[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19229-19230]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07596]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1553]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Coconino County, Arizona
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed Notice; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations,
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and, where applicable, in the supporting

Flood Insurance Study reports for Coconino County, Arizona, and
Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective April 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1553 to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 19, 2016, FEMA published a
proposed notice 81 FR 2898, proposing flood hazard determinations for
Coconino County, Arizona, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing
the proposed notice.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: March 20, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-07596 Filed 4-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60033]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25192]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

Change in EST Usage in Notice to Airmen (NOTAM)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Policy change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides clarity and guidance regarding the use
of the contraction ``EST'', which stands for ``Estimated'', when
appended to the end of validity time in a NOTAM. The FAA is taking this
action to align NOTAM policy with International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) standards and recommended practices.

DATES: Effective date: December 15, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Gary Bobik<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lynette Jamison<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Services is
revising FAA Order JO 7930.2, Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), which is
scheduled to become effective no later than December 15, 2015.
    The following paragraphs will be incorporated into the next
revision of FAA Order JO 7930.2.
    Paragraph 4-2-1a-14, Start of Activity/End of Validity, is ``a 10-
digit date-time group (YYMMDDHHMM) used to indicate the time at which
the NOT AM comes into force (the date/time a condition will exist or
begin) and the time at which the NOTAM ceases to be in force and
becomes invalid (the expected return to service, return to normal
status time, or the time the activity will end).''
    Paragraph 4-2-1a-14(a) further specifies, that if the NOTAM
duration is expected to return to service prior to the End of Validity
time, express the time by using a date- time group followed immediately
by EST. The NOTAM Originator must cancel or replace any NOTAM that
includes an EST before the NOTAM reaches its End of Validity time, as
the NOTAM will now auto expire at the end of validity time, regardless
of EST.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 23, 2015.
Ernie Bilotto,
Manager, U.S. NOTAMs.
[FR Doc. 2015-25192 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Winston H. Hickox Agency Secretary The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website: http:// www. arb. ca. gov.

California Environmental Protection Agency Printed on Recycled Paper Air Resources Board Alan C. Lloyd, Ph. D. Chairman 1001 I Street ° P. O. Box 2815 ° Sacramento, California 95812 ° www. arb. ca. gov Gray Davis Governor The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Ariel Rios Building, Room 3000 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460 Re: AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS AND TEST PROCEDURES FOR ON ROAD MOTORCYCLES AND MOTORCYCLE ENGINES: REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION THAT AMENDMENTS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PREVIOUS WAIVERS OF PREEMPTION UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 209( B)

Dear Administrator Whitman:

At a December 10, 1998 hearing, the California Air Resources Board ( ARB or Board) approved the adoption of amendments to the California on road motorcycle regulations ( section 1958, title 13, California Code of Regulations ( CCR)). The amendments apply revised exhaust emission standards for hydrocarbons plus oxides of nitrogen ( HC+ NOx) to Class III on road motorcycles and motorcycle engines beginning with the 2004 model year. The amendments also include provisions for small volume manufacturers and early compliance credits and modifications to sections 1900 ( Definitions) and 1965 ( Emissions Control and Smog Index Label) that are consistent with the amendments to section 1958. Finally the amendments include several technical modifications.

The amendments were approved by the Board in Resolution 98 65 and were formally adopted by Executive Order G 99 073 on October 22, 1999. They were submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law ( OAL) for review on October 22, 1999, and were approved by OAL on November 22, 1999. The specific final versions of the regulations and incorporated documents covered by this waiver request are included as attachments to this request.

I am writing to request that you confirm the Board's determination that these amendments fall within the scope of previous Clean Air Act Section 209( b) waivers of federal preemption for the California motorcycle certification standards and test procedures. The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 2 I. The Preexisting California On Road Motorcycle Regulations The California exhaust emission standards for new on road motorcycles and motorcycle engines are contained in section 1958, title 13, California Code of Regulations. The ARB adopted the first on road motorcycle regulation in 1975 to reduce ozone forming emissions from this mobile source category. The regulations established exhaust and evaporative emission standards for hydrocarbon ( HC) and carbon monoxide ( CO) beginning with the 1978 model year. Depending on the motorcycle engine size, the original HC exhaust standards ranged from 5.0 grams per kilometer ( g/ km) to 14.0 g/ km. Subsequently amendments to the regulations lowered the HC standards to 1.0 g/ km for engines of 50 cubic centimeters ( cc) to 279 cc, and 2.5 g/ km for engines 280 cc and greater.

