Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0024-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Control of Emissions From Spark-Ignition Marine Vessels and Highway Motorcycles
Posted Date: 2002-08-14T04:00Z

Wednesday,

August
14,
2002
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Parts
86,
90,
1045,
1051
and
1068
Control
of
Emissions
From
Spark­
Ignition
Marine
Vessels
and
Highway
Motorcycles;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53050
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
86,
90,
1045,
1051,
and
1068
[AMS–
FRL–
7253–
8]

RIN
2060–
AJ90
Control
of
Emissions
From
SparkIgnition
Marine
Vessels
and
Highway
Motorcycles
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.

SUMMARY:
In
this
action,
we
are
proposing
evaporative
emissions
standards
for
marine
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
engines
(including
sterndrive,
inboard,
and
outboard
engines
and
personal
watercraft)
and
we
discuss
our
plans
to
propose
standards
in
the
future
regulating
exhaust
emissions
from
spark­
ignition
marine
engines.
This
action
also
proposes
new
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles,
including
motorcycles
of
less
than
50
cubic
centimeters
in
displacement.
This
action
is
related
to
our
proposal
for
emission
standards
for
several
sources
that
cause
or
contribute
to
air
pollution.
On
October
5,
2001
we
published
proposed
standards
for
large
spark­
ignition
engines
such
as
those
used
in
forklifts
and
airport
tugs;
recreational
vehicles
using
sparkignition
engines
such
as
off­
highway
motorcycles,
all­
terrain
vehicles,
and
snowmobiles;
and
recreational
marine
diesel
engines.
Nationwide,
marine
evaporative
hydrocarbon
(HC)
emissions
contribute
to
ozone,
and
motorcycles
contribute
to
ozone,
carbon
monoxide
(CO),
and
particulate
matter
(PM)
nonattainment.
These
pollutants
cause
a
range
of
adverse
health
effects,
especially
in
terms
of
respiratory
impairment
and
related
illnesses.
The
proposed
standards
would
help
states
achieve
and
maintain
air
quality
standards.
In
addition,
the
proposed
evaporative
emission
standards
would
help
reduce
acute
exposure
air
toxics
and
the
proposed
motorcycle
exhaust
standards
would
help
reduce
exposure
to
CO,
air
toxics,
and
PM
for
operators
and
other
people
close
to
emission
sources.
They
would
also
help
address
other
environmental
problems,
such
as
visibility
impairment
in
our
national
parks.
We
believe
that
manufacturers
would
be
able
to
maintain
or
even
improve
the
performance
of
their
products
in
certain
respects
when
producing
engines
and
vessels
meeting
the
proposed
standards.
In
fact,
we
estimate
that
the
evaporative
emission
standards
would
reduce
fuel
consumption
by
enough
to
offset
any
costs
associated
with
the
evaporative
emission
control
technology.
Overall,
the
gasoline
fuel
savings
associated
with
the
anticipated
changes
in
technology
resulting
from
the
rule
proposed
in
this
notice
are
estimated
to
be
about
31
million
gallons
per
year
once
the
program
is
fully
phased
in
(2030).
The
proposal
also
has
several
provisions
to
address
the
unique
limitations
of
smallvolume
manufacturers.
DATES:
Comments:
Send
written
comments
on
this
proposal
by
November
8,
2002.
See
Section
VII
for
more
information
about
written
comments.
Hearings:
We
will
hold
a
public
hearing
on
September
17,
2002
starting
at
9:
30
a.
m.
EDT.
This
hearing
will
focus
on
issues
related
to
highway
motorcycles.
In
addition,
we
will
hold
a
public
hearing
on
September
23,
2002
starting
at
9:
30
a.
m.
EDT.
This
hearing
will
focus
on
issues
related
to
marine
vessels.
If
you
want
to
testify
at
a
hearing,
notify
the
contact
person
listed
below
at
least
ten
days
before
the
hearing.
See
Section
VII
for
more
information
about
public
hearings.
ADDRESSES:
Comments:
You
may
send
written
comments
in
paper
form
or
by
e­
mail.
We
must
receive
them
by
November
8,
2002.
Send
paper
copies
of
written
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to
the
contact
person
listed
below.
You
may
also
submit
comments
via
e­
mail
to
``
MCNPRM@
epa.
gov.
''
In
your
correspondence,
refer
to
Docket
A–
2000–
02.
Hearings:
We
will
hold
a
public
hearing
for
issues
related
to
highway
motorcycles
on
September
17
at
the
Ypsilanti
Marriott
at
Eagle
Crest,
Ypsilanti,
Michigan
(734–
487–
2000).
We
will
host
a
public
hearing
for
issues
related
to
marine
vessels
on
September
23
at
the
National
Vehicle
and
Fuel
Emission
Laboratory,
2000
Traverwood
Dr.,
Ann
Arbor,
Michigan
(734–
214–
4334).
See
Section
VII,
``
Public
Participation''
below
for
more
information
on
the
comment
procedure
and
public
hearings.
Docket:
EPA's
Air
Docket
makes
materials
related
to
this
rulemaking
available
for
review
in
Public
Docket
Nos.
A–
2000–
01
and
A–
2000–
02
at
the
following
address:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA),
Air
Docket
(6102),
Room
M–
1500
(on
the
ground
floor
in
Waterside
Mall),
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
between
8
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
except
on
government
holidays.
You
can
reach
the
Air
Docket
by
telephone
at
(202)
260–
7548,
and
by
facsimile
(202)
260–
4400.
We
may
charge
a
reasonable
fee
for
copying
docket
materials,
as
provided
in
40
CFR
part
2.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Margaret
Borushko,
U.
S.
EPA,
National
Vehicle
and
Fuels
Emission
Laboratory,
2000
Traverwood,
Ann
Arbor,
MI
48105;
Telephone
(734)
214–
4334;
FAX:
(734)
214–
4816;
E­
mail:
borushko.
margaret@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Regulated
Entities
This
proposed
action
would
affect
companies
that
manufacture
or
introduce
into
commerce
any
of
the
engines
or
vehicles
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
standards.
These
include:
Marine
vessels
with
sparkignition
engines
and
highway
motorcycles.
This
proposed
action
would
also
affect
companies
buying
engines
for
installation
in
vessels
and
motorcycles.
There
are
also
proposed
requirements
that
apply
to
those
who
rebuild
any
of
the
affected
engines.
Regulated
categories
and
entities
include:

Category
NAICS
codes
a
SIC
codes
b
Examples
of
potentially
regulated
entities
Industry
........................................................
........................
3732
Manufacturers
of
marine
vessels.
Industry
........................................................
811310
7699
Engine
repair
and
maintenance.
Industry
........................................................
336991
........................
Motorcycles
and
motorcycle
parts
manufacturers.
Industry
........................................................
421110
........................
Independent
Commercial
Importers
of
Vehicles
and
Parts.

a
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS).
b
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
system
code.

This
list
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
particular
activities
may
be
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53051
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
1
See
66
FR
51098.
2
Diesel­
cycle
engines,
referred
to
simply
as
``
diesel
engines''
in
this
document,
may
also
be
referred
to
as
compression­
ignition
(or
CI)
engines.
These
engines
typically
operate
on
diesel
fuel,
but
other
fuels
may
also
be
used.
Otto­
cycle
engines
(referred
to
here
as
spark­
ignition
or
SI
engines)
typically
operate
on
gasoline,
liquefied
petroleum
gas,
or
natural
gas.
3
While
we
characterize
emissions
of
hydrocarbons,
this
can
be
used
as
a
surrogate
for
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC),
which
is
broader
group
of
compounds.
examine
the
proposed
regulations.
You
may
direct
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
the
person
listed
in
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

Obtaining
Electronic
Copies
of
the
Regulatory
Documents
The
preamble,
regulatory
language,
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document,
and
other
rule
documents
are
also
available
electronically
from
the
EPA
Internet
Web
site.
This
service
is
free
of
charge,
except
for
any
cost
incurred
for
internet
connectivity.
The
electronic
version
of
this
proposed
rule
is
made
available
on
the
day
of
publication
on
the
primary
Web
site
listed
below.
The
EPA
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
also
publishes
official
Federal
Register
notices
and
related
documents
on
the
secondary
Web
site
listed
below.
1.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
docs/
fedrgstr/
EPA–
AIR/
(either
select
desired
date
or
use
Search
feature)
2.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
(look
in
What's
New
or
under
the
specific
rulemaking
topic)
Please
note
that
due
to
differences
between
the
software
used
to
develop
the
documents
and
the
software
into
which
the
document
may
be
downloaded,
format
changes
may
occur.

Table
of
Contents
I.
Introduction
A.
Overview
B.
How
Is
this
Document
Organized?
C.
What
Categories
of
Vessels
and
Vehicles
are
Covered
in
This
Proposal?
D.
What
Requirements
Are
We
Proposing?
E.
Why
Is
EPA
Taking
This
Action?
F.
Putting
This
Proposal
into
Perspective
II.
Public
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
of
Emissions
from
Covered
Engines
A.
Background
B.
What
Are
the
Public
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Nonroad
Engines
and
Motorcycles
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Standards?
C.
What
Is
the
Inventory
Contribution
of
These
Sources?
III.
Evaporative
Emission
Control
from
Boats
A.
Overview
B.
Boats/
Fuel
Systems
Covered
By
This
Proposal
C.
Proposed
Evaporative
Emission
Requirements
D.
Demonstrating
Compliance
E.
General
Compliance
Provisions
F.
Proposed
Testing
Requirements
G.
Special
Compliance
Provisions
H.
Technological
Feasibility
IV.
Sterndrive
and
Inboard
Marine
Engines
V.
Highway
Motorcycles
A.
Overview
B.
Motorcycles
Covered
by
This
Proposal
C.
Proposed
Standards
D.
Special
Compliance
Provisions
E.
Technological
Feasibility
of
the
Standards
VI.
Projected
Impacts
A.
Environmental
Impact
B.
Economic
Impact
C.
Cost
per
Ton
of
Emissions
Reduced
D.
Additional
Benefits
VII.
Public
Participation
A.
How
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
B.
Will
There
Be
a
Public
Hearing?
VII.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Administrative
Designation
and
Regulatory
Analysis
(Executive
Order
12866)
B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
D.
Intergovernmental
Relations
E.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
F.
Protection
of
Children
(Executive
Order
13045)
G.
Federalism
(Executive
Order
13132)
H.
Energy
Effects
(Executive
Order
13211)
I.
Plain
Language
I.
Introduction
A.
Overview
Air
pollution
is
a
serious
threat
to
the
health
and
well­
being
of
millions
of
Americans
and
imposes
a
large
burden
on
the
U.
S.
economy.
Ground­
level
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
and
particulate
matter
are
linked
to
potentially
serious
respiratory
health
problems,
especially
respiratory
effects
and
environmental
degradation,
including
visibility
impairment
in
our
precious
national
parks.
Over
the
past
quarter
century,
state
and
federal
representatives
have
established
emission­
control
programs
that
significantly
reduce
emissions
from
individual
sources.
Many
of
these
sources
now
pollute
at
only
a
small
fraction
of
their
pre­
control
rates.
This
proposal
is
part
of
a
new
effort
that
further
addresses
these
air­
pollution
concerns
by
proposing
national
standards
regulating
emissions
from
several
types
of
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles
that
are
currently
unregulated
by
establishing
standards
for
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles,
as
required
by
Clean
Air
Act
section
213(
a)(
3).
The
first
part
of
this
effort
was
a
proposal
published
on
October
5,
2001
which
included
industrial
spark­
ignition
engines
such
as
those
used
in
forklifts
and
airport
tugs;
recreational
vehicles
such
as
off­
highway
motorcycles,
allterrain
vehicles,
and
snowmobiles;
and
recreational
marine
diesel
engines.
1
This
action,
the
second
part,
includes
evaporative
emission
standards
for
marine
vessels
with
spark­
ignition
engines
and
their
fuel
systems.
2
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
new
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
proposed
standards
for
motorcycles
reflect
the
development
of
emission­
control
technology
that
has
occurred
since
we
last
set
standards
for
these
engines
in
1978.
Including
highway
motorcycles
in
this
proposal
is
also
appropriate
as
we
consider
new
emission
standards
for
the
counterpart
off­
highway
motorcycle
models.
Nationwide,
the
sources
covered
by
this
proposal
are
significant
contributors
to
mobile­
source
air
pollution.
Marine
evaporative
emissions
currently
account
for
1.3
percent
of
mobile­
source
hydrocarbon
(HC)
emissions,
and
highway
motorcycles
currently
account
for
about
1.1
percent
of
mobile­
source
HC
emissions,
0.4
percent
of
mobilesource
carbon
monoxide
(CO)
emissions,
0.1
percent
of
mobile­
source
oxides
of
nitrogen
(NOX)
emissions,
and
0.1
percent
of
mobile­
source
particulate
matter
(PM)
emissions.
3
The
proposed
standards
would
reduce
exposure
to
these
emissions
and
help
avoid
a
range
of
adverse
health
effects
associated
with
ambient
ozone
and
PM
levels,
especially
in
terms
of
respiratory
impairment
and
related
illnesses.
In
addition,
the
proposed
standards
would
help
reduce
acute
exposure
air
toxics
and
PM
for
persons
who
operate
or
who
work
with
or
are
otherwise
active
in
close
proximity
to
these
sources.
They
would
also
help
address
other
environmental
problems
associated
with
these
sources,
such
as
visibility
impairment
in
our
national
parks
and
other
wilderness
areas
where
recreational
vehicles
and
marine
vessels
are
often
used.
This
proposal
follows
EPA's
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulmaking
(ANRPM)
published
on
December
7,
2000
(65
FR
76797).
In
that
Advance
Notice,
we
provided
an
initial
overview
of
possible
regulatory
strategies
for
nonroad
vehicles
and
engines
and
invited
early
input
to
the
process
of
developing
standards.
We
received
comments
on
the
Advance
Notice
from
a
wide
variety
of
stakeholders,
including
the
engine
industry,
the
equipment
industry,
various
governmental
bodies,
environmental
groups,
and
the
general
public.
These
comments
are
available
for
public
viewing
in
Docket
A–
2000–
01.
The
Advance
Notice,
the
related
comments,
and
other
new
information
provide
the
framework
for
this
proposal.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53052
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
4
For
this
proposal,
we
consider
the
United
States
to
include
the
States,
the
District
of
Columbia,
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
Rico,
the
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
Guam,
American
Samoa,
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands,
and
the
Trust
Territory
of
the
Pacific
Islands.
B.
How
Is
This
Document
Organized?
This
proposal
covers
both
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
and
many
readers
may
only
be
interested
in
one
or
the
other
of
theses
applications.
We
have
attempted
to
organize
the
document
in
a
way
that
allows
each
reader
to
focus
on
the
application
of
particular
interest.
The
Air
Quality
discussion
in
Section
II
is
general
in
nature,
however,
and
applies
to
the
proposal
as
a
whole.
The
next
three
sections
contain
our
proposal
for
the
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
that
are
the
subject
of
this
action.
Section
III
presents
the
proposed
evaporative
emission
program
for
marine
vessels
using
spark­
ignition
engines.
Section
IV
discusses
our
intentions
for
controlling
exhaust
emissions
from
spark­
ignition
marine
engines
in
the
future.
Section
V
contains
our
proposed
highway
motorcycle
standards.
Section
VI
summarizes
the
projected
impacts
and
a
discussion
of
the
benefits
of
this
proposal.
Finally,
Sections
VII
and
VIII
contain
information
about
public
participation,
how
we
satisfied
our
administrative
requirements,
and
the
statutory
provisions
and
legal
authority
for
this
proposal.
The
remainder
of
this
Section
I
summarizes
important
background
information
about
this
proposal,
including
the
engines
covered,
the
proposed
standards,
and
why
we
are
proposing
them.

C.
What
Categories
of
Vessels
and
Vehicles
Are
Covered
in
This
Proposal?

1.
Which
Marine
Vessels
Are
Covered
in
This
Proposal?
We
are
proposing
evaporative
emission
requirements
for
marine
vessels
that
use
any
kind
of
spark
ignition
(SI)
engine,
including
boats
using
sterndrive,
inboard,
and
outboard
engines
and
personal
watercraft.
These
vessels
are
currently
unregulated
for
evaporative
emissions.
Although
we
are
not
proposing
exhaust
emission
standards
for
SI
marine,
we
discuss
our
intent
for
a
future
emission
control
program.
This
proposal
covers
new
vessels
that
are
used
in
the
United
States,
whether
they
are
made
domestically
or
imported.
4
A
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
meaning
of
the
terms
``
new,
''
``
imported,
''
as
well
as
other
terms
that
help
define
the
scope
of
application
of
this
proposal,
is
contained
in
Section
III.
B
of
this
preamble.

2.
Which
Highway
Vehicles
Are
Covered
in
This
Proposal?
We
are
proposing
standards
for
new
highway
motorcycles,
including
those
with
engines
with
displacements
of
less
than
50
cubic
centimeters
(cc).
The
federal
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
were
established
over
twenty
years
ago.
Technology
has
advanced
significantly
over
the
last
two
decades,
and
many
advancements
are
currently
being
used
on
highway
motorcycles
in
California
and
elsewhere
in
the
world.
Despite
these
advancements,
highway
motorcycles
currently
produce
more
harmful
emissions
per
mile
than
driving
a
car,
or
even
a
large
SUV.
(This
discrepancy
will
become
even
larger
when
the
Tier
2
emissions
standards
for
passenger
cars
and
SUVs
take
effect
starting
in
2004,
when
SUVs
will
have
to
meet
the
same
set
of
standards
as
passenger
cars.)
Present
technology
already
in
use
on
highway
motorcycles
can
be
applied
easily
and
cost­
effectively
to
achieve
additional
improvements
in
emissions.
California,
which
has
separately
regulated
motorcycles,
recently
adopted
more
advanced
emissions
standards
in
several
stages.
New
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
have
also
been
proposed
or
finalized
internationally.
Proposing
more
stringent
standards
nationwide
will
reduce
emissions
from
these
engines,
which
operate
predominantly
in
warmer
weather
when
ozone
formation
is
a
greater
concern.
In
addition,
we
believe
it
is
important
to
consider
the
emissions
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
in
the
context
of
setting
standards
for
off­
highway
motorcycles.
Some
degree
of
consistency
between
the
standards
for
these
related
products
may
allow
manufacturers
to
transfer
technologies
across
product
lines.
(At
the
same
time,
we
recognize
that
there
are
other
factors
which
may
argue
for
treating
these
categories
differently.)

D.
What
Requirements
Are
We
Proposing?
Clean
Air
Act
section
213
directs
EPA
to
establish
standards
which
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emission
reductions
from
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles
achievable
through
the
application
of
technology
that
will
be
available,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
cost,
noise,
energy,
and
safety
factors.
Other
requirements
such
as
certification
procedures,
engine
and
vehicle
labeling,
and
warranty
requirements
are
necessary
for
implementing
the
proposed
program
in
an
effective
way.
For
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
marine
engines,
we
are
proposing
emission
standards,
beginning
in
2008,
that
would
reduce
evaporative
hydrocarbon
emissions
by
more
than
80
percent.
To
meet
these
standards,
manufacturers
would
need
to
design
and
produce
fuel
systems
that
prevent
gasoline
vapors
from
escaping.
While
we
are
not
proposing
exhaust
emission
standards
for
spark­
ignition
marine
engines
at
this
time,
we
are
participating
with
California
and
industry
representatives
in
a
technology
development
program
that
is
evaluating
the
feasibility
of
using
catalyst
controls
on
these
engines.
We
considered
setting
emission
standards
for
sterndrive
and
inboard
marine
engines
in
this
rulemaking,
but
have
decided
not
to
pursue
these
standards
at
this
time.
We
instead
intend
to
propose
exhaust
emission
standards
for
these
engines
after
the
results
of
this
development
program
are
available.
We
also
intend
at
that
time
to
review,
and
if
appropriate,
propose
to
update
emission
standards
for
outboard
and
personal
watercraft
engines
based
on
the
results
of
the
ongoing
catalyst
test
program.
With
respect
to
highway
motorcycles,
section
202(
a)(
3)(
E)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
states,
in
part:
``
In
any
case
in
which
such
standards
are
promulgated
for
such
emissions
from
motorcycles
as
a
separate
class
or
category,
the
Administrator,
in
promulgating
such
standards,
shall
consider
the
need
to
achieve
equivalency
of
emission
reductions
between
motorcycles
and
other
motor
vehicles
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable.
''
Given
that
it
has
been
more
than
twenty
years
since
the
first
(and
only)
federal
emission
regulations
for
motorcycles
were
implemented,
we
believe
it
is
consistent
with
the
Act
to
set
new
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
Thus,
for
highway
motorcycles
we
are
proposing
to
harmonize
with
the
California
program,
but
with
some
additional
flexibilities.
This
is
a
two­
phase
program
that
would
result
in
reductions
of
HC+
NOX
of
about
50
percent
when
fully
phased
in.

