1.5 g/ gal/ test: Typical fuel tanks used in boats currently have an open vent to the atmosphere through a vent hose. This vent is intended to prevent pressure from building up in the fuel tank. This uncontrolled fuel tank configuration would be considered to be at this level based on the data presented in Chapter 4 of the Draft RSD. 1.3 g/ gal/ test: The design criteria for this level would be a fuel tank with a near zero pressure limited flow orifice and insulation. The limited flow orifice would be defined as having a maximum cross sectional area defined by the following equation: Area [mm 2 ] = 0.04 x fuel tank capacity [gallons]. For example, a 20 gallon tank would need an orifice with no more than a 1 mm diameter. This size orifice is sufficient to limit diffusion of hydrocarbons without causing significant pressure to build in the fuel tank. The design criteria for the insulation would be to use insulation having at least an R value of 15 (see section III. H. 3. b). 1.3 g/ gal/ test: An alternative design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure relief valve that would open at a pressure of 0.5 psi. 1.1 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.0 psi. 0.9 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank with a pressure relief valve that would open at a pressure of 1.5 psi. 0.7 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a sealed fuel tank VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53068 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules with a pressure relief valve that would open at a pressure of 2.0 psi. 0.5 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be a volumecompensating air bag used in conjunction with a 0.5 psi pressurerelief valve if the bag is designed to fill 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity when inflated. This bag would have no leaks to the fuel tank and would be constructed out of a non permeable material. 0.1 g/ gal/ test: The design criterion for this level would be to use a bladder tank. The bladder would have to be sealed and built of low permeable material. This bladder would collapse as fuel was drawn out of it and expand when refueled thereby eliminating the vapor space needed for diurnal vapor generation.

G. Special Compliance Provisions The scope of this proposal includes many boat and fuel tank manufacturers that have not been subject to our regulations or certification process. Many of these manufacturers are small businesses for which a typical regulatory program may be burdensome. This section describes the proposed special compliance provisions designed to address this concern. As described in Section VIII. B, the report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel addresses the concerns of small manufacturers of gasoline fuel tanks for marine applications and small boat builders that use these tanks. To identify representatives of small businesses for this process, we used the definitions provided by the Small Business Administration for fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders (less than 500 employees). Twelve small businesses agreed to serve as smallentity representatives. These companies represented a cross section of both gasoline and diesel engine marinizers, as well as boat builders. In this industry sector, we believe some of the burden reduction approaches presented in the Panel Report should be applied to all businesses. All of the marine fuel tank manufacturers except for one qualify as small businesses. We believe the purpose of these options is to reduce the potential burden on companies for which fixed costs cannot be distributed over a large product line. For this reason, we often times also consider the production volume when making decisions regarding flexibilities. The one fuel tank manufacturer not qualifying as a small business still has low production volumes of marine fuel tanks, thus we believe some flexibilities should be made available to this manufacturer as well. Three of the five burden reduction approaches discussed in the Panel Report are design based certification, allowance to use emission credits with design based certification, and a 5 year lead time with early banking. As discussed above, we are proposing these approaches for all manufacturers certifying marine fuel tanks to the proposed evaporative emission standards. This section discusses the other two approaches in the Panel Report and how we propose to apply them to the marine industry.

1. Broadly Defined Product Certification Families To certify to the evaporative emission standards, we propose that manufacturers would have to classify their vessels, fuel tanks, or hoses in emission families based on having similar emission characteristics. We would expect to differentiate families by fuel type, diurnal control technology, and the tank and hose material/ treatment. The manufacturer would then certify each of these evaporative emission families. The purpose of emission families has traditionally been to reduce testing burden by allowing a family to be certified based on the test results from its highest emitting member. For highway evaporative emission requirements, each manufacturer divides its products into several evaporative emission families based on characteristics of the fuel system. These characteristics include: fuel type, charcoal canister type and capabilities, seals, valves, hoses, and tank material. The manufacturer then has to certify each of these evaporative emission families. Unlike highway vehicles, evaporative emission controls for marine vessels are not likely to rely on charcoal canisters as a control technology. Furthermore, most or all SI marine engines will use gasoline and most manufacturers do not make both plastic and aluminum fuel tanks. Most manufacturers will therefore have very few emission families and it will be unlikely that emission families could be much broader than discussed here. In addition, broadening emission families may not reduce compliance burden, considering the proposed design based certification approach. However, we request comment on whether there are reasonable ways to broaden these engine families, and whether or not small businesses would benefit from any such broadened definitions. 2. Hardship Provisions for Small Businesses Producing Marine Fuel Tanks There are two types of hardship provisions. The first type of hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time (e. g., up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with the standards. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim emission reductions and/ or purchase and use of emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e., supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject vessels would have a major impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details.

H. Technological Feasibility We believe there are several strategies that manufacturers can use to meet our proposed evaporative emission standards. We have collected and will continue to collect emission test data on a wide range of evaporative emission control technology. The design based certification levels discussed above are based on this test data and we may amend the list of approved designs and emission levels as more data become available.

1. Implementation Schedule There are several strategies available to reduce evaporative emissions (diurnal and permeation) from marine fuel tanks. Some of these may require changes to the tank design, structure, and material that would cause a change in the molds used to make the plastic tanks. These molds need to be replaced periodically as part of normal manufacturing practices. Small manufacturers using rotational molding to produce plastic fuel tanks have commented that the molds covering the majority of their production line have about a five year life before replacement. However, for the lowVerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53069 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules production fuel tanks, they may use their molds for 10 to 15 years. They have stated that their costs would be greatly reduced if they could turn over fuel tank molds in a manner more consistent with their current business practice, rather than doing so solely in response to an evaporative control requirement. We recognize that tank manufacturers and boat builders will need time to choose and implement the evaporative emission control strategies that work best for them. We believe the implementation date of 2008, coupled with the option for early banking, provides sufficient lead time beyond the anticipated publication of the final rule. This 5 year lead time is consistent with the general turnover schedule of most molds used in plastic fuel tank production. We request comment whether there are small entities whose product line is dominated by tanks for which the molds are turned over at a slower rate. Surface treatments to reduce tank permeation are widely used today in other container applications and the technology and production facilities needed to conduct this process exist. While there is definitely value in an organized approach to compliance on the part of the manufacturers, the lead time requirement is largely driven by modifications needed to comply with the diurnal requirements. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the tank permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007. Low permeation marine hose is used today on some vessels that is close to meeting the proposed standards. In addition, the development time for new hose designs is on the order of 1– 2 years. Therefore, we request comment on whether an earlier implementation date for the proposed permeation standards for marine hoses would be appropriate. We are proposing an implementation date for hose permeation standards of 2008, consistent with the fuel tank standards, because hose fitting modifications may be required which could affect tank design. Manufacturers have commented that low permeation hoses require special connection fittings with better tolerances than seen on many fittings today. Automotive fuel lines also already exist that meet the proposed permeation standards. However, manufacturers have raised concerns with the cost of applying these less flexible fuel lines in marine applications. In any case, using these automotive fuel lines would probably also require fitting changes. EPA requests comment on the feasibility of implementing the hose permeation requirement in 2006 or 2007.

2. Standard Levels We tested several diurnal emissioncontrol strategies using the procedures discussed in VI. D. 1. Based on this testing we believe there are several emission control technologies that could be used to significantly reduce diurnal emissions. Also, we have identified several strategies for reducing permeation emissions from fuel tanks and hoses. We recognize that some of these technologies may be more desirable than others for some manufacturers, and we recognize that different strategies for equal emission reductions may be better for different applications. Specific examples of technology that could be used to meet the proposed standards would be fuel tank with a 1 psi valve in the vent, a fluorinated plastic fuel tank, and hose constructed with a thermoplastic barrier. We present several other technological approaches below.