In 1984, the ARB amended the HC standard for on road motorcycles to give manufacturers more flexibility. For Class III motorcycles, defined as motorcycles with engine displacement of 280 cc or greater, the HC standard was continued at 2.5 g/ km until February 28, 1985. An interim HC standard of 1.4 g/ km was set as a corporate average from March 1, 1985 through the 1987 model year for all Class III motorcycles. For 1988 and subsequent model years, Class III motorcycles were divided into two groups based on engine displacement. For Class III motorcycles with engine displacements of 280 cc through 699 cc, the HC standard was set at 1.0 g/ km applied as a corporate average. For Class III motorcycles with engine displacements of 700 cc and greater, the HC standard was set at 1.4 g/ km as a corporate average. No individual engine family was allowed to exceed 2.5 g/ km HC.

Additionally, in 1984 the Board directed the ARB staff to revisit the regulations when catalytic and other emissions control technologies had matured to the point that it would be feasible to apply these technologies to on road motorcycles. Significant strides in controlling emission from internal combustion engines have taken place since then, with developments in the automotive sector gradually being applied to motorcycles. The Board` s action in 1998 to amend the on road Class III motorcycle standards fulfilled the 1984 commitment and provided additional reductions in motor vehicle emissions to meet the commitments in the South Coast Air Basin State Implementation Plan for Ozone ( SIP, 1994) and to provide ozone emission reductions statewide.

II. The 2004+ On Road Class III Motorcycle Standards Introduction: Unlike the preexisting on road Class III motorcycle HC only standard, the amended standards regulate the combined level of hydrocarbon ( HC) and oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) emissions as HC+ NOx for 2004 and subsequent model years. Because both pollutants are ozone precursors, the amended standards reduce ozone formation The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 3 from motorcycle emissions more effectively than the existing HC only standard. The combined HC+ NOx standards also provide more flexibility to manufacturers than would individual HC and NOx standards. The flexibility results from the manufacturers' ability to balance HC versus NOx emissions in each engine family. Because HC and NOx emission levels are inversely proportional, manufacturers may balance the constituent emissions to meet performance goals while optimizing reductions from the combined emission levels. The combined HC+ NOx standards are introduced progressively beginning in 2004 using two tiers of standards. The amendments do not affect the standard for carbon monoxide, which remains subject to the preexisting standard of 12 g/ km, for Class III on road motorcycles. Neither do the amendments affect motorcycles with engines smaller than 280 cc, for which the preexisting 1.0 g/ km for HC and 12 g/ km for CO standards remain in effect. The current parallel federal standards for Class III motorcycles are 5.0 g/ km for HC or total hydrocarbon equivalents. 1 Tier 1: The Board has amended the standard ( Tier 1) to 1.4 g/ km for HC+ NOx for Class III motorcycle model years 2004 through 2007. The Tier 1 standard is achievable with demonstrated emission controls that do not rely on catalytic after treatment.

Tier 2: The Board has further amended the standard ( Tier 2) to 0.08 for HC + NOx for Class III motorcycles for model year 2008 and beyond. Available information strongly indicates that the Tier 2 standard is technologically feasible within the lead time allotted when considering the cost of the more advanced emission control technologies and the regulatory flexibility provided under corporate averaging.

Corporate Averaging: The Board has maintained corporate averaging for Class III engine families in the amended on road motorcycle regulation. Both the preexisting regulation and the amended regulation allow manufacturers to balance the certified emissions among Class III engine families so that the sales weighted average certified emission level meets the applicable standard. However, a not to exceed cap limits the emission level from each engine family. In the preexisting regulations, the cap was 2.5 g/ km for HC only for each individual engine family. In the amended regulations, the Board has adopted a similar cap: for both the Tier 1 and the Tier 2 standards, the Board has capped the HC+ NOx emission level at 2.5 g/ km for each individual engine family.