E.
Why
Is
EPA
Taking
This
Action?
There
are
important
public
health
and
welfare
reasons
supporting
the
standards
proposed
in
this
document.
As
described
in
Section
II,
these
sources
contribute
to
air
pollution
which
causes
public
health
and
welfare
problems.
Emissions
from
these
engines
contribute
to
ground
level
ozone
and
ambient
CO
and
PM
levels.
Exposure
to
ground
level
ozone,
CO,
and
PM
can
cause
serious
respiratory
problems.
These
emissions
also
contribute
to
other
serious
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53053
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
5
This
study
is
avaialble
in
docket
A–
92–
28.

6
The
Clean
Air
Act
limits
the
role
states
may
play
in
regulating
emissions
from
new
motor
vehicles
and
nonroad
engines.
California
is
permitted
to
establish
emission
standards
for
new
motor
vehicles
and
most
nonroad
engines;
other
states
may
adopt
California's
programs
(sections
209
and
177
of
the
Act).
The
Act
specifies
the
power
rating
minimum
in
terms
of
horsepower
for
farm
and
construction
equipment
(175
hp
=
130
kW).
environmental
problems,
including
visibility
impairment.

F.
Putting
This
Proposal
Into
Perspective
This
proposal
should
be
considered
in
the
broader
context
of
EPA's
nonroad
and
highway
vehicle
emission­
control
programs;
state­
level
programs,
particularly
in
California;
and
international
efforts.
Each
of
these
are
described
in
more
detail
below.

1.
EPA's
Emission­
Control
Programs
a.
EPA's
nonroad
process.
Clean
Air
Act
section
213(
a)(
1)
directs
us
to
study
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles
to
determine,
among
other
things,
whether
these
emissions
``
cause,
or
significantly
contribute
to,
air
pollution
that
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
or
welfare.
''
Section
213(
a)(
2)
further
required
us
to
determine
whether
emissions
of
CO,
VOC,
and
NOX
from
all
nonroad
engines
significantly
contribute
to
ozone
or
CO
emissions
in
more
than
one
nonattainment
area.
If
we
determine
that
emissions
from
all
nonroad
engines
were
significant
contributors,
section
213(
a)(
3)
then
requires
us
to
establish
emission
standards
for
classes
or
categories
of
new
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles
that
in
our
judgment
cause
or
contribute
to
such
pollution.
We
may
also
set
emission
standards
under
section
213(
a)(
4)
regulating
any
other
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
that
we
find
contribute
significantly
to
air
pollution.
We
completed
the
Nonroad
Engine
and
Vehicle
Emission
Study,
required
by
Clean
Air
Act
section
213(
a)(
1),
in
November
1991.
5
On
June
17,
1994,
we
made
an
affirmative
determination
under
section
213(
a)(
2)
that
nonroad
emissions
are
significant
contributors
to
ozone
or
CO
in
more
than
one
nonattainment
area.
We
also
determined
that
these
engines
make
a
significant
contribution
to
PM
and
smoke
emissions
that
may
reasonably
be
anticipated
to
endanger
public
health
or
welfare.
In
the
same
document,
we
set
a
first
phase
of
emission
standards
(now
referred
to
as
Tier
1
standards)
for
landbased
nonroad
diesel
engines
rated
at
or
above
37
kW.
We
recently
added
a
more
stringent
set
of
Tier
2
and
Tier
3
emission
levels
for
new
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
at
or
above
37
kW
and
adopted
Tier
1
standards
for
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
less
than
37
kW.
Our
other
emission­
control
programs
for
nonroad
engines
are
listed
in
Table
I.
F–
1.
This
proposal
takes
another
step
toward
the
comprehensive
nonroad
engine
emission­
control
strategy
envisioned
in
the
Act
by
proposing
an
emission­
control
program
for
the
remaining
unregulated
nonroad
engines.

TABLE
I.
F–
1.—
EPA'S
NONROAD
EMISSION­
CONTROL
PROGRAMS
Engine
category
Final
rule
Date
Land­
based
diesel
engines
 
37
kW—
Tier
1
...........................................................................................
56
FR
31306
June
17,
1994.
Spark­
ignition
engines
 
19
kW—
Phase
1
................................................................................................
60
FR
34581
July
3,
1995.
Spark­
ignition
marine
................................................................................................................................
61
FR
52088
October
4,
1996.
Locomotives
..............................................................................................................................................
63
FR
18978
April
16,
1998.
Land­
based
diesel
engines—
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
for
engines
<
37
kW—
Tier
2
and
Tier
3
for
engines
 
37
kW.
63
FR
56968
October
23,
1998.

Commercial
marine
diesel
........................................................................................................................
64
FR
73300
December
29,
1999.
Spark­
ignition
engines
 
19
kW
(Non­
handheld)—
Phase
2
.....................................................................
64
FR
15208
March
30,
1999.
Spark­
ignition
engines
 
19
kW
(Handheld)—
Phase
2
.............................................................................
65
FR
24268
April
25,
2000.

b.
National
standards
for
marine
engines.
In
the
October
1996
final
rule
for
spark­
ignition
marine
engines,
we
set
standards
only
for
outboard
and
personal
watercraft
engines.
We
decided
not
to
finalize
emission
standards
for
sterndrive
or
inboard
marine
engines
at
that
time.
Uncontrolled
emission
levels
from
sterndrive
and
inboard
marine
engines
were
already
significantly
lower
than
the
outboard
and
personal
watercraft
engines.
We
did,
however,
leave
open
the
possibility
of
revisiting
the
need
for
emission
standards
for
sterndrive
and
inboard
engines
in
the
future.
c.
National
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
National
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
were
first
established
in
the
1978
model
year.
Interim
standards
were
effective
for
the
1978
and
1979
model
years,
and
final
standards
took
effect
with
the
1980
model
year.
These
standards
remain
in
effect
today,
unchanged
from
more
than
two
decades
ago.
These
standards,
which
have
resulted
in
the
phase­
out
of
two­
stroke
engines
for
highway
motorcycles
above
50cc
displacement,
achieved
significant
reductions
in
emissions.
The
level
of
technology
required
to
meet
these
standards
is
widely
considered
to
be
comparable
to
the
pre­
catalyst
technology
in
the
automobile.
However,
for
the
past
two
decades,
other
agencies
in
Europe,
Asia,
and
California
have
caused
motorcycle
emission
controls
to
keep
some
pace
with
the
available
technology.
It
is
clear
that
the
impact
of
the
current
federal
standards
on
technology
was
fully
realized
by
the
mid­
1980's,
and
that
the
international
and
other
efforts
have
been
the
recent
driving
factor
in
technology
development
for
motorcycle
emissions
control.

2.
State
Initiatives
Under
Clean
Air
Act
section
209,
California
has
the
authority
to
regulate
emissions
from
new
motor
vehicles
and
new
motor
vehicle
engines.
California
may
also
regulate
emissions
from
nonroad
engines,
with
the
exception
of
new
engines
used
in
locomotives
and
new
engines
used
in
farm
and
construction
equipment
rated
under
130
kW.
6
So
far,
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(California
ARB)
has
adopted
requirements
for
four
groups
of
nonroad
engines:
(1)
Diesel­
and
Ottocycle
small
off­
road
engines
rated
under
19
kW;
(2)
new
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines
rated
over
130
kW;
(3)
land­
based
nonroad
recreational
engines,
including
all­
terrain
vehicles,
off­
highway
motorcycles,
go­
carts,
and
other
similar
vehicles;
and
(4)
new
nonroad
SI
engines
rated
over
19
kW.
They
have
approved
a
voluntary
registration
and
control
program
for
existing
portable
equipment.
Other
states
may
adopt
emission
standards
set
by
California
ARB,
but
are
otherwise
preempted
from
setting
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53054
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
emission
standards
for
new
engines
or
vehicles.
In
contrast,
there
is
generally
no
federal
preemption
of
state
initiatives
related
to
the
way
individuals
use
individual
engines
or
vehicles.
a.
SI
Marine
engines.
California
ARB
developed
exhaust
emission
standards
for
SI
marine
engines
through
two
rulemakings.
In
1998,
they
adopted
standards
for
outboards
and
personal
watercraft
that
have
three
stages.
Beginning
with
the
2001
model
year,
manufacturers
must
meet
the
2006
EPA
national
averaging
standard
for
engines
sold
in
California.
In
addition,
they
require
two
more
phases
in
2004
and
2008
which
reduce
the
standards
an
additional
20
and
60
percent,
respectively,
beyond
the
EPA
standards.
Last
year,
California
ARB
also
adopted
exhaust
emission
standards
for
sterndrive
and
inboard
marine
engines.
These
standards
cap
HC+
NOX
emissions
at
15
g/
kW­
hr
beginning
in
2003.
In
2007,
45
percent
of
each
manufacturer's
product
line
must
meet
5
g/
kW­
hr
HC+
NOX.
This
production
fraction
becomes
75
percent
in
2008
and
100
percent
in
2009.
Manufacturers
will
likely
need
to
use
catalytic
converters
to
meet
this
standard.
As
part
of
the
emission­
control
program
for
sterndrive
and
inboard
marine
engines,
California
ARB
has
committed
to
performing
a
review
of
emission­
control
technology
in
conjunction
with
the
industry,
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
and
EPA.
They
intend
to
hold
a
technology
review
in
2003,
and
if
necessary,
hold
another
technology
review
in
2005.
The
technology
review
will
focus
on
applying
catalytic
control
to
marine
engines
operating
in
boats
on
the
water.
EPA
is
working
with
these
groups
to
continue
to
assess
technical
concerns
related
to
introducing
catalysts
on
these
marine
engines.
b.
Highway
motorcycles.
Motorcycle
emission
standards
in
California
were
originally
identical
to
the
federal
standards.
However,
California
ARB
has
revised
their
standards
several
times
to
bring
them
to
their
current
levels.
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
upon
engine
displacement.
California
adopted
an
evaporative
emission
standard
of
2.0
g/
test
for
1983
and
later
model
year
motorcycles,
and
later
amended
the
regulations
for
1988
and
later
model
year
motorcycles,
resulting
in
standards
of
1.0
g/
km
HC
for
engines
under
700cc
and
1.4
g/
km
HC
for
700cc
and
larger
engines.
In
1999
California
ARB
finalized
new
standards
for
Class
III
highway
motorcycles
that
will
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.
The
Tier
1
standard
is
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOX,
and
the
Tier
2
standard
is
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOX.
The
CO
standard
remains
at
12.0
g/
km.

3.
Actions
in
Other
Countries
a.
European
action—
Recreational
Marine
Engines.
The
European
Commission
has
proposed
emission
standards
for
recreational
marine
engines,
including
both
diesel
and
gasoline
engines.
These
requirements
would
apply
to
all
new
engines
sold
in
member
countries.
The
numerical
emission
standards
for
SD/
I
marine
engines,
are
shown
in
Table
I.
F–
2.
Table
I.
F–
2
also
presents
average
baseline
emissions
based
on
data
that
we
have
collected.
These
data
are
presented
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
We
have
received
comment
that
we
should
apply
these
standards
in
the
U.
S.,
but
the
proposed
European
emission
standards
for
SD/
I
marine
engines
may
not
result
in
a
decrease
in
emissions,
and
based
on
emissions
information
we
now
have,
would
in
some
cases
allow
an
increase
in
emissions
from
current
designs
of
engines
operated
in
the
U.
S.

TABLE
I.
F–
2.—
PROPOSED
EUROPEAN
EMISSION
STANDARDS
FOR
FOUR­
STROKE
SPARK­
IGNITION
MARINE
ENGINES
Pollutant
Emission
standard
(g/
kW­
hr)
Baseline
emissions
(g/
kW–
hr)

NOX
......................................................................................................................................................................
15.0
9.7
HC
........................................................................................................................................................................
a
7.2
5.8
CO
........................................................................................................................................................................
a
154
141
a
For
a
150
kW
engine;
decreases
slightly
with
increasing
engine
power
rating.

b.
Highway
motorcycles.
Under
the
auspices
of
the
United
Nations/
Economic
Commission
for
Europe
(UN/
ECE)
there
is
an
ongoing
effort
to
develop
a
global
harmonized
world
motorcycle
test
cycle
(WMTC).
The
objective
of
this
work
is
to
develop
a
scientifically
supported
test
cycle
that
accurately
represents
the
in­
use
driving
characteristics
of
motorcycles.
The
United
States
is
also
a
participating
member
of
UN/
ECE.
This
is
an
ongoing
process
that
EPA
is
actively
participating
in,
but
that
will
not
likely
result
in
an
action
until
sometime
in
2003
or
2004.
If
an
international
test
procedure
is
agreed
upon
by
the
participating
nations,
we
plan
to
initiate
a
rulemaking
process
to
propose
adopting
the
global
test
cycle
as
part
of
the
U.
S.
regulations.
The
European
Union
(EU)
recently
finalized
a
new
phase
of
motorcycle
standards,
which
will
start
in
2003,
and
are
considering
a
second
phase
to
start
in
2006.
The
2003
European
standards
are
more
stringent
than
the
existing
Federal
standards,
being
somewhat
comparable
to
the
California
Tier
1
standards
taking
effect
in
2004.
The
standards
being
considered
for
2006,
along
with
a
revised
test
cycle
(as
an
interim
cycle
to
bridge
between
the
current
EU
cycle
and
a
possible
WMTC
cycle
in
the
future)
are
likely
to
be
proposed
soon
by
the
EU.
As
of
April
2002
the
2006
European
standards
and
test
cycle
are
being
considered
and
debated
by
the
European
Parliament
and
the
European
Commission.
Many
other
nations,
particularly
in
southeast
Asia
where
low­
displacement
two­
stroke
motorcycles
are
ubiquitous,
have
established
standards
that
could
be
considered
quite
stringent.
Taiwan,
in
particular,
is
often
noted
for
having
some
of
the
most
stringent
standards
in
the
world,
but
India,
China,
Japan,
and
Thailand,
are
moving
quickly
towards
controlling
what
is,
in
those
nations,
a
significant
contributor
to
air
pollution
problems.

4.
Recently
Proposed
EPA
Standards
for
Nonroad
Engines
This
proposal
is
the
second
part
of
an
effort
to
control
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
that
are
currently
unregulated
and
for
updating
Federal
emissions
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
first
part
of
this
effort
was
a
proposal
published
on
October
5,
2001
for
emission
control
from
large
sparkignition
engines
such
as
those
used
in
forklifts
and
airport
tugs;
recreational
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53055
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
vehicles
using
spark­
ignition
engines
such
as
off­
highway
motorcycles,
allterrain
vehicles,
and
snowmobiles;
and
recreational
marine
diesel
engines.
The
October
5,
2001
proposal
includes
general
provisions
in
proposed
40
CFR
part
1068
that
address
the
applicability
of
nonroad
engine
standards,
which
could
be
relevant
to
commenters.
With
regard
to
Large
SI
engines,
we
proposed
a
two­
phase
program.
The
first
phase
of
the
standards,
to
go
into
effect
in
2004,
are
the
same
as
those
recently
adopted
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.
In
2007,
we
propose
to
supplement
these
standards
by
setting
limits
that
would
require
optimizing
the
same
technologies
but
would
be
based
on
a
transient
test
cycle.
New
requirements
for
evaporative
emissions
and
engine
diagnostics
would
also
start
in
2007.
For
recreational
vehicles,
we
proposed
emission
standards
for
snowmobiles
separately
from
offhighway
motorcycles
and
all­
terrain
vehicles.
For
snowmobiles,
we
proposed
a
first
phase
of
standards
for
HC
and
CO
emissions
based
on
the
use
of
clean
carburetion
or
2­
stroke
electronic
fuel
injection
(EFI)
technology,
and
a
second
phase
of
emission
standards
for
snowmobiles
that
would
involve
use
of
direct
fuel
injection
2­
stroke
and
some
4­
stroke
technology.
For
off
highway
motorcycles
and
all­
terrain
vehicles,
we
proposed
standards
based
mainly
on
moving
these
engines
from
2­
stroke
to
4­
stroke
technology.
In
addition,
we
proposed
a
second
phase
of
standards
for
all­
terrain
vehicles
that
could
require
some
catalyst
use.
For
marine
diesel
engines,
we
proposed
to
extend
our
commercial
marine
diesel
engine
standards
to
diesel
engines
used
on
recreational
vessels.
These
standards
would
phase
in
beginning
in
2006.

II.
Public
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
of
Emissions
From
Covered
Engines
A.
Background
This
proposal
contains
regulatory
strategies
to
control
evaporative
emissions
from
marine
vessels
that
use
spark
ignition
engines.
Spark­
ignition
marine
vessels
include
vessels
that
use
sterndrive
and
inboard
engines
as
well
as
outboards
and
personal
watercraft.
Most
of
these
vessels
are
recreational,
but
there
are
some
commercial
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
engines
as
well.
The
standards
we
are
proposing
in
this
document
for
marine
vessels
may
require
changes
to
the
fuel
system
or
fuel
tank.
We
are
also
proposing
revised
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
current
HC
and
CO
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
were
set
in
1978
and
are
based
on
1970s
technology.
The
proposed
standards
are
harmonized
to
California's
emission
limits,
but
also
include
new
requirements
for
under
50
cc
motorcycles.
Nationwide,
marine
vessels
and
onhighway
motorcycles
are
an
important
source
of
mobile­
source
air
pollution
(see
section
II–
C).
We
determined
that
marine
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
engines
cause
or
contribute
to
ozone
and
carbon
monoxide
pollution
in
more
than
on
nonattainment
area
in
an
action
dated
February
7,
1996
(61
FR
4600).
These
engines
continue
to
contribute
to
these
problems
because
they
are
primarily
used
in
warm
weather
and
therefore
their
HC,
NOX,
CO,
and
PM
emissions
contribute
to
ozone
formation
and
ambient
PM
and
CO
levels,
and
because
they
are
primarily
used
in
marinas
and
commercial
ports
that
are
frequently
located
in
nonattainment
areas
such
as
Chicago
and
New
York.
Evaporative
emissions
from
marine
vessels
are
also
significant
for
similar
reasons
and
because
the
emissions
occur
all
the
time
rather
than
just
when
the
engine
is
running.
Similarly,
onhighway
motorcycles
are
typically
used
in
warm,
dry
weather
when
their
HC
and
NOX
emissions
are
most
likely
to
form
ozone,
thus
adding
to
ground­
level
ozone
levels
and
contributing
to
ozone
nonattainment.
We
expect
that
implementation
of
the
proposed
standards
would
result
in
about
a
50
percent
reduction
in
HC
emissions
and
NOX
emissions
from
highway
motorcycles
in
2020.
We
expect
that
the
proposed
standards
would
result
in
about
a
56
percent
reduction
in
evaporative
HC
emissions
from
marine
vessels
using
spark­
ignition
engines
in
2020
(see
Section
VI
below
for
more
details).
These
emission
reductions
would
reduce
ambient
concentrations
of
ozone,
and
fine
particles,
which
is
a
health
concern
and
contributes
to
visibility
impairment.
The
standards
would
also
reduce
personal
exposure
for
people
who
operate
or
who
work
with
or
are
otherwise
in
close
proximity
to
these
engines
and
vehicles.
As
summarized
below
and
described
more
fully
in
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
for
this
proposal,
many
types
of
hydrocarbons
are
air
toxics.
By
reducing
these
emissions,
the
proposed
standards
would
provide
assistance
to
states
facing
ozone
air
quality
problems,
which
can
cause
a
range
of
adverse
health
effects,
especially
in
terms
of
respiratory
impairment
and
related
illnesses.
States
are
required
to
develop
plans
to
address
visibility
impairment
in
national
parks,
and
the
reductions
proposed
in
this
rule
would
assist
states
in
those
efforts.

B.
What
Are
the
Public
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Associated
With
Emissions
From
Nonroad
Engines
and
Motorcycles
Subject
to
the
Proposed
Standards?

Marine
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
engines
and
highway
motorcycles
generate
emissions
that
contribute
to
ozone
formation
and
ambient
levels
of
PM,
and
air
toxics.
This
section
summarizes
the
general
health
effects
of
these
pollutants.
National
inventory
estimates
are
set
out
in
Section
II.
C,
and
estimates
of
the
expected
impact
of
the
proposed
control
programs
are
described
in
Section
VI.
Interested
readers
are
encouraged
to
refer
to
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
for
this
proposal
for
more
in­
depth
discussions.