3. Technological Approaches We believe several emission control technologies can be used to reduce evaporative emissions from marine fuel tanks. In addition, there are a few technologies that are used in other applications that may not be as effective here. The advantages and disadvantages of various emission control strategies are discussed below. Chapter 4 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document presents more detail on these technologies and Chapter 5 provides information on the estimated costs. a. Closed fuel vent with pressure relief. Evaporative emissions are formed when the fuel heats up, evaporates, and passes through the vent into the atmosphere. By closing that vent, evaporative emissions are prevented from escaping. However, as vapor is generated, pressure builds up in fuel tank. Once the fuel cools back down, the pressure subsides. The U. S Coast Guard safety regulations (33 CFR part 183) require that fuel tanks be able to withstand pressure up to 3 psi and must be able to pass a pressure impulse test which cycles the tank from 0 to 3 psi 25,000 times. The Coast Guard also requires that these fuel tanks be vented such that the pressure in the tank in use never exceeds 80 percent of the pressure that the tank is designed to withstand without leaking. The American Boat and Yacht Council makes the additional recommendation that the vent line should have a minimum inner diameter of 7 Ú16 inch (HÐ 24.13). However, these recommended practices also note that `` there may be EPA or state regulations that limit the discharge of hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere from gasoline fuel systems. The latest version of these regulations should be consulted. '' To prevent pressure from building too high, we first considered a 2 psi pressure relief valve. This is a typical automotive rating and is within the Coast Guard requirements. With this valve, vapors would be retained in the tank until 2 psi of pressure is built up in the tank due to heating of the fuel. Once the tank pressure reached 2 psi, just enough of the vapor would be vented to the atmosphere to maintain 2 psi of pressure. As the fuel cooled, the pressure would decrease. We estimate that this would achieve about a 55 percent reduction in evaporative emissions over the proposed test procedure. A 1 psi valve would achieve a reduction of about half of this over the proposed test procedure. However, in use, this reduction could be much greater because the test procedure is designed to represent a hotter than average day. On a more mild day there could be less pressure buildup in the tank and the valve may not even need to open. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, we tested fuel tanks for diurnal emissions with pressure relief valves ranging from 0.4 to 2.2 psi. With the use of a sealed system, a low pressure vacuum relief valve would also be necessary so air could be drawn into the tank to replace fuel drawn from the tank when the engine is running. Manufacturers of plastic fuel tanks have expressed concern that their tanks are not designed to operate under pressure. For instance, although they will not leak at 3 psi, rotationally molded fuel tanks with large flat surfaces could begin deforming at pressures as low as 0.5 psi. At higher pressures, the deformation would be greater. This deformation would affect how the tank is mounted in the boat. Also, fuel tank manufacturers commented that some of the fittings or valves used today may not work properly under even 2 psi of pressure. Finally, they commented that backup pressure relief valves would be necessary for safety. We believe that, with enough lead time, fuel tank manufacturers will be able to redesign their fuel tanks to be more resistant to deformation under pressure. By reducing the size of flat areas on the tank through adding contours to the tank, or by increasing the thickness of the tank walls, the fuel tanks can be designed to resist deformation under pressure. Portable VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53070 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 28 R value measures resistance to heat flow and is defined in 16 CFR 460.5. 29 The Ideal Gas Law states that pressure and volume are inversely related. By increasing the volume of the vapor space, the pressure can be held constant. plastic fuel tanks are generally sealed without any pressure relief and are designed to withstand any pressure that may occur under these conditions. We also believe that if certain fittings and valves cannot withstand pressure today, they can be designed to do so. In addition, we are proposing a standard which can be met with a 1 psi valve which we believe would require significantly less modification to current tanks than designing for 3 psi of pressure. In developing this level we considered first 2.0 psi valves which is consistent with on highway fuel tanks and is below the Coast Guard tank pressure requirement. However, we proposed a standard based on a 1.0 psi pressure relief valve to give manufacturers some margin to minimize fuel tank deflection under pressure. Although we do not consider this to be a feasibility issue, we recognize that if the tank were to deflect too much in use that either the fuel tank compartment would have to be enlarged to accommodate this expansion or a smaller fuel tank would need to be used. We request comment on this issue. Below, we discuss strategies that could be used in conjunction with a sealed system to minimize the build up of pressure in the fuel tank. Such technologies are insulation, volumecompensating air bags, and bladder fuel tanks. With the use of these technologies, the same emission reductions could be achieved with a pressure relief valve set to allow lower vent pressures. Finally the structure of the proposed standards gives manufacturers the flexibility to meet the emission limits without building up pressure in the fuel tank. b. Limited flow orifice. An alternative to using a pressure relief valve to hold vapors in the fuel tank would be to use a limited flow orifice. This would essentially be a plug in the vent line with a pin hole in it that would be small enough to limit vapor flow out of the fuel tank. However, the orifice size may be so small that there would be a risk of fouling. In addition, an orifice designed for a maximum of 2 psi under worst case conditions may not be very effective at lower temperatures. We tested a 17 gallon tank with a 75 micron diameter limited flow orifice over the proposed diurnal test procedure and saw close to a 25 percent reduction in diurnal emissions. The peak pressure in this test was 1.6 psi. c. Insulated fuel tank. Another option we evaluated was insulating either the fuel tank or the compartment around the fuel tank. Rather than capturing the vapors in the fuel tank, we minimize the fuel heating, which therefore minimizes the vapor generation. This could be used in conjunction with a limited flow orifice to reduce the loss of vapor through the vent line due to diffusion. Our test data suggest that a 50 percent reduction in emissions over the proposed test procedure can be achieved using insulation with an Rvalue of 15. 28 However, it should be noted that today's fuel tanks, when installed in boats, have some amount of `` inherent insulation. '' This is especially true for boats that remain in the water. This inherent insulation is considered in our baseline emission factors. Additional control could be achieved with the use of a pressure relief valve coupled with an insulated tank. Note that an insulated tank could maintain the same emission control while using a pressure relief valve that allowed lower peak pressures, compared with a tank that was not insulated. The method of insulation would have to be consistent with U. S. Coast Guard fuel system requirements. These requirements regulate the resistance to fuels, oils and other chemicals, water adsorption, compressive strength, and density of foam used to encase fuel tanks. In addition, the Coast Guard requirements protect against corrosion of metal fuel tanks due to foam pulling away from the fuel tank causing water to be trapped or from improper drainage. There are several methods that could be used to insulate the fuel tank while maintaining safe practices. These methods include an insulation barrier within the walls of the fuel tank, insulating the compartment that the tank is in rather than the tank itself, and foaming the tank in place by filling the entire compartment the tank is in. The Coast Guard requirements and potential insulation strategies are discussed further in Chapter 3 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document. d. Volume compensating air bag. Another concept for minimizing pressure in a sealed fuel tank is through the use of a volume compensating air bag. The purpose of the bag is to fill up the vapor space in the fuel tank above the fuel. By minimizing the vapor space, the equilibrium concentration of fuel vapors occupies a smaller volume, resulting in a smaller mass of vapors. As the equilibrium vapor concentration increases with increasing temperature, the vapor space expands, which forces air out of the bag through the vent to atmosphere. Because the bag volume decreases to compensate for the expanding vapor space, total pressure inside the fuel tank stays very close to atmospheric pressure. 29 Once the fuel tank cools as ambient temperature goes down, the resulting vacuum in the fuel tank will make the bag expand again by drawing air from the surrounding ambient. Our test results showed that pressure could be kept below 0.8 psi using a bag with a capacity equal to 25 percent of the fuel tank capacity. Therefore, the use of a volumecompensating air bag could allow a manufacturer to reduce the pressure limit on its relief valve. We are still investigating materials that would be the most appropriate for the construction of these bags. The bags would have to hold up in a fuel tank for several years and resist permeation, while at the same time being light and flexible. One such material we are considering is fluorosilicon fiber. Also, the bag would have to be positioned to avoid interfering with other fuel system components such as the fuel pick up or catching on any sharp edges in the fuel tank. We estimate that this would be more expensive than using a pressure relief valve with some reinforcement of the fuel tank for pressure; however, it is also more effective at emission control and would minimize pressure in the fuel tank. e. Bladder fuel tank. Probably the most effective technology for reducing diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks is through the use of a collapsible fuel bladder. In this concept, a low permeation bladder is installed in the fuel tank to hold the fuel. As fuel is drawn from the bladder, the vacuum created collapses the bladder. Therefore, there is no vapor space and no pressure build up from fuel heating. Because the bladder is sealed, there would be no vapors vented to atmosphere. This option could also significantly reduce emissions during refueling that would normally result from dispensed fuel displacing vapor in the fuel tank. We have received comments that this would be cost prohibitive because it could increase costs from 30 to 100 percent depending on tank size. However, bladder fuel tanks have positive safety implications as well and are already sold by at least one manufacturer to meet market demand in niche applications. f. Charcoal canister. The primary evaporative emission control device used in automotive applications is a charcoal canister. With this technology, vapor generated in the tank is vented through a charcoal canister. The VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53071 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 30 Society of Automotive Engineers Surface Vehicle Standard, `` Marine Fuel Hoses, '' SAE J 1527 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 19). activated charcoal collects and stores the hydrocarbons. Once the engine is running, purged air is drawn through the canister and the hydrocarbons are burned in the engine. These charcoal canisters generally are about a liter in size and have the capacity to store three days of vapor over the test procedure conditions. This technology does not appear to be attractive for marine fuel tanks because boats may sit for weeks at a time without the engine running. Once the canister is saturated, it provides no emission control. g. Floating fuel and vapor separator. Another concept used in some stationary engine applications is a floating fuel and vapor separator. Generally small, impermeable plastic balls are floated in the fuel tank. The purpose of these balls is to provide a barrier between the surface of the fuel and the vapor space. However, this strategy does not appear to be effective for marine fuel tanks. Because of the motion of the boat, the fuel sloshes and the barrier would be continuously broken. Even small movements in the fuel could cause the balls to rotate and transfer fuel to the vapor space. In addition, the unique geometry of many fuel tanks could cause the balls to collect in one area of the tank. h. Low permeability fuel tanks. We estimate that more than a quarter of the evaporative emissions from boats with plastic fuel tanks come from permeation through the walls of the fuel tanks. In highway applications, non permeable plastic fuel tanks are produced by blow molding a layer of ethylene vinyl alcohol or nylon between two layers of polyethylene. However, blow molding has high fixed costs and therefore requires high production volumes to be cost effective. For this reason, this manufacturing technique is generally only used for portable fuel tanks which are generally produced in higher volumes. For these tanks, however, multi layer fuel tank construction may be an inexpensive and effective approach to controlling permeation emissions Manufacturers of rotationally molded plastic fuel tanks generally have low production volumes and have commented that they could not produce their tanks with competitive pricing in any other way. Currently, they use cross link polyethylene which is a low density material that has relatively high rate of permeation. One material that could be used as a low permeation alternative in the rotational molding process is nylon. The use of nylon in the construction of these fuel tanks would reduce permeation by more than 95 percent when compared to cross link polyethylene such as is used today. Another type of barrier technology for fuel tanks would be to treat the surfaces of a plastic fuel tanks with fluorine. The fluorination process causes a chemical reaction where exposed hydrogen atoms are replaced by larger fluorine atoms which a barrier on surface of the fuel tank. In this process, fuel tanks are be stacked in a steel container. The container is then be voided of air and flooded with fluorine gas. By pulling a vacuum in the container, the fluorine gas is forced into every crevice in the fuel tanks. As a result of this process, both the inside and outside surfaces of the fuel tank would be treated. As an alternative, for tanks that are blow molded, the inside surface of the fuel tank can be exposed to fluorine during the blow molding process. A similar barrier strategy is called sulfonation where sulfur trioxide is used to create the barrier by reacting with the exposed polyethylene to form sufonic acid groups on the surface. Either of these processes can be used to reduce gasoline permeation by more than 95 percent. Achieving reductions at this level repeatedly would require tanks with consistent material quality, amount, and composition including pigments and any additive packages. This would enable process and efficiency optimization and consistency in the effectiveness of surface treatment processes. Over the first month or so of use, polyethylene fuel tanks can expand by as much as three percent due to saturation of the plastic with fuel. Manufacturers have raised the concern that this hydrocarbon expansion could affect the effectiveness of surface treatments like fluorination or sulfonation. We believe that this will not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of these surface treatments. The California Air Resources Board has performed extensive permeation testing on portable fuel containers with and without these surface treatments. Prior to the permeation testing, the tanks were prepared by first performing a durability procedure where the fuel container is cycled a minimum of 1000 times between 5 psi and 1 psi. In addition, the fuel containers are soaked with fuel for a minimum of four weeks prior to testing. Their test data, presented in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, show that fluorination and sulfonation are still effective after this durability testing. The U. S. Coast Guard has raised the issue that any process applied to marine fuel tanks to reduce permeation would also need to pass Coast Guard flame resistance requirements. We are not aware of any reason that a fluorination or sulfonation surface treatment would affect the flame resistance of a marine fuel tank. Since this issue was raised, we contracted to have a fluorinated fuel tank tested. This tank passed the U. S. Coast Guard flame resistance test. Also, about a third of marine fuel tanks used today are made of aluminum. Hydrocarbons do not permeate through aluminum. We request comment on the lowpermeable materials and strategies discussed above, and other options that are available, for use in marine fuel tanks and on their cost and effectiveness. i. Low permeability hoses. We also estimate that permeation through fuel and vapor hoses make up more 40 percent of the evaporative emissions from boats. This fraction is higher for boats using aluminum fuel tanks, because they are inherently low in tank permeation emissions. By replacing rubber hoses with low permeability hoses, evaporative emissions through the fuel supply and vent hoses can be reduced by more than 95 percent. Marine fuel hoses are designated as either Type A or B and eitherClass 1 or 2. 30 Type A hose passes the U. S. Coast Guard fire test while Type B represents hose that has not passed this test. Class 1 hose is intended for fuel feed lines where the hose is normally in contact with fuel and has a permeation limit of 100 g/ m2/ day at 23 C. Class 2 hose is intended for vent lines and fuel fill necks where fuel is not continuously in contact with the hose and has a permeation limit of 300 g/ m2/ day at 23 C. In general practice, most boat builders use Class 1 hose for vent lines as well as fuel lines to prevent having to carry two hose types. However, most fuel fill necks, which have a much larger diameter and are constructed differently, are Class 2 hose. Marine hose with permeation rates of less than one tenth of the Class 1 permeation limit is also used by some boat builders today for fuel and vent lines. Given sufficient lead time, we believe that hose manufacturers can modify their designs to use thicker barriers or lower permeating materials to further reduce the permeation rates from this hose. Low permeability fuel supply and vent hoses produced today are generally constructed in one of two ways: either with a low permeability layer or by using a low permeability rubber blend. One hose design, already used in some marine applications, uses a VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53072 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules thermoplastic layer between two rubber layers to control permeation. This thermoplastic barrier may either be nylon or ethyl vinyl acetate. In automotive applications, other barrier materials are used such as fluoroelastomers and fluoroplastics such as Teflon   . An added benefit of low permeability lines is that some fluoropolymers can be made to conduct electricity and therefore can prevent the buildup of static charges. Currently, fuel fill necks used in marine applications generally are not made with barrier layers and permeate more than fuel supply lines. However, hoses are produced for chemical applications by the same companies, using the same process, that include barrier layers. This same production methodology could be used for marine fuel hoses. Also, EPA also expects low permeability fill neck hoses to be used in automotive applications in the 2004 as a result of the Tier 2 motor vehicle evaporative emission standards. An alternative approach to reducing the permeability of marine hoses would be fluorination. This process would be performed in a manner similar to discussed above for fuel tanks. Fuel lines used to meet the proposed standards would also have to meet Coast Guard specifications in 33 CFR 183 which include a flame resistance test. Although the automotive standard, SAE J 2260, does not specifically include a flame resistance test like that included in the Coast Guard specifications, manufacturers generally design (and test) their hoses to be flame resistant.

