantially equivalent specifications approved by the Administrator,
shall be used by the manufacturer for emission testing except that the
octane specifications do not apply.
Table 1 of Sec. 86.513-2004.--Gasoline Test Fuel Specifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Procedure Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distillation Range:
1. Initial boiling point, [deg]C.... ASTM D 86-97 23.9--35.0 \1\.
2. 10% point, [deg]C.................... ASTM D 86-97 48.9--57.2.
3. 50% point, [deg]C.................... ASTM D 86-97 93.3--110.0.
4. 90% point, [deg]C.................... ASTM D 86-97 148.9--162.8.
5. End point, [deg]C.................... ASTM D 86-97 212.8.
Hydrocarbon composition:
1. Olefins, volume %................ ASTM D 1319-98 10 maximum.
2. Aromatics, volume %.............. ASTM D 1319-98 35 minimum.
3. Saturates........................ ASTM D 1319-98 Remainder.
Lead (organic), g/liter............. ASTM D 3237 0.013 maximum.
Phosphorous, g/liter................ ASTM D 3231 0.005 maximum.
Sulfur, weight %.................... ASTM D 1266 0.08 maximum.
Volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure), ASTM D 3231 55.2 to 63.4\1\.
kPa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For testing at altitudes above 1 219 m, the specified volatility range is 52 to 55 kPa and the specified
initial boiling point range is 23.9[deg] to 40.6[deg] C.
(2) Unleaded gasoline and engine lubricants representative of
commercial fuels and engine lubricants which will be generally
available through retail outlets shall be used in service accumulation.
(3) The octane rating of the gasoline used shall be no higher than
4.0 Research octane numbers above the minimum recommended by the
manufacturer.
(4) The Reid Vapor Pressure of the gasoline used shall be
characteristic of commercial gasoline fuel during the season in which
the service accumulation takes place.
(b) through (d) [Reserved]. For guidance see Sec. 86.513-94.
0
17. Section 86.515-78 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 86.515-78 EPA urban dynamometer driving schedule.
* * * * *
(d) For motorcycles with an engine displacement less than 50 cc and
a top speed less than 58.7 km/hr (36.5 mph), the speed indicated for
each second of operation on the applicable Class I driving trace (speed
versus time sequence) in appendix I(c) shall be adjusted downward by
the ratio of actual top speed to specified maximum test speed.
Calculate the ratio with three significant figures by dividing the top
speed of the motorcycle in km/hr by 58.7. For example, for a motorcycle
with a top speed of 48.3 km/hr (30 mph), the ratio would be 48.3/58.7 =
0.823. The top speed to be used under this section shall be indicated
in the manufacturer's application for certification, and shall be the
highest sustainable speed of the motorcycle with an 80 kg rider on a
flat paved surface. If the motorcycle is equipped with a permanent
speed governor that is unlikely to be removed in actual use, measure
the top speed in the governed configuration; otherwise measure the top
speed in the ungoverned configuration.
0
18. Section 86.544-90 is amended by revising the introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 86.544-90 Calculations; exhaust emissions.
The final reported test results, with oxides of nitrogen being
optional for model years prior to 2006 and required for 2006 and later
model years, shall be computed by use of the following formula: (The
results of all emission tests shall be rounded, in accordance with ASTM
E29-93a (incorporated by reference in Sec. 86.1), to the number of
places to the right of the decimal point indicated by expressing the
applicable standard to three significant figures.)
* * * * *
Subpart I--[Amended]
0
19. Section 86.884-14 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA04.001
* * * * *
PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS
0
20. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542,
7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a).
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
21. Section 90.1 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.1 Applicability.
* * * * *
(g) This part also applies to engines under 50 cc used in
motorcycles that are motor vehicles if the manufacturer uses
[[Page 2442]]
the provisions of 40 CFR 86.447-2006 to meet the emission standards in
this part instead of the requirements of 40 CFR part 86. In this case,
compliance with the provisions of this part is a required condition of
that exemption.
PART 1051--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECREATIONAL ENGINES AND
VEHICLES
0
22. The authority citation for part 1051 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671(q).
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
23. Section 1051.1 is amended by adding new paragraphs (g) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1051.1 Does this part apply to me?
* * * * *
(g) This part also applies to engines under 50 cc used in
motorcycles that are motor vehicles if the manufacturer uses the
provisions of 40 CFR 86.447-2006 to meet the emission standards in this
part instead of the requirements of 40 CFR part 86. Compliance with the
provisions of this part is a required condition of that exemption.
(h) The evaporative emission requirements of this part applies to
highway motorcycles as specified in 40 CFR part 86.
Subpart C--[Amended]
0
24. Section 1051.245 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.245 How do I demonstrate that my engine family complies
with evaporative emission standards?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Calculate the deterioration factor from emission tests
performed before and after the durability tests as described in Sec.
1051.515(c) and (d) and using good engineering judgment. The durability
tests described in Sec. 1051.515(d) represent the minimum requirements
for determining a deterioration factor. You may not use a deterioration
factor that is less than the difference between evaporative emissions
before and after the durability tests as described in Sec. 1051.515(c)
and (d).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) For certification to the standards specified in Sec.
1051.110(b) with the control technologies shown in the following table:
Table 2 of Sec. 1051.245.--Design-Certification Technologies for Controlling Fuel-Line Permeation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the fuel-line permeability control technology is . . Then you may design-certify with a fuel line permeation
. emission level of . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Hose meeting Category 1 permeation specifications 15 g/m \2\/day.
in SAE J2260 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1051.810).