1 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, § 86.410 90. Amended federal standards have been proposed ( see 67 F. R. 53050 ( August 14, 2002)), but are not yet adopted. As stated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, U. S. EPA is in general proposing to harmonize 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 ( 67 F. R. at page 53073). For Class III motorcycles, U. S. EPA proposes to adopt the California's Tier 1 standard in the 2006 model year, and the Tier 2 standard in 2010 ( 67 F. R at page 53079). The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 4 To encourage early compliance with the Tier 2 standard, the Board has also authorized incentives for early compliance as part of corporate averaging through 2008. The regulation provides for credit multipliers toward the model year 2008 corporate average for each certified unit based on certification of motorcycles and motorcycle engines to the Tier 2 standard prior to 2008. In addition to encouraging compliance with the Tier 2 standard, the amended regulation encourages manufacturers through model year 2008 to certify to a 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOx level. The introduction of motorcycles and motorcycle engines certified at the 0.4 HC+ NOx g/ km is encouraged through the application of larger multipliers for units certified at this level. Anticipating that Tier 2 technologies will become more widespread as 2008 approaches, the multipliers decrease linearly from 2004 until 2008, when the early compliance incentive would no longer have any value ( i. e., the multiplier has a value of 1.0).

Small Volume Manufacturer: The Board has amended the definition of small volume manufacturer that applies in model year 2008 and beyond to contract the class to which the definition applies and has established a separate HC+ NOx standard for small volume manufacturers, specifically, 1.4 g/ km. Beginning with the 2008 model year, a small volume manufacturer is defined as one that has sold no more than 300 ( combined) new Class I, II, and III motorcycles per model year in California, starting with the 2004 model year, as the initial baseline year.

Definition in title 13, CCR, section 1900: The Board adopted a definition for motorcycle engine to clarify that the amendments to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards apply to both motorcycles and motorcycle engines. The application of the exhaust standards to motorcycle engines is consistent with ARB's interpretation and application of the preexisting regulations.

III. Criteria for Determining Whether Amendments Are Within the Scope of Previous Waivers of Federal Preemption Section 209( a) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) provides that no state shall adopt or enforce any emission standard for new motor vehicles, and no state shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle as a condition of registration or titling in the state. However, section 209( b) directs the Administrator to waive federal preemption for new motor vehicle emission standards adopted and enforced by California2 if the state determines that the 2 The section 209( b) waiver provisions apply to any state which has adopted standards ( other than crankcase emission standards) for the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines prior to March 30, 1966. ( CAA § 209( b)( 1).) California is the only state that meets this condition. ( S. Rep. No. 403, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., 532 ( 1967); Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass'n [ MEMA] v. EPA, 627 F. 2d 1095, 1100 note 1 ( D. C. Cir. 1979).) The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 5 state standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards. The Administrator is to deny a waiver only if she finds: ( 1) that the protectiveness determination of the state is arbitrary and capricious, ( 2) that California does not need separate state standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or ( 3) that the state standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with CAA section 202( a).

With regard to amendments that follow a previously granted waiver of federal preemption, the Administrator has stated that if California acts to amend a previously waived standard or accompanying enforcement procedure, the change may be included within the scope of the previous waiver if it does not undermine California's determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are as protective of public health and welfare as comparable federal standards; does not affect the consistency of California's requirements with section 202( a) of the Act; and raises no new issues affecting the Administrator's previous waiver determination. 3 With regard to the consistency issue, the Administrator has stated that California's standards and accompanying test procedures are inconsistent with section 202( a) if: ( 1) there is inadequate lead time to permit the development of technology to meet those requirements, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within that time frame; or ( 2) the federal and California test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle. 4 IV. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 On Road Class III Motorcycle Standards Are Within the Scope of the Previous Waivers of Federal Preemption for On Road Motorcycles The Board made a protectiveness determination for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards in Resolution 98 65. The Board found that that sections 1900 and 1958, title 13, California Code of Regulations, as amended, will not cause the California requirements to be inconsistent with section 202( a) of the federal Clean Air Act ( CAA), and that the amended sections raise no new issues affecting previous waiver determinations of the Administrator pursuant to CAA section 209( b). As noted above, the current parallel 3 Decision Document accompanying scope of waiver determination in 51 F. R. 12391 ( April 10, 1986), at p. 2; see also, e. g., 46 F. R. 36742 ( July 15, 1981).

