1

Frequently Asked

Questions

 Printed on Recycled Paper

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency (Rev 9/2012)

Air and Radiation EPA420-F-03-045

 December 2003

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

In-Depth Information for Motorcycle

Owners on EPA’s New Emission

Standards for Highway Motorcycles

In December 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a Final Rulemaking (FRM) establishing more stringent

emission standards for highway motorcycles. This information sheet

addresses questions raised by concerned motorcycle owners.

Why is EPA adopting new emission standards for

highway motorcycles?

Motorcycles are regulated under section 202 of the Clean Air Act which

calls for EPA to consider the need to achieve equivalent emission reductions from both motorcycles and other vehicles as much as possible. The

Clean Air Act also requires EPA to set new standards for off-road motorcycles, which we did in 2002. EPA has not revised the on-road motorcycle emission standards for over 20 years. While there have been many

vehicle emission control technology advances over the past two decades,

today’s motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than

driving a car or even a large sport utility vehicle (SUV). The current

federal motorcycle emission standard for hydrocarbon emissions is about

90 times the hydrocarbon standard for today’s passenger cars. And,

although many of today’s motorcycles actually meet the current California emission standards, the current California hydrocarbon standard is

still about 20 times the current federal passenger car limits. The new

standards will also reduce motorcycle riders’ exposure to air toxics and

particulate matter. Some states have also said that new motorcycle

standards will help them achieve their air quality goals.
2

What kind of emission controls may be used by

manufacturers?

We are adopting standards that manufacturers can meet on an average

basis, which may encourage manufacturers to use a broader array of

technologies across their product line. The standards will generally be

effective in two “tiers,” a Tier 1 that will take effect in the 2006 model

year and a Tier 2 that will take effect in the 2010 model year. We don’t

specify what emission controls manufacturers must use to comply with

the regulations, but we anticipate many manufacturers will choose to

meet them by increasing their use of secondary air injection, electronic

fuel injection, and catalytic converters. These technologies are used to

varying degrees on current highway motorcycles. An averaging standard

allows manufacturers some flexibility to choose how and on which

motorcycles to use certain technologies by balancing more-polluting

models with less-polluting models.

Will catalytic converters be required on all highway

motorcycles?

Motorcycles are unique vehicles, and the application of some passenger

car technologies will raise unique issues when applied to motorcycles.

These issues may be more critical with some makes, models, or styles

than with others. About twenty percent of the 2002 and 2003 motorcycles certified by manufacturers to emission standards already incorporate catalytic converters. We project that this will increase to about 50

percent when the second Tier of standards takes effect in 2010. Our

Regulatory Impact Analysis contains a detailed discussion of the technologies expected to be used to meet the proposed standards. At this

time small volume manufacturers are required only to meet the Tier 1

standard, which is achievable without the use of catalytic converters.

The Tier 1 standard for small manufacturers takes effect in the 2008

model year.

Will new highway motorcycle emission standards

affect motorcycles on the road today?

The new regulations will only affect new motorcycles produced for the

2006 and later model years. Anything manufactured prior to the 2006

model year will not be affected and will remain legal to own and operate.

EPA generally provides several years of lead time between publication

of a final rule and the effective date of new standards. Thus, new standards for motorcycles will not have any effect on motorcycles purchased

prior to the 2006 model year.
3

Does the term “useful life” mean that my motorcycle

must be scrapped or turned over to the government

after certain mileage limits are reached?

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 occurs

first. It does not mean that a vehicle is no longer useful or that the vehicle

must be scrapped once these limits are reached. The term has no effect on

the owners’ ability to ride or keep their motorcycles for as long as they

want.

The current useful life for motorcycles with engines over 279cc is 5 years

or 30,000 kilometers (about 18,640 miles), whichever first occurs. In the

proposed rule we requested comment on whether this is a representative

number, or whether motorcycles are driven longer and last longer relative

to twenty years ago when these numbers were established. Although we

suspect that motorcycles and their emission controls frequently last more

than 30,000 kilometers, the final rule does not make any changes to the

useful life definitions.

Are motorcycles a less-polluting alternative to cars

and SUVs?

