# Control of Emissions From Highway Motorcycles > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A04-6 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 15, 2004 - **Citation:** 69 FR 2398 ## Text 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, asdinfo@epa.gov. Carol Connell, (734) 214-4636; connell.carol@epa.gov. 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: Category NAICS Codes a SIC Codes b Examples of potentially regulated 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? 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 (NO X ) 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 NO X , 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. 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+NO X 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 NO X standards that when combined are below 1.0 g/km. 4 We are also finalizing an optional HC+NO X 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+NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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. Table I.D-1.—Current Federal Exhaust Emission Standards for Motorcycles Class Engine size HC (g/km) CO (g/km) Useful life (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 Vehicle Model year Emission standards HC g/kW-hr CO g/kW-hr Phase-in Snowmobile 2006 100 275 50% 2007 through 2009 100 275 100% 2010 -option 1 75 200 2010 -option 2 45 275 HC+NO X 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 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 NO X 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 NO X emissions for the first time by establishing a combined HC+NO X 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 Model year Engine displacement HC + NO X (g/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+NO X 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) NO X (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 NO X 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. Table I.D-7.—European Union 2006 Motorcycle Exhaust Emission Standards for Motorcycles >150cc HC (g/km) CO (g/km) NO X (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+NO X 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+NO X in 2003 and 1.0 grams per kilometer HC+NO X 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. 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+NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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), 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 PM 2.5 levels exceeding the PM 2.5 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 NO X emissions. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X . Acid deposition, or acid rain as it is commonly known, occurs when SO2 and NO X 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 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 NO X 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 PM 2.5 ) in the atmosphere through their NO X and organic carbon emissions, especially HC. Carbonaceous PM 2.5 is a major portion of ambient PM 2.5 , especially in populous urban areas. The relative contribution of various chemical components to PM 2.5 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 PM 10 Fine particles can be generally defined as those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less (also known as PM 2.5 ), 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 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 on daily mortality 27 and a concentration-response function for mobile source-associated PM 2.5 and daily mortality. 28 Another recent study in 14 U.S. cities examining the effect of PM 10 on daily hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease found that the effect of PM 10 was significantly greater in areas with a larger proportion of PM 10 coming from motor vehicles, indicating that PM 10 from these sources may have a greater effect on the toxicity of ambient PM 10 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 PM 10 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 PM 10 are similar to those of PM 2.5 , since PM 10 includes all of PM 2.5 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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 . Violations of the annual PM 2.5 standard are much more widespread than are violations of the PM 10 standards. Each of these are discussed below. i. PM 10 Levels. The current NAAQS for PM 10 were established in 1987. The primary (health-based) and secondary (public welfare based) standards for PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas. There are currently 56 moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas with a total population of 6.6 million. 33 The attainment date for the initial moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas, designated by law on November 15, 1990, was December 31, 1994. Several additional PM 10 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 PM 10 nonattainment areas with a total affected population of 22.7 million. According to the Act, serious PM 10 nonattainment areas must attain the standards no later than 10 years after designation. The initial serious PM 10 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 PM 10 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. PM 2.5 Levels. The NAAQS for PM 2.5 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 μg/m 3 based on the 98th percentile concentration averaged over three years. (This air quality statistic 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 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. 34 EPA has also proposed to grant Las Vegas, Nevada, an extension until December 31, 2006. High ambient levels of PM 2.5 are widespread throughout the country. Current PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 NO X 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 PM 2.5 levels above 15 ug/m 3 . In 2030, the number of people projected to live in areas exceeding the PM 2.5 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 NO X emissions from highway motorcycles, the standards we are finalizing will assist States as they implement local controls to reduce PM 2.5 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, NO X , 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, NO X , 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, NO X , 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 Category 1996 VOC short tons % of mobile source % of total 2020 VOC short tons % of mobile 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 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 NO X Baseline Emission Levels for Mobile and Other Source Categories a Category 1996 NO X short tons % of mobile source % of total 2020 NO X short tons % of mobile 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 Category 1996 PM-2.5 short tons % of mobile source % of total 2020 PM-2.5 short tons % of mobile 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 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 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 Motorcycle class Engine displacement (cubic centimeters) 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+NO X 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 Class and displacement (cc) HC (g/km) CO (g/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+NO X 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+NO X 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 HC standard of 0.8 g/km and a NO X standard of 0.15 g/km (combined HC+NO X of 0.95), and motorcycles over 150cc will be meeting standards that are even lower. In addition, an HC+NO X standard of 1.4 g/km is equivalent to the Class III standard that goes into effect in 2006. We believe that an HC+NO X 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+NO X starting in the 2006 model year, and a Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/km HC+NO X starting in the 2010 model year. Because both HC and NO X 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+NO X 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+NO X 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+NO X 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+NO X standards in order to participate in the averaging program. We believe that this is an appropriate approach for several reasons. California 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 NO X 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+NO X 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+NO X 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+NO X (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+NO X 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 Model year sold Multiplier (Y) for use in MY 2010 and later corporate averaging a Early tier 2 Certified at 0.4 g/km HC+NO X 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+NO X standard on a fleet-average basis. See the regulations at § 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 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+NO X 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+NO X . 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 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. 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 NO X , 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, manufactur [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A04-6. Public record. Not legal advice.