4. Summary EPA believes that the proposed standards for evaporative emissions from boats using spark ignition marine engines reasonably reflect what manufacturers can achieve through the application of available technology. Marine fuel tank manufacturers and boat builders will need to use the five years of lead time to select, design, and produce evaporative emission control strategies that will work best for their product line. We expect that meeting these requirements will pose a challenge, but one that is feasible taking into consideration the availability and cost of technology, lead time, noise, energy, and safety. The role of these factors is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the draft RSD. We believe there are several options that can be used to reduce diurnal emissions from marine fuel tanks. This, coupled with the proposed emissioncredit program for diurnal emissions, gives manufacturers flexibility in how they choose to comply with the proposed standards. We believe the most likely approach meeting the proposed emission diurnal standard will be for manufacturers to use a closed vent with a 1 psi pressure relief valve. Although we evaluated several technologies that have the potential to achieve larger emission reductions, we believe that more stringent standards are not appropriate at this time. This industry is primarily made up of small manufacturers and would likely need more time to develop technology options for further emission control. In addition, there are a wide range of fuel tank designs and applications in the recreational marine market, and the technologies discussed above may not be appropriate for all applications. Given these issues, and U. S. Coast Guard requirements, we believe that the flexibility given in the proposed diurnal requirements is appropriate. The proposed permeation standards are based on the effective application of low permeable materials or surface treatments. This is essentially a step change in technology; therefore, we believe that even if we were to propose a less stringent permeation standard, these technology options would likely still be used. In addition, this technology is relatively inexpensive and can achieve meaningful emission reductions. The proposed standards are expected to achieve a 95 percent reduction in permeation emissions from marine fuel tanks and hoses. We believe that more stringent standards could result in significantly more expensive materials without large additional emission reduction. We request comment on our proposed permeation emission standards.

IV. Sterndrive and Inboard Marine Engines This section describes our current thinking regarding exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines (SD/ I). We are not proposing SD/ I exhaust emission standards at this time. We are investigating whether the application of catalysts on marine engines could be a cost effective way to control emissions. We believe, that setting catalyst forcing standards now would be premature, given the open issues related to catalyst use in the marine environment. However, we are continuing our efforts to develop and demonstrate catalytic control on SD/ I marine engines in the laboratory and inuse and will place new information in the docket when it is available. In fact, we intend to follow with another rulemaking in the future that will address exhaust emissions from SD/ I engines once we have collected more information. We intend to include outboards and personal watercraft in this rulemaking as well. There are three primary approaches that we believe could be used to reduce exhaust emissions from sterndrive and inboard marine engines. The first is through lower emission calibration of the engine, especially through the use of electronic fuel injection. This could be implemented quickly, but would only result in small emission reductions. The second approach would be through the use of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) which could be used to get a 40 to 50 percent reduction in NOX. Although this would be feasible, it would not be nearly as effective at controlling emissions as the third approach of using catalytic control. We believe catalytic control could be used to achieve much larger emission reductions than either of the first two approaches; therefore, we intend to implement catalyst based standards as soon as we believe it is feasible. We believe we can implement these stringent standards sooner if we do not set an interim standard based on EGR. Manufacturers have raised concerns that if they were to focus on designing for an EGR based standard, it would divert resources needed for catalyst development. We are in the process of resolving technical issues with the use of catalysts in a marine environment. Ongoing testing has shown promising results; we believe that, in the near future, continued efforts will resolve the remaining issues raised by the marine industry and by Coast Guard. One issue is that operation in the marine environment could result in unique durability problems for catalysts. Another issue to be addressed in developing this technology is ensuring that salt water does not reach the catalyst so that salt does not accumulate on the catalyst and reduce its efficiency. A third issue is addressing any potential safety concerns. As discussed in Section I. F, California ARB has recently put into place HC+ NOX exhaust emission standards for SD/ I marine engines. These standards include a cap on baseline emission levels in 2003 followed by catalystforcing standards (5 g/ kW hr HC+ NOX) phased in from 2007 through 2009. These standards are contingent on technology reviews in 2003 and 2005. ARB and industry have agreed on a catalyst development program for marine engines over the next several years. We will participate in and monitor catalyst development efforts for marine engines over the next few years. Since the ANPRM, we have collected laboratory emission data on a SD/ I VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53073 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 31 Carroll, J., White, J., `` Marine Gasoline Engine Testing, '' Prepared by Southwest Research Institute for the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, EPA Contract 68Ð CÐ 98Ð 169, WA 2Ð 11, September 2001 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 91). marine engine through a joint effort with ARB, engine marinizers, and Southwest Research Institute. 31 We collected baseline emission data as well as emission data from closed loop control, exhaust gas recirculation, and several catalyst concepts. This work included catalyst packaging strategies designed to prevent water reversion to the catalyst. With the combination of closed loop electronic control and EGR, we saw a reduction of 22 percent HC+ NOX and 39 percent CO from baseline. A catalyst was placed in a stock riser extension which resulted in a 74 percent reduction in HC+ NOX and 46 percent reduction in CO from baseline. Other catalyst configurations were also tested with varying emissions reductions depending on their design. In the testing discussed above, the 74 percent reduction in HC+ NOX was achieved using a two catalysts with a combined volume of less than 1.5 liters on a SD/ I engine with a 7.4 liter total engine displacement. SD/ I marine engines sold today generally range from 3.0 to 8.1 liters of total cylinder displacement. A smaller engine would need less catalyst volume for the same emissions reduction. Further information on the emission reductions associated with SD/ I emission control strategies and associated costs will be included in future rulemaking documents. As discussed above, we are working with the marine industry, ARB, and Coast Guard on technology assessment of catalytic converters on sterndrive and inboard marine engines. However, we do not believe this technology has been sufficiently demonstrated for us to set national standards based on implementation of catalyst technology at this time. We will also need to consider other factors such as cost and energy impacts in determining appropriate levels of standards. As we work towards low emission marine engines through catalyst technology for SD/ I we also intend to investigate this technology for use on outboards and personal watercraft (OB/ PWC). We believe many of the same issues with applying catalysts to SD/ I marine engines also apply to OB/ PWC marine engines. In addition, the annual emissions contribution of OB/ PWC marine is several times larger than the contribution from SD/ I marine engines so there is the potential for significant additional reductions from OB/ PWC. Therefore, we intend to look into the feasibility and cost effectiveness of applying catalytic control to outboards and personal watercraft as well. Manufacturers have argued that the development effort required for EGR may detract resources from catalyst development. We are sensitive to this issue and are not proposing EGR based standards at this time as it could ultimately slow industry's ability to meet catalyst based standards. Clearly, the greatest potential for emission reductions is through the use of catalysts and we wish to implement standards as soon as feasible. However, if it were to become apparent that catalysts would not be feasible for SI marine engines in the time frame of the California ARB technology reviews, we would contemplate proposal of a standard based on EGR. EGR has been used in automotive applications for decades and we believe there are no significant technical hurdles for applying this inexpensive technology to marine engines. Although current marine engines do not generally have a port for exhaust gas recirculation, the electronic fuel injection systems are capable of controlling an EGR valve and control feedback loop. Given enough lead time, we believe manufacturers could apply this technology effectively on SI marine engines. We request comment on the feasibility of applying electronic fuel injection, exhaust gas recirculation, catalysts, or other technology that could be used to reduce emissions from SI marine engines. We also request comment on the costs and corresponding potential emission reductions from using these technologies, as well as any potential effects on engine performance, safety, and durability.