(ii) Hose meeting the R11-A or R12 permeation 15 g/m \2\/day.
specifications in SAE J30 (incorporated by reference
in Sec. 1051.810).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart F--Test Procedures
0
25. Section 1051.501 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and
(d)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.501 What procedures must I use to test my vehicles or
engines?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Fuel Tank Permeation. (i) For the preconditioning soak
described in Sec. 1051.515(a)(1) and fuel slosh durability test
described in Sec. 1051.515(d)(3), use the fuel specified in Table 1 of
Sec. 1065.210 of this chapter blended with 10 percent ethanol by
volume. As an alternative, you may use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as
specified in ASTM D 471-98 (incorporated by reference in Sec.
1051.810) blended with 10 percent ethanol by volume.
(ii) For the permeation measurement test in Sec. 1051.515(b), use
the fuel specified in Table 1 of Sec. 1065.210 of this chapter. As an
alternative, you may use the fuel specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of
this section.
(3) Fuel Hose Permeation. Use the fuel specified in Table 1 of
Sec. 1065.210 of this chapter blended with 10 percent ethanol by
volume for permeation testing of fuel lines. As an alternative, you may
use Fuel CE10, which is Fuel C as specified in ASTM D 471-98
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 1051.810) blended with 10 percent
ethanol by volume.
* * * * *
0
26. Section 1051.515 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraphs (a) and (b), paragraphs (b)(8), (c), and (d) and adding
paragraph (e) and Figure 1051.515-1 to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.515 How do I test my fuel tank for permeation emissions?
* * * * *
(a) Preconditioning fuel soak. To precondition your fuel tank,
follow these five steps:
* * * * *
(b) Permeation test run. To run the test, follow these nine steps
for a tank that was preconditioned as specified in paragraph (a) of
this section:
* * * * *
(8) Subtract the weight of the tank at the end of the test from the
weight of the tank at the beginning of the test; divide the difference
by the internal surface area of the fuel tank. Divide this g/
m2 value by the number of test days (using at least three
significant figures) to calculate the g/m2/day emission
rate. Example: If a tank with an internal surface area of 0.72
m2 weighed 31882.3 grams at the beginning of the test and
weighed 31760.2 grams after soaking for 25.03 days, then the g/m\2\/day
emission rate would be: (31882.3 g-31760.2 g) / 0.72 m2 /
25.03 days = 6.78 g/m2/day.
* * * * *
(c) Determination of final test result. To determine the final test
result, apply a deterioration factor to the measured emission level.
The deterioration factor is the difference between permeation emissions
measured before and after the durability testing described in paragraph
(d) of this section. Adjust the baseline test results for each tested
fuel tank by adding the deterioration factor to the measured emissions.
The deterioration factor determination must be based on good
engineering judgement. Therefore, during the durability testing, the
test tank may not exceed the fuel tank permeation standard described in
Sec. 1051.110 (this is known as ``line-crossing''). If the
deterioration factor is less than zero, use zero.
(d) Durability testing. You normally need to perform a separate
durability demonstration for each substantially different combination
of treatment approaches and tank materials. Perform these
demonstrations before an emission
[[Page 2443]]
test by taking the following steps, unless you can use good engineering
judgment to apply the results of previous durability testing with a
different fuel system. You may ask to exclude any of the following
durability tests if you can clearly demonstrate that it does not affect
the emissions from your fuel tank.
(1) Pressure cycling. Perform a pressure test by sealing the tank
and cycling it between +2.0 psig and -0.5 psig and back to +2.0 psig
for 10,000 cycles at a rate 60 seconds per cycle.
(2) UV exposure. Perform a sunlight-exposure test by exposing the
tank to an ultraviolet light of at least 24 W/m2 (0.40 W-hr/
m2/min) on the tank surface for 15 hours per day for 30
days. Alternatively, the fuel tank may be exposed to direct natural
sunlight for an equivalent period of time, as long as you ensure that
the tank is exposed to at least 450 daylight hours.
(3) Slosh testing. Perform a slosh test by filling the tank to 40
percent of its capacity with the fuel specified in Sec.
1051.501(d)(2)(i) and rocking it at a rate of 15 cycles per minute
until you reach one million total cycles. Use an angle deviation of
+15[deg] to -15[deg] from level. This test must be performed at a
temperature of 28[deg]C +/-5[deg] C.
(4) Final test result. Following the durability testing, the fuel
tank must be soaked (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) to
ensure that the permeation rate is stable. The period of slosh testing
and the period of ultraviolet testing (if performed with fuel in the
tank consistent with paragraph (a)(1) of this section) may be
considered to be part of this soak, provided that the soak begins
immediately after the slosh testing. To determine the final permeation
rate, drain and refill the tank with fresh fuel, and repeat the
permeation test run (as described in paragraph (b) of this section)
immediately after this soak period. The same test fuel must be used for
this permeation test run as for the permeation test run performed prior
to the durability testing.
(e) Flow chart. The following figure presents a flow chart for the
permeation testing described in this section, showing the full test
procedure with durability testing, as well as the simplified test
procedure with an applied deterioration factor:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 2444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA04.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 2445]]
0
27. A new Sec. 1051.640 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 1051.640 What special provisions apply for custom off-highway
motorcycles that are similar to highway motorcycles?
You may ask to exempt custom-designed off-highway motorcycles that
are substantially similar to highway motorcycles under the display
exemption provisions of 40 CFR 86.407-78(c). Motorcycles exempt under
this provision are subject to the restrictions of 40 CFR 86.407-78(c)
and are considered to be motor vehicles for the purposes of this part
1051.
[FR Doc. 04-6 Filed 1-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P