4 See, e. g., 46 F. R. 26371 ( May 12, 1981). Even where there is incompatibility between the California and federal test procedures, EPA has granted a waiver under circumstances where EPA accepts a demonstration of federal compliance based on California test results, thus obviating the need for two separate tests. ( 43 F. R. 1829, 1830 ( January 12, 1978); 40 F. R. 30311, 30314 ( July 18, 1975).) The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 6 federal standards for Class III motorcycles are 5.0 g/ km for HC or total hydrocarbon equivalents. 5 Effect on Prior Protectiveness Determinations: The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) previously waived federal preemption for California's exhaust emission standards and test procedures for 1978 and subsequent model year motorcycles. 6 EPA confirmed that a subsequent amendment to the HC exhaust standard that relaxed the standard for certain small volume manufacturers for the 1982 model year was within the scope of the previously granted waiver. 7 EPA also confirmed that a subsequent amendment to the HC exhaust standards for 1984 and subsequent model year Class III motorcycles that lowered the exhaust emissions was within the scope of the previously granted waivers. 8 EPA also previously waived federal preemption for California's evaporative emission standards and test procedures for motorcycles and confirmed subsequent amendments as within the scope of the previously granted waiver. 9 Consistency with CAA section 202( a): The Administrator has stated that California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures would be inconsistent with section 202( a) if: ( 1) there is inadequate lead time to implement the new procedures, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within the applicable time frame; or ( 2) the federal and California test procedures impose inconsistent certification requirements so as to make manufacturers unable to meet both sets of requirements with the same vehicle.

Adequacy of lead time: With regard to lead time for any needed technology, it is enough for consistency with CAA section 202( a) if the ARB identifies or predicts the technology that can be used to comply with the requirements,

. . . answers any theoretical objections to the [ projected control technology], identifies the major steps necessary for the refinement of the 5 Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, § 86.410 90.

6 See 41 F. R. 44209 ( October 7, 1976) and 43 F. R. 998 ( January 5, 1978).

7 See 47 F. R. 23204 ( May 27, 1982).

8 See 53 F. R. 6195 ( March 1, 1988).

9 See 47 F. R. 1015 ( January 8, 1982); 47 F. R. 23204 ( May 27, 1982); 53 F. R. 6195 ( March 1, 1988); 53 F. R. 36116 ( September 16, 1988). The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 7 [ technology], and offers plausible reasons for believing that each of these steps can be completed in the time available. 10 While manufacturers will use various means to meet the Tier 1 standard, four lowemission technologies already available to Class III motorcycle manufacturers are noncatalyst based: secondary pulse air injection, more precise fuel control, better fuel atomization and delivery, and reduced engine out levels from engine modifications. The combinations of low emission technologies ultimately chosen by manufacturers to meet the Tier 1 standard will depend on the engine out emission levels of the motorcycles, the effectiveness of the prior emission control systems, and individual manufacturer preferences. Achieving the Tier 2 standard may represent some challenges to manufacturers, but available information strongly indicates that the standard is technologically feasible within the lead time allotted, when considering the cost, by the 2008 model year when the Tier 2 standard is operative.

The descriptions for the technologies available to meet the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards are summarized below. More complete descriptions of the technologies are presented in the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments to the California On Road Motorcycle Regulation ( Staff Report), enclosed with this request.

Secondary Pulse Air Injection. This low emission technology employs a technique that introduces fresh air into the exhaust pipe immediately after the exhaust gases exit the engine. The extra air causes further combustion to occur, thereby controlling more of the hydrocarbons that escape the combustion chamber. Secondary pulse air injection is relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated and is one of the most effective noncatalytic emission control technologies, reducing HC emissions by 10 to 40 percent. Thirty five of the 87 Class III motorcycle engine families certified for sale in California in 1998 employed secondary pulse air injection to help meet the model year standard. The Board anticipates that most of the remaining engine families will use this technique to help meet the Tier 1 and the later Tier 2 standards.