In fact, motorcycles produce more harmful emissions per mile than a car,

or even a large SUV. The current federal motorcycle standard for hydrocarbon emissions is about 90 times the hydrocarbon standard for today’s

passenger cars. Although many of today’s motorcycles will actually meet

the current California standards, the California hydrocarbon standard is

still 18 to 24 times the current federal passenger car limit, depending on

the displacement of the motorcycle engine.

Beginning in 2004, all passenger cars, light trucks, and SUVs will be

required to meet even more stringent standards. When these standards

become effective, new SUVs will be meeting hydrocarbon standards

about 95 percent cleaner than today’s typical motorcycle.

The current certified emission levels of motorcycles, cars, and trucks are

available in the EPA Annual Certification Test Results Report on EPA’s

Web site at: www.epa.gov/otaq/crttst.htm. These emission tests are

performed by the vehicle manufacturers. For example, the following

comparisons can be made from the data on this Web site (these vehicles

do not represent either the best or the worst emissions within their vehicle type):
4

Would new emission standards make it illegal to

customize my motorcycle?

Many motorcycle owners personalize their motorcycles. Indeed, this is

one of the joys of owning a motorcycle, and owners take their freedom

to customize motorcycles very seriously. We are not changing existing

provisions of section 203(a) of the Clean Air Act, as established in

1977, 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, owners of motor vehicles 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.

We use the term “tampering” to refer specifically to actions that are

illegal under section 203 of the Clean Air Act; the term, and the prohibition, do not apply generally to the wide range of things that a motorcycle enthusiast can do to legally personalize their vehicle, only to

actions that cause the emissions to exceed the standards. The new

emissions standards do not change this “tampering” prohibition. In fact,

it is not within EPA’s ability or discretion to change this statutory prohibition, which Congress put in place more than 20 years ago. Owners are

still 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.

A July 2002 EPA Press Release stated that “Motorcycle owners may

make cosmetic changes such as the color and chrome.” This was interpreted by some owners as meaning that they could only change “color

and chrome,” and the motorcycling community quickly picked up this as

a rallying cry and suggested that EPA was attempting to limit the ways

ledoM2002

elciheVraeY

C s skcurTdnasra elcycrotoM

droF

noitidepxE

DW4

egdoD

ognaruD

DW4

urabuS

retseroF

DWA

ahamaY

6R-FZY

adnoH

C0081XTV

WMB

C0021R

nobracordyH

snoissimE

)elimrepsmarg(

0 3 51. 0 8 70. 0 9 40. 4 8 1. 0 7 4. 9.0
5

in which a motorcycle could be customized. In fact, there are many

things beyond “color and chrome” that a motorcycle owner can legally

modify, and this list of legal modifications will not change as a result of

this final rule. We cannot be more clear about this: the laws regarding

what you can and can not do to your motorcycle will be the same under

the new emission standards as they are today.

How much will new emission controls cost?

Your cost for emission controls depends on the control technologies

used, manufacturing processes, the size of the manufacturer, and other

issues. We estimate increased costs on average of about $30 per motorcycle for the 2006-2009 model year standards, then an incremental $45

for the 2010 model year standards. The average cost of a 2002 motorcycle was approximately $10,000. As noted above, the 2010 standards

do not apply to small manufacturers. In addition, research and development costs for small manufacturers will be partially or even mostly

borne by the engine manufacturers that supply engines to the small

motorcycle manufacturers.

How will the new emission controls affect

performance?

When advanced emission controls such as catalytic converters were

initially suggested for passenger cars there was a great deal of suspicion

regarding the impacts on performance and safety. Today cars are meeting the lowest emission levels in history, yet performance is at unprecedented high levels. Since 1981, the average vehicle today has 93

percent more horsepower and is 29 percent faster in going from 0 to 60

miles per hour. These improvements have occurred even in the context

of the trend towards heavier sport utility vehicles.

