Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0486-0006
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-05-17T04:00Z

Proposed
Amendments
to
the
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
On
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation
December
10,
1998
December
10,
1998
Sacramento,
CA
Sacramento,
CA
Air
Resources
Board
California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Overview
Overview
 
Background
Background
 
Updated
Emissions
Inventory
Updated
Emissions
Inventory
 
Proposed
Amendments
Proposed
Amendments
 
Impacts
Analysis
Impacts
Analysis
 
Regulatory
Alternatives
Regulatory
Alternatives
 
Issues
Issues
 
Changes
to
Staff
Proposal
Changes
to
Staff
Proposal
 
Future
Activities
Future
Activities
Why
Revisit
On
Why
Revisit
On­
Road
Motorcycles?

Road
Motorcycles?

 
1984
Board
directive
to
revisit
1984
Board
directive
to
revisit
 
Technical
advances
in
14
years
Technical
advances
in
14
years
 
Cost
Cost­
effective
control
levels
possible
effective
control
levels
possible
 
Opportunity
to
supplement
SIP
Opportunity
to
supplement
SIP
measures
measures
Proposal
Covers
Only
Proposal
Covers
Only
Larger,
On
Larger,
On­
Road
Motorcycles
Road
Motorcycles
New
Sales
Mostly
from
Large
Motorcycles
97%
What's
the
Current
Picture?

What's
the
Current
Picture?

Updated
EMFAC7G
Inventory
Updated
EMFAC7G
Inventory
1990
1990
2010
2010
HC
HC
9.6
(
tons/
day)
4.5
(

9.6
(
tons/
day)
4.5
(
tpd
tpd)

NOx
NOx
4.9
4.9
3.0
3.0
Total
Total
14.5
14.5
7.5
7.5
What's
the
Current
Picture?

What's
the
Current
Picture?
(
cont.)

(
cont.)

Existing
Standards
(
last
amended
for
`
85
MY)

Existing
Standards
(
last
amended
for
`
85
MY)

Engine
Size
Engine
Size
HC
HC­
only
Limit
(
g/
km)

only
Limit
(
g/
km)

700
cc
+

700
cc
+
1.4
1.4
280
280
­­

­­
699
cc
699
cc
1.0
1.0
Staff
Proposal
Staff
Proposal
Two
new
standards
for
HC
+
NOx
Two
new
standards
for
HC
+
NOx
 
Larger
motorcycles
only
(
280
cc
and
above)

Larger
motorcycles
only
(
280
cc
and
above)

Standard
Standard
HC+
NOx
Limit
HC+
NOx
Limit
Model
Year
Model
Year
Tier
Tier­
1
1.4
g/
km
1.4
g/
km
2004
2004
Tier
Tier­
2
0.8
g/
km
0.8
g/
km
2008
2008
 
Maintain
existing
corporate
averaging
Maintain
existing
corporate
averaging
(
no
individual
engine
family
can
exceed
2.5
g/
km)

(
no
individual
engine
family
can
exceed
2.5
g/
km)
Current
Motorcycle
Technologies
Current
Motorcycle
Technologies
 
Carburetors
on
most
motorcycles
Carburetors
on
most
motorcycles
 
Few
have
catalysts
Few
have
catalysts
 
Some
have
simple
pulse
Some
have
simple
pulse­
air
air
Approach
for
Developing
Tier
Approach
for
Developing
Tier­
1
 
Non
Non­
catalyst
for
most
motorcycles
catalyst
for
most
motorcycles
 
Reduce
engine
Reduce
engine­
out
emissions
out
emissions
 
Increase
use
of
simple
pulse
air
Increase
use
of
simple
pulse
air
Technologies
to
Meet
Technologies
to
Meet
Proposed
Tier
Proposed
Tier­
1
Standard
1
Standard
 
25%
emission
reduction
25%
emission
reduction
 
60%
of
bikes
already
at
or
near
Tier
60%
of
bikes
already
at
or
near
Tier­
1
 
Carburetors
retained
for
many
models
Carburetors
retained
for
many
models
 
Electronic
fuel
injection
on
some
Electronic
fuel
injection
on
some
 
Catalysts
generally
not
required
Catalysts
generally
not
required
 
Simple
engine
modifications
Simple
engine
modifications
 
Expanded
use
of
pulse
air
Expanded
use
of
pulse
air
Approach
for
Developing
Tier
Approach
for
Developing
Tier­
2
 