1.
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Associated
with
Ground
Level
Ozone
and
its
Precursors
Volatile
organic
compounds
(VOC)
and
NOX
are
precursors
in
the
photochemical
reaction
which
forms
tropospheric
ozone.
Ground­
level
ozone,
the
main
ingredient
in
smog,
is
formed
by
complex
chemical
reactions
of
VOCs
and
NOX
in
the
presence
of
heat
and
sunlight.
Hydrocarbons
(HC)
are
a
large
subset
of
VOC,
and
to
reduce
mobile­
source
VOC
levels
we
set
maximum
emissions
limits
for
hydrocarbon
and
particulate
matter
emissions.
A
large
body
of
evidence
shows
that
ozone
can
cause
harmful
respiratory
effects
including
chest
pain,
coughing,
and
shortness
of
breath,
which
affect
people
with
compromised
respiratory
systems
most
severely.
When
inhaled,
ozone
can
cause
acute
respiratory
problems;
aggravate
asthma;
cause
significant
temporary
decreases
in
lung
function
of
15
to
over
20
percent
in
some
healthy
adults;
cause
inflammation
of
lung
tissue;
produce
changes
in
lung
tissue
and
structure;
may
increase
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits;
and
impair
the
body's
immune
system
defenses,
making
people
more
susceptible
to
respiratory
illnesses.
Children
and
outdoor
workers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
elevated
ambient
levels
of
ozone
during
exercise
and,
therefore,
are
at
a
greater
risk
of
experiencing
adverse
health
effects.
Beyond
its
human
health
effects,
ozone
has
been
shown
to
injure
plants,
which
has
the
effect
of
reducing
crop
yields
and
reducing
productivity
in
forest
ecosystems.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53056
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
7
National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report,
1999,
EPA,
2001,
at
Table
A–
19.
This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
aqtrnd99/.
The
data
from
the
Trends
report
are
the
most
recent
EPA
air
quality
data
that
have
been
quality
assured.
A
copy
of
this
table
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
II–
A–
64.
8
National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report,
1998,
March,
2000,
at
28.
This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
aqtrnd98/.
The
data
from
the
Trends
report
are
the
most
recent
EPA
air
quality
data
that
have
been
quality
assured.
A
copy
of
this
table
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
II–
A.–
63.
9
National
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
Trends
Report,
1998,
March,
2000,
at
32.
This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
aqtrnd98/.
The
data
from
the
trends
report
are
the
most
recent
EPA
air
quality
data
that
have
been
quality
assured.
A
copy
of
this
table
can
also
be
found
in
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
II–
A–
63.
10
Additional
information
about
this
modeling
can
be
found
in
our
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Contro
Requirements,
document
EPA420–
R–
00–
026,
December
2000.
This
document
is
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel.
htm#
documents
and
in
Docket
No.
1–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
II–
A–
13.
11
We
also
performed
ozone
air
quality
modeling
for
the
western
United
States
but,
as
described
further
in
the
air
quality
technical
support
document,
model
predictions
were
well
below
corresponding
ambient
concentrations
for
out
heavy­
duty
engine
standards
and
fuel
sulfur
control
rulemaking.
Because
of
poor
model
performance
for
this
region
of
the
country,
the
results
of
the
Western
ozone
modeling
were
not
relied
on
for
that
rule.
12
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Control
Requirements,
US
EPA,
EPA420–
R–
00–
026,
December
2000,
at
II–
14,
Table
II.
A–
2.
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
Number
II–
A–
13.
This
document
is
also
available
at
http:/
/www.
epa.
gpa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel/
htm#
documents.
13
Additional
information
about
theses
studies
can
be
found
in
Chapter
2
of
``
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Control
Requirements,
''
December
2000,
EPA420–
R–
00–
026.
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
Number
II–
A–
13.
This
document
is
also
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel.
htm#
documents.
14
A
copy
of
this
data
can
be
found
in
Air
Docket
A–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
II–
A–
80.
15
Memorandum
to
Docket
A–
99–
06
from
Eric
Ginsburg,
EPA,
``
Summary
of
Model­
Adjusted
Ambient
Concentrations
for
Certain
Levels
of
Ground­
Level
Ozone
over
Prolonger
Periods,
''
November
22,
2000,
at
Table
C,
Control
Scenario—
2020
Populations
In
Eastern
Metropolitan
Counties
with
Predicted
Daily
8­
Hour
Ozone
greater
than
or
equal
to
0.080
ppm.
Docket
A–
2000–
01,
Document
Number
II–
B–
13.
There
is
strong
and
convincing
evidence
that
exposure
to
ozone
is
associated
with
exacerbation
of
asthmarelated
symptoms.
Increases
in
ozone
concentrations
in
the
air
have
been
associated
with
increases
in
hospitalization
for
respiratory
causes
for
individuals
with
asthma,
worsening
of
symptoms,
decrements
in
lung
function,
and
increased
medication
use,
and
chronic
exposure
may
cause
permanent
lung
damage.
The
risk
of
suffering
these
effects
is
particularly
high
for
children
and
for
people
with
compromised
respiratory
systems.
Ground
level
ozone
today
remains
a
pervasive
pollution
problem
in
the
United
States.
In
1999,
90.8
million
people
(1990
census)
lived
in
31
areas
designated
nonattainment
under
the
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
7
This
sharp
decline
from
the
101
nonattainment
areas
originally
identified
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990
demonstrates
the
effectiveness
of
the
last
decade's
worth
of
emission­
control
programs.
However,
elevated
ozone
concentrations
remain
a
serious
public
health
concern
throughout
the
nation.
Over
the
last
decade,
declines
in
ozone
levels
were
found
mostly
in
urban
areas,
where
emissions
are
heavily
influenced
by
controls
on
mobile
sources
and
their
fuels.
Twentythree
metropolitan
areas
have
realized
a
decline
in
ozone
levels
since
1989,
but
at
the
same
time
ozone
levels
in
11
metropolitan
areas
with
7
million
people
have
increased.
8
Regionally,
California
and
the
Northeast
have
recorded
significant
reductions
in
peak
ozone
levels,
while
four
other
regions
(the
Mid­
Atlantic,
the
Southeast,
the
Central
and
Pacific
Northwest)
have
seen
ozone
levels
increase.
The
highest
ambient
concentrations
are
currently
found
in
suburban
areas,
consistent
with
downwind
transport
of
emissions
from
urban
centers.
Concentrations
in
rural
areas
have
risen
to
the
levels
previously
found
only
in
cities.
Particularly
relevant
to
this
proposal,
ozone
levels
at
17
of
our
National
Parks
have
increased,
and
in
1998,
ozone
levels
in
two
parks,
Shenandoah
National
Park
and
the
Great
Smoky
Mountains
National
Park,
were
30
to
40
percent
higher
than
the
ozone
NAAQS
over
part
of
the
last
decade.
9
To
estimate
future
ozone
levels,
we
refer
to
the
modeling
performed
in
conjunction
with
the
final
rule
for
our
most
recent
heavy­
duty
highway
engine
and
fuel
standards.
10
We
performed
ozone
air
quality
modeling
for
the
entire
Eastern
U.
S.
covering
metropolitan
areas
from
Texas
to
the
Northeast.
11
This
ozone
air
quality
model
was
based
upon
the
same
modeling
system
as
was
used
in
the
Tier
2
air
quality
analysis,
with
the
addition
of
updated
inventory
estimates
for
2007
and
2030.
The
results
of
this
modeling
were
examined
for
those
37
areas
in
the
East
for
which
EPA's
modeling
predicted
exceedances
in
2007,
2020,
and/
or
2030
and
the
current
1­
hour
design
values
are
above
the
standard
or
within
10
percent
of
the
standard.
This
photochemical
ozone
modeling
for
2020
predicts
exceedances
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
in
32
areas
with
a
total
of
89
million
people
(1999
census)
after
accounting
for
light­
and
heavy­
duty
on­
highway
control
programs.
12
We
expect
the
NOX
and
HC
control
strategies
contained
in
this
proposal
for
marine
vessels
that
use
spark­
ignition
engines
and
highway
motorcycles
will
further
assist
state
efforts
already
underway
to
attain
and
maintain
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
In
addition
to
the
health
effects
described
above,
there
exists
a
large
body
of
scientific
literature
that
shows
that
harmful
effects
can
occur
from
sustained
levels
of
ozone
exposure
much
lower
than
0.125
ppm.
13
Studies
of
prolonged
exposures,
those
lasting
about
7
hours,
show
health
effects
from
prolonged
and
repeated
exposures
at
moderate
levels
of
exertion
to
ozone
concentrations
as
low
as
0.08
ppm.
The
health
effects
at
these
levels
of
exposure
include
transient
pulmonary
function
responses,
transient
respiratory
symptoms,
effects
on
exercise
performance,
increased
airway
responsiveness,
increased
susceptibility
to
respiratory
infection,
increased
hospital
and
emergency
room
visits,
and
transient
pulmonary
respiratory
inflammation.
Prolonged
and
repeated
ozone
concentrations
at
these
levels
are
common
in
areas
throughout
the
country,
and
are
found
both
in
areas
that
are
exceeding,
and
areas
that
are
not
exceeding,
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
Areas
with
these
high
concentrations
are
more
widespread
than
those
in
nonattainment
for
that
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
Monitoring
data
indicates
that
334
counties
in
33
states
exceeded
these
levels
in
1997–
99.
14
The
Agency's
most
recent
photochemical
ozone
modeling
forecast
that
111
million
people
are
predicted
to
live
in
areas
that
are
at
risk
of
exceeding
these
moderate
ozone
levels
for
prolonged
periods
of
time
in
2020
after
accounting
for
expected
inventory
reductions
due
to
controls
on
light­
and
heavy­
duty
onhighway
vehicles.
15
2.
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Associated
With
Particulate
Matter
Highway
motorcycles
contribute
to
ambient
particulate
matter
through
direct
emissions
of
particulate
matter
in
the
exhaust.
Both
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
contribute
to
indirect
formation
of
PM
through
their
emissions
of
organic
carbon,
especially
HC.
Organic
carbon
accounts
for
between
27
and
36
percent
of
fine
particle
mass
depending
on
the
area
of
the
country.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53057
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
16
EPA
adopted
a
policy
in
1996
that
allows
areas
with
PM10
exceedances
that
are
attributable
to
natural
events
to
retain
their
designation
as
unclassifiable
if
the
State
is
taking
all
reasonable
measures
to
safeguard
public
health
regardless
of
the
sources
of
PM10
emissions.
17
Memorandum
to
Docket
A–
99–
06
from
Eric
O.
Ginsburg,
Senior
Program
Advisor,
``
Summary
of
1999
Ambient
Concentrations
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter,
''
November
15,
2000.
Air
Docket
A–
2000–
01,
Docket
No.
II–
B–
12.
For
information
regarding
estimates
for
future
PM2.5
levels,
See
information
about
the
Regulatory
Model
System
for
Aerosols
and
Deposition
(REMSAD)
and
our
modeling
protocols,
which
can
be
found
in
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis:
Heavy­
Duty
Engine
and
Vehicle
Standards
and
Highway
Diesel
Fuel
Sulfur
Controls
Requirements,
document
EPA
420–
R–
00–
026,
December
2000.
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Document
No.
A–
II–
13.
This
document
is
also
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
diesel.
htm#
documents.
Also
see
Technical
Memorandum,
EPA
Air
Docket
A–
99–
06,
Eric
O.
Ginsburg,
Senior
Program
Advisor,
Emissions
Monitoring
and
Analysis
Division,
OAQPs,
Summary
of
Absolute
Modeled
and
Model­
Adjusted
Estimates
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
for
Selected
Years,
December
6,
2000,
Table
P–
2.
Docket
Number
2000–
01,
Document
Number
II–
B–
14.
18
Memorandum
to
Docket
A–
99–
06
from
Eric
O.
Ginsburg,
Senior
Program
Advisor,
``
Summary
of
Absolute
Modeled
and
Model­
Adjusted
Estimates
of
Fine
Particulate
Matter
for
Selected
Years,
''
December
6,
2000.
Air
Docket
A–
2000–
01,
Docket
No.
II–
B–
14.
19
EPA
(1996)
Review
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter:
Policy
Assessment
of
Scientific
and
Technical
Information
OAQPS
Staff
Paper.
EPA–
452/
R–
96–
013.
Docket
Number
A–
99–
06,
Documents
Nos.
II–
A–
18,
19,
20,
and
23.
The
particulate
matter
air
quality
criteria
documents
are
also
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ncea/
partmatt.
htm.
20
EPA
recently
finalized
a
list
of
21
Mobile
Source
Air
Toxics,
including
VOCS,
metals,
and
diesel
particulate
matter
and
diesel
exhaust
organic
gases
(collectively
DPM+
DEOG).
66
FR
17230,
March
29,
2001.
21
See
our
Mobile
Source
Air
Toxics
final
rulemaking,
66
FR
17230,
March
29,
2001,
and
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
that
rulemaking.
Docket
No.
A–
2000–
01,
Documents
Nos.
II–
A–
42
and
II–
A–
30.
Particulate
matter
represents
a
broad
class
of
chemically
and
physically
diverse
substances.
It
can
be
principally
characterized
as
discrete
particles
that
exist
in
the
condensed
(liquid
or
solid)
phase
spanning
several
orders
of
magnitude
in
size.
All
particles
equal
to
and
less
than
10
microns
are
called
PM10.
Fine
particles
can
be
generally
defined
as
those
particles
with
an
aerodynamic
diameter
of
2.5
microns
or
less
(also
known
as
PM2.5),
and
coarse
fraction
particles
are
those
particles
with
an
aerodynamic
diameter
greater
than
2.5
microns,
but
equal
to
or
less
than
a
nominal
10
microns.
Particulate
matter,
like
ozone,
has
been
linked
to
a
range
of
serious
respiratory
health
problems.
Scientific
studies
suggest
a
likely
causal
role
of
ambient
particulate
matter
(which
is
attributable
to
several
of
sources
including
mobile
sources)
in
contributing
to
a
series
of
health
effects.
The
key
health
effects
categories
associated
with
ambient
particulate
matter
include
premature
mortality,
aggravation
of
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
disease
(as
indicated
by
increased
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits,
school
absences,
work
loss
days,
and
restricted
activity
days),
aggravated
asthma,
acute
respiratory
symptoms,
including
aggravated
coughing
and
difficult
or
painful
breathing,
chronic
bronchitis,
and
decreased
lung
function
that
can
be
experienced
as
shortness
of
breath.
Observable
human
noncancer
health
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
diesel
PM
include
some
of
the
same
health
effects
reported
for
ambient
PM
such
as
respiratory
symptoms
(cough,
labored
breathing,
chest
tightness,
wheezing),
and
chronic
respiratory
disease
(cough,
phlegm,
chronic
bronchitis
and
suggestive
evidence
for
decreases
in
pulmonary
function).
Symptoms
of
immunological
effects
such
as
wheezing
and
increased
allergenicity
are
also
seen.
Epidemiology
studies
have
found
an
association
between
exposure
to
fine
particles
and
such
health
effects
as
premature
mortality
or
hospital
admissions
for
cardiopulmonary
disease.
PM
also
causes
adverse
impacts
to
the
environment.
Fine
PM
is
the
major
cause
of
reduced
visibility
in
parts
of
the
United
States,
including
many
of
our
national
parks.
Other
environmental
impacts
occur
when
particles
deposit
onto
soils,
plants,
water
or
materials.
For
example,
particles
containing
nitrogen
and
sulphur
that
deposit
on
to
land
or
water
bodies
may
change
the
nutrient
balance
and
acidity
of
those
environments.
Finally,
PM
causes
soiling
and
erosion
damage
to
materials,
including
culturally
important
objects
such
as
carved
monuments
and
statues.
It
promotes
and
accelerates
the
corrosion
of
metals,
degrades
paints,
and
deteriorates
building
materials
such
as
concrete
and
limestone.
The
NAAQS
for
PM10
were
established
in
1987.
The
most
recent
PM10
monitoring
data
indicate
that
14
designated
PM10
nonattainment
areas
with
a
projected
population
of
23
million
violated
the
PM10
NAAQS
in
the
period
1997–
99.
In
addition,
there
are
25
unclassifiable
areas
that
have
recently
recorded
ambient
concentrations
of
PM10
above
the
PM10
NAAQS.
16
Current
1999
PM2.5
monitored
values,
which
cover
about
a
third
of
the
nation's
counties,
indicate
that
at
least
40
million
people
live
in
areas
where
longterm
ambient
fine
particulate
matter
levels
are
at
or
above
16
µ
g/
m
3
(37
percent
of
the
population
in
the
areas
with
monitors).
17
According
to
our
national
modeled
predictions,
there
were
a
total
of
76
million
people
(1996
population)
living
in
areas
with
modeled
annual
average
PM2.5
concentrations
at
or
above
16
µ
g/
m
3
(29
percent
of
the
population).
18
This
16
µ
g/
m
3
threshold
is
the
low
end
of
the
range
of
long
term
average
PM2.5
concentrations
in
cities
where
statistically
significant
associations
were
found
with
serious
health
effects,
including
premature
mortality.
19
We
expect
the
PM
reductions
that
result
from
control
strategies
contained
in
this
proposal
will
further
assist
state
efforts
already
underway
to
attain
and
maintain
the
PM
NAAQS.

3.
Health
Effects
Associated
with
Air
Toxics
In
addition
to
the
human
health
and
welfare
impacts
described
above,
emissions
from
the
engines
covered
by
this
proposal
also
contain
several
Mobile
Source
Air
Toxics,
including
benzene,
1,3­
butadiene,
formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde,
and
acrolein.
20
The
health
effects
of
these
air
toxics
are
described
in
more
detail
in
Chapter
1
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
for
this
rule.
Additional
information
can
also
be
found
in
the
Technical
Support
Document
for
our
final
Mobile
Source
Air
Toxics
rule.
21
The
hydrocarbon
controls
contained
in
this
proposal
are
expected
to
reduce
exposure
to
air
toxics
and
therefore
may
help
reduce
the
impact
of
these
engines
on
cancer
and
noncancer
health
effects.

C.
What
Is
the
Inventory
Contribution
of
These
Sources?
The
spark­
ignition
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
standards
contribute
to
the
national
inventories
of
pollutants
that
are
associated
with
the
health
and
public
welfare
effects
described
in
Section
II.
B.
To
estimate
nonroad
engine
and
vehicle
emission
contributions,
we
used
the
latest
version
of
our
NONROAD
emissions
model.
This
model
computes
nationwide,
state,
and
county
emission
levels
for
a
wide
variety
of
nonroad
engines,
and
uses
information
on
emission
rates,
operating
data,
and
population
to
determine
annual
emission
levels
of
various
pollutants.
Emission
estimates
for
highway
motorcycles
were
developed
using
information
on
the
certification
levels
of
current
motorcycles
and
updated
information
on
motorcycle
use
provided
by
the
motorcycle
industry.
A
more
detailed
description
of
the
modeling
and
our
estimation
methodology
can
be
found
in
the
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53058
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Chapter
6
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
Baseline
emission
inventory
estimates
for
the
year
2000
for
the
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
covered
by
this
proposal
are
summarized
in
Table
II.
C–
1.
This
table
shows
the
relative
contributions
of
the
different
mobilesource
categories
to
the
overall
national
mobile­
source
inventory.
Of
the
total
emissions
from
mobile
sources,
evaporative
emissions
from
sparkignition
marine
vessels
contribute
about
1.3
percent
of
HC.
Highway
motorcycles
contribute
about
1.1
percent,
0.1
percent,
0.4
percent,
and
0.1
percent
of
HC,
NOX,
CO,
and
PM
emissions,
respectively,
in
the
year
2000.
Our
draft
emission
projections
for
2020
for
the
spark­
ignition
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
that
would
be
subject
to
the
proposed
standards
show
that
emissions
from
these
categories
are
expected
to
increase
over
time
if
left
uncontrolled.
The
projections
for
2020
are
summarized
in
Table
II.
C–
2
and
indicate
that
the
evaporative
emissions
from
marine
vessel
are
expected
to
contribute
1.8
percent
of
mobile
source
HC,
and
motorcycles
are
expected
to
contribute
2.3
percent,
0.2
percent,
0.6
percent,
and
0.1
percent
of
mobile
source
HC,
NOX,
CO,
and
PM
emissions
in
the
year
2020.
Population
growth
and
the
effects
of
other
regulatory
control
programs
are
factored
into
these
projections.