Fuel Control, Atomization, and Delivery. Improving fuel delivery and atomization most often involves the use of precise fuel injection systems in place of the carburetors currently used on motorcycles. Manufacturers may choose from several types of fuel injection systems and components. Notably sequential multi point fuel injection ( SFI) may be chosen to help meet the Tier 1 standard. Use of SFI helps reduce cold start emissions, when emissions are highest. Motorcycle manufacturers are already using SFI in some engine families; of the 87 Class III motorcycle engine families certified in California in 1988, seven employed SFI systems. The Board anticipates increased use 10 Natural Resources Defense Council v. U. S. EPA, 655 318, 331 2 ( D. C. Cir., 1981). The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 8 of SFI or similar fuel injection systems to achieve the Tier 1 and the later Tier 2 standards.

Engine Modifications. Emission control technologies include engine modifications that reduce the engine out levels of HC+ NOx. Among the potential modifications noted in the Staff Report are reducing engine crevice volumes, improving engine tolerances and finishes, and changing cam timing and intake manifold design to reduce engine out emissions. The Board anticipates increased use of engine modifications to achieve the Tier 1 and the later Tier 2 standards.

Computer Controlled Secondary Pulse Air Injection. This technology parallels the secondary pulse air injection described above, but provides more precise injection by connecting the injection valve to a computer controlled solenoid. The Board anticipates use of this technology to achieve the Tier 2 standard.

More Advanced Technologies for Improving Fuel Control. The technologies need to meet the Tier 2 standard may include heated oxygen sensors in the exhaust manifold, software algorithms to provide individual cylinder fuel control, and adaptive transient fuel control software.

Three Way Catalyst. Manufacturers will likely use a three way catalyst, controlling HC, NOx, and CO, in addition to the above described engine modifications and computercontrolled secondary pulse air injection to meet the Tier 2 standard. Three way catalytic converters that use improved materials, higher cell density substrates, and dual layered washcoats will help manufacturers meet the Tier 2 standard at reduced costs relative to older generations of three way catalytic converters. Warm up catalysts ( also known as pipe catalysts or " Hot Tubes") and catalysts with open cell foam substrate structures may further improve emission performance.

Heat Optimized Exhaust Pipes. Improving insulation in the exhaust system may aid catalytic converter performance to achieve the Tier 2 standard.

Engine Calibration Techniques. To meet the Tier 2 standard motorcycle manufacturers may borrow current automobile techniques such as retarding ignition, increasing cold idling speed, and leaning air to fuel mixtures to improve catalytic converter performance. Only software modifications are required to realize these techniques in engines that already use a computer to control the fuel delivery and other engine systems.

For the above reason, the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards are deemed technologically feasible within the lead time provided. The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 9 The cost of compliance within the lead time provided was also given appropriate consideration. As noted in the Staff Report on pages VI 7 through VI 16, the costs associated with the amended standards include variable, fixed, investment recovery, and dealer costs. These costs compare favorably with other measures adopted by the Board. As cited on pages VI 15 and VI 16 of the Staff Report, the cost of the standards is $ 3 per pound to about $ 5.60 per pound of HC and NOx reduced. These costs compare favorably with other ARB adopted emission control measures for which the Board has received a waiver of preemption. 11 Consistency of test procedures: We are not aware of any instances in which a manufacturer is precluded from conducting one set of tests on an on road Class III motorcycle or motorcycle engine to determine compliance with both the California and federal procedures. The test procedures for on road motorcycles and engines were not amended by the Board in this rulemaking action and continue to be the federal procedures incorporated by reference in title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 1958( c).

New issues affecting the previous waiver determination: No new issues preclude a conclusion that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards are within the scope of the previous waiver. Although rulemaking commenters raised issues about the amended standards, the issues do not preclude the conclusion that the amended standards are within the scope of the previously granted waiver. The issues are summarized and addressed in the Final Statement of Reasons for the rulemaking. The discussion that follows examines the issues that relate to the previous waiver determination.