V. Highway Motorcycles We are proposing revised exhaust emission standards for highway motorcycles. This section includes background material, a description of the proposed standards and other important provisions, and a discussion of the technological feasibility of the proposed standards.

A. Overview In general, we are 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. For Class I and Class II motorcycles, this would mean meeting exhaust emission standards that apply today in California. For Class III motorcycles, this would mean meeting the 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 would remain unchanged. The process by which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program would also remain unchanged. We are also proposing standards for the currently unregulated category of motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc displacement.

1. What Are Highway Motorcycles and Who Makes Them? Motorcycles come in a variety of two and three wheeled configurations and styles. For the most part, however, 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 86.402Ð 98). Both EPA and California regulations sub divide highway motorcycles into classes based on engine displacement. Table V. AÐ 1 below shows how these classes are defined.

TABLE V. A– 1.— MOTORCYCLE CLASSES Motorcycle class Engine displacement (cubic centimeters)

Class I ....................... 50*– 169 Class II ...................... 170– 279 Class III ..................... 280 and greater * This proposal would extend Class I to include <50cc.

It is important to note that this definition excludes off highway motorcycles from the regulatory definition of motorcycle. This is because 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 not to 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 VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53074 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 32 `` 2000 Motorcycle Statistical Annual'', Motorcycle Industry Council (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 192). 33 DealerNews, volume 37, no. 2, February 2001 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 190). 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. Thus, vehicles not meeting the criteria noted above are not covered by the proposed emission standard for motorcycles, because they fail to meet the definition of motor vehicle in the Clean Air Act and in 40 CFR 85.1703. Vehicles that are not considered to be a motor vehicle under these statutory and regulatory provisions are generally considered under the Clean Air Act to be nonroad vehicles. In an earlier proposal, we discussed proposed emission standards for nonroad recreational vehicles, a category which includes off highway motorcycles (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). Also falling into the nonroad definition category are the mopeds and scooters that do not meet the definition of `` motor vehicle, '' i. e., the smaller cousins of the mopeds and scooters that are currently considered highway motorcycles and certified as Class I motorcycles. In other words, if a moped or scooter or similar `` motorbike'' cannot exceed 25 miles per hour, it is not considered a motor vehicle, but it is instead categorized as a nonroad recreational vehicle and would be subject to the emission standards recently proposed for offhighway motorcycles. Furthermore, vehicles that otherwise meet the motorcycle definition (i. e., are highway motorcycles as opposed to offhighway motorcycles) but have engine displacements less than 50 cubic centimeters (cc) (generally, youth motorcycles, most mopeds, and some motor scooters) are currently not required to meet EPA standards. Also currently excluded are motorcycles which, `` with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver, * * * cannot: (1) Start from a dead stop using only the engine; or (2) Exceed a maximum speed of 40 km/ h (25 mph) on level paved surfaces'' (e. g., some mopeds). Most scooters and mopeds have very small engine displacements and are typically used as short distance commuting vehicles. Motorcycles with larger engine displacement are more typically used for recreation (racing or touring) and may travel long distances. The currently regulated highway category includes motorcycles termed `` dual use'' or `` dual sport, '' meaning that their designs incorporate features that enable them to be competent for both street and nonroad use. Dual sport motorcycles generally can be described as street legal dirt bikes, since they often bear a closer resemblance in terms of design features and engines to true offhighway motorcycles than to highway cruisers, touring, or sport bikes. These dual sport motorcycles tend to fall in Class I or Class II. The larger displacement Class III motorcycles are by far the most common motorcycles in the current U. S. market. Of the 175 engine 2002 families certified as of January 2002 by manufacturers for sale in the U. S., 151 fall in the Class III category, representing more than 93 percent of projected sales. Most of these are quite far from the bottom limit of Class III motorcycles (280cc); more than three quarters of projected 2002 highway motorcycle sales are above 700cc, with engine displacements exceeding 1000cc for the most powerful `` superbikes, '' large cruisers, and touring bikes. The average displacement of all certified engine families is about 980cc, and the average displacement of certified Class III engine families is above 1100cc. The sales weighted average displacement of 2002 highway motorcycles is about 1100cc. Class I and Class II motorcycles, which together make up less than seven percent of projected 2002 sales and only 24 out of 175 certified 2002 engine families, consist mostly of dual sport bikes, scooters, and entry level sportbikes and cruisers. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council, in 1998 there were about 5.4 million highway motorcycles in use in the United States (565,000 of these were dual sport). Total sales in 1999 of highway motorcycles was estimated to be about 387,000, or about 69 percent of motorcycle sales. About 15,000 of these were dual sport motorcycles. 32 Recent figures for the 2000 calendar year show that retail sales approached 438,000 highway motorcycles, about 19,000 of which were dual sport bikes. 33 Six companies account for about 95 percent of all motorcycles sold (Honda, Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and BMW). All of these companies except Harley Davidson and BMW also manufacture off highway motorcycles and ATVs for the U. S. market. Harley Davidson is the only company of these six that is manufacturing highway motorcycles in the U. S. for the domestic market. Dozens of other companies make up the remaining five percent. Many of these are small U. S. companies manufacturing anywhere from a few dozen to a few thousand motorcycles, although importers and U. S. affiliates of larger international companies also contribute to the remaining five percent. See the draft Regulatory Support Document for more information regarding the makeup of the industry. As of the 2002 model year, all highway motorcycles with engines greater than 50cc displacement are powered by four stroke engines. (Prior to the 2002 model year, Kawasaki was certifying a 100cc two stroke dual sport motorcycle to the federal emission standards.) In the scooter and moped segment with engines under 50cc displacement, two stroke engines have traditionally outnumbered four strokes, although that appears to be changing. In particular, Honda is now marketing a 2002 49cc four stroke scooter. Of the several dozen manufacturers in the under 50cc market, about a third are offering four stroke engines. Therefore, as of the 2002 model year, it appears that about one third of the sales of scooters and mopeds under 50cc are powered by four stroke engines.

2. What Is the History of Emission Regulations for Highway Motorcycles? Emissions from highway motorcycles have been regulated for more than 20 years. While the federal requirements have remained unchanged since the initial standards were adopted more than 20 years ago, regulations in California, Europe, and many nations around the world have been periodically updated to reflect the availability of technology and the need for additional emission reductions. a. EPA regulations. In 1977 EPA issued a Final Rule (42 FR 1126, Jan. 5, 1977), which established interim exhaust emission standards effective for the 1978 and 1979 model years and ultimate standards effective starting with the 1980 model year. The interim standards ranged from 5.0 to 14.0 g/ km HC depending on engine displacement, while the CO standard of 17.0 g/ km applied to all motorcycles. The standards and requirements effective for 1980 and later model year motorcycles, which do not include NOX emission standards, remain in effect today. While the final standards did not differ based on engine displacement, the useful life over which these standards must be met ranged from 12,000 km (7,456 miles) for Class I motorcycles to 30,000 km (18,641 miles) for Class III motorcycles. Crankcase emissions from motorcycles have also been prohibited since 1980. There are no current federal standards for evaporative emissions from VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53075 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 34 California ARB, October 23, 1998 `` Proposed Amendments to the California On Road Motorcycle Regulation'' Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 12). 35 The ECEÐ 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 ECEÐ 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). motorcycles. The current federal standards are shown in Table V. AÐ 2.

TABLE V. A– 2.— CURRENT FEDERAL EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLES Engine size HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km)

All .................................. 5.0 12.0 b. California ARB regulations. Motorcycle exhaust emission standards in California were originally identical to the federal standards that applied to 1978 through 1981 model year motorcycles. 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 V. AÐ 3). 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 bikes were split into two separate categories: 280 cc to 699 cc and 700 cc and greater. These are the standards that apply in California now. Like the federal standards, there are currently no limits on NOX emissions for highway motorcycles in California. Under the corporate average scheme, no individual engine family is allowed to exceed a cap of 2.5 g/ km HC. Like the federal program, California also prohibits crankcase emissions.

TABLE V. A– 3.— CURRENT CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS Engine size (cc) HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km)

50– 279 .......................... 1.0 12.0 280– 699 ........................ 1.0 12.0 700 and above .............. 1.4 12.0 In November 1999, 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 V. AÐ 4). Existing California standards for Class I and Class II motorcycles, which have been in place since 1982, remain unchanged, as does their evaporative emissions standard. As with the current standards in California, manufacturers will be able to meet the requirements on a corporate average basis. Perhaps most significantly, California ARB's Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards control NOX emissions for the first time by establishing a combined HC+ NOX standard. California ARB made no changes to the CO emission standard, which remains at 12.0 g/ km, equivalent to the existing federal standard. In addition, California ARB is providing an incentive program to encourage the introduction of Tier 2 motorcycles before the 2008 model year. This incentive program allows the accumulation of emission credits that manufacturers can use to meet the 2008 standards. Like the federal program, these standards will also apply to dualsport motorcycles.

TABLE V. A– 4.— TIER 1 AND TIER 2 CALIFORNIA CLASS III HIGHWAY MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS Model year Engine displacement HC+ NOX (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. Smallvolume 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. California ARB intends to evaluate whether the Tier 2 standard should be applied to small volume manufacturers in the future. 34 c. International regulations. The European Commission (EC) recently finalized a new phase of motorcycle standards, which will start in 2003, and the EC intends a second phase to start in 2006. Whereas the current European standards make a distinction between two stroke and four stroke engines, the proposed standards would apply to all motorcycles regardless of engine type. The 2003 standards would require emissions to be below the values shown in Table V. AÐ 5, as measured over the European ECEÐ 40 test cycle. 35 The standards considered for 2006 are still in a draft form and have not yet been officially proposed, but the expectation is that they will be considerably more stringent. In addition to taking another step in reducing motorcycle emissions, the 2006 standards may incorporate an improved motorcycle test cycle, as noted below. The standards in the following table apply to motorcycles of less than 50cc (e. g., scooters and mopeds) only if the motorcycle can exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28 miles per hour). Starting in 2002 motorcycles of less than 50cc that cannot exceed 45 kilometers per hour (28 miles per hour) are subject to a new HC+ NOX standard of 1.2 grams per kilometer and a CO standard of 1.0 gram per kilometer.