TABLE
II.
C–
1.—
MODELED
ANNUAL
EMISSION
LEVELS
FOR
MOBILE­
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
IN
2000
[Thousand
short
tons]

Category
NOX
HC
CO
PM
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Highway
Motorcycles
..................
8
0.
1
35
0.5
331
0.4
0.4
0.1
Marine
SI
Evaporative
...................
0
0.
0
108
1.3
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
Marine
SI
Exhaust
32
0.2
708
9.6
2,144
2.8
38
5.4
Nonroad
Industrial
SI
>
19
kW
.........
306
2.3
247
3.2
2,294
3.0
1.6
0.2
Recreational
SI
......
13
0.1
737
9.6
2,572
3.3
5.7
0.8
Recreation
Marine
CI
........................
24
0.2
1
0.
0
4
0.
0
1
0.
1
Nonroad
SI
<
19
kW
......................
106
0.8
1,460
19.1
18,359
23.6
50
7.2
Nonroad
CI
.............
2,625
19.5
316
4.1
1,217
1.6
253
36.2
Commercial
Marine
CI
........................
977
7.3
30
0.4
129
0.2
41
5.9
Locomotive
.............
1,192
8.9
47
0.6
119
0.2
30
4.3
Total
Nonroad
........
5,275
39
3,646
48
26,838
35
420
60
Total
Highway
........
7,981
59
3,811
50
49,813
64
240
34
Aircraft
....................
178
1
183
2
1,017
1
39
6
Total
Mobile
Sources
..............
13,434
100
7,640
100
77,668
100
699
100
Total
Man­
Made
Sources
..............
24,538
......................
18,586
......................
99,747
......................
3,095
......................
Mobile
Source
percent
of
Total
Man­
Made
Sources
..............
55%
......................
41%
......................
78%
......................
23%
......................

TABLE
II.
C–
2.—
MODELED
ANNUAL
EMISSION
LEVELS
FOR
MOBILE­
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
IN
2020
[Thousand
short
tons]

Category
NOX
HC
CO
PM
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Highway
Motorcycles
..................
14
0.2
58
0.9
572
0.6
0.8
0.1
Marine
SI
Evaporative
...................
0
0.
0
114
1.8
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
Marine
SI
Exhaust
58
0.9
284
4.6
1,985
2.2
28
4.4
Nonroad
Industrial
SI
>
19
kW
.........
486
7.8
348
5.6
2,991
3.3
2.4
0.4
Recreational
SI
......
27
0.4
1,706
27.7
5,407
3.3
7.5
1.2
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53059
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
II.
C–
2.—
MODELED
ANNUAL
EMISSION
LEVELS
FOR
MOBILE­
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
IN
2020—
Continued
[Thousand
short
tons]

Category
NOX
HC
CO
PM
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Tons
Percent
of
mobile
source
Recreation
Marine
CI
........................
39
0.6
1
0.
0
6
0.
0
1.5
0.2
Nonroad
SI
<
19
kW
......................
106
1.7
986
16.0
27,352
30.5
77
12.2
Nonroad
CI
.............
1,791
28.8
142
2.3
1,462
1.6
261
41.3
Commercial
Marine
CI
........................
819
13.2
35
0.6
160
0.2
46
7.3
Locomotive
.............
611
9.8
35
0.6
119
0.1
21
3.3
Total
Nonroad
........
3,937
63
3,651
59
39,482
44
444
70
Total
Highway
........
2,050
33
2,276
37
48,906
54
145
23
Aircraft
....................
232
4
238
4
1,387
2
43
7
Total
Mobile
Sources
..............
6,219
100
6,165
100
89,775
100
632
100
Total
Man­
Made
Sources
..............
16,195
......................
16,234
......................
113,443
......................
3,016
Mobile
Source
percent
of
Total
Man­
Made
Sources
..............
38%
......................
38%
......................
79%
......................
21%
......................

III.
Evaporative
Emission
Control
From
Boats
A.
Overview
Evaporative
emissions
refer
to
hydrocarbons
released
into
the
atmosphere
when
gasoline,
or
other
volatile
fuels,
evaporate
from
a
fuel
system.
These
emissions
come
from
four
primary
mechanisms:
hot
soak,
diurnal
heating,
vapor
displacement
during
refueling,
and
permeation
from
tanks
and
hoses.
Hot
soak
emissions
occur
when
fuel
evaporates
from
hot
engine
surfaces
such
as
parts
of
the
carburetor
as
a
result
of
engine
operation.
These
are
minimal
on
fuel­
injected
engines.
Control
of
hot
soak
emissions
involves
the
engine
manufacturer
rather
than
the
tank
manufacturer.
Currently,
most
fuel
tanks
in
boats
are
vented
to
atmosphere
through
vent
hoses.
Diurnal
emissions,
which
represent
about
20
percent
of
the
evaporative
emissions
from
boats,
occur
as
the
fuel
in
the
tank
and
fuel
lines
heats
up
due
to
increases
in
ambient
temperature.
As
the
fuel
heats,
it
forms
hydrocarbon
vapor
which
is
vented
to
the
atmosphere.
Refueling
emissions
are
vapors
that
are
displaced
from
the
fuel
tank
to
the
atmosphere
when
fuel
is
dispensed
into
the
tank
and
only
represent
a
small
portion
of
the
total
evaporative
emissions.
Permeation
refers
to
when
fuel
penetrates
the
material
used
in
the
fuel
system
and
is
most
common
through
plastic
fuel
tanks
and
rubber
hoses.
This
permeation
makes
up
the
majority
of
the
evaporative
emissions
from
fuel
tanks
and
hoses.
Table
III.
A–
1
presents
our
national
estimates
of
the
evaporative
hydrocarbon
emissions
from
boats
using
spark­
ignition
engines
for
2000.

TABLE
III.
A–
1.—
ESTIMATED
EVAPORATIVE
EMISSIONS
FROM
TANKS/
HOSES
IN
2000
Evaporative
emission
component
HC
[tons]

Diurnal
breathing
losses
...............
22,700
Permeation
through
the
fuel
tank
26,600
Permeation
through
hoses
...........
43,200
Refueling
vapor
displacement
......
6,700
Hot
Soak
.......................................
260
Total
evaporative
emissions
..
100,000
This
section
describes
the
new
provisions
proposed
for
40
CFR
part
1045,
which
would
apply
only
to
boat
manufacturers
and
fuel
system
component
manufacturers.
This
section
also
discusses
proposed
test
equipment
and
procedures
(for
anyone
who
tests
fuel
tanks
and
hoses
to
show
they
meet
emission
standards)
and
proposed
general
compliance
provisions
(for
boat
manufacturers,
fuel
system
component
manufacturers,
operators,
repairers,
and
others).
We
are
proposing
performance
standards
intended
to
reduce
permeation
and
diurnal
evaporative
emissions
from
boats
using
spark
ignition
engines.
The
proposed
standards,
which
would
apply
to
new
boats
starting
in
2008,
are
nominally
based
on
manufacturers
reducing
these
sources
of
evaporative
emissions
by
about
80
percent
overall.
Because
of
the
many
small
businesses
that
manufacture
boats
and
fuel
tanks,
we
are
proposing
a
flexible
compliance
program
that
is
intended
to
help
minimize
the
burden
of
meeting
the
proposed
requirements.
Based
on
a
database
maintained
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard,
we
estimate
that
there
are
nearly
1,700
boat
builders
producing
boats
that
use
engines
for
propulsion.
At
least
1,200
of
these
boat
builders
install
gasoline­
fueled
engines
and
would
therefore
be
subject
to
the
evaporative
emission­
control
program
discussed
below.
Our
understanding
is
that
more
than
90
percent
of
the
boat
builders
identified
so
far
would
be
considered
small
businesses
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
for
SIC
code
3732.
Some
of
these
boat
builders
construct
their
own
fuel
tanks
either
out
of
aluminum
or
fiberglass
reinforced
plastic.
However,
the
majority
of
fuel
tanks
used
by
boat
builders
are
purchased
from
fuel
tank
manufacturers.
We
have
determined
that
fuel
tank
manufacturers
sell
approximately
550,000
fuel
tanks
per
year
for
gasoline
storage
on
boats.
The
market
is
divided
into
manufacturers
that
produce
plastic
tanks
and
manufacturers
that
produce
aluminum
tanks.
We
have
identified
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53060
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
nine
companies
that
make
plastic
marine
fuel
tanks
with
total
sales
of
approximately
440,000
units
per
year.
Of
these
plastic
tanks,
about
20
percent
are
portable
while
the
rest
are
installed.
We
have
determined
that
there
are
at
least
five
companies
that
make
aluminum
marine
fuel
tanks
with
total
sales
of
approximately
110,000
units
per
year.
All
but
one
of
the
fuel
tank
manufacturers
that
we
have
identified
are
small
businesses
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
for
SIC
Code
3713.
Our
understanding
is
that
there
are
four
primary
manufacturers
of
marine
hose
used
in
fuel
supply
lines
and
venting.
At
least
two
of
these
four
manufacturers
produce
hoses
for
other
transportation
sources
as
well
and
already
supply
low
permeation
hoses
that
would
meet
our
proposed
standards.
Only
one
U.
S.
manufacturer
of
fill
neck
hose
has
been
identified.
The
rest
is
shipped
from
overseas.

B.
Boats/
Fuel
Systems
Covered
by
This
Proposal
Generally
speaking,
this
proposed
rule
would
cover
the
fuel
systems
of
all
new
marine
vessels
with
spark­
ignition
(SI)
engines.
We
include
boats
and
fuel
systems
that
are
used
in
the
United
States,
whether
they
are
made
domestically
or
imported.
In
the
ANPRM,
we
discussed
exhaust
and
evaporative
emissions
from
boats
using
only
sterndrive
or
inboard
engines.
As
discussed
later
in
Section
IV,
we
are
not
proposing
exhaust
emission
standards
for
these
engines
at
this
time.
We
are,
however,
proposing
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
evaporative
emission
standards
discussed
in
the
ANPRM,
because
we
see
no
significant
technological
differences
between
fuel
tanks
and
hoses
used
for
sterndrive
or
inboard
engines
and
those
used
for
other
SI
marine
engines.
In
fact,
fuel
tank
and
hose
manufacturers
often
sell
their
products
without
knowing
what
type
of
marine
engine
will
be
used
with
it.

1.
Why
Does
This
Apply
Only
to
Marine
Vessels
Using
Spark­
Ignition
Engines?

Spark­
ignition
marine
engines
generally
use
gasoline
fuel
while
compression­
ignition
marine
engines
generally
use
diesel
fuel.
We
are
proposing
evaporative
emission
standards
only
for
boats
using
sparkignition
engines
because
diesel
fuel
has
low
volatility
and,
therefore,
does
not
evaporate
readily.
In
fact,
the
evaporative
emissions
from
boats
using
diesel
fuel
are
already
significantly
lower
than
standards
we
are
proposing
for
boats
using
spark­
ignition
marine
engines.

2.
Would
the
Proposed
Standards
Apply
to
All
Vessels
Using
SI
Engines
or
Only
to
New
Vessels?

The
scope
of
this
proposal
is
broadly
set
by
Clean
Air
Act
section
213(
a)(
3),
which
instructs
us
to
set
emission
standards
for
new
nonroad
engines
and
new
nonroad
vehicles.
Generally
speaking,
the
proposed
rule
is
intended
to
cover
all
new
vessels.
Once
the
emission
standards
apply
to
these
vessels,
individuals
or
companies
must
get
a
certificate
of
conformity
from
us
before
selling
them
in
the
United
States.
This
includes
importation
and
any
other
means
of
introducing
engines
and
vehicles
into
commerce.
The
certificate
of
conformity
(and
corresponding
label)
provide
assurance
that
manufacturers
have
met
their
obligation
to
make
engines
that
meet
emission
standards
over
the
useful
life
we
specify
in
the
regulations.

3.
How
Do
I
Know
if
My
Vessel
Is
New?

We
are
proposing
to
define
``
new''
consistent
with
previous
rules.
Under
the
proposed
definition,
a
vessel
is
considered
new
until
its
title
has
been
transferred
to
the
ultimate
purchaser
or
the
vessel
has
been
placed
into
service.
Imported
vessels
would
also
be
considered
to
be
new.

4.
When
Would
Imported
Vessels
Need
to
Meet
the
Proposed
Emission
Standards?

The
proposed
emissions
standards
would
apply
to
all
new
vessels
in
the
United
States.
According
to
Clean
Air
Act
section
216,
``
new''
includes
vessels
that
are
imported
by
any
person,
whether
freshly
manufactured
or
used.
All
vessels
imported
for
introduction
into
commerce
would
need
an
EPAissued
certificate
of
conformity
to
clear
customs,
with
limited
exemptions
(as
described
below).
Any
marine
vessel
built
after
these
emission
standards
take
effect
and
subsequently
imported
into
the
U.
S.
would
be
a
new
vessel
for
the
purpose
of
the
regulations
proposed
in
this
document.
This
means
it
would
need
to
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
standards.
For
example,
a
marine
vessel
manufactured
in
a
foreign
country
in
2004,
then
imported
into
the
United
States
in
2008,
would
be
considered
``
new.
''
This
provision
is
important
to
prevent
manufacturers
from
avoiding
emission
standards
by
building
vessels
abroad,
transferring
their
title,
and
then
importing
them
as
used
vessels.
5.
Would
the
Proposed
Standards
Apply
to
Exported
Vessels?
Vessels
intended
for
export
would
generally
not
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
emissioncontrol
program.
However,
vessels
that
are
exported
and
subsequently
reimported
into
the
United
States
would
need
to
be
certified.

6.
Are
There
Any
New
Vessels
That
Would
Not
Be
Covered?
We
are
proposing
to
extend
our
basic
nonroad
exemptions
to
the
engines
and
vehicles
covered
by
this
proposal.
These
include
the
testing
exemption,
the
manufacturer­
owned
exemption,
the
display
exemption,
and
the
national
security
exemption.
These
exemptions
are
described
in
more
detail
under
Section
III.
E.
3.
In
addition,
the
Clean
Air
Act
does
not
consider
vessels
used
solely
for
competition
to
be
nonroad
vehicles,
so
they
are
exempt
from
meeting
the
proposed
emission
standards.

C.
Proposed
Evaporative
Emission
Requirements
Our
general
goal
in
designing
the
proposed
standards
is
to
develop
a
program
that
will
achieve
significant
emission
reductions.
The
standards
are
designed
to
``
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emission
reduction
achievable
through
the
application
of
technology
the
Administrator
determines
will
be
available
for
the
engines
or
vehicles
to
which
such
standards
apply,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost
of
applying
such
technology
within
the
period
of
time
available
to
manufacturers
and
to
noise,
energy,
and
safety
factors
associated
with
the
application
of
such
technology.
''
Section
213(
a)(
3)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
also
instructs
us
to
first
consider
standards
equivalent
in
stringency
to
standards
for
comparable
motor
vehicles
or
engines
(if
any)
regulated
under
section
202,
taking
into
consideration
technological
feasibility,
costs,
and
other
factors.

1.
What
are
the
Proposed
Evaporative
Emission
Standards?
We
are
proposing
to
require
reductions
in
diurnal
emissions,
fuel
tank
permeation,
and
fuel
system
hose
permeation
from
new
vessels
beginning
in
2008.
The
proposed
standards
are
presented
in
Table
III.
C–
1
and
represent
more
than
a
25
percent
reduction
in
diurnal
emissions
and
a
95
percent
reduction
in
permeation
from
both
plastic
fuel
tanks
and
from
hoses.
Section
III.
F.
1
presents
the
test
procedures
associated
with
these
proposed
standards.
Test
temperatures
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53061
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
are
presented
in
Table
III.
C–
1
because
they
represent
an
important
parameter
in
defining
the
emission
levels.
The
proposed
fuel
tank
venting
and
permeation
standards
are
based
on
the
total
capacity
of
the
fuel
tank
as
described
below.
The
proposed
hose
permeation
standards
are
based
on
the
inside
surface
area
of
the
hose.
We
are
not
proposing
standards
for
hot
soak
and
refueling
emissions,
as
described
above,
at
this
time.

TABLE
III.
C–
1.—
PROPOSED
EVAPORATIVE
STANDARDS
Evaporative
emission
component
Proposed
emission
standard
Test
temperature
Diurnal
Venting
.............................................................
1.1
g/
gallon/
day
............................................................
22.2–
35.6
C
(72–
96
F)
Fuel
tank
permeation
...................................................
0.08
g/
gallon/
day
..........................................................
40
C
(104
F)
Hose
permeation
..........................................................
5
g/
m
2
/day
....................................................................
(15
g/
m
2
/day
with
15%
methanol
blend)
.....................
23
C
(73
F)

The
proposed
emission
standards
are
based
on
our
evaluation
of
several
fuel
system
technologies
(described
in
Section
III.
H)
which
vary
in
cost
and
in
efficiency.
The
proposed
implementation
date
gives
manufacturers
about
five
years
to
comply
after
we
expect
to
issue
final
standards
.
As
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
III.
H.
1,
this
would
help
minimize
costs
by
allowing
fuel
tank
manufacturers
time
to
implement
controls
in
their
tanks
as
designs
normally
turnover
as
opposed
to
forcing
turnover
premature
to
normal
business
practice.
There
are
a
multiplicity
of
tank
sizes
and
shapes
produced
every
year
and
the
cost
and
efficiency
of
the
available
emission­
control
technologies
will
vary
with
these
different
configurations.
In
determining
the
proposed
standards,
we
considered
costs
and
focused
on
straightforward
approaches
that
could
potentially
be
used
by
all
businesses.
As
discussed
in
Section
H.
3,
we
believe
that
the
approaches
in
this
proposal
would
comply
with
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
safety
requirements
for
fuel
systems.
Given
all
this,
in
the
2008
time
frame,
we
believe
an
average
reduction
of
at
least
80
percent
in
total
evaporative
emissions
from
new
boats
can
be
achieved,
considering
the
availability
and
cost
of
technology,
lead
time,
noise,
energy
and
safety.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
standards
and
implementation
dates,
on
the
units
used
for
the
fuel
tank
permeation
standards
(i.
e.
g/
gallon/
day
versus
g/
m
2
/day),
and
on
the
certification
provisions
discussed
below.
We
are
also
interested
in
comments
regarding
the
cost
of
implementing
the
proposed
standards.
Commenters
are
encouraged
to
provide
specific
data
when
possible.