Likewise, motorcycle manufacturers have been unanimous in telling us

that the performance of future motorcycles will be equal to or better than

current motorcycles. Advancements in engine technologies in recent

years should allow the use of new emission control technologies with

little to no impact on performance. Motorcycles meeting the new standards should perform as well or better than current motorcycles. The use

of some of these technologies, such as fuel injection, may even improve

reliability, fuel consumption, and some aspects of performance. These

advancements are already being seen today. Consider the redesigned

2003 Yamaha YZF-R6, a 600cc high performance motorcycle in the
6

highly competitive middleweight super-sport/racing category. Relative to

the 2002 model, the 2003 YZF-R6 is eight pounds lighter, several horsepower stronger, is being very well-reviewed in the press, and has about

one quarter the emissions of the 2002 federal model (0.6 g/km HC in

2003 versus 2.6 g/km HC in 2002). It’s also being sold at the same price

as the 2002 model. Emission-related improvements for 2003 include the

addition of fuel injection and a catalytic converter. Even with the addition of a catalytic converter, the use of advanced materials enables the

exhaust system of the 2003 model to be more than two pounds lighter

than the 2002 model.

There are numerous other examples that demonstrate that better emissions can go hand-in-hand with better performance, and as more 2004

and later motorcycles are introduced this will become even more clear. It

may be more difficult to achieve results as dramatic as in the Yamaha

cited above for some motorcycles, but we place significant weight on

what we have heard from the manufacturers, who have significant

technical expertise and are clearly highly qualified to address this issue.

How will these controls affect safety?

Some people have expressed concern about the high temperatures from

catalytic converters posing a safety hazard to motorcycle riders. It is a

fact of motorcycling that riders are in close proximity to their engine and

exhaust system, both of which can generate enough heat to cause severe

burns whether or not a catalytic converter is present. Manufacturers have

always had to consider how to best protect riders from extremes of

exhaust and engine heat, and in recent years they have had to consider

catalytic converters in the equation as well. Manufacturers clearly do not

want to build and market an unsafe product, and we believe that if they

thought catalytic converters would result in injuries to their customers

they would have objected strongly to their use. In fact, however, they

unanimously stated that motorcycles complying with the new standards

would be as safe as motorcycles are today. Although we place a great

deal of weight on what the manufacturers tell us regarding these concerns, our ultimate response to these concerns is based on several other

factors as well.

Catalytic converters are found on all motorcycle categories - cruisers,

touring, sport touring, sport and super sport, standard, and even many

scooters - and on motorcycles from at least 16 manufacturers represented

in the United States. Near one fifth of motorcycles sold in recent years in

Current

U.S. Use of

Catalytic

Converters
7

the United States (or near 100,000 per year) have been equipped with the

emission control devices, meaning that there are likely near 200,000 or

more motorcycles with catalysts on the road today. This level of penetration results in hundreds of millions of miles of riding experience per year.

This significant real-world experience has produced no indication that

catalytic converters present a danger to motorcyclists.

Catalyst technology has been applied to more than 15 million two- and

three-wheelers worldwide, and some nations are far more dependent on

both motorcycles and catalytic converters than the United States. In some

of these nations, it is not unusual to see two-up riding with riders in all

manners of clothing, yet these nations have not reported any problems

with the use of catalytic converters.

We analyzed 2000 consumer complaints regarding motorcycles filed with

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects

Investigation. Of these 2000, 28 were specific to exhaust system components, and seven of these were specifically regarding heat from the

exhaust pipe. We were able to determine that two of the seven motorcycles did not have catalytic converters, another two clearly did have

catalysts, and the remaining three could not be determined. Two complaints did involve some personal injury. In one case the injury resulted

from a motorcycle without a catalyst. In the other case we could not

determine whether a catalytic converter was on the motorcycle, but the

consumer’s description of the problem indicated that it was occurring

along a section of the exhaust pipe far from where a converter would be,

if present.

Another two complaints were regarding motorcycles with catalysts,

although these complaints noted damage to clothing and not injury to the

rider. In summary, we do not believe that the data available from NHTSA

demonstrates that a catalytic converter constitutes a significant safety

risk. These complaints represent a minority of the near six million motorcycles on the road in the United States today, which would not be the

case if there was a generalized problem with excessive heat from catalyst-equipped motorcycles.

How will the rule affect the motorcycle aftermarket

industry?