TABLE V. A– 5.— EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2003 MOTORCYCLE EXHAUST EMISSION STANDARDS HC (g/ km) CO (g/ km) NOX (g/ km)

1.2 5.5 0.3 Many other nations around the world, particularly in South Asia where twostroke mostly small displacement motorcycles can be a majority of the vehicle population, have also recently improved their emission standards or are headed that way in the next several years. For example, Taiwan has adopted an HC+ NOX standard of 1.0 gram per VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53076 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 36 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. 37 A motorcycle is a `` motor vehicle'' as defined under section 216 of the Clean Air Act, which states that ``[ t] he motor vehicle' means any self propelled vehicle designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway. '' 38 See Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. 1A, Interim Tampering Enforcemetn Policy, Office of Enforcement and General Council, June 25, 1974 (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 27). (http:// www. epa. gov/ oeca/ aed/ comp/ hcomp. html) kilometer for all two strokes starting in 2003 (as tested on the European ECEÐ 40 test cycle). (Four stroke motorcycle engines will have to meet at standard of 2.0 grams per kilometer.) India has proposed a standard for all motorcycles of 1.3 grams per kilometer HC+ NOX in 2003 and 1.0 grams per kilometer HC+ NOX in 2005 (as tested on the Indian Drive Cycle, or IDC). 36 China has adopted the European standards described above, implementing them in 2004, a year later than Europe. d. Test cycle. In the ANPRM we requested comment on the adequacy of the current test cycle (the Federal Test Procedure, or FTP) for representing the highway motorcycle operation. We suggested that the existing US06 test cycle (more aggressive accelerations and higher speeds than the FTP) or another more representative test cycle might be appropriate for highway motorcycles. In addition, 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. 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. 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 intends to better represent how a wide range of riders drive their motorcycles. Similar comments were submitted on this issue by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) and by Harley Davidson Motor Company. In general MIC and Harley Davidson stated that while pursuing a global emissions test procedure for motorcycles makes good business sense, the timing of the ongoing international process is not consistent with the current EPA rulemaking to establish new motorcycle standards. At this time we are not proposing 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. Although a draft test cycle has been developed, several issues remain unresolved and it will likely be a couple of years 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 a proposal to adopt the new test cycle. We request comment on the best way to transition to a new global test cycle in the future, should that time come. Among the many options we could consider are: an immediate transition; a phasing in of the new cycle and a phasing out of the FTP; or a phasing in of the new cycle while maintaining the FTP as an option for a specified number of years. e. Consumer modifications. 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 ... after such sale and delivery to the ultimate purchaser* * *'' In other words, under current law, owners of motor vehicles 37 cannot legally make modifications that cause the emissions to exceed the applicable emissions standards, and they cannot remove or disable emission control devices installed by the manufacturer. 38 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 ANPRM sought comments and data that could better help us understand the nature of the issue, such that our proposal could be made with the best understanding possible of current consumer practices. We did not intend to suggest that we would be revising the existing tampering restrictions to prohibit many of the things that motorcycle owners are now doing legally. The proposed emissions standards, if adopted by EPA, would not change this `` tampering'' prohibition, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Owners would still be free generally 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. They would also be free, as they are now, to perform routine maintenance on their motorcycles to restore or maintain the motorcycle engine and related components in their original condition and configuration. This proposal would increase the number of motorcycle models employing emission reduction technologies such as sequential fuel injection, pulse air injection, and catalytic converters. We request comment on the impact, if any, that these technologies could have on the difficulty and/ or cost of routine maintenance or other legal modifications performed by or for the consumer. As discussed below and in the draft RSD, we do not anticipate detrimental impacts to the performance ch aracteristics of motorcycles that will meet the proposed emission standards. We request comment and supporting data on potential performance impacts (positive and negative) of these technologies.

B. Motorcycles Covered by This Proposal Highway, or `` street legal, '' motorcycles are covered by the proposal described in this section. 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 86.402Ð 98). This definition would continue to apply; therefore, the term `` motorcycle'' would continue to refer only to highway motorcycles. In VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53077 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules addition, these `` motorcycles'' that are currently subject to emissions standards would be subject to the proposed standards. However, we are also proposing to modify the regulations to include some motorcycles that are currently excluded from the emission regulations, as described below. EPA regulations currently exclude motorcycles (i. e., motor vehicles that meet the definition of `` motorcycle'' stated above) from the emission standards requirements based on several criteria laid out in 40 CFR 86.401 97. First, motorcycles are excluded if they have an engine displacement of less than 50cc. Second, a motorcycle is excluded if, with an 80 kg (176 lb) driver, it cannot start from a dead stop using only the engine or exceed 40 kph (25 mph) on a level paved surface. These provisions have the effect of excluding many mopeds, youth motorcycles, and some scooters from having to comply with any emission standards requirements. As discussed above, motorcycle like vehicles that cannot exceed 25 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles, and thus would be regulated under the nonroad recreational vehicle standards proposed earlier this year (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). Highway motorcycles with engine displacements less than 50cc are generally most mopeds, as well as some motor scooters (`` scooters, '' or sometimes, `` motorbikes''). Many of these vehicles are powered by 49cc twostroke engines, although four stroke engines are becoming more popular. Honda, for example, 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. We are proposing to revise two aspects of the regulations such that we would require most of these currently excluded vehicles to meet emission standards in the future. First, the general exclusion for motorcycles under 50cc would be changed such that no motorcycles would be excluded from the emission standards on the basis of engine displacement alone. Second, the definition of Class I motorcycles would be revised to accommodate motorcycles under 50cc (i. e., a Class I motorcycle would be defined as a motorcycle with an engine displacement of less than 170cc). The standards that would apply to these vehicles are described in the following section. It is important to note that the motorcycle like vehicles under 50cc that cannot be defined as a motor vehicle (e. g., one that can't exceed 25 mph), continue to be excluded from these standards; they would, however, be covered by the recently proposed standards for nonroad recreational vehicles (66 FR 51098, October 5, 2001). We request comment on our proposed regulation of this previously unregulated category of motorcycle. The cost per ton of controlling emissions from motorcycles with less than 50cc displacement engines is higher than for the proposed standards for larger motorcycles. However, the scooters and mopeds are very likely to be operated exclusively within populated urban areas. Scooters and mopeds, by virtue of their limited speeds, are not appropriate for use on highways; these small two wheelers are often purchased for limited commuting within large urban areas or college campuses. Thus, it is likely that the air quality benefits of controlling emissions from these engines would be greater than indicated by the cost per ton comparison alone. We request comments on the merits of applying standards to these vehicles. Parties have raised concerns regarding the potential for losses in environmental benefits from the highway use of offhighway motorcycles. Because the standards are different today offhighway motorcycles do not currently have emissions standards) and would be somewhat different under our proposed standards, emissions reductions potentially could be lost if consumers purchased off highway motorcycles for highway use on a widespread basis. State requirements vary considerably and in some states it may be difficult to meet requirements by modifying an offhighway motorcycle, while in others it may require only a few minor modifications. We request comment on current practices and the potential for this to occur in the future. We also request comment on steps we could reasonably take to address air pollution concerns associated with highway use of off highway motorcycles.

C . Proposed Standards 1. What Are the Proposed Standards and Compliance Dates?