Need for the amended standards. The Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards reduced both HC and NOx which are precursors for the ozone. The projected emission reductions upon full implementation of the amended standards are 1.3 tons per day ( tpd) by 2010 and 2.9 tpd by 2020. California's plan for achieving the federal one hour ozone standard is contained in the California State Implementation Plan ( ozone SIP) that was approved by the Board in 1994. A significant part of the ozone SIP pertains to the control of mobile sources, which are estimated to account for approximately 70 percent of ozone precursor emissions statewide. The ozone SIP calls for new measures to cut ozone precursor emissions from mobile sources to half of what the emissions would be under existing California regulations.

Beyond the specific measures identified when it was adopted, the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin ( an extreme ozone nonattainment area) relies on the development of additional technology measures as allowed in section 182( e)( 5) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Under the so called " black box" provisions of 11 53 F. R. 7021 ( March 4, 1988). The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 10 section 182( e)( 5), the ozone SIP calls for additional motor source emission reductions in the South Coast Air Basin of approximately 75 tons per day ( tpd) of reactive organic gases ( ROG) plus oxides of nitrogen ( NOx). These reduction commitments, while not assigned to a specific mobile source sector, must nevertheless be met for the South Coast Air Basin to attain the federal ozone air quality standard by the required 2010 deadline.

As described above, on road Class III motorcycles represent both technologically feasible and cost effective sources of additional emission reductions. The additional emission reductions would cover shortfalls in defined ARB measures and make progress on the black box. Although the South Coast Air Basin is the only area of California with a black box, the emission reductions are needed statewide. The amended standards will help achieve and maintain the federal 1 hour ozone standard in regions such as the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento area; the federal 8 hour ozone and particulate matter standards in a number of areas; and the state ozone and particulate matter standards throughout California.

The contribution of on road motorcycles to the state emissions inventory. As mentioned above, California needs to achieve emission reductions from every feasible source to meet the ozone SIP commitments. After several decades of regulatory programs, it is generally recognized that the " easy and large" reductions from a few, very visible source categories have already been achieved. Future reductions will necessarily be achieved from many smaller emission sources and from incremental reductions to currently regulated sources. On road Class III motorcycles and motorcycle engines fall within the group of sources from which incremental reductions may be achieved. As described in the Staff Report, the reduction in emissions from on road Class III motorcycles compares favorably with other emission control measures, representing 2.9 tpd by 2020.12 The technological feasibility within the lead time allotted when considering the cost of the Tier 2 standard. These issues are discussed above and in greater detail in the Staff Report. 13 The Board has recognized the issues in adopting the Tier 2 standard. The Board expects the use of catalytic converters on selected product lines, rather than on most motorcycles. Manufacturers will need to develop and to use catalysts only to the extent required under corporate averaging to reach an average level of 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOx. Catalyst use has already been demonstrated on nearly all BMW motorcycles, some Japanese product lines, and on one Harley Davidson line. Catalytic converters will require some effort to install in an acceptable manner: riders will need to be 12 See Staff Report pages VII 1 to VII 4 and IX 2.

13 See Staff Report sections V and VI. The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 11 protected from the catalyst's heat; vibrational and other engine stresses will need to be addressed. But manufacturers of some currently certified motorcycles have already met these and other challenges. Also the Board anticipates that manufacturers will resolve these issues prior to the implementation of the Tier 2 standard in model year 2008.

V. Amendment of California Motor Vehicle Emission Control Label Specifications, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Section 1965 ARB amended the regulations containing the specifications for motor vehicle emission control labels for 2004 and subsequent model year motorcycles and motorcycle engines. They are found in section 1965, title 13, California Code of Regulations ( CCR) and the incorporated " California Emission Control Label Specifications." The regulations require emission control labels for motorcycle engines and require a statement as to the actual certified engine family exhaust emissions level in grams per kilometer for HC+ NOx to meet the requirements for early compliance credits in title 13, CCR, section 1958( g).