2.
Will
Averaging,
Banking
and
Trading
Be
Allowed
Across
a
Manufacturer's
Product
Line?
An
emission­
credit
program
is
an
important
factor
we
take
into
consideration
in
setting
emission
standards
that
are
appropriate
under
Clean
Air
Act
section
213.
An
emissioncredit
program
can
reduce
the
cost
and
improve
the
technological
feasibility
of
achieving
standards,
helping
to
ensure
the
attainment
of
the
standards
earlier
than
would
otherwise
be
possible.
Manufacturers
gain
flexibility
in
product
planning
and
the
opportunity
for
a
more
cost­
effective
introduction
of
product
lines
meeting
a
new
standard.
Emission­
credit
programs
also
create
an
incentive
for
the
early
introduction
of
new
technology,
which
would
allow
certain
vessels
to
be
used
to
evaluate
new
technology.
This
can
provide
valuable
information
to
manufacturers
on
the
technology
before
they
apply
it
throughout
their
product
line.
This
early
introduction
of
lower­
emitting
technology
improves
the
feasibility
of
achieving
the
standards
and
can
provide
valuable
information
for
use
in
other
regulatory
programs
that
may
benefit
from
similar
technologies.
Emission­
credit
programs
may
involve
averaging,
banking,
and
trading
(ABT).
Averaging
allows
a
manufacturer
to
certify
one
or
more
products
at
an
emission
level
less
stringent
than
the
applicable
emission
standard,
as
long
as
the
increased
emissions
are
offset
by
products
certified
to
a
level
more
stringent
than
the
applicable
standard.
The
over­
complying
products
generate
credits
that
can
be
used
by
the
undercomplying
products.
Compliance
is
determined
on
a
total
mass
emissions
basis
to
account
for
differences
in
production
volume
and
tank
sizes
among
emission
families.
The
average
of
all
emissions
for
a
particular
manufacturer's
production
must
be
at
or
below
that
level
of
the
applicable
emission
standard.
Early
banking
allows
a
manufacturer
to
certify
early
and
generate
credits
for
modifying
their
fuel
system
to
the
2008
compliance
strategy.
In
2008
and
later,
the
banking
program
would
allow
a
manufacturer
to
generate
credits
and
retain
them
for
future
use.
Trading
involves
the
sale
of
banked
credits
from
one
company
to
another.
We
believe
there
is
a
variety
of
technology
options
that
could
be
used
to
meet
the
proposed
standards
for
diurnal
emissions.
By
using
different
combinations
of
these
technologies,
manufacturers
will
be
able
to
produce
products
that
achieve
a
range
of
emission
reductions.
However,
certain
technologies
may
be
more
appropriate
for
different
applications.
In
some
cases,
manufacturers
may
need
flexibility
in
applying
the
emission­
control
technology
to
their
products.
For
this
reason,
we
are
proposing
that
the
1.1
g/
gallon/
day
diurnal
emission
standard
be
based
a
corporate
average
of
a
manufacturer's
total
production.
To
meet
this
average
level,
manufacturers
would
be
able
to
divide
their
fuel
tanks
into
different
emission
families
and
certify
each
of
their
emission
families
to
a
different
Family
Emissions
Level
(FEL).
The
FELs
would
then
be
weighted
by
sales
volume
and
fuel
tank
capacity
to
determine
the
average
level
across
a
manufacturer's
total
production.
An
additional
benefit
of
a
corporate
average
approach
is
that
it
provides
an
incentive
for
developing
new
technology
that
can
be
used
to
achieve
even
larger
emission
reductions.
Participation
in
the
ABT
program
would
be
voluntary.
Any
manufacturer
could
choose
to
certify
each
of
its
evaporative
emission
control
families
at
levels
which
would
meet
the
1.1
g/
gallon/
day
proposed
standard
and
would
then
comply
with
the
average
by
default.
Some
manufacturers
may
choose
this
approach
as
the
could
see
it
as
less
complicated
to
implement.
The
following
is
an
example
of
how
the
proposed
averaging
program
for
diurnal
emissions
could
give
a
boat
manufacturer
flexibility
in
its
production.
Suppose
a
boat
builder
was
selling
10
boats,
three
with
100­
gallon
fuel
tanks
and
seven
with
50­
gallon
fuel
tanks.
In
this
case,
the
boat
builder
constructs
its
own
fuel
tanks
believes
that
an
open­
vent
configuration
without
any
emission
control
is
necessary
for
the
vessel
application
using
the
100
gallon
tanks.
However,
the
manufacturer
is
able
to
use
closed­
vent
fuel
tanks
with
a
2.0
psi
pressure
relief
valve
in
the
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53062
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
smaller
fuel
tanks.
Using
the
design
certification
levels
described
in
Section
III..
F.
3,
the
100
gallon
fuel
tanks
would
have
an
FEL
of
1.5
g/
gallon/
day
and
the
50
gallon
fuel
tanks
would
have
an
FEL
of
0.7
g/
gallon/
day.
The
manufacturer
would
generate
debits
for
the
three
boats
with
100
gallon
fuel
tanks
using
the
following
equation:
Debits
=
(1.5
g/
gallon
¥
1.1
g/
gallon)
×
3
tanks
×
100
gallon/
tank
=
120
g
The
manufacturer
would
need
to
use
credits
to
cover
these
debits.
The
boats
certified
using
a
closed
vent
with
a
2.0
psi
pressure
relief
valve
in
this
example
would
generate
the
following
credits:
Credits
=
(1.1
g/
gallon
¥
0.7
g/
gallon)
×
7
tanks
×
50
gallon/
tank
=
140
g
Because
the
credits
are
larger
than
the
debits
in
this
example,
the
boat
builder
would
meet
the
proposed
corporate
average
standard
by
certifying
these
ten
boats.
We
also
propose
to
allow
manufacturers
to
bank
and
trade
emission
credits.
We
are
proposing
that
emission
credits
generated
under
this
program
have
no
expiration,
with
no
discounting
applied.
The
credits
would
belong
to
the
entity
that
certifies
the
fuel
tank.
In
the
above
example,
the
manufacturer
would
have
20
grams
of
credits
(140
g
¥
120
g
=
20
g)
that
it
could
bank,
either
for
trading
or
for
later
model
year
averaging.
Beginning
in
2004,
we
propose
to
allow
early
banking
for
diurnal
evaporative
emissions.
Under
this
program,
manufacturers
generate
early
credits
in
2004
through
2007
for
adding
new
evaporative
emission
control
technology
which
would
reduce
diurnal
emissions.
These
credits
could
be
banked
and
then
used
in
2008
and
later.
As
a
precaution
against
creating
an
opportunity
for
windfall
credits
to
be
generated
from
fuel
systems
already
below
the
average
baseline
level
we
would
only
allow
credits
to
be
generated
below
the
proposed
standard.
The
following
is
an
example
of
how
early
emission
credits
could
be
generated.
In
this
example,
a
boat
builder
sells
20
boats
in
the
2004
to
2007
time
period,
each
with
a
50
gallon
fuel
tank.
If
this
boat
builder
decided
to
sell
one
boat
per
year
with
a
sealed
tank
and
a
1.5
psi
pressure
relief
valve
(0.9
g/
gallon/
test),
the
boat
builder
would
be
able
to
generate
emission
credits
using
the
following
equation:
Credits
=
(1.1
g/
gallon
¥
0.9
g/
gallon/
test)
×
4
tanks
×
50
gallon/
tank
=
40
g
Over
this
time
period,
the
boat
builder
would
not
generate
any
emission
debits.
Therefore,
the
boat
builder
would
have
40
grams
of
credits
that
it
could
use
in
2008
and
later.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
ABT
program
for
diurnal
emissions.
We
are
supportive
of
the
concept
of
ABT
in
general.
An
ABT
program
can
reduce
cost
and
improve
technological
feasibility,
and
provide
manufacturers
with
additional
product
planning
flexibility.
This
allows
EPA
to
consider
emissions
standards
with
the
most
appropriate
level
of
stringency
and
lead
time,
as
well
as
providing
an
incentive
for
the
early
introduction
of
new
technology.
However,
while
we
are
open
to
the
idea
of
including
the
program
in
the
rule,
we
are
not
at
this
time
proposing
to
allow
ABT
for
meeting
the
proposed
fuel
tank
and
hose
permeation
standards.
In
preliminary
discussions,
manufacturers
indicated
a
desire
to
meet
requirements
directly
rather
than
using
an
ABT
concept.
From
EPA's
perspective
including
an
ABT
program
in
the
rule
creates
a
long­
term
administrative
burden
that
is
not
worth
taking
on
if
the
industry
does
not
intend
to
take
advantage
of
the
flexibility.
While
we
believe
that
all
fuel
tanks
and
fuel
hoses
can
meet
the
proposed
permeation
standards
using
straight
forward
technology
as
discussed
in
Section
III.
H,
industry
may
find
value
in
an
early
banking
program,
especially
for
fuel
tanks.
Under
this
concept,
industry
could
certify
some
tanks
early
in
exchange
for
time
to
delay
some
tanks.
This
could
potentially
be
done
on
a
oneon
one
basis,
or
perhaps
on
a
volumetric
exchange
basis.
In
addition,
we
do
not
preclude
the
value
of
an
averaging
and
trading
program
as
a
compliance
flexibility
to
meet
the
proposed
permeation
standards
which
represent
a
95
percent
reduction
in
permeation.
We
request
comment
on
whether
we
should
adopt
an
ABT
program
for
hose
and
fuel
tank
permeation
emissions.

3.
Would
These
Standards
Apply
to
Portable
Fuel
Tanks
as
Well?

For
personal
watercraft
and
most
boats
using
SD/
I
or
large
outboard
engines,
the
fuel
tanks
are
permanently
mounted
in
the
vessel.
However,
small
boats
using
outboard
engines
may
have
portable
fuel
tanks
that
can
be
removed
from
the
boat
and
stored
elsewhere.
Because
these
fuel
tanks
are
not
sold
as
part
of
a
boat,
we
would
not
require
boat
builders
that
use
only
portable
fuel
tanks
to
certify
to
the
proposed
evaporative
emission
standards
described
above
for
fuel
tanks.
The
fuel
tank
manufacturer
would
have
to
certify
to
the
fuel
tank
diurnal
and
permeation
standards.
For
this
purpose,
we
would
consider
a
portable
fuel
tank
to
be
one
that
is
not
permanently
mounted
on
the
boat,
has
a
handle,
and
has
no
more
than
12
gallons
of
fuel
capacity.
Portable
fuel
tanks
generally
have
a
quick­
connect
that
is
used
to
detach
the
fuel
line
between
the
engine
and
tank.
Once
the
fuel
line
is
detached,
this
quick­
connect
will
close.
In
addition,
these
tanks
generally
have
a
valve
that
either
closes
automatically
when
the
tank
is
disconnected
from
the
engine
or
a
valve
that
can
be
closed
by
the
user
which
will
prevent
vapors
from
escaping
from
the
tank
when
it
is
stored.
We
propose
to
allow
design­
based
certification
of
portable
fuel
tanks
to
the
diurnal
emission
standard
based
on
the
criteria
that
they
seal
automatically
when
the
tank
is
disconnected
from
the
engine
and
that
they
meet
the
proposed
fuel
tank
permeation
standard.
We
believe
that
the
diurnal
emissions
from
a
typical
portable
fuel
tank
would
be
well
below
the
proposed
standard
provided
that
it
is
sealed
when
not
in
use.
Because
the
emission
control
depends
on
user
practices,
(such
as
disconnecting
the
tank
after
use)
we
propose
not
allowing
any
credits
to
be
generated
for
diurnal
emissions.
We
request
comment
on
allowing
designbased
certification
of
portable
fuel
tanks
that
have
valves
that
must
be
closed
by
the
user.

4.
Is
EPA
Proposing
Voluntary
``
Blue
Sky''
Emissions
Standards?
Several
state
and
environmental
groups
and
manufacturers
of
emissions
controls
have
supported
our
efforts
to
develop
incentive
programs
to
encourage
the
use
of
emission
control
technologies
that
go
beyond
federal
emission
standards.
In
the
final
rule
for
land­
based
nonroad
diesel
engines,
we
included
a
program
of
voluntary
standards
for
low­
emitting
engines,
referring
to
these
as
``
Blue
Sky
Series''
engines
(63
FR
56967,
October
23,
1998).
Since
then,
we
have
included
similar
programs
in
several
of
our
other
nonroad
rules.
The
general
purposes
of
such
programs
are
to
provide
incentives
to
manufacturers
to
produce
clean
products
as
well
as
create
market
choices
and
opportunities
for
environmental
information
for
consumers
regarding
such
products.
The
voluntary
aspects
of
these
programs,
which
in
part
provides
an
incentive
for
manufacturers
willing
to
certify
their
products
to
more
stringent
standards
than
necessary,
is
an
important
part
of
the
overall
application
of
``
Blue
Sky
Series''
programs.
We
are
proposing
a
voluntary
Blue
Sky
Series
standard
for
diurnal
emissions
from
marine
fuel
tanks.
Under
this
proposal
we
are
targeting
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53063
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
22
``
Public
Hearing
to
Consider
Amendments
to
the
Spark­
Ignition
Marine
Engine
Regulations,
''
Mail
Out
#MSC
99–
15,
June
22,
1999
(Docket
A–
2000–
01,
Document
II–
A–
27).
close
to
a
95­
percent
reduction
in
diurnal
evaporative
emissions
beyond
the
proposed
mandatory
diurnal
emission
standards
as
a
qualifying
level
for
Blue
Sky
fuel
tanks.
The
proposed
Blue
Sky
standard
is
0.1
g/
gallon/
day,
which,
as
discussed
in
Section
III.
F.
3,
could
be
met
through
the
use
of
technologies
such
as
a
low
permeation
bladder
fuel
tank.
Creating
a
voluntary
standard
for
low
diurnal
emissions
will
be
an
important
step
in
advancing
emission
control
technology.
While
these
are
voluntary
standards,
they
become
binding
on
tanks
produced
under
that
certificate
once
a
manufacturer
chooses
to
participate.
EPA
certification
will
therefore
provide
protection
against
false
claims
of
environmentally
beneficial
products.
A
manufacturer
choosing
to
certify
a
fuel
tank
under
this
approach
must
comply
with
all
the
proposed
certification
requirements
including
useful
life,
warranty,
and
other
general
compliance
provisions.
This
program
would
become
effective
when
we
finalize
this
rule.
For
the
program
to
be
most
effective,
however,
incentives
should
also
be
in
place
to
motivate
the
production
and
sale
of
lower
emitting
fuel
tanks.
We
solicit
ideas
that
could
encourage
the
creation
and
use
of
these
incentive
programs
by
users
and
state
and
local
governments.
We
believe
it
is
important
that
such
incentive
programs
lead
to
a
net
benefit
to
the
environment;
therefore,
we
are
proposing
that
fuel
tanks
with
the
Blue
Sky
designation
not
generate
extra
ABT
credits
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
this
proposed
standard.
We
also
request
comment
on
additional
measures
we
could
take
to
encourage
development
and
introduction
of
low
emission
control
technology.
Finally,
we
request
comment
on
the
Blue
Sky
approach
in
general
as
it
would
apply
to
marine
fuel
tanks.

5.
What
Is
Consumer­
Choice
Labeling?
California
ARB
has
recently
proposed
consumer/
environmental
label
requirements
for
outboard
and
personal
watercraft
engines.
Under
this
approach,
manufacturers
would
label
their
engines
or
vehicles
based
on
their
certified
emission
level.
California
has
proposed
three
different
labels
to
differentiate
varying
degrees
of
emission
control—
one
for
meeting
the
EPA
2006
standard,
one
for
being
20
percent
lower,
and
one
for
being
65
percent
below.
More
detail
on
this
concept
is
provided
in
the
docket.
22
We
are
considering
a
similar
approach
to
labeling
the
vessels
subject
to
this
proposal.
This
would
apply
especially
to
consumer
products.
Consumer­
choice
labeling
would
give
people
the
opportunity
to
consider
varying
emission
levels
as
a
factor
in
choosing
specific
models.
This
may
also
give
the
manufacturer
an
incentive
to
produce
more
of
their
cleaner
models.
A
difficulty
in
designing
a
labeling
program
is
in
creating
a
scheme
that
communicates
information
clearly
and
simply
to
consumers.
Also,
some
are
concerned
that
other
organizations
could
use
the
labeling
provisions
to
mandate
certain
levels
of
emission
control,
rather
than
relying
on
consumer
choice
as
a
market­
based
incentive.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach
for
marine
vessels.

D.
Demonstrating
Compliance
1.
How
Would
I
Certify
My
Products?
We
are
proposing
to
apply
our
emission
standards
to
vessels,
but
allow
certification
of
fuel
tanks
and
hoses
separately.
For
both
cases,
we
are
proposing
a
certification
process
similar
to
our
existing
program
for
other
mobile
sources.
In
the
existing
program,
manufacturers
test
representative
prototype
designs
and
submit
the
emission
data
along
with
other
information
to
EPA
in
an
application
for
a
Certificate
of
Conformity.
As
discussed
in
Section
III.
F.
3,
we
are
proposing
to
allow
manufacturers
to
certify
based
on
either
design
(for
which
there
is
data)
or
emissions
testing.
If
we
approve
the
application,
then
the
manufacturer's
Certificate
of
Conformity
allows
the
manufacturer
to
produce
and
sell
the
vessels
or
fuel
systems
described
in
the
application
in
the
U.
S.
We
are
proposing
that
manufacturers
certify
their
vessels,
fuel
tanks,
or
hoses
by
grouping
them
into
emission
families.
Under
this
approach,
vessels,
fuel
tanks,
or
hoses
systems
expected
to
have
similar
emission
characteristics
would
be
classified
in
the
same
emission
family.
The
emission
family
definition
is
fundamental
to
the
certification
process
and
to
a
large
degree
determines
the
amount
of
testing
required
for
certification.
To
address
a
manufacturer's
unique
product
mix,
we
may
approve
using
broader
or
narrower
emission
families.
Once
an
emission
family
is
certified,
we
would
require
every
vessel,
fuel
tank,
or
hose
a
manufacturer
produces
from
the
emission
family
to
have
a
label
with
basic
identifying
information.
The
proposed
regulation
text
details
the
proposed
requirements
for
design
and
content
of
the
labels.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach.

2.
Who
Will
be
Responsible
for
Certifying
the
Vessel
or
Fuel
System?
Every
boat
powered
by
a
sparkignition
marine
engine
and
every
portable
fuel
tank
would
have
to
be
covered
by
an
emissions
certificate
(or
separate
certificates
for
fuel
tanks
and
hoses).
The
proposed
regulations
require
that
compliance
to
the
emission
standards
must
be
demonstrated
before
the
sale
of
the
boat
(or
tank,
in
the
case
of
portable
fuel
tanks).
However,
to
allow
additional
flexibility
in
complying
with
standards,
we
propose
to
allow
tank
and
hose
manufacturers
to
certify
their
product
lines
separately.
Therefore,
if
a
boat
builder
were
to
use
certified
fuel
tanks
and
hoses,
the
boat
builder
could
rely
on
the
tank
and
hose
manufacturers'
certificates.
The
boat
builder
would
only
need
to
state
that
they
are
using
components
that,
combined,
will
meet
the
proposed
standard
and
properly
install
the
fuel
system.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach.

3.
How
Long
Would
My
Vessel
or
Fuel
System
Have
To
Comply?
Manufacturers
would
be
required
to
build
vessels
that
meet
the
emission
standards
over
each
vessel's
useful
life.
The
useful
life
we
adopt
by
regulation
is
intended
to
reflect
the
period
during
which
vessels
are
designed
to
properly
function
without
being
remanufactured.
We
propose
a
regulatory
useful
life
of
ten
years
for
marine
evaporative
emission
control.
This
is
consistent
with
the
regulatory
useful
life
for
outboard
marine
engines.
We
use
the
same
useful
life
based
on
the
belief
that
engines
and
boats
are
intended
to
have
the
same
design
life.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
useful
life
requirement.

4.
What
Warranty
Requirements
Apply
to
Certified
Vessels
and
Fuel
Systems?
Consistent
with
our
current
emissioncontrol
programs,
we
are
proposing
that
manufacturers
provide
a
design
and
defect
warranty
covering
emissionrelated
components.
For
marine
vessels,
we
propose
that
the
fuel
systems
be
warranted
for
five
years
for
the
emission
related
components.
The
proposed
regulations
would
require
that
the
warranty
period
must
be
longer
than
this
minimum
period
we
specify
if
the
manufacturer
offers
a
longer
warranty
for
the
fuel
system
or
any
of
its
components;
this
includes
extended
warranties
on
the
fuel
system
or
any
of
its
components
that
are
available
for
an
extra
price.
See
the
proposed
regulation
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53064
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
23
``
Interim
Tampering
Enforcement
Policy,
''
EPA
memorandum
from
Norman
D.
Shulter,
Office
of
General
Counsel,
June
25,
1974
(Docket
A–
2000–
01;
document
II–
B20).
24
EPA
acted
to
adjust
the
maximum
penalty
amount
in
1996
(61
FR
69364,
December
31,
1996).
See
also
40
CFR
part
19.
language
for
a
description
of
which
components
are
emission­
related.
We
request
comment
on
whether
the
warranty
provisions
should
apply
only
to
the
certificate
holder
or
to
all
manufacturers
of
the
fuel
system
components
used
by
the
certificate
holder.
If
an
operator
makes
a
valid
warranty
claim
for
an
emission­
related
component
during
the
warranty
period,
the
manufacturer
is
generally
obligated
to
replace
the
component
at
no
charge
to
the
operator.
The
manufacturer
may
deny
warranty
claims
if
the
operator
failed
to
do
prescribed
maintenance
that
contributed
to
the
warranty
claim.
We
are
also
proposing
a
defect
reporting
requirement
that
applies
separate
from
the
emission­
related
warranty
(see
Section
III.
E.
6).
In
general,
defect
reporting
applies
when
a
manufacturer
discovers
a
pattern
of
component
failures,
whether
that
information
comes
from
warranty
claims,
voluntary
investigation
of
product
quality,
or
other
sources.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
warranty
and
defect
reporting
requirements.

E.
General
Compliance
Provisions
This
section
describes
a
wide
range
of
compliance
provisions
that
would
apply
to
marine
vessels
(or
fuel
tanks
or
hoses
as
appropriate)
and
are
the
same
as
those
recently
proposed
for
the
nonroad
engines
September
2001
(see
66
FR
51098).
Several
of
these
provisions
apply
not
only
to
manufacturers,
but
also
to
operators,
and
others.
The
following
discussion
of
the
general
compliance
provisions
reflects
the
organization
of
the
proposed
regulatory
text.
For
ease
of
reference,
the
subpart
designations
are
provided.
We
request
comment
on
all
these
provisions.