In general, we are 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. (The exception would be motorcycles with engines of less than 50cc displacement, which are not currently regulated by California, for which we are also proposing standards.) For Class I and Class II motorcycles as currently defined, this would mean meeting exhaust emission standards that apply now in California (and have applied since 1982). For Class III motorcycles, this would mean meeting the 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 would remain unchanged. The process by which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program would remain unchanged. In the development of this proposal following the publication of the ANPRM we considered several regulatory alternatives. These included: no revision to the standards, harmonization with one of the `` tiers'' of California standards (current, 2004 Tier 1, 2008 Tier 2), more stringent standards than those in place in California, or possibly different implementation timing. We also considered various alternatives designed to reduce the burden on small manufacturers (these are presented in section VII. B on the Regulatory Flexibility Act). After considering comments on the ANPRM, we believe that the standards should be revised. The existing Federal standards were established more than twenty years ago, and it is clear that emission control technology has advanced a great deal in that time. California has continued to revise their standards to maintain some contact with current technology, and manufacturers have generally (but not uniformly) responded by producing motorcycles for sale nationwide that meet the more stringent California standards. Thus, in large part the existing federal standards has been superseded because of the preponderance of manufacturers that have responded in this way. Those arguing against new emission standards often cite the fact that motorcycles are typically far cleaner than the existing federal standards require. Although we agree, we see this fact as a reason for improving emission standards and as evidence that the current federal standards are out of touch with the reality of today's technology. We believe it is most appropriate at this time to propose harmonizing with the California exhaust emission standards, as opposed to other options discussed in the ANPRM. For example, the dissimilarities between on and offhighway motorcycles do not encourage a one size fits all approach for all motorcycles (this opinion is supported by a significant number of those who commented on the ANPRM). Offhighway motorcycles are powered predominantly by two stroke engines, whereas highway motorcycles are all powered by four stroke engines as of the VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53078 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 39 See comments on the ANPRM from HarleyDavidson and the Motorcycle Industry Council, available in the public docket for review (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IIÐ DÐ 48). 40 Based on analysis of motorcycle emissions certification data. 2002 model year. On and off highway motorcycle engines also lie at vastly different ends of the size spectrum. The average highway motorcycle sold today has a displacement of nearly 1000cc, whereas almost 90 percent of offhighway motorcycle engines have an engine displacement of less than 350cc. In addition, on and off highway motorcycles are used in very different ways; finding a set of standards and a test procedure that adequately represents the typical range of operation for both types would therefore be extremely challenging. On highway motorcycle manufacturers have commented that, to the extent the standards are revised, harmonization with California, rather than a distinctly different set of standards, is preferable because it eliminates the possibility of needing two distinct product lines for California and Federal regulations. 39 Delaying implementation of the California standards on a nationwide basis by two years would provide an opportunity for manufacturers to gain some experience with the technology needed to meet the new standards. Two years provides time for technology optimization and cost reduction. Providing a longer delay could potentially provide the option of a further decrease in the level of the emission standards, given that the technological feasibility of the California standards has been adequately demonstrated (at least one manufacturer is already selling a motorcycle meeting the 2008 California standards). However, this would be a tradeoff against a more timely introduction of the new standards. We also evaluated whether the federal motorcycle program should incorporate averaging provisions, as the California program does. Given the desire of most manufacturers to manufacture a motorcycle for nationwide sale, such a program without averaging would not be desirable because it would not provide the flexibility needed to meet the California and federal requirements together and could have at least potentially led to a somewhat less stringent Federal standard. Therefore, we are proposing to provide an averaging program comparable to California's. EPA uses the term `` useful life'' to describe the period (usually years and/ or miles) over which the manufacturer must demonstrate the effectiveness of the emission control system. For example, the `` useful life'' of current passenger cars is 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever first occurs. It does not mean that a vehicle is no longer useful or that the vehicle must be scrapped or turned in once these limits are reached. The term has no effect on the owners' ability to ride their motorcycles for as long as they want. In the ANPRM we requested comment on whether the current definitions of useful life for the three motorcycle classes remains appropriate, given that these definitions were established more than 20 years ago. For example, we question whether, given that the average distance traveled per year for highway motorcycles is around 4,200 km (2,600 miles), the useful life for Class III motorcycles of 30,000 km (18,680 miles) is really appropriate. A typical motorcycle would reach the useful life mileage in about seven years at that rate. Based on data received from an industry trade group, we estimated an average operating life of 12.5 years for onhighway motorcycles. We request comment on extending the useful life by up to 10,000 km (6,200 miles) to reflect a value more consistent with actual use. a. Class I and Class II motorcycles. We are proposing that Class I and Class II motorcycles would have to meet the current California ARB 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 1.0 g/ km HC and 12.0 g/ km CO, as measured on the existing Federal Test Procedure (FTP) for motorcycles. In addition to applying to motorcycles currently in Class I and Class II (i. e., those over 50cc), we are also proposing that these standards apply to those motorcycles encompassed by the proposed revised Class I definition, which would include the previouslyexcluded engines under 50cc, as described above. As discussed in further detail below, we are considering ways of including Class I and Class II motorcycles in the overall emissions averaging program, and request comment on this issue. Class I motorcycles as currently defined are currently tested on a version of the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) that has lower top speeds and reduced acceleration rates relative to the FTP that is used for Class II and III motorcycles. The Class I FTP has a top speed of just under 60 km/ hr, or around 37 mph, whereas the Class II/ III FTP has a top speed of just over 90 km/ hr, or just above 55 mph. By proposing to define motorcycles with engine displacements of less than 50cc as Class I motorcycles, these `` new'' Class I motorcycles would likewise be tested on the Class I FTP. We believe that this use of this test cycle is feasible and appropriate for the new Class I motorcycles (many are advertised with a top speed in the range of 40Ð 50 mph). We request comment on the feasibility of the proposed test cycle for motorcycles with engine displacements of less than 50cc; in particular, we request comment on whether experience in meeting existing European or Asian requirements provides any insight on this issue. We request comment on alternative test cycles and certification options, including whether the cycle required for low speed, small displacement scooters and mopeds in Europe should be used or allowed by EPA. Despite the fact that virtually all Class I and Class II motorcycles already meet and certify to these standards, 40 we are proposing nationwide implementation in 2006 for two reasons. First, there are those motorcycles under 50cc that require some lead time to meet new standards. Second, any averaging provisions, if finalized, that would provide flexibility in meeting the Class I and Class II standards would not be useful until the 2006 model year, when some exchange of emission credits between the three motorcycle classes may be allowed (see the request for comment on averaging flexibilities for Classes I and II in section C. 2 below). Nevertheless, we request comment on the 2006 implementation date, and whether it should be earlier for the current Class I and II motorcycles, given that all 2002 motorcycles in these classes are already certified at emission levels that would meet the proposed standards. For example, we could implement standards for the over 50cc motorcycles in 2004 and for those under 50cc in 2006. We recognize, as discussed in detail below, that the U. S. is a small market for scooters and mopeds with engine displacements of under 50cc, and that many of the factors that are currently driving technology development are actions by the governments in the major world markets for these types of twowheelers A U. S. attempt to drive technology to achieve emission limits more stringent or sooner than those applicable in the largest scooter markets (South Asia, Europe) might result in some manufacturers choosing to withdraw from the U. S. market, rather than develop specific technologies to address U. S. requirements. (This appeared to occur in the mid to late1980's when new California standards,

VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53079 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules combined with fairly active advertising by Honda, drove the European manufacturers from the U. S. market.) For the Class I motorcycles under 50cc, we therefore request comment on the cost and technology that would be associated with standards within a range of 1.0 to 2.0 grams per kilometer HC (or HC+ NOX). We believe that, in view of the standards that apply or will soon apply in many of the major scooter markets around the world (see Table V. AÐ 6), that a standard in this range is similar to standards in other countries and would allow the use of similar technologies for U. S. standards. Standards in this range would be intended to allow the U. S. to be more certain that we would receive the same scooters being marketed in the rest of major scooter markets.

TABLE V. A– 6.— SUMMARY OF CURRENT AND FUTURE WORLDWIDE EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLES LESS THAN 50CC DISPLACEMENT Country HC CO NOX HC+ NOX Test cycle Notes European Union ...................... ................ 6.0 ................ 3.0 ECE R47 Current (`` Euro1''). ................ 1.0 ................ 1.2 ECE R47 2002 (`` Euro 2''). Switzerland ............................. 0.5 0.5 0.1 ................ ECE R47 Current. India ........................................ ................ 2.0 ................ 2.0 India Drive (IDC) Current. ................ 1.3 ................ 1.3 India Drive (IDC) 2003 Proposed. ................ 1.0 ................ 1.0 India Drive (IDC) 2005 Proposed. China ....................................... ................ 6.0 ................ 3.0 ECE R47 Current. ................ 1.0 ................ 1.2 ECE R47 2005. Japan ...................................... 5.26 14.4 0.14 ................ ISO 6460 Current 2 stroke. 2.93 20.0 0.51 ................ ISO 6460 Current 4 stroke. Korea ...................................... 4.0 8.0 0.1 ................ ECE R47 Current. Singapore ................................ 5.0 12.0 ................ ................ FTP Current. Taiwan .................................... ................ 3.5 2.0 ................ ECE R47 Current. ................ 7.0 ................ 1.0 ECE R47 2003 2 stroke. ................ 7.0 ................ 2.0 ECE R47 2003 4 stroke. Thailand .................................. 3.0 4.5 ................ ................ ECE R40 Current.

b. Class III Motorcycles. We are proposing to harmonize the federal Class III motorcycle standards with the exhaust emission standards of the recently finalized California program. Specifically, we propose to adopt the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX starting in the 2006 model year, and the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/ km starting in the 2010 model year. Because both HC and NOX are ozone precursors, this new standard would better reduce ozone than an HC only standard. Implementation on a nationwide basis would therefore 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 below in further detail, these standards can be met on a corporate average basis. As noted earlier, California ARB plans a technology progress review in 2006 to evaluate manufacturers' progress in meeting the Tier 2 standards. We plan to participate in that review and work with California ARB, intending to make any appropriate adjustments to the standards or implementation schedule if warranted. For example, if California ARB determines in the review process that the standards are achievable, but in 2010 rather than 2008, we could follow with a rulemaking that would consider appropriate adjustment to the federal requirements.

2. Could I Average, Bank, or Trade Emission Credits? To provide flexibility in meeting the standards, we are proposing to adopt an emission credit program comparable to the existing California ARB regulations, and requesting comment on some additional flexibility relative to California ARB's program that could be included in our proposed program. There is currently no federal emissioncredit program for highway motorcycles. As proposed, the program allows manufacturers to meet the standards on a fleet average basis (i. e., an averaging program). Under the emission credit program, manufacturers would be able to balance the certified HC+ NOX emissions of their Class III motorcycles so that the salesweighted HC+ NOX emissions level meets the applicable standard. This means that some engine families may have HC+ NOX emissions below the standards, while others have HC+ NOX emissions higher than the standards. For enforcement purposes, manufacturers are required to specify a certification limit, or `` Family Emission Limit'' for each engine family. For example, one of a manufacturer's Class III engine families could be certified at 1.7 g/ km HC+ NOX; this would be allowable under the California regulations if the sales weighted average of all the manufacturer's engine families met the applicable 1.4 or 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX standard. As discussed below, EPA is proposing early credits provisions where credits may be banked prior to the beginning of the program. In several other emissions control programs, EPA allows manufacturers to bank credits after the start of the program for future use, or trade them to another manufacturer. In general, EPA has been supportive of these additional flexibilities and sees the potential for added value here as a means to reduce cost and provide additional compliance flexibility as needed * * * California's current program, however, does not contain banking (except for early banking) and trading provisions and manufacturers have not shown an interest in such provisions. Harmonization with California has been the overarching concern. Banking and trading provisions VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53080 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules that are out of step with the California program may have little use because manufacturers plan on carrying over their California products nationwide. In addition, such provisions complicate the certification and compliance protocols because EPA must set up systems for tracking credits and these systems must be established even if the use of the credit provisions is unlikely. Because EPA believes banking and trading provisions would complicate the program, EPA is requesting comment on them rather than proposing them. EPA requests comment on an approach where manufacturers would establish HC+ NOX family emissions limits (FELs) that are either below the standard, for generating credits, or above the standard, for using credits. These FELs, in effect, become the standard for the individual family. This would be similar in nature to the program for heavy duty engines (see 40 CFR 86.004Ð 15), but without transient conversion factors. Those commenting in support of credit banking and trading are encouraged to also provide detailed comments on any related provisions which would need to be considered in establishing the program for generating and using credits such as credit life, discounts (if any), cross displacement class trading issues, etc. To maintain equity, California ARB adopted a cap on Family Emission Limits of 2.5 g/ km HC for all individual engine families under the existing emission credit program (i. e., for Class III motorcycles). Because the 2.5 g/ km HC only standard was in effect in California before the emission credit program was adopted, the 2.5 g/ km cap continues to prevent manufacturers from selling motorcycles with emissions higher than the previous standard. Based on this reasoning, we are proposing a similar cap. However, because the current federal standard is 5.0 g/ km, we are proposing an emissions cap on individual engine families of 5.0 g/ km HC+ NOX. This will provide the added benefit of enabling manufacturers to retain some of the federally certified engine families that might otherwise have had some difficulty meeting the somewhat lower cap specified by California. Manufacturers producing these higher emitting models would need to offset these emissions with other models certified below the standard. To provide additional flexibility for manufacturers, we are requesting comment on the possible benefits of incorporating Class I and Class II motorcycles into the averaging program described above. This could be done in various ways. One option would be to define the proposed Class I and Class II HC only standard of 1.0 g/ km as an averaging standard, either within each class or for Class I and Class II combined. However, we believe this option would be of limited use, given the small number of engine families in these motorcycle classes. A second option would be to develop a credit program similar to that in place for the California Low Emission Vehicle Program. Under this type of program, for example, credits accumulated by Class III motorcycles could be used to offset `` debits'' accumulated in one or both of the other classes. Credits would be accumulated by having a sales weighted fleet average value of the class below the applicable standard, while debits would result from having a class fleetaverage value above the standard. A third option would be to allow the certification of Class I and II motorcycles to the Class III `` averaging set. '' In other words, under this option the combined sales weighted fleet average of Class I, II, and III motorcycles would, at the manufacturer's option, be certified to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 fleet average HC+ NOX standards. We request comment on the value of provisions of this nature, and on the advantages and disadvantages of each of these basic approaches. We also request comment on whether there are any adaptations of this averaging program that would improve the flexibility for small volume manufacturers. To encourage early compliance, we are also proposing incentives in the emission credit program similar to those in place in California, with timing adjusted due to the differing federal implementation schedule. We believe such incentives will encourage manufacturers to introduce Tier 2 motorcycles nationwide earlier than required by this proposal. In addition, we believe some manufacturers can reduce emissions even further than required by the Tier 2 standard; we would like to encourage the early introduction of these very low emission vehicles. This proposal would provide incentives for early compliance by assigning specific multiplier factors based on how early a manufacturer produces a Tier 2 motorcycle and a motorcycle certified at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX; these multipliers are shown in Table V. CÐ 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 would no longer have any value (i. e., the multiplier has a value of 1.0) and the program would terminate. As shown in Table V. CÐ 1, each unit of early Tier 2 motorcycles (those certified at 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX) would count as Y motorcycles at 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX for purposes of corporate averaging in 2010, where Y is 1.5 for those motorcycles sold during model years (MY) 2003 through 2006, 1.375 for those sold in MY 2007, 1.250 for those sold in MY 2008, and 1.125 for those sold in MY 2009. A similar set of multipliers is shown in Table V. CÐ 1 for pre MY 2010 motorcycles certified even lower at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX.