Because they do not pertain to a manufacturer's ability to certify and produce motor vehicles that comply with the applicable emission standards, the emission control label specifications are not standards or accompanying enforcement procedures. 14 The specifications are, however, subject to federal preemption pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209( a) because they are a condition precedent to the initial retail sale of new vehicles in California. 15 EPA has stated with respect to the application of Section 209 of the Clean Air Act:

Once California has received a waiver of federal preemption for its standards and enforcement procedures for a class of vehicles, it may adopt other conditions precedent to initial retail sale, titling or registration of the subject class of vehicles without the necessity of receiving a further waiver of Federal preemption. 16 In the most recent determination for emission control labeling, the U. S. EPA stated:

14 54 F. R. 13427 ( April 3, 1989); 43 F. R. 36679 ( August 18, 1978).

15 See, e. g., 49 F. R. 18887 ( May 5, 1984); 47 F. R. 1015 ( January 8, 1982); 46 F. R. 36237 ( July 14, 1981).

16 46 F. R. 36742 ( July 15, 1981), footnotes omitted; 45 F. R. 54131 ( August 14, 1980); 43 F. R. 36579 ( August 18, 1978). The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 12 EPA's prior issuance of waivers for the affected classes of vehicles and engines, based on California's standards and/ or accompanying enforcement procedures, removes the prohibitions of section 209( a) regarding such conditions precedent for these classes. Hence no waiver under section 209( b) is required for California to enforce the amended [ Emission Control] Label Specifications. 17 As discussed above, the ARB has previously received a section 209( b) waiver for onroad motorcycles and is requesting a determination that the regulations submitted herein remain within the scope of the waiver. For the emission control label specifications, the ARB requests confirmation that the previous section 209( b) waiver issued for emission standards and test procedures for on road motorcycles relieves the ARB of the need to demonstrate that the specifications independently meet the waiver criteria and that the amended specifications may be enforced in California without further action by the Administrator.

VI. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request that you confirm that the amendments to California's requirements for on road Class III motorcycles adopted for the interim 2004 standard ( Tier 1) and the final 2008 standard ( Tier 2) are within the scope of the previous waiver of federal preemption for this category. For the label specifications, the Board concludes that the Administrator may enforce the amended specifications without further action. Listed below are the documents pertaining to the regulations covered by this request.

Materials from the On Road Class III Motorcycle and Motorcycle Engine Rulemaking 1. Public Hearing Notice, dated October 13, 1998;

2. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the California On Road Motorcycle Regulations, with Appendices A through C;

3. Transcript of the December 10, 1998 Hearing;

4. Copy of Slides for Staff Presentation;

5. Resolution 98 65, dated December 10, 1998 and Attachment A;

17 54 F. R. 13427 ( April 3, 1989) The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 13 6. Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text; Modified Text; Dates of Availability: June 18, 1999 through July 6, 1999;

7. Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text; Modified Text; Dates of Availability September 17, 1999 through October 4, 1999;

8. Executive Order G 99 073, dated October 22, 1999 and Attachment;

9. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses;

10. Final Regulation Order, as filed with the Office of Administrative Law on October 22, 1999;

11. Fully endorsed STD 400 face sheet and Final Regulation Order as approved by OAL and filed with the Secretary of State November 22, 1999, containing amended sections 1900, 1958, and 1965, title 13, California Code of Regulations.

If you need additional technical information on this item, please contact Jack Kitowski, Chief of the On Road Control Regulations Branch of the Mobile Source Control Division, at ( 916) 323 6169 or jkitowsk@ arb. ca. gov. You may address legal questions to Diane Moritz Johnston, Senior Staff Counsel, at ( 916) 323 9609 or djohnsto@ arb. ca. gov.

Sincerely,

Catherine Witherspoon Executive Officer Enclosures cc: Jack Kitowski, Chief On Road Control Regulations Branch Mobile Source Control Division Diane Moritz Johnston Senior Staff Counsel Office of Legal Affairs The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 14 The Honorable Christine Todd Whitman Page 15 bcc: Kathleen Walsh, General Counsel Jim Ryden, Chief, Enforcement Division Bob Cross, Chief, Mobile Source Control Division Steve Hada, Mobile Source Control Division, El Monte Floyd Vergara, Office of Legal Affairs Mr. Robert M. Doyle U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters Ariel Rios Building Engine Programs and Compliance Division ( 6403J) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20460