1.
Miscellaneous
Provisions
(Part
1068,
Subpart
A)
This
proposed
regulation
contains
some
general
provisions,
including
general
applicability
and
the
definitions
that
apply
to
40
CFR
part
1068.
Other
provisions
concern
good
engineering
judgment,
how
we
would
handle
confidential
information;
how
the
EPA
Administrator
delegates
decisionmaking
authority;
and
when
we
may
inspect
a
manufacturer's
facilities,
vessels,
or
records.
The
process
of
testing
for
evaporative
emissions
(or
certifying
based
on
design)
and
preparing
an
application
for
certification
requires
the
manufacturer
to
make
a
variety
of
judgments.
Section
1068.5
of
the
proposed
regulations
describes
the
methodology
we
propose
to
use
to
evaluate
concerns
related
to
manufacturers'
use
of
good
engineering
judgment
in
cases
where
the
manufacturer
has
such
discretion.
If
we
find
a
problem
in
these
areas,
we
would
take
into
account
the
degree
to
which
any
error
in
judgment
was
deliberate
or
in
bad
faith.
This
subpart
is
consistent
with
provisions
in
the
final
rule
for
light­
duty
highway
vehicles
and
commercial
marine
diesel
engines.

2.
Prohibited
Acts
and
Related
Requirements
(Part
1068,
Subpart
B)

The
proposed
provisions
in
this
subpart
lay
out
a
set
of
prohibitions
for
manufacturers
and
operators
to
ensure
that
vessels
comply
with
the
emission
standards.
These
provisions
are
summarized
below,
but
readers
are
encouraged
to
review
the
proposed
regulatory
text.
These
provisions
are
intended
to
help
ensure
that
each
new
vessel
or
portable
tank
sold
or
otherwise
entered
into
commerce
in
the
United
States
is
certified
to
the
relevant
standards.
a.
General
prohibitions
(§
1068.100).
This
proposed
regulation
contains
several
prohibitions
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Under
this
proposal,
no
one
may
sell
a
vessel
or
portable
fuel
tank
in
the
United
States
without
a
valid
certificate
of
conformity
issued
by
EPA,
deny
us
access
to
relevant
records,
or
keep
us
from
entering
a
facility
to
test
or
inspect
vessels
or
fuel
system
components.
In
addition,
no
one
may
remove
or
disable
a
device
or
design
element
that
may
affect
an
vessel's
emission
levels,
or
manufacture
any
device
that
will
make
emission
controls
ineffective,
which
we
would
consider
tampering.
We
have
generally
applied
the
existing
policies
developed
for
tampering
with
highway
engines
and
vehicles
to
nonroad
engines.
23
Other
proposed
prohibitions
reinforce
manufacturers'
obligations
to
meet
various
certification
requirements.
We
would
also
prohibit
selling
parts
that
prevent
emission­
control
systems
from
working
properly.
Finally,
for
vessels
that
are
excluded
for
certain
applications
(i.
e.
solely
for
competition),
we
would
generally
prohibit
using
these
vessels
in
other
applications.
These
proposed
prohibitions
are
the
same
as
those
that
apply
to
other
applications
we
have
regulated
in
previous
rules.
Each
prohibited
act
has
a
corresponding
maximum
penalty
as
specified
in
Clean
Air
Act
section
205.
As
provided
for
in
the
Federal
Civil
Penalties
Inflation
Adjustment
Act
of
1990,
Pub.
L.
10–
410,
these
maximum
penalties
are
in
1970
dollars
and
should
be
periodically
adjusted
by
regulation
to
account
for
inflation.
The
current
penalty
amount
for
each
violation
is
$27,500.
24
b.
In­
service
systems
(§
1068.110).
The
proposed
regulations
would
prevent
manufacturers
from
requiring
owners
to
use
any
certain
brand
of
aftermarket
parts
and
give
the
manufacturer
responsibility
for
servicing
related
to
emissions
warranty,
leaving
the
responsibility
for
all
other
maintenance
with
the
owner.
This
proposed
regulation
would
also
reserve
our
right
to
do
testing
(or
require
testing)
to
investigate
potential
defeat
devices,
as
authorized
by
the
Act.

3.
Exemptions
(Part
1068,
Subpart
C)

We
are
proposing
to
include
several
exemptions
for
certain
specific
situations.
Most
of
these
are
consistent
with
previous
rules.
We
highlight
the
new
or
different
proposed
provisions
in
the
following
paragraphs.
In
general,
exempted
vessels
would
need
to
comply
with
the
requirements
only
in
the
sections
related
to
the
exemption.
Note
that
additional
restrictions
could
apply
to
importing
exempted
vessels
(see
Section
III.
E.
4).
Also,
we
are
also
proposing
that
we
may
require
manufacturers
(or
importers)
to
add
a
permanent
label
describing
that
the
vessel
or
fuel
system
component
is
exempt
from
emission
standards
for
a
specific
purpose.
In
addition
to
helping
us
enforce
emission
standards,
this
would
help
ensure
that
imported
vessels
clear
U.
S.
Customs
without
difficulty.
a.
Testing.
Anyone
would
be
allowed
to
request
an
exemption
for
vessels
or
fuel
system
components
used
only
for
research
or
other
investigative
purposes.
b.
Manufacturer­
owned
vessels
and
fuel
systems.
Vessels
and
fuel
system
components
that
are
used
by
manufacturers
for
development
or
marketing
purposes
could
be
exempted
from
regulation
if
they
are
maintained
in
the
manufacturers'
possession
and
are
not
used
for
any
revenue­
generating
service.
They
would
no
longer
be
exempt
if
they
were
later
offered
for
sale.
c.
Display
vessels
or
fuel
systems.
Boat
builders
and
fuel
system
component
manufacturers
would
get
an
exemption
if
the
vessels
or
fuel
systems
are
for
display
only.
They
would
no
longer
be
exempt
if
they
were
later
offered
for
sale.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53065
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
d.
National
security.
Manufacturers
could
receive
an
exemption
for
vessels
or
portable
fuel
tanks
they
can
show
are
needed
by
an
agency
of
the
federal
government
responsible
for
national
defense.
For
cases
where
the
vessels
will
not
be
used
on
combat
applications,
the
manufacturer
would
have
to
request
the
exemption
with
the
endorsement
of
the
procuring
government
agency.
e.
Exported
vessels.
Vessels
and
portable
fuel
tanks
that
will
be
exported
to
countries
that
don't
have
the
same
emission
standards
as
those
that
apply
in
the
United
States
would
be
exempted
without
need
for
a
request.
This
exemption
would
not
be
available
if
the
destination
country
has
the
same
emission
standards
as
those
in
the
United
States.
f.
Competition
vessels.
New
vessels
that
are
used
solely
for
competition
are
excluded
from
regulations
applicable
to
nonroad
equipment.
For
purposes
of
our
certification
requirements,
a
manufacturer
would
receive
an
exemption
if
it
can
show
that
it
produces
the
vessel
specifically
for
use
solely
in
competition.
In
addition,
vessels
that
have
been
modified
for
use
in
competition
would
be
exempt
from
the
prohibition
against
tampering
described
above
(without
need
for
request).
The
literal
meaning
of
the
term
``
used
solely
for
competition''
would
apply
for
these
modifications.
We
would
therefore
not
allow
the
vessel
to
be
used
for
anything
other
than
competition
once
it
has
been
modified.
This
also
applies
to
someone
who
would
later
buy
the
vessel,
so
we
would
require
the
person
modifying
the
vessel
to
remove
or
deface
the
original
label
and
inform
a
subsequent
buyer
in
writing
of
the
conditions
of
the
exemption.
The
exemption
would
no
longer
apply.

4.
Imports
(Part
1068,
Subpart
D)
In
general,
the
same
certification
requirements
would
apply
to
vessels
whether
they
are
produced
in
the
U.
S.
or
are
imported.
This
proposed
regulation
also
includes
some
additional
provisions
that
would
apply
if
someone
wants
to
import
an
exempted
or
excluded
vessel.
For
example,
the
importer
would
need
written
approval
from
us
to
import
any
exempted
vessel;
this
is
true
even
if
an
exemption
for
the
same
reason
doesn't
require
approval
for
vessels
produced
in
the
U.
S.
All
the
proposed
exemptions
described
above
for
new
vessels
would
also
apply
to
importation,
though
some
of
these
apply
only
on
a
temporary
basis.
If
we
approve
a
temporary
exemption,
it
would
be
available
only
for
a
defined
period
and
could
require
the
importer
to
post
bond
while
the
vessel
is
in
the
U.
S.
There
are
several
additional
proposed
exemptions
that
would
apply
only
to
imported
vessels.
—Identical
configuration:
This
would
be
a
permanent
exemption
to
allow
individuals
to
import
vessels
that
were
designed
and
produced
to
meet
applicable
emission
standards.
These
vessels
may
not
have
the
emission
label
only
because
they
were
not
intended
for
sale
in
the
United
States.
—Repairs
or
alterations:
This
would
be
a
temporary
exemption
to
allow
companies
to
repair
or
modify
vessels.
—Diplomatic
or
military:
This
would
be
a
temporary
exemption
to
allow
diplomatic
or
military
personnel
to
use
uncertified
vessels
during
their
term
of
service
in
the
U.
S.
We
request
comment
on
all
the
proposed
exemptions
for
domestically
produced
and
imported
vessels.

5.
Selective
Enforcement
Audit
(Part
1068,
Subpart
E)

Clean
Air
Act
section
206(
b)
gives
us
the
authority
and
discretion
in
any
program
with
vehicle
or
engine
emission
standards
to
do
selective
enforcement
auditing
of
production
vessels
and
fuel
systems.
The
proposed
regulation
text
describes
the
audit
procedures
in
greater
detail.
We
intend
generally
to
rely
on
inspecting
manufacturers'
designs
to
ensure
they
comply
with
emission
standards.
However,
we
would
reserve
our
right
to
do
selective
enforcement
auditing
if
we
have
reason
to
question
the
emission
testing
conducted
or
data
reported
by
the
manufacturer.

6.
Defect
Reporting
and
Recall
(Part
1068,
Subpart
F)

We
are
proposing
provisions
for
defect
reporting.
Specifically,
we
are
proposing
that
manufacturers
tell
us
when
they
learn
of
a
defect
occurring
25
times
or
more
for
emission
families
with
annual
sales
up
to
10,000
units.
This
threshold
of
defects
would
increase
proportionately
for
larger
families.
While
these
thresholds
would
depend
on
sales,
counting
defects
would
not
be
limited
to
a
single
emission
family.
For
example,
if
a
manufacturer
learns
that
operators
reported
25
cases
of
problems
with
a
limiting
orifice
from
three
different
low­
volume
models
spread
over
five
years,
that
would
trigger
the
need
to
file
a
defect
report.
This
information
could
come
from
warranty
claims,
customer
complaints,
product
performance
surveys,
or
anywhere
else.
The
proposed
regulation
language
in
§
1068.501
also
provides
information
on
the
thresholds
for
triggering
a
further
investigation
for
where
a
defect
report
is
more
likely
to
be
necessary.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
defect
reporting
provisions.
Under
Clean
Air
Act
section
207,
if
we
determine
that
a
substantial
number
of
vessels,
fuel
tanks,
or
hoses
within
an
emission
family,
although
properly
used
and
maintained,
do
not
conform
to
the
appropriate
emission
standards,
the
manufacturer
will
be
required
to
remedy
the
problem
and
conduct
a
recall
of
the
noncomplying
emission
family.
However,
we
also
recognize
the
practical
difficulty
in
implementing
an
effective
recall
program
for
marine
vessels.
It
would
likely
be
difficult
to
properly
identify
all
the
affected
owners.
The
response
rate
for
affected
owners
or
operators
to
an
emissionrelated
recall
notice
is
also
a
critical
issue
to
consider.
We
recognize
that
in
some
cases,
recalling
noncomplying
marine
vessels
may
not
achieve
sufficient
environmental
protection,
so
our
intent
is
to
generally
allow
manufacturers
to
nominate
alternative
remedial
measures
to
address
most
potential
noncompliance
situations.
We
expect
that
successful
implementation
of
appropriate
alternative
remediation
would
obviate
the
need
for
us
to
make
findings
of
substantial
nonconformity
under
section
207
of
the
Act.
We
would
consider
alternatives
nominated
by
a
manufacturer
based
on
the
following
criteria;
the
alternatives
should—
(1)
Represent
a
new
initiative
that
the
manufacturer
was
not
otherwise
planning
to
perform
at
that
time,
with
a
clear
connection
to
the
emission
problem
demonstrated
by
the
emission
family
in
question;
(2)
Cost
more
than
foregone
compliance
costs
and
consider
the
time
value
of
the
foregone
compliance
costs
and
the
foregone
environmental
benefit
of
the
emission
family;
(3)
Offset
at
least
100
percent
of
the
emission
exceedance
relative
to
that
required
to
meet
emission
standards;
and
(4)
Be
possible
to
implement
effectively
and
expeditiously
and
to
complete
in
a
reasonable
time.
These
criteria
would
guide
us
in
evaluating
projects
to
determine
whether
their
nature
and
burden
is
appropriate
to
remedy
the
environmental
impact
of
the
nonconformity.
However,
in
no
way
would
the
consideration
of
such
a
provision
diminish
our
statutory
authority
to
direct
a
recall
if
that
is
deemed
the
best
course
of
action.
We
request
comment
on
this
approach
to
addressing
the
Clean
Air
Act
provisions
related
to
recall.
In
addition,
we
request
comment
on
the
proposed
requirement
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53066
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
25
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
(psi).
This
is
a
measure
of
the
volatility
of
the
fuel.
9
RVP
represents
a
typical
summertime
fuel
in
northern
states.
26
Hot
soak
emissions
are
those
caused
by
residual
heat
in
the
engine
and
exhaust
system
immediately
after
the
engine
is
shut
down.
Running
loss
emissions
are
those
caused
by
engine
and
exhaust
heat
while
the
engine
is
operating.
27
Draft
SAE
Information
Report
J1769,
``
Test
Protocol
for
Evalution
of
Long
Term
Permeation
Barrier
Durability
on
Non­
Metallic
Fuel
Tanks,
''
(Docket
A–
2000–
01,
document
IV–
A–
24).
to
keep
recall­
related
records
until
three
years
after
a
manufacturer
completes
all
responsibilities
under
a
recall
order.

7.
Public
Hearings
(Part
1068,
Subpart
G)

According
to
this
regulation,
manufacturers
would
have
the
opportunity
to
challenge
our
decision
to
suspend,
revoke,
or
void
an
emission
family's
certificate.
This
also
applies
to
our
decision
to
reject
the
manufacturer's
use
of
good
engineering
judgment
(see
§
1068.5).
Part
1068,
subpart
G
describes
the
proposed
procedures
for
a
public
hearing
to
resolve
such
a
dispute.

F.
Proposed
Testing
Requirements
In
order
to
obtain
a
certificate
allowing
sale
of
products
meeting
EPA
emission
standards,
manufacturers
generally
must
show
compliance
with
such
standards
through
emission
testing.
40
CFR
part
86
details
specifications
for
test
equipment
and
procedures
that
apply
to
highway
vehicle
evaporative
emission
testing.
We
propose
to
base
the
SI
marine
evaporative
emission
test
procedures
on
this
part.
However,
we
propose
to
modify
this
test
procedure
somewhat
to
more
accurately
reflect
the
anticipated
technology
for
meeting
the
evaporative
emission
standards
proposed
in
this
rule.
We
are
also
proposing
designbased
certification
as
an
alternative
to
performing
specific
testing.

1.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Test
Procedures
for
Measuring
Diurnal
Emissions?

We
propose
that
the
evaporative
emission
test
will
be
representative
of
ambient
temperatures
ranging
from
22
C
to
36
C
(72
F
to
96
F).
Emissions
would
be
measured
in
a
Sealed
Housing
for
Evaporative
Determination
(SHED)
over
a
72­
hour
period.
The
fuel
tank
would
be
set
up
in
the
SHED
and
sealed
except
for
the
vent(
s).
The
fuel
tank
would
be
set
up
in
the
SHED
with
all
hoses,
seals,
and
other
components
attached.
The
fuel
tank
would
be
filled
completely
and
drained
to
40­
percent
capacity
with
9
RVP
test
fuel
and
soaked
with
an
open
vent
until
the
fuel
reached
22
C.
25
Immediately
after
the
fuel
reaches
this
temperature,
the
SHED
would
be
purged,
and
the
diurnal
temperature
cycling
would
begin.
The
temperature
cycle
is
actually
three
repeats
of
a
24­
hour
diurnal
trace
and
is
described
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
During
the
test
a
minimum
of
5
mph
wind
speed
would
be
simulated
using
a
fan.
The
final
g/
gallon/
day
result
is
based
on
the
highest
mass
emission
rate
from
these
three
24­
hour
cycles,
divided
by
the
fuel
tank
capacity.
Fuel
tank
capacity
refers
the
maximum
amount
of
fuel
in
the
tank
under
in­
use
conditions.
These
proposed
test
procedures
are
designed
to
simulate
near
worst
case
conditions
for
a
typical
boat.
We
believe
that
typical
in­
use
fuel
tanks
will
rarely
be
exposed
to
a
temperature
cycle
larger
than
24
F
in
a
single
day.
However,
in
special
applications
where
the
fuel
tank
is
exposed
to
direct
sunlight,
the
tank
temperature
can
change
much
more
than
24
F
over
the
course
of
a
single
day.
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
that
special
test
procedures
that
simulate
the
radiant
effect
of
sunlight
be
used
to
test
fuel
tanks
that
will
be
exposed
to
direct
sunlight.
We
would
not
require
this
for
exposed
fuel
tanks
that
are
shielded
from
the
sun.
This
diurnal
cycle
is
consistent
with
the
test
requirements
in
40
CFR
part
86
for
highway
vehicles.
However,
the
test
procedure
for
highway
vehicles
includes
engine
operation
and
hot
soaks.
26
One
purpose
of
the
engine
operation
is
to
purge
the
charcoal
canister
that
collects
evaporative
emissions
in
highway
applications.
However,
we
are
excluding
engine
operation
from
the
evaporative
test
procedures
for
boats
using
SI
marine
engines
because
we
do
not
anticipate
the
use
of
charcoal
canisters
in
these
applications.
Another
purpose
of
running
the
engine
and
the
purpose
of
the
hot
soaks
is
to
measure
evaporative
emissions
due
to
the
heating
of
the
engine
and
exhaust
system.
However,
this
would
significantly
increase
the
difficulty
of
the
SHED
testing
due
to
the
large
size
of
most
boats.
Because
most
boats
are
operated
only
50
hours
per
year,
these
running
loss
and
hot
soak
emissions
are
considerably
smaller
than
diurnal
and
permeation
emissions.
In
addition,
most
of
the
emission­
control
strategies
that
could
be
used
to
meet
the
proposed
standards
would
also
reduce
running
loss
and
hot
soak
emissions.
We
request
comment
on
the
proposed
test
procedures
for
determining
evaporative
emissions
from
boats
using
SI
marine
engines.
2.
What
Are
the
Proposed
Test
Procedures
for
Measuring
Permeation
Emissions?
a.
Fuel
tanks.
We
propose
that
tank
permeation
be
based
on
a
test
procedure
consistent
with
the
Coast
Guard
requirements
in
33
CFR
183.620.
Specifically,
the
rate
of
permeation
from
the
tank
will
be
measured
at
40
C
using
the
same
test
fuel
as
for
the
diurnal
testing.
We
request
comment
on
using
40
C
as
the
test
temperature
or
if
23
C
should
be
used
to
be
consistent
with
the
hose
testing.
Our
understanding
is
that
40
C
represents
higher
temperatures
that
may
be
seen
in
an
engine
compartment
during
operation
while
23
C
represents
typical
ambient
conditions.
If
a
lower
test
temperature
were
used,
the
standards
would
need
to
be
adjusted
appropriately.
Based
on
data
presented
in
Chapter
4
of
the
draft
RSD,
the
standards
would
have
to
be
reduced
on
the
order
of
50
percent
for
every
10
C
reduction
in
test
temperature.
We
also
request
comment
on
using
ASTM
Fuel
``
C''
and
a
15%
methanol
blend
to
be
consistent
with
the
hose
permeation
test
procedures
or
on
using
10%
ethanol
consistent
with
on­
highway
evaporative
emission
testing.
The
tank
would
have
to
be
filled
and
soaked
for
a
minimum
of
60
days
to
ensure
that
permeation
emissions
are
accurately
reflected
in
the
test
procedure.
The
tank
would
be
sealed
during
testing,
and
care
would
have
to
be
made
that
the
environment
in
which
the
tank
was
tested
was
continuously
purged
of
vapor
to
prevent
the
saturation
of
vapor
with
hydrocarbons
around
the
outside
of
the
tank.
Permeation
would
be
measured
through
weight
loss
in
the
tank
or
using
equivalent
procedures.
We
also
request
comment
on
whether
we
should
require
specific
durability
test
procedures
for
fuel
tanks.
Such
durability
tests
could
include
pressure
vacuum
cycle
testing,
slosh
testing,
and
temperature
cycling.
Information
on
these
tests
is
included
in
the
docket.
27
b.
Hoses.
We
propose
to
use
the
current
practices
for
measuring
permeation
from
marine
hoses
that
are
specified
in
SAE
J
1527.
Under
this
procedure,
the
hose
is
tested
at
23
C
with
both
ASTM
Fuel
``
C''
(50%
toluene,
50%
isooctane)
and
with
a
blend
on
fuel
``
C''
with
15%
methanol.
SAE
J
1527
sets
permeation
limits
for
hose
of
100
g/
m
2
/day
for
fuel
C
and
300
g/
m
2
/day
for
the
15%
methanol
blend.
Consistent
with
this
relationship,
we
propose
to
allow
the
permeation
rate
to
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
22:
38
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm20
PsN:
14AUP2
53067
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
be
three
times
higher
than
the
proposed
standard
for
fuel
C
when
the
hose
is
tested
on
the
15%
methanol
blend.
Because
permeation
rates
double,
roughly,
with
every
10
C
increase
in
temperature,
the
test
procedure
has
a
large
effect
on
emissions
measured
for
a
given
hose
material.
In
addition,
the
temperature
effects
may
be
greater
for
some
materials
than
for
others.
For
low
permeation
non­
metal
fuel
lines
used
in
automotive
applications,
the
current
practices
are
specified
in
SAE
J
2260
and
SAE
J
1737.
Under
these
test
procedures,
the
hose
permeation
is
measured
at
60
C
with
an
85%­
15%
blend
of
fuel
``
C''
and
methanol.
We
request
comment
on
using
the
higher
test
temperature
in
the
automotive
test
procedure.
We
also
request
comment
on
requiring
testing
using
a
10%
ethanol
blend
consistent
with
on­
highway
evaporative
emission
testing.