TABLE V. C– 1.— MULTIPLIERS TO ENCOURAGE EARLY COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED TIER 2 STANDARD AND BEYOND Model year sold Multiplier (Y) for use in MY 2010 corporate averaging*

Early tier 2 Certified at 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX 2003 through 2006 1.5 3.0 2007 ........................ 1.375 2.5 2008 ........................ 1.250 2.0 2009 ........................ 1.125 1.5 * Early Tier 2 motorcycles and motorcycles certified to 0.4 g/ km are counted cumulatively toward the MY 2010 corporate average.

In 2010 and later model years the program would become a basic averaging program, where each manufacturer would have to meet the applicable HC+ NOX standard on a fleetaverage basis. See the proposed regulations at § 86.449.

3. Is EPA Proposing Blue Sky Standards for These Engines? We are not proposing Blue Sky Standards for motorcycles at this time. Under the proposed averaging program there is an incentive to produce very clean motorcycles early, but it is of limited duration. However, several possible approaches could include a Blue Sky program, such as the ones discussed for marine evaporative emissions earlier in this document. For example, a Blue Sky standard could be set at the 0.4 g/ km HC+ NOX level used under the proposed averaging program. We request comment on whether a Blue Sky program is desirable for motorcycles, and what standards would be appropriate for such a program.

4. Do These Standards Apply to Alternative Fueled Engines? The proposed emission standards would apply to all motorcycles, regardless of fuel. Although the federal numerical emission standards have not VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53081 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules been updated in more than twenty years, the regulations were revised twice in the 1990's to apply the standards to certain alternative fueled motorcycles. In 1990 the emission standards became applicable to methanol fueled motorcycles (see 54 FR 14539, Apr. 11, 1989), and in 1997 the standards became applicable to natural gas fueled and liquified petroleum gas fueled motorcycles (see 59 FR 48512, Sept. 21, 1994). We propose to apply the emission standards for highway motorcycles, regardless of fuel. This would have the effect of including any motorcycles that operate on diesel fuel. We do not believe the provisions in this proposal create any unique issues for motorcycles powered by alternative fuels. However, we request comment on whether there are unique aspects to motorcycles fueled with these alternative fuels (if there are any such motorcycles) that would make the proposed standards particularly challenging or infeasible.

5. Should Highway and Off Highway Regulations Be Integrated? We recognize that many motorcycle manufacturers produce both on and offhighway motorcycles and are interested in receiving comment on integrating the two sets of requirements into a single part of the regulations. Currently, EPA regulations for highway motorcycles are in 40 CFR part 86, while the proposed regulations for recreational vehicles and engines are in 40 CFR part 1051. Given that the proposed requirements for offhighway motorcycles and ATVs would duplicate many of the requirements that apply to highway motorcycles (such as test procedures and certification protocol), it may be appropriate to integrate the highway motorcycle requirements with the recreational vehicle requirements in part 1051. This may help manufacturers with both on and off highway products by eliminating differing or inconsistent paperwork or testing requirements for the different products. We request comment on the value of centralizing the requirements in this way.

6. Is EPA Proposing Production Line Testing Requirements for Highway Motorcycles? Production line testing requirements have never been required for highway motorcycles, but we are seeking comment on them as part of this proposal. However, we recognize that production line testing may serve as a valuable tool to ensure that newly assembled engines control emissions at least as well as the prototype models used for certification. We believe testing highway motorcycles from the production line would add little additional burden and could easily be incorporated into the existing production line quality checks that most manufacturers routinely perform. In fact, some nonroad engine manufacturers use emission measurements as part of their standard quality control protocol at the assembly line to ensure proper engine functioning. Also, we would waive testing requirements for manufacturers with consistently good emission results. We request comment on extending to highway motorcycles the productionline testing requirements recently proposed for nonroad engines and vehicles (66 FR 51098). If such requirements were extended to highway motorcycles, we request comment on the impact of such requirements on smaller manufacturers and whether such requirements should apply to small manufacturers (i. e., those with less than 3,000 annual unit sales). In the absence of production line testing we are not likely to allow post certification changes to be made to the Family Emission Limits (FELs) applicable to a given engine family under the emissions averaging program.

7. What Test Fuel Is Specified for Emission Testing of Motorcycles?

The specifications for gasoline to be used by the EPA and by manufacturers for emission testing can be found in 40 CFR 86.513Ð 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 issued 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 lowsulfur 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 proposed program would take effect (and therefore required for service accumulation), we propose to amend the motorcycle test fuel to reflect the true nature of the fuels available in the marketplace. Doing so would remove the possibility that a test could be conducted with an unrealistically high level of sulfur in the fuel.

8. Highway Motorcycle Evaporative Emissions In addition to California's exhaust emission standards, California ARB has also established evaporative emission standards for highway motorcycles. These standards took effect with the 1983 model year for Class I and II motorcycles, and the 1984 model year for Class III motorcycles. An initial evaporative emission standard that applied for two model years was set at 6.0 grams of hydrocarbons per test. Following two model years at this level, the standard was reduced to a more stringent 2.0 grams of hydrocarbons per test for all motorcycle classes. This is the currently applicable standard, and it was not changed during California's recent revisions to their motorcycle exhaust emission standards. We believe that it is not necessary at this time to propose adopting broad evaporative emission standards such as California's. The fuel tanks are generally small, resulting in diurnal and refueling emissions that we expect to be proportionately low. The use rates of motorcycles is likewise low, and we expect that hot soak emissions will be low as well. California has unique air quality concerns that may prompt the State to pursue and select emissions controls that we may find unnecessary for a national program. However, our investigation into the hydrocarbon emissions related to permeation of fuel tanks and fuel hoses with respect to marine applications has raised a new emissions concern that has a broad reach across many different vehicle types. Permeation of fuel tanks and hoses is one of four components of a vehicle's evaporative emissions. The other three primary evaporative components are: hot soak emissions, which occur when fuel evaporates from hot engine surfaces; diurnal emissions, which occur when fuel in tanks and hoses heats up in response to increases in ambient temperature; and refueling emissions, which occur when fuel vapors are displaced from the tank during refueling. As described in section III, the permeation emissions VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53082 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules from boats outweigh other evaporative emissions significantly; in fact, permeation from tanks and hoses results in more emissions than the other three types of evaporative emissions combined. Given this, we are assessing other vehicle types, including highway motorcycles, off road motorcycles, and all terrain vehicles, that may use fuel tanks or hoses with less than optimal control of permeation emissions. The fact that the fuel tanks in these types of vehicles are generally small does not significantly affect the importance of these emissions; it is the fact that permeation is occurring every hour of every day when there is fuel in the tank that results in the significance of emissions related to permeation. Section III. H of this preamble, as well as the Draft Regulatory Support Document, detail some of the technological strategies that may be employed to reduce fuel permeation. The application of several of these technologies to highway motorcycles appears to be relatively straightforward, with little cost and essentially no adverse performance or aesthetic impacts. These technologies, which are already available and which appear to be relatively inexpensive, could reduce permeation of tanks and hoses by 95 percent or more. In addition, the control technology may pay for itself in many instances due to positive fuel consumption impacts. We request comment on finalizing standards that would require low permeability fuel tanks on highway motorcycles, starting with the 2006 model year. We would presume that the metal fuel tanks that equip most highway motorcycles would already meet the low permeability requirement, and thus, there would be no need for any fuel tank design or material changes on the vast majority of highway motorcycles. However, many if not all of the dual sport motorcycles are equipped with plastic fuel tanks, as are some motorcycles in the sport or super sport categories. These motorcycles, under the type of regulation that we are requesting comment on, would have to employ metal tanks or plastic fuel tanks using one of the barrier technologies (e. g., a fluorination or sulfonation treatment) described in section III. H to meet the standards. We expect that any standards finalized would be similar in design to those proposed regarding fuel tank permeation for marine engines, as discussed earlier in this preamble. Retail sales data from Dealernews for the 2001 calendar year indicates that sales of motorcycles in the sport category amounted to just over 20 percent of total highway motorcycle sales, and dual sport motorcycles were a much smaller 4 percent of the total. We may then conservatively estimate that approximately 25 percent of current motorcycles now have plastic tanks that would need upgrading. This is a conservative estimate for two reasons: (1) Some of these motorcycles are probably using metal tanks; and (2) it is highly likely that some of the existing plastic tanks have already been upgraded with a barrier treatment in order to meet the California evaporative emission requirements. We are interested in collecting more information regarding the degree to which plastic fuel tanks are used on highway motorcycles, and, to the extent they are, what if any measures have been taken by manufacturers to reduce permeation emissions. Highway motorcycle fuel tanks range in capacity from just over one gallon on some small scooters to about 7.5 gallons on some large touring and sport touring motorcycles. Most of the sport and super sport motorcycles appear to have fuel tanks that fall generally in the range of 4 to 6 gallons, while dual sport motorcycles may be slightly smaller on average, perhaps typically in the 3 to 5 gallon range. If we select 5 gallons as a conservative estimate of the average size of the fuel tanks for those types of motorcycles most likely to have to employ one of the fuel tank barrier technologies, the additional cost per tank (assuming fluorination treatment) is estimated to be about $3.25 (see section 5.2.1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document). We estimate that shipping, handling, and overhead costs would be an additional $0.85, resulting in a total average cost of about $4.10. Therefore, the average industry wide price increase that would be associated with a requirement of this nature would be about $1.00. We also request comment on promulgating standards that would require the use of low permeability fuel hoses on all highway motorcycles, starting in the 2006 model year. Like low permeation fuel tanks, it is very likely that some manufacturers have already addressed permeation from the fuel hoses on some of their product line due to the California evaporative emission requirements. However, we will conservatively estimate that no current motorcycles are equipped with fuel hoses that significantly reduce or eliminate permeation. The cost of a fuel line with low permeation properties is estimated to be about $1.30 per foot (see section 5.2.1 of the Draft Regulatory Support Document). Highway motorcycles are estimated to have about one to two feet of fuel line on average; thus, using the average cost and a fuel line length of 18 inches, we estimate an average industry wide price increase associated with a low permeation fuel line requirement to be about $2.00 per motorcycle. We therefore estimate that the total increased cost per motorcycle that would result from requiring low permeation fuel tanks and fuel hoses would be about $3.00. We are interested in collecting more information regarding fuel hoses currently used on highway motorcycles, in particular regarding the typical length, the material, and the permeation properties. We request comment on the form these standards would take (e. g., whether there should be absolute numerical limits or percentage reduction requirements, if we determined they were appropriate.) We also request comment on implementing requirements such as those described above by allowing the manufacturer to submit a statement at the time of certification that the fuel tanks and hoses used on their products meet standards, specified materials, or construction requirements based on testing results. For example, a manufacturer using plastic fuel tanks could state that the engine family at issue is equipped with a fuel tank with a low permeability barrier treatment such as fluorination. Fuel hoses could be certified as being manufactured in compliance with certain accepted SAE specifications. These certification statements could be done on an engine family basis, or possibly a blanket statement could cover a manufacturer's entire product line. EPA expects that 95 percent reductions over uncontrolled emission levels for permeation are achievable for plastic fuel tanks. These reductions imply a tank permeability standard of about 0.024 g/ gal/ day for fuel tanks. For fuel hoses, we would consider the proposed standards for marine hoses of 5 grams per square meter per day. We request comment on these and other options that would enable regulation and enforcement of low permeability requirements. As was discussed earlier regarding marine evaporative emissions, California ARB and EPA have conducted permeation testing with regard to evaporative emissions from HDPE plastic tanks. There are 8 data points for tanks of 3.9 to 7.5 gallons capacity. The permeation rates varied from 0.2 to1.0 grams per gallon per day with an average value of 0.75 g/ gal/ day. This data was based on tests with an average temperature of about 29 C. As discussed in Chapter 4 of the draft RSD, temperature has a first order effect on the rate of permeation. Roughly,

VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53083 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules permeation doubles with every 10 C increase in temperature. For the 5 gallon tank discussed above, at 23 C, the average emission rate is about 0.50 g/ gal/ day or 2.5 g/ day. For the purposes of this analysis we assumed a fuel hose with an inside diameter of about 1cm ( 3 Ú8 inch) and a permeation rate of 550 grams per square meter per day at 23 C. This permeation rate is based on the SAE J30 requirement for R7 fuel hose, the type of hose found on a small sample of motorcycles we examined. For the 18 inch hose mentioned above this yields an emission rate of 7.5 g/ day. Combining the average emission rates determined for the fuel tanks and fuel hoses above and adjusting for the 25 percent of tanks that would be affected by permeation standards yields a daily average emission rate of 8.1 g/ day (7.5 g/ day + (0.25 x 2.5 g/ day)). The total combined tank and hose emission rate for those motorcycles that we estimate will require fuel tank treatments (25 percent of motorcycles) is 9.9 g/ day (7.5 g/ day + 2.5 g/ day). Table V. CÐ 2 presents national totals for permeation emissions from motorcycles. These permeation estimates are based on the emission rates discussed above and population, turnover, and temperature projections discussed in Chapter 6 of the draft RSD.

TABLE V. C– 2.— PROJECTED MOTORCYCLE PERMEATION HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS [short tons]

Calendar year Baseline Control Reduction 2005 .......... 14,600 14,600 0 2010 .......... 16,900 10,800 6,100 2015 .......... 19,200 6,010 13,200 2020 .......... 21,500 1,950 19,600 2030 .......... 26,200 317 25,900 The average lifetime of a typical motorcycle is estimated to be about 12.5 years. Permeation control techniques can reduce emissions by 95 percent for tanks and more than 99 percent for hoses. Multiplying this efficiency and these emission rates by 12.5 years and discounting at 7 percent yields lifetime per motorcycle emission reductions of 0.0013 tons for the fuel tank, 0.017 tons for the fuel hose, and 0.019 tons on average overall. In turn, using the cost estimates above, these emission reductions yield HC cost per ton values of $794 for the 5 gallon tank, $112 for the fuel hose, and $160 for the average overall. Because evaporative emissions are composed of otherwise useable fuel that is lost to the atmosphere, measures that reduce evaporative emissions can result in potentially significant fuel savings. For a motorcycle with a 5 gallon fuel tank, we estimate that the low permeability measures discussed in this section could save 9.6 gallons over the 12.5 year average operating lifetime, which translates to a discounted lifetime savings of $6.75 at an average fuel price of $1.10 per gallon. Combining this savings with an estimated cost per motorcycle of $3.00 results in a discounted lifetime savings per motorcycle of $3.75. The cost per ton of the evaporative emission reductions described above is $160; however, if the fuel savings are included, the estimated cost per ton is actually $ 203. This means that the fuel savings are larger than the cost of using low permeation technology.

D. Special Compliance Provisions While the highway motorcycle market is dominated by large companies, there are over 30 small businesses manufacturing these products. 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 would reduce the economic burden on small businesses, allowing harmonization with California requirements in a phased, but timely manner. We propose that the flexibilities described below will be available for small entities with 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. These provisions are appropriate because of the significant research and development resources may be necessary to meet the proposed emission standards. These provisions would reduce the burden while ensuring the vast majority of the program is implemented to ensure timely emission reductions. We also understand that many small highway motorcycle manufacturers market `` classic'' and `` custom'' motorcycles, often with a `` retro'' appearance, that tends to make the addition of new technologies a uniquely resourceintensive prospect. 1. Delay of Proposed Standards We propose to delay compliance with the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/ km HC+ NOX until the 2008 model year for smallvolume manufacturers. We are proposing a Tier 1 standard beginning in the 2006 model year for highway motorcycles. Small manufacturers are required to meet the Tier 1 standard in 2008 in California. Given that the California requirements apply in 2008 for small businesses, we seek comment on whether additional time is needed for small businesses to comply with the federal program. The current California regulations do not require small manufacturers to comply with the Tier 2 standard of 0.8 g/ km HC+ NOX. The California Air Resources Board found that the Tier 2 standard represents a significant technological challenge and is a potentially infeasible limit for these small manufacturers. We share the California ARB's concern regarding this issue. As noted above, many of these manufacturers market a specialty product with a `` retro'' simplicity that may not easily lend itself to the addition of advanced technologies like catalysts. However, the ARB has acknowledged that, in the course of their progress review planned for 2006, they will revisit their small manufacturer provisions. Therefore, we plan to participate with the ARB in the 2006 progress review as these provisions are revisited, and delay making decisions on the applicability to small businesses of Tier 2 or other revisions to the federal regulations that are appropriate following the review.

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. We propose that these provisions remain in place.

3. Exemption From Production Line Testing There is currently no mandatory production line testing requirement for highway motorcycles. The current VerDate Aug< 2,> 2002 18: 43 Aug 13, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14AUP2. SGM pfrm17 PsN: 14AUP2 53084 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2002 / Proposed Rules 41 `` Emissions Trading for Small Businesses'', Final Report, Jack Faucett Associates, March 2002, http:// www. sba. gov/ advo/ research/ rs216tot. pdf (Docket AÐ 2000Ð 01; document IVÐ AÐ 26). regulations allow us to request production vehicles from any certifying manufacturer for testing. We are proposing no changes to these existing provisions at this time.

4. 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, as well as buy credits from, or sell credits to, other manufacturers. Emission credit programs are generally made available to all manufacturers, though special provisions for small businesses could be created to increase flexibility. We therefore propose an emission credit program for highway motorcycles similar to that discussed above in V. C. 2. for all motorcycle manufacturers. For the reasons described in section V. C. 2., we are not proposing post implementation emissions credits banking and trading provisions, but are requesting comment on them. This is not consistent with the Panel's recommendations for small entities. We request comment on the usefulness of banking and trading for small entities. For additional information on this subject, commenters may review a report prepared for the Small Business Administration on credits programs, `` Emissions Trading for Small Business'', for ideas on how such programs could be useful for small entities. 41 5. Hardship Provisions We are proposing two types of provisions to address unusual hardship circumstances for motorcycle manufacturers. The first type of hardship program would allow small businesses to petition EPA for additional lead time (e. g., up to 3 years) to comply with the standards. A small manufacturer would have to make the case that it has taken all possible business, technical, and economic steps to comply but the burden of compliance costs would have a significant impact on the company's solvency. A manufacturer would be required to provide a compliance plan detailing when and how it would achieve compliance with the standards. Hardship relief could include requirements for interim emission reductions and/ or purchase and use of emission credits. The length of the hardship relief decided during review of the hardship application would be up to one year, with the potential to extend the relief as needed. The second hardship program would allow companies to apply for hardship relief if circumstances outside their control cause the failure to comply (i. e., supply contract broken by parts supplier) and if the failure to sell the subject engines would have a major impact on the company's solvency. See the proposed regulatory text in 40 CFR 1068.240 and 1068.241 for additional details. In light of the California requirements, which do not include hardship provisions, we request comment on this alternative.

6. 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 proposing no changes to these existing provisions.