Catalysts
for
some,
non
Catalysts
for
some,
non­
catalyst
for
others
catalyst
for
others
 
Recognize
exhaust
replacement
primarily
in
Recognize
exhaust
replacement
primarily
in
one
sector
(

one
sector
(
approx
approx.
40%
of
market)

.
40%
of
market)

 
Give
manufacturers
flexibility
to
leave
Give
manufacturers
flexibility
to
leave
non
non­
catalyst
bikes
at
1.4
g/
km.

catalyst
bikes
at
1.4
g/
km.

 
Remaining
60%
of
market
could
meet
Remaining
60%
of
market
could
meet
0.4
g/
km
0.4
g/
km
 
Result
=
industry
average
of
0.8
g/
km
Result
=
industry
average
of
0.8
g/
km
 
Other
scenarios
possible
Other
scenarios
possible
 
60%
emission
reduction
from
1998
models
60%
emission
reduction
from
1998
models
 
Up
to
60%
of
models
projected
to
use
Up
to
60%
of
models
projected
to
use
°
Computer
Computer­
controlled
fuel
injection
controlled
fuel
injection
°
Computer
Computer­
controlled
pulse
air
for
cold
controlled
pulse
air
for
cold­
start
start
°
3­
way
catalyst
&
feed
way
catalyst
&
feed­
back
control
back
control
 
More
Tier
More
Tier­
1
engine
modifications
1
engine
modifications
Technologies
to
Meet
Technologies
to
Meet
Proposed
Tier
Proposed
Tier­
2
Standard
2
Standard
For
2008
Corporate
Averaging
For
2008
Corporate
Averaging
Multiplier
for
meeting
HC+
NOx
limit
Multiplier
for
meeting
HC+
NOx
limit
Model
Year
Model
Year
0.8
g/
km
(
Tier
0.8
g/
km
(
Tier­
2)
0.4
g/
km
2)
0.4
g/
km
1999
1999­­

­­
2004
2004
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
2005
2005
1.375
1.375
2.5
2.5
2006
2006
1.25
1.25
2.0
2.0
2007
2007
1.125
1.5
1.125
1.5
2008
2008
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Proposal
Encourages
Proposal
Encourages
Early
and
Over
Early
and
Over­
Compliance
Compliance
Proposal
Multiplies
Averaging
Proposal
Multiplies
Averaging
Power
of
Early
Power
of
Early­
Compliant
Bikes
Compliant
Bikes
Actual
2004­
2008
Sales
Equivalent
2008
Sales
667
727
889
800
1000
4083
units
Yr­
2008
Yr­
2004
5000
units
Yr­
2008
Tier
Tier­
2
May
Impact
2
May
Impact
Small
Small­
Volume
Manufacturers
Volume
Manufacturers
Small
Small­
Volume
Manufacturer
Provision
Volume
Manufacturer
Provision
 
No
more
than
1,000
units
per
year
in
CA
No
more
than
1,000
units
per
year
in
CA
 
No
new
requirement
in
2004
No
new
requirement
in
2004
 
Meet
Tier
Meet
Tier­
1
standard
in
2008
1
standard
in
2008
 
No
Tier
No
Tier­
2
standard
2
standard
Projected
Emission
Benefits
(
HC+
NOx)

Projected
Emission
Benefits
(
HC+
NOx)

Year
Year
Statewide
HC+
NOx
Reduction
Statewide
HC+
NOx
Reduction
2010
2010
1.3
tons/
day
1.3
tons/
day
2020
2020
2.9
tons/
day
2.9
tons/
day
 
assumes
34%
tampering
rate
(
MIC)

assumes
34%
tampering
rate
(
MIC)

 
full
Tier
full
Tier­
2
benefits
not
expected
until
2020
2
benefits
not
expected
until
2020
due
to
long
average
lifespan
of
MCs
(~
14
years)

due
to
long
average
lifespan
of
MCs
(~
14
years)
 
Full
model
availability
expected
Full
model
availability
expected
 
Small
Small­
volume
manufacturers
volume
manufacturers
°
no
impact
until
2008
no
impact
until
2008
 