3.
Could
I
Certify
Based
on
Engineering
Design
Rather
Than
Through
Testing?
We
recognize
that
performing
SHED
testing
could
be
cost­
prohibitive
for
many
fuel
tank
manufacturers
or
boat
builders.
In
addition,
many
of
the
technologies
that
can
be
used
to
reduce
evaporative
emissions
are
straightforward
design
strategies.
For
these
reasons,
we
propose
that
manufacturers
have
the
option
of
certifying
to
the
diurnal
evaporative
emission
requirements
based
on
fuel
system
designs,
as
described
in
the
proposed
regulations.
Test
data
would
be
required
to
certify
fuel
tanks
and
hoses
to
the
proposed
permeation
standards.
However,
we
would
allow
carryover
of
test
data
from
year
to
year
for
a
given
emission
control
design.
We
believe
the
cost
of
testing
tanks
and
hose
designs
for
permeation
would
be
considerably
lower
than
running
variable
temperature
diurnal
testing.
In
addition,
the
data
could
be
carried
over
from
year
to
year,
and
there
is
a
good
possibility
that
the
broad
emission
family
concepts
under
consideration
could
lead
to
minimum
testing.
For
instance,
a
hose
manufacturer
could
test
its
hose
design
once,
and
all
the
boat
builders
who
use
this
hose
could
incorporate
this
data
in
their
certification
applications.
We
are
proposing
design
based
certification
to
the
tank
permeation
standard
for
one
case.
We
would
consider
an
aluminum
fuel
tank
to
meet
the
design
criteria
for
a
low
permeation
fuel
tank.
However,
we
would
not
consider
this
design
to
be
any
more
effective
than
a
low
permeation
fuel
tank
for
the
purposes
of
any
sort
of
credit
program.
Although
aluminum
is
impermeable,
seals
and
gaskets
used
on
the
fuel
tank
may
not
be.
The
design
criteria
for
the
seals
and
gaskets
would
be
that
either
they
would
not
have
a
total
exposed
surface
area
exceeding
1000
mm
2
,
or
the
seals
and
gaskets
would
have
to
be
made
of
a
material
with
a
permeation
rate
of
10
g/
m
2
/day
or
less
at
23
C.
The
rest
of
this
section
discusses
designs
that
we
propose
to
be
acceptable
for
design­
based
certification
to
the
proposed
diurnal
emission
standard.
The
emission
data
we
used
to
develop
these
proposed
design
options
are
presented
in
Chapter
4
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
Additional
testing
may
help
us
more
precisely
set
the
appropriate
emission
levels
associated
with
each
design.
Manufacturers
wanting
to
use
designs
other
than
those
we
discuss
here
would
have
to
perform
the
above
test
procedures
for
their
design.
However,
once
a
new
design
is
proven,
we
could
add
this
new
design
to
the
list
of
designs
for
this
certification
flexibility
and
assign
it
to
the
appropriate
averaging
bin.
For
example,
if
several
manufacturers
were
to
pool
their
resources
to
test
a
diurnal
emission
control
strategy
and
submit
this
data
to
EPA,
we
would
consider
this
particular
strategy
and
emission
level
as
a
new
design
level
for
design
based
certification.
We
request
comment
on
the
concept
of
design­
based
certification
and
on
the
technologies
and
associated
emission
levels
discussed
below.
Section
III.
H.
3
presents
a
more
detailed
description
of
what
each
of
these
technologies
are
and
how
they
can
be
used
to
reduce
evaporative
emissions.
We
have
identified
several
technologies
for
reducing
diurnal
emissions
from
marine
fuel
tanks.
The
design
levels
proposed
below
represent
our
understanding
of
the
effectiveness
of
various
emission
control
technologies
over
the
proposed
test
procedure.
Table
III.
F.
1
summarizes
design­
based
emission
levels
associated
with
several
emission
control
strategies.
These
control
strategies
are
discussed
in
more
detail
after
the
table.
Manufacturers
would
be
required
to
submit
information
demonstrating
that
the
components
they
use
would
be
durable
over
the
useful
life
of
the
vessel.
For
tanks
that
allow
pressure
build­
up,
a
low­
pressure
vacuum­
relief
valve
would
also
be
necessary
for
the
engine
to
be
able
to
draw
fuel
during
operation.
Also,
in
the
cases
where
anti­
siphon
valves
are
used
with
these
designs,
the
antisiphon
system
would
have
to
be
designed
such
that
fuel
could
not
spill
out
through
this
valve
when
the
system
is
under
pressure.
TABLE
III.
F–
1.—
EMISSION
LEVELS
FOR
DESIGN
BASED
CERTIFICATION
TO
THE
PROPOSED
DIURNAL
EMISSION
STANDARD
Emission
level
[g/
gallon/
day]
Technology
1.5
........................
Baseline
(open
vent
with
a
normal
length
vent
hose).
1.3
........................
Near
zero
pressure
limited
flow
orifice
and
insulation
(R­
value
 
15),
or
closed
vent,
0.5
psi
relief
valve.
1.1*
.......................
Closed
vent,
1.0
psi
relief
valve.
0.9
........................
Closed
vent,
1.5
psi
relief
valve.
0.7
........................
Closed
vent,
2.0
psi
relief
valve.
0.5
........................
Closed
vent,
0.5
psi
relief
valve
with
a
volume
compensating
air
bag.
0.1
........................
Bladder
fuel
tank.

*
Proposed
average
standard
for
diurnal
emissions.

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.

7.
Nonconformance
Penalties
Clean
Air
Act
section
206(
g)
(42
U.
S.
C.
7525(
g)),
allows
EPA
to
issue
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
heavyduty
engines
or
for
highway
motorcycles
that
exceed
an
applicable
section
202(
a)
emissions
standard,
but
do
not
exceed
an
upper
limit
associated
with
that
standard,
if
the
manufacturer
pays
a
nonconformance
penalty
established
by
rulemaking.
Congress
adopted
section
206(
g)
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1977
as
a
response
to
perceived
problems
with
technologyforcing
heavy­
duty
engine
emissions
standards.
If
strict
standards
were
maintained,
then
some
manufacturers,
``
technological
laggards,
''
might
be
unable
to
comply
initially
and
would
be
forced
out
of
the
marketplace.
Nonconformance
penalties
were
intended
to
remedy
this
potential
problem.
The
laggards
would
have
a
temporary
alternative
that
would
permit
them
to
sell
their
engines
or
vehicles
by
payment
of
a
penalty.
There
are
three
criteria
for
determining
the
eligibility
of
emission
standards
for
nonconformance
penalties
in
any
given
model
year.
First,
the
emission
standard
in
question
must
become
more
difficult
to
meet,
either
by
becoming
more
stringent
itself
or
by
its
interaction
with
another
emission
standard
that
has
become
more
stringent.
Second,
substantial
work
must
be
required
to
meet
the
emission
standard.
We
consider
``
substantial
work''
to
mean
the
application
of
technology
not
previously
used
in
that
vehicle
or
engine
class/
subclass,
or
a
significant
modification
of
existing
technology,
to
bring
that
vehicle/
engine
into
compliance.
We
do
not
consider
minor
modifications
or
calibration
changes
to
be
classified
as
substantial
work.
Third,
it
must
be
likely
that
a
company
will
become
a
technological
laggard.
A
technological
laggard
is
defined
as
a
manufacturer
who
cannot
meet
a
particular
emission
standard
due
to
technological
(not
economic)
difficulties
and
who,
in
the
absence
of
nonconformance
penalties,
might
be
forced
from
the
marketplace.
Nonconformance
penalties
have
been
offered
on
occasion
as
a
compliance
option
for
several
heavy­
duty
engine
emission
standards,
but
they
have
never
been
offered
for
highway
motorcycles.
However,
as
noted
above,
the
Clean
Air
Act
provides
us
with
the
authority
to
provide
nonconformance
penalties
for
highway
motorcycles
if
they
can
be
justified.
While
we
do
not
currently
believe
that
the
three
criteria
established
by
rulemaking
could
be
satisfied
with
respect
to
the
Tier
1
standard
(the
``
substantial
work''
criterion
may
not
be
applicable),
there
is
a
greater
possibility
that
the
criteria
could
be
satisfied
with
respect
to
the
Tier
2
standard.
We
request
comment
on
whether
the
three
criteria
noted
above
could
apply
to
the
Tier
1
or
Tier
2
standard,
and
if
so,
whether
nonconformance
penalties
should
be
considered
as
an
option.
Typically,
however,
it
is
impossible
at
the
time
of
a
rulemaking
to
make
the
finding
that
a
technological
laggard
has
emerged
with
respect
to
a
standard
taking
effect
well
into
the
future.
For
example,
the
proposed
program
would
provide
eight
years
of
lead
time
to
meet
the
Tier
2
standard,
and
making
a
judgment
in
this
rulemaking
regarding
the
existence
of
a
technological
laggard
is
impossible.
It
would
be
likely,
for
example,
that
we
revisit
this
issue
in
the
context
of
California
ARB's
2006
progress
review,
or
even
later.
However,

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53085
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
42
The
manufacturer
taht
had
certified
this
twostroke
for
highway
use
has
typically
certified
4Ð
5
other
Class
I
or
II
engine
families;
therefore,
a
basic
averaging
program
could
enable
them
to
continue
to
market
their
two­
stroke
dual­
sport.
However,
other
manufacturers
may
not
have
adequate
additional
engine
families
in
these
classes,
making
a
basic
average
standard
less
useful
to
them.
43
Aprilia
webstie,
http://
www.
apriliausa.
com/
ridezone/
ing/
models/
scarabeo50dt/
moto.
htm.
Available
in
the
public
docket
for
review.
44
Improving
Urban
Air
Quality
in
South
Asia
by
Reducing
Emissions
from
Two­
Stroke
Engine
Vehicles.
Masami
Kojima,
Carter
Brandon,
and
Jitendra
Shah.
December
2000.
Prepared
for
the
World
Bank.
Available
in
the
public
docket
for
review
(Docket
AÐ
2000Ð
01;
document
IIÐ
DÐ
191),
or
on
the
internet
at:
http://
www.
worldbank.
org/
html/
fpd/
esmpa/
publication/
airquality.
html.
we
request
comment
nevertheless
on
whether
nonconformance
penalties
would
be
a
desirable
option,
should
conditions
develop
that
warrant
them.
We
also
request
comment
on,
given
the
availability
of
the
hardship
provisions
described
above,
whether
nonconformance
penalties
would
potentially
be
needed.

E.
Technological
Feasibility
of
the
Standards
1.
Class
I
and
Class
II
Motorcycles
Between
50
and
180cc
As
noted
above,
we
are
proposing
to
adopt
the
current
California
standards
for
Class
I
and
Class
II
motorcycles.
These
standards
have
been
in
place
in
California
since
1982.
The
question
of
whether
or
not
these
standards
are
technically
feasible
has
been
answered
in
the
affirmative,
since
21
of
the
22
EPA­
certified
2001
model
year
motorcycle
engine
families
in
these
classes
are
already
certified
to
these
standards,
and
all
24
of
the
2002
model
year
engine
families
meet
these
standards.
These
24
engine
families
are
all
powered
by
four­
stroke
engines,
with
a
variety
of
emission
controls
applied,
including
basic
engine
modifications
on
almost
all
engine
families,
secondary
air
injection
on
three
engine
families,
and
a
two­
way
oxidation
catalyst
on
one
engine
family.
In
past
model
years,
but
not
in
the
2002
model
year,
an
engine
family
that
does
not
meet
the
California
standards
had
certified
to
the
existing
federal
standards
and
not
sold
in
California.
It
was
a
100cc
dual­
sport
motorcycle
powered
by
a
two­
stroke
engine,
with
an
HC
certification
level
of
3.9
g/
km.
This
motorcycle
no
longer
appears
to
be
available
as
of
the
2002
model
year.
Adopting
the
California
standards
for
these
motorcycle
classes
could
preclude
this
motorcycle
or
others
like
it
from
being
certified
and
sold
federally,
unless
the
federal
program
includes
additional
flexibility
relative
to
the
California
program.
As
discussed
above,
we
are
proposing
that
the
HC
standard
for
Class
I
and
Class
II
motorcycles
be
an
averaging
standard,
in
a
departure
from
California's
treatment
of
these
motorcycle
classes.
This
in
itself
could
be
of
limited
use
given
the
low
number
of
Class
I
and
Class
II
engine
families,
but,
as
discussed
in
Section
V.
C.
2
above,
we
are
also
proposing
to
allow
credits
accumulated
by
certifying
Class
III
engine
families
to
a
level
lower
than
the
standard
to
be
used
to
offset
Class
I
or
Class
II
engine
families
certified
to
levels
above
the
fleet­
average
standard.
42
2.
Class
I
Motorcycles
Under
50cc
As
we
have
described
earlier
we
are
proposing
to
apply
the
current
California
standard
for
Class
I
motorcycles
to
motorcycles
with
displacements
of
less
than
50cc
(e.
g.,
most
motor
scooters).
These
motorcycles
are
currently
not
subject
to
regulation
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
or
by
the
State
of
California.
They
are,
however,
subject
to
emission
standards
in
Europe
and
much
of
the
rest
of
the
world.
Historically
these
motorcycles
have
been
powered
by
2­
stroke
engines,
but
a
trend
appears
to
be
developing
that
would
result
in
most
of
these
being
replaced
by
4­
stroke
engines
or
possibly
by
advanced
technology
2­
stroke
engines,
in
some
cases
with
catalysts.
The
4­
stroke
engine
is
capable
of
meeting
our
proposed
standards.
Class
I
motorcycles
above
50cc
are
already
meeting
it,
most
of
them
employing
nothing
more
than
a
4­
stroke
engine.
For
example,
the
existing
Class
I
scooters
certify
at
levels
ranging
from
0.4
to
0.8
grams
per
kilometer
HC.
All
of
these
achieve
the
standards
with
4­
stroke
engine
designs,
and
only
one
incorporates
additional
technology
(a
catalyst).
These
engines
range
from
80
to
151cc
in
displacement,
indicating
that
a
smaller
engine
should
encounter
few
problems
meeting
the
proposed
standards.
In
order
to
meet
more
stringent
standards
being
implemented
worldwide,
manufacturers
are
developing
and
implementing
a
variety
of
options.
Honda,
perhaps
the
largest
seller
of
scooters
in
the
U.
S.,
has
entirely
eliminated
2­
stroke
engines
from
their
scooter
product
lines
as
of
the
2002
model
year.
They
continue
to
offer
a
50cc
model,
but
with
a
4­
stroke
engine.
Both
of
Aprilia's
49cc
scooters
available
in
the
U.
S.
have
incorporated
electronic
direct
injection
technology,
which,
in
the
case
of
one
model,
enables
it
to
meet
the
``
Euro­
2''
standards
of
1.2
grams
per
kilometer
HC
and
0.3
grams
per
kilometer
NOX,
without
use
of
a
catalytic
converter.
43
Piaggio,
while
currently
selling
a
49cc
basic
2­
stroke
scooter
in
the
U.
S.,
expects
to
begin
production
of
a
direct
injection
version
in
2002,
and
a
4­
stroke
50cc
scooter
is
also
in
development.
Numerous
49cc
models
marketed
by
Piaggio
in
Europe
are
available
either
as
a
4­
stroke
or
a
2­
stroke
with
a
catalyst.
Piaggio,
also
an
engine
manufacturer
and
seller,
is
already
offering
a
50cc
4­
stroke
engine
to
its
customers
for
incorporation
into
scooters.
The
U.
S.
represents
a
very
small
portion
of
the
market
for
small
motorcycles
and
scooters.
There
are
few,
if
any,
manufacturers
that
develop
a
small­
displacement
motorcycle
exclusively
for
the
U.
S.
market;
the
domestic
sales
volumes
do
not
appear
large
enough
at
this
time
to
support
an
industry
of
this
kind.
The
Italian
company
Piaggio
(maker
of
the
Vespa
scooters),
for
example,
sold
about
as
many
scooters
worldwide
in
2000
(about
480,000)
as
the
entire
volume
of
highway
motorcycles
of
all
sizes
sold
in
the
U.
S.
in
that
year.
U.
S.
sales
of
Vespas
in
2000
amounted
to
about
4800.
The
largest
scooter
markets
today
are
in
South
Asia
and
Europe,
where
millions
are
sold
annually.
In
Taiwan
alone
almost
800,000
motorcycles
were
sold
domestically.
More
than
one
third
of
these
were
powered
by
2­
stroke
engines.
Two­
and
three­
wheelers
constitute
a
large
portion
of
the
transportation
sector
in
Asia,
and
in
some
urban
areas
these
vehiclesÑ
many
of
them
powered
by
2­
stroke
enginesÑ
can
approach
75
percent
of
the
vehicle
population.
According
to
a
World
Bank
report,
twostroke
gasoline
engine
vehicles
are
estimated
to
account
for
about
60
percent
of
the
total
vehicle
fleet
in
South
Asia.
44
Many
nations
are
now
realizing
that
the
popularity
of
these
vehicles
and
the
high
density
of
these
vehicles
in
urban
areas
are
contributing
to
severe
air
quality
problems.
As
a
consequence,
some
of
the
larger
small
motorcycle
markets
in
Asia
and
India
are
now
placing
these
vehicles
under
fairly
strict
regulation.
It
is
clear
that
actions
in
these
nations
will
move
the
emission
control
technology
on
small
motorcycles,
including
those
under
50cc,
in
a
positive
direction.
For
example,
according
to
the
World
Bank
report,
as
of
2000
catalytic
converters
are
installed
in
all
new
two­
stroke
engine
motorcycles
in
India,
and
2003
standards
in
Taiwan
will
effectively
ban
new
two­
strokes
with
emission
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53086
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
standards
so
stringent
that
only
a
fourstroke
engine
is
capable
of
meeting
them.
Given
the
emerging
international
picture
regarding
emission
standards
for
scooters,
we
believe
that
scooter
manufacturers
will
be
producing
scooters
of
less
than
50cc
displacement
that
meet
our
proposed
standards
well
in
advance
of
the
2006
model
year,
the
first
year
we
propose
to
subject
this
category
of
motorcycle
to
U.
S.
emission
standards.
We
would
expect
that
small
entities
that
import
scooters
into
the
U.
S.
from
the
larger
scooter
markets
would
be
able
to
import
complying
vehicles.
We
request
comment
on
this
assessment.
There
are
other
numerous
factors
in
the
international
arena
that
may
affect
the
product
offerings
in
the
less
than
50cc
market
segment.
For
example,
the
European
Union
recently
changed
the
requirements
regarding
insurance
and
helmet
use
for
under
50cc
scooters
and
mopeds.
Previously,
the
insurance
discounts
and
lack
of
helmet
requirements
in
Europe
provided
two
relatively
strong
incentives
to
purchasers
to
consider
a
49cc
scooter.
Recently,
however,
the
provisions
were
changed
such
that
helmets
are
now
required
and
the
insurance
costs
are
comparable
to
larger
motorcycles.
The
result
was
a
drop
of
about
30%
in
European
sales
of
49cc
scooters
in
2001
due
to
customers
perceiving
little
benefit
from
a
49cc
scooter
relative
to
a
larger
displacement
engine.