New emission standards, which are directed at manufacturers of new

motorcycles, will not cause the demise of the motorcycle aftermarket

industry. Automobiles have now had catalytic converters and other

Worldwide

Use of

Catalytic

Converters

Analysis of

Consumer

Complaints

and

Defects

Investigations
8

emission controls for decades, yet a robust automobile aftermarket

continues to thrive. The aftermarket parts industry is a substantial part of

the motorcycle industry and can readily and successfully adapt to any

changes that might result from this rule. The motorcycle aftermarket has

had to abide by the tampering prohibition since the standards were first

implemented, and there is no evidence that this has had any effect on the

viability or growth of the aftermarket.

The motorcycle aftermarket successfully adapted to the disappearance of

2-stroke engines and the appearance of 4-stroke engines in street bikes

which occurred in the 1980s. We have neither found nor been provided

with any evidence that the motorcycle aftermarket will be affected to any

significant degree by new emission standards. In addition, we believe

that the vast majority of aftermarket items have nothing to do with

emissions, and will thus be unaffected. There is no reason to believe that

parts manufacturers and designers will not design and offer compliant

parts where there is a demand for such parts. Finally, there are currently

tampering prohibitions regarding noise control equipment on motorcycles, and even though it is very common to install aftermarket exhaust

pipes on street bikes, the market for aftermarket exhaust systems continues to thrive and does not appear to be harmed or otherwise restricted by

these existing prohibitions.

How closely do the new rules follow the California

rules?

The new rules directly parallel the California model with several exceptions. First, we proposed regulations to control permeation emissions - a

type of evaporative emission in which fuel is lost through permeation of

plastic fuel tanks and fuel hoses. California currently has more stringent

evaporative emission control regulations, which in some cases require

the use of a charcoal canister on the motorcycle to receive fuel vapors.

We expect California to maintain these provisions. Second, we proposed

standards for motorcycles with engines less than 50cc displacement. Like

the current federal regulations, California does not regulate these twowheelers, though we expect they will ultimately choose to harmonize

with federal regulations for these vehicles. Third, we proposed to alter

the timing, making federal standards effective after manufacturers have

had two years of experience meeting new emission limits in California.

There are other more subtle differences as well. For example, under the

emissions averaging program, we allow motorcycles to emit up to 5.0

grams/kilometer hydrocarbons + nitrogen oxides (HC+NOx) during the
9

period of 2006-2009, after which the “cap” becomes harmonized with

California’s 2.5 gram/kilometer upper limit. California does not provide

such an “interim” cap during the comparable time period; instead their

upper limit goes right to 2.5 grams/kilometer HC+NOx. We are also

optionally allowing averaging of emissions between and within each of

the three motorcycle classes, whereas California only allows averaging

in the context of the Class III standards (greater than 279cc).

What are the differences between EPA’s proposed

rule and the final rule?

There are very few differences between the proposed and final rules. The

final rule has some provisions not seen in the proposal to address kit and

custom motorcycles. For example, we are expanding the currently

available display exemption to make it easier for small manufacturers to

build and sell custom motorcycles without coming into conflict with the

regulatory requirements. Today, motorcycles cannot be sold without a

certificate of conformity with emission standards from the EPA. The new

provisions remove this burden for small numbers of these high-custom

motorcycles which are built for show and display purposes and are

unlikely to spend much time on the road.

What are the most significant differences between

the new rule and the pre-existing rules?

We consider several aspects of the new regulations to be a significant

improvement relative to the current rules. First, we are reducing the

emission standards to levels that are consistent with the capabilities of

technology today. No one can reasonably argue with the fact that the

existing standards—set by a final rule that was signed by the EPA Administrator 27 years ago—make sense in the context of the technological

advancements since that last action. Second, we are incorporating NOx

in the new standards. NOx is an ozone precursor, and as such has been

regulated in automobiles for decades. Third, the new program makes the

transition from a program where every motorcycle had to meet a specified emission limit to an averaging program, in which manufacturers

have the flexibility to balance more polluting motorcycles with less

polluting ones as long as their overall fleet meets a given average emissions limit.
10

Where can I get more information?

Keep an eye on the EPA highway motorcycle Web page (www.epa.gov/

otaq/roadbike.htm) for more information and any developments. For

further information, please contact the Assessment and Standards Division at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Voicemail: (734) 214-4636

E-mail: ASDInfo@epa.gov