Aftermarket
parts
companies
Aftermarket
parts
companies
°
need
to
accommodate
catalysts
by
2008
need
to
accommodate
catalysts
by
2008
Projected
Economic
Impacts
on
Projected
Economic
Impacts
on
Small
Businesses
Small
Businesses
Proposed
Proposed
Increased
Price
Increased
Price
Standard
Standard
per
Bike
(
dollars)

per
Bike
(
dollars)

1.4
g/
km
1.4
g/
km
$
44
$
44
0.8
g/
km*

0.8
g/
km*
$
210
$
210
*
Assumes
California
volume
production
only
*
Assumes
California
volume
production
only
Projected
Cost
to
Consumer
Projected
Cost
to
Consumer
(
compared
to
1998
MY
Motorcycles)

(
compared
to
1998
MY
Motorcycles)
Proposed
Proposed
Cost
Cost­
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
Standard
Standard
(
dollars/

(
dollars/
lb
lb
HC+
NOx)

HC+
NOx)

1.4
g/
km
1.4
g/
km
$
3.00
$
3.00
0.8
g/
km*

0.8
g/
km*
$
5.40
$
5.40
*
Assumes
California
volume
production
only
*
Assumes
California
volume
production
only
 
Cost
Cost­
effectiveness
comparable
to
other
effectiveness
comparable
to
other
adopted
regulations
adopted
regulations
Projected
Cost
Projected
Cost­
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
(
compared
to
1998
MY
Motorcycles)

(
compared
to
1998
MY
Motorcycles)
 
Alternative
#
1:
Adopt
Alternative
#
1:
Adopt
no
new
standards
no
new
standards
°
achieve
reductions
at
other
categories'
expense
achieve
reductions
at
other
categories'
expense
°
inequitable;
limits
last
amended
14
years
ago
inequitable;
limits
last
amended
14
years
ago
 
Alternative
#
2:
Adopt
Alternative
#
2:
Adopt
more
stringent
standards
more
stringent
standards
°
0.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
or
lower
technically
feasible
0.4
g/
km
HC+
NOx
or
lower
technically
feasible
°
increased
burden
on
manufacturers,
consumers
increased
burden
on
manufacturers,
consumers
Alternative
Proposals
Evaluated
Alternative
Proposals
Evaluated
Alternative
Proposals
Evaluated
(
cont.)

Alternative
Proposals
Evaluated
(
cont.)

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2010
2020
HC+

NOx
Reductions,

TPD
 
Alternative
#
3:
Adopt
Alternative
#
3:
Adopt
less
stringent
standards
less
stringent
standards
ARB
ARB
MIC
MIC
Issues
Issues
 
Underestimated
costs
Underestimated
costs
 
Benefits
offset
by
tampering
&
migration
Benefits
offset
by
tampering
&
migration
 
Small
Small­
volume
manufacturer
provision
volume
manufacturer
provision
°
sales
cutoff
too
high
sales
cutoff
too
high
°
Tier
Tier­
2
exemption
2
exemption
°
competitive
advantage
competitive
advantage
Changes
to
Staff
Proposal
Changes
to
Staff
Proposal
 
Applicable
to
complete
engine
Applicable
to
complete
engine
manufacturers
manufacturers
 
Small
Small­
volume
=
300
units
per
year
volume
=
300
units
per
year
 
Technical
changes
Technical
changes
Future
Activities
Future
Activities
 
2006
progress
review
2006
progress
review
 
Tampering
Tampering
°
Cooperative
effort
with
industry
Cooperative
effort
with
industry
°
Quantify
tampering
rates
Quantify
tampering
rates
°
Determine
impacts
on
emissions
Determine
impacts
on
emissions
°
Identify
ways
to
reduce
tampering
Identify
ways
to
reduce
tampering
Conclusion
Conclusion
 
All
feasible
reductions
needed
All
feasible
reductions
needed
 
Current
standards
lag
behind
available
Current
standards
lag
behind
available
technologies
technologies
 
Modern
emission
controls
already
used
on
some
Modern
emission
controls
already
used
on
some
motorbikes
motorbikes
 
Efforts
taken
to
address
industry
concerns
Efforts
taken
to
address
industry
concerns
 
Proposal
is
commercially
&
technologically
Proposal
is
commercially
&
technologically
feasible
feasible