3.
Class
III
motorcycles
a.
Tier
1
standards.
In
the
short
term,
the
proposed
Tier
1
HC+
NOX
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOX
reflects
the
goal
of
achieving
emission
reductions
that
could
be
met
with
reasonably
available
control
technologies,
primarily
involving
engine
modifications
rather
than
catalytic
converters.
As
noted
earlier,
we
are
proposing
that
this
standard
be
effective
for
the
2006
model
year.
Based
on
current
certification
data,
a
number
of
existing
engine
families
already
comply
with
this
standard
or
would
need
relatively
simple
modifications
to
comply.
In
other
cases,
the
manufacturers
will
need
to
use
control
technologies
that
are
available
but
are
not
yet
used
on
their
particular
vehicles
(e.
g.,
electronic
fuel
injection
to
replace
carburetors,
changes
to
cam
lobes/
timing,
etc.).
For
the
most
part,
manufacturers
will
not
need
to
use
advanced
technologies
such
as
closecoupled
closed­
loop
three
way
catalysts.
While
manufacturers
will
use
various
means
to
meet
the
Tier
1
standard,
there
are
four
basic
types
of
existing,
non
catalyst­
based,
emission­
control
systems
available
to
manufacturers.
The
most
important
of
these
is
the
use
of
secondary
pulse­
air
injection.
Other
engine
modifications
and
systems
include
more
precise
fuel
control,
better
fuel
atomization
and
delivery,
and
reduced
engine­
out
emission
levels
from
engine
changes.
The
combinations
of
low­
emission
technologies
ultimately
chosen
by
motorcycle
manufacturers
are
dependent
on
the
engine­
out
emission
levels
of
the
vehicle,
the
effectiveness
of
the
prior
emission­
control
system,
and
individual
manufacturer
preferences.
Secondary
pulse­
air
injection,
as
demonstrated
on
current
motorcycles,
is
applied
using
a
passive
system
(i.
e.,
no
air
pump
involved)
that
takes
advantage
of
the
flow
of
gases
(``
pulse'')
in
the
exhaust
pipes
to
draw
in
fresh
air
that
further
combusts
unburned
hydrocarbons
in
the
exhaust.
Engine
modifications
include
a
variety
of
techniques
designed
to
improve
fuel
delivery
or
atomization;
promote
``
swirl''
(horizontal
currents)
and
``
tumble''
(vertical
currents);
maintain
tight
control
on
air­
to­
fuel
(A/
F)
ratios;
stabilize
combustion
(especially
in
lean
A/
F
mixtures);
optimize
valve
timing;
and
retard
ignition
timing.
Secondary
pulse
air
injection
involves
the
introduction
of
fresh
air
into
the
exhaust
pipe
immediately
after
the
gases
exist
the
engine.
The
extra
air
causes
further
combustion
to
occur,
thereby
controlling
more
of
the
hydrocarbons
that
escape
the
combustion
chamber.
This
type
of
system
is
relatively
inexpensive
and
uncomplicated
because
it
does
not
require
an
air
pump;
air
is
drawn
into
the
exhaust
through
a
oneway
reed
valve
due
to
the
pulses
of
negative
pressure
inside
the
exhaust
pipe.
Secondary
pulse­
air
injection
is
one
of
the
most
effective
non­
catalytic
emission­
control
technologies;
compared
to
engines
without
the
system,
reductions
of
10
to
40
percent
for
HC
are
possible
with
pulse­
air
injection.
Sixty­
five
of
the
151
2001
model
year
Class
III
engine
families
certified
for
sale
in
the
U.
S
employ
secondary
pulse­
air
injection
to
help
meet
the
current
California
standards.
We
anticipate
that
most
of
the
remaining
engine
families
will
use
this
technique
to
help
meet
the
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
standards.
Improving
fuel
delivery
and
atomization
primarily
involves
the
replacement
of
carburetors,
currently
used
on
most
motorcycles,
with
more
precise
fuel
injection
systems.
There
are
several
types
of
fuel
injection
systems
and
components
manufacturers
can
choose.
The
most
likely
type
of
fuel
injection
manufacturers
will
choose
to
help
meet
the
Tier
1
standard
is
sequential
multi­
point
fuel
injection
(SFI).
Unlike
conventional
multi­
point
fuel
injection
systems
that
deliver
fuel
continuously
or
to
paired
injectors
at
the
same
time,
sequential
fuel
injection
can
deliver
fuel
precisely
when
needed
by
each
cylinder.
With
less
than
optimum
fuel
injection
timing,
fuel
puddling
and
intake­
manifold
wall
wetting
can
occur,
both
of
which
hinder
complete
combustion.
Use
of
sequentialfuel
injection
systems
help
especially
in
reducing
cold
start
emissions
when
fuel
puddling
and
wall
wetting
are
more
likely
to
occur
and
emissions
are
highest.
Motorcycle
manufacturers
are
already
beginning
to
use
sequential
fuel
injection
(SFI).
Of
the
152
Class
III
motorcycle
engine
families
certified
for
sale
this
year,
36
employ
SFI
systems.
We
anticipate
increased
applications
of
this
or
similar
fuel
injection
systems
to
achieve
the
more
precise
fuel
delivery
needed
to
help
meet
the
Tier
1
and
Tier
2
standards.
In
addition
to
the
techniques
mentioned
above,
various
engine
modifications
can
be
made
to
improve
emission
levels.
Emission
performance
can
be
improved,
for
example,
by
reducing
crevice
volumes
in
the
combustion
chamber.
Unburned
fuel
can
be
trapped
momentarily
in
crevice
volumes
before
being
subsequently
released.
Since
trapped
and
re­
released
fuel
can
increase
engine­
out
emissions,
the
elimination
of
crevice
volumes
would
be
beneficial
to
emission
performance.
To
reduce
crevice
volumes,
manufacturers
can
evaluate
the
feasibility
of
designing
engines
with
pistons
that
have
reduced,
top
``
land
heights''
(the
distance
between
the
top
of
the
piston
and
the
first
ring).
Lubrication
oil
which
leaks
into
the
combustion
chamber
also
has
a
detrimental
effect
on
emission
performance
since
the
heavier
hydrocarbons
in
oil
do
not
oxidize
as
readily
as
those
in
gasoline
and
some
components
in
lubricating
oil
may
tend
to
foul
the
catalyst
and
reduce
its
effectiveness.
Also,
oil
in
the
combustion
chamber
may
trap
HC
and
later
release
the
HC
unburned.
To
reduce
oil
consumption,
manufacturers
can
tighten
the
tolerances
and
improve
the
surface
finish
on
cylinders
and
pistons,
piston
ring
design
and
materials,
and
exhaust
valve
stem
seals
to
prevent
excessive
leakage
of
lubricating
oil
into
the
combustion
chamber.
Increasing
valve
overlap
is
another
engine
modification
that
can
help
reduce
emissions.
This
technique
helps
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53087
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
reduce
NOX
generation
in
the
combustion
chamber
by
essentially
providing
passive
exhaust
gas
recirculation
(EGR).
When
the
engine
is
undergoing
its
pumping
cycle,
small
amounts
of
combusted
gases
flow
past
the
intake
valve
at
the
start
of
the
intake
cycle.
This
creates
what
is
essentially
a
passive
EGR
flow,
which
is
then
either
drawn
back
into
the
cylinder
or
into
another
cylinder
through
the
intake
manifold
during
the
intake
stroke.
These
combusted
gases,
when
combined
with
the
fresh
air/
fuel
mixture
in
the
cylinder,
help
reduce
peak
combustion
temperatures
and
NOX
levels.
This
technique
can
be
effected
by
making
changes
to
cam
timing
and
intake
manifold
design
to
optimize
NOX
reduction
while
minimizing
impacts
to
HC
emissions.
Secondary
pulse­
air
injection
and
engine
modifications
already
play
important
parts
in
reducing
emission
levels;
we
expect
increased
uses
of
these
techniques
to
help
meet
the
Tier
1
standard.
Direct
evidence
of
the
extent
these
technologies
can
help
manufacturers
meet
the
Tier
1
standard
can
be
found
in
EPA's
highway
motorcycle
certification
database.
This
database
is
comprised
of
publiclyavailable
certification
emission
levels
as
well
as
some
confidential
data
reported
by
the
manufacturers
pursuant
to
existing
motorcycle
emission
certification
requirements.
We
do
not
expect
any
of
these
possible
changes
to
adversely
affect
performance.
Indeed,
the
transition
to
some
of
these
technologies
(e.
g.,
advanced
fuel
injection)
would
be
expected
to
improve
performance,
fuel
economy,
and
reliability.
A
direct
comparison
of
several
motorcycle
models
in
the
EPA
certification
database
between
the
``
California''
model
(where
one
is
offered;
it
is
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule
that
a
manufacturer
offers
a
separate
engine
system
for
California)
and
the
model
sold
in
the
rest
of
the
U.
S.
reveals
no
change
in
the
performance
characteristics
in
the
database
(e.
g.,
rated
horsepower,
torque).
We
request
comment
on
the
impact
these
anticipated
changes
might
have
on
performance­
related
factors.
b.
Tier
2
standards.
In
the
long
term,
the
proposed
Tier
2
HC+
NOX
standard
of
0.8
g/
km
would
ensure
that
manufacturers
will
continue
to
develop
and
improve
emission
control
technologies.
We
are
proposing
the
Tier
2
standard
to
be
effective
by
the
2010
model
year.
We
believe
this
standard
is
technologically
feasible,
though
it
will
present
some
challenges
for
manufacturers.
Several
manufacturers
are,
however,
already
using
some
of
the
technologies
that
will
be
needed
to
meet
this
standard.
In
addition,
our
proposed
implementation
time
frame
gives
manufacturers
two
years
of
experience
in
meeting
this
standard
in
California
before
having
to
meet
it
on
a
nationwide
basis.
At
least
one
manufacturer
already
uses
closed­
loop,
three­
way
catalysts
on
several
of
its
product
lines.
One
manufacturer
has
already
certified
a
large
touring
motorcycle
to
the
Tier
2
standards
for
sale
in
California.
Depending
on
assumptions
regarding
NOX
levels,
other
manufacturers
have
products
currently
in
the
market
with
emission
levels
close
to
the
Tier
2
standards
using
two­
way
catalysts,
fuel
injection,
secondary
pulse­
air
injection,
and
other
engine
modifications.
The
current
average
HC
certification
level
for
Class
III
motorcycles
is
just
under
1.0
g/
km,
with
a
number
of
motorcycles
from
a
variety
of
manufacturers
at
levels
of
0.5
g/
km
or
lower.
We
expect
that
the
proposed
eight
years
of
lead
time
prior
to
meeting
these
standards
on
a
nationwide
basis
would
allow
manufacturers
to
optimize
these
and
other
technologies
to
meet
the
Tier
2
standard.
To
meet
the
proposed
Tier
2
standard
for
HC+
NOX,
manufacturers
would
likely
use
more
advanced
engine
modifications
and
secondary
air
injection.
Specifically,
we
believe
manufacturers
would
use
computercontrolled
secondary
pulse­
air
injection
(i.
e.,
the
injection
valve
would
be
connected
to
a
computer­
controlled
solenoid).
In
addition
to
these
systems,
manufacturers
would
probably
need
to
use
catalytic
converters
on
some
motorcycles
to
meet
the
proposed
Tier
2
standards.
There
are
two
types
of
catalytic
converters
currently
in
use:
two­
way
catalysts
(which
control
only
HC
and
CO)
and
three­
way
catalysts
(which
control
HC,
CO,
and
NOX).
Under
the
proposed
Tier
2
standard,
manufacturers
would
need
to
minimize
levels
of
both
HC
and
NOX.
Therefore,
to
the
extent
catalysts
are
used,
manufacturers
would
likely
use
a
threeway
catalyst
in
addition
to
engine
modifications
and
computer­
controlled,
secondary
pulse­
air
injection.
As
discussed
previously,
improving
fuel
control
and
delivery
provides
emission
benefits
by
helping
to
reduce
engine­
out
emissions
and
minimizing
the
exhaust
variability
which
the
catalytic
converter
experiences.
One
method
for
improving
fuel
control
is
to
provide
enhanced
feedback
to
the
computer­
controlled
fuel
injection
system
through
the
use
of
heated
oxygen
sensors.
Heated
oxygen
sensors
(HO2S)
are
located
in
the
exhaust
manifold
to
monitor
the
amount
of
oxygen
in
the
exhaust
stream
and
provide
feedback
to
the
electronic
control
module
(ECM).
These
sensors
allow
the
fuel
control
system
to
maintain
a
tighter
band
around
the
stoichiometric
A/
F
ratio
than
conventional
oxygen
sensors
(O2S).
In
this
way,
HO2S
assist
vehicles
in
achieving
precise
control
of
the
A/
F
ratio
and
thereby
enhance
the
overall
emissions
performance
of
the
engine.
At
least
one
manufacturer
is
currently
using
this
technology
on
several
2001
engine
families.
In
order
to
further
improve
fuel
control,
some
motorcycles
with
electronic
controls
may
utilize
software
algorithms
to
perform
individual
cylinder
fuel
control.
While
dual
oxygen
sensor
systems
are
capable
of
maintaining
A/
F
ratios
within
a
narrow
range,
some
manufacturers
may
desire
even
more
precise
control
to
meet
their
performance
needs.
On
typical
applications,
fuel
control
is
modified
whenever
the
O2S
determines
that
the
combined
A/
F
of
all
cylinders
in
the
engine
or
engine
bank
is
``
too
far''
from
stoichiometric.
The
needed
fuel
modifications
(i.
e.,
inject
more
or
less
fuel)
are
then
applied
to
all
cylinders
simultaneously.
Although
this
fuel
control
method
will
maintain
the
``
bulk''
A/
F
for
the
entire
engine
or
engine
bank
around
stoichiometric,
it
would
not
be
capable
of
correcting
for
individual
cylinder
A/
F
deviations
that
can
result
from
differences
in
manufacturing
tolerances,
wear
of
injectors,
or
other
factors.
With
individual
cylinder
fuel
control,
A/
F
variation
among
cylinders
will
be
diminished,
thereby
further
improving
the
effectiveness
of
the
emission
controls.
By
modeling
the
behavior
of
the
exhaust
gases
in
the
exhaust
manifold
and
using
software
algorithms
to
predict
individual
cylinder
A/
F,
a
feedback
fuel
control
system
for
individual
cylinders
can
be
developed.
Except
for
the
replacement
of
the
conventional
front
O2S
with
an
HO2S
sensor
and
a
more
powerful
engine
control
computer,
no
additional
hardware
is
needed
in
order
to
achieve
individual
cylinder
fuel
control.
Software
changes
and
the
use
of
mathematical
models
of
exhaust
gas
mixing
behavior
are
required
to
perform
this
operation.
In
order
to
maintain
good
driveability,
responsive
performance,
and
optimum
emission
control,
fluctuations
of
the
A/
F
must
remain
small
under
all
driving
conditions
including
transient
operation.
Virtually
all
current
fuel
systems
in
automobiles
incorporate
an
adaptive
fuel
control
system
that
automatically
adjusts
the
system
for
component
wear,
varying
environmental
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53088
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
conditions,
varying
fuel
composition,
etc.,
to
more
closely
maintain
proper
fuel
control
under
various
operating
conditions.
For
some
current
fuel
control
systems,
this
adaptation
process
affects
only
steady­
state
operating
conditions
(i.
e.,
constant
or
slowly
changing
throttle
conditions).
However,
most
vehicles
are
now
being
introduced
with
adaptation
during
``
transient''
conditions
(e.
g.,
rapidly
changing
throttle,
purging
of
the
evaporative
system).
Accurate
fuel
control
during
transient
driving
conditions
has
traditionally
been
difficult
because
of
the
inaccuracies
in
predicting
the
air
and
fuel
flow
under
rapidly
changing
throttle
conditions.
Because
of
air
and
fuel
dynamics
(fuel
evaporation
in
the
intake
manifold
and
air
flow
behavior)
and
the
time
delay
between
the
air
flow
measurement
and
the
injection
of
the
calculated
fuel
mass,
temporarily
lean
A/
F
ratios
can
occur
during
transient
driving
conditions
that
can
cause
engine
hesitation,
poor
driveability
and
primarily
an
increase
in
NOX
emissions.
However,
by
utilizing
fuel
and
air
mass
modeling,
vehicles
with
adaptive
transient
fuel
control
are
more
capable
of
maintaining
accurate,
precise
fuel
control
under
all
operating
conditions.
Virtually
all
cars
will
incorporate
adaptive
transient
fuel
control
software;
motorcycles
with
computer
controlled
fuel
injection
can
also
benefit
from
this
technique
at
a
relatively
low
cost.
Three­
way
catalytic
converters
traditionally
utilize
rhodium
and
platinum
as
the
catalytic
material
to
control
the
emissions
of
all
three
major
pollutants
(hydrocarbons
(HC),
CO,
NOX).
Although
this
type
of
catalyst
is
very
effective
at
converting
exhaust
pollutants,
rhodium,
which
is
primarily
used
to
convert
NOX,
tends
to
thermally
deteriorate
at
temperatures
significantly
lower
than
platinum.
Recent
advances
in
palladium
and
tri­
metal
(i.
e.,
palladium­
platinum­
rhodium)
catalyst
technology,
however,
have
improved
both
the
light­
off
performance
(light­
off
is
defined
as
the
catalyst
bed
temperature
where
pollutant
conversion
reaches
50­
percent
efficiency)
and
high
temperature
durability
over
previous
catalysts.
In
addition,
other
refinements
to
catalyst
technology,
such
as
higher
cell
density
substrates
and
adding
a
second
layer
of
catalyst
washcoat
to
the
substrate
(dual­
layered
washcoats),
have
further
improved
catalyst
performance
from
just
a
few
years
ago.
Typical
cell
densities
for
conventional
catalysts
used
in
motorcycles
are
less
than
300
cells
per
square
inch
(cpsi).
To
meet
the
Tier
2
standard,
we
expect
manufacturers
to
use
catalysts
with
cell
densities
of
300
to
400
cpsi.
If
catalyst
volume
is
maintained
at
the
same
level
(we
assume
volumes
of
up
to
60
percent
of
engine
displacement),
using
a
higher
density
catalyst
effectively
increases
the
amount
of
surface
area
available
for
reacting
with
pollutants.
Catalyst
manufacturers
have
been
able
to
increase
cell
density
by
using
thinner
walls
between
each
cell
without
increasing
thermal
mass
(and
detrimentally
affecting
catalyst
light­
off)
or
sacrificing
durability
and
performance.
In
addition
to
increasing
catalyst
volume
and
cell
density,
we
believe
that
increased
catalyst
loading
and
improved
catalyst
washcoats
will
help
manufacturers
meet
the
Tier
2
standard.
In
general,
increased
precious
metal
loading
(up
to
a
certain
point)
will
reduce
exhaust
emissions
because
it
increases
the
opportunities
for
pollutants
to
be
converted
to
harmless
constituents.
The
extent
to
which
precious
metal
loading
is
increased
will
be
dependent
on
the
precious
metals
used
and
other
catalyst
design
parameters.
We
believe
recent
developments
in
palladium/
rhodium
catalysts
are
very
promising
since
rhodium
is
very
efficient
at
converting
NOX,
and
catalyst
suppliers
have
been
investigating
methods
to
increase
the
amount
of
rhodium
in
catalysts
for
improved
NOX
conversion.
Double
layer
technologies
allow
optimization
of
each
individual
precious
metal
used
in
the
washcoat.
This
technology
can
provide
reduction
of
undesired
metal­
metal
or
metal­
base
oxide
interactions
while
allowing
desirable
interactions.
Industry
studies
have
shown
that
durability
and
pollutant
conversion
efficiencies
are
enhanced
with
double
layer
washcoats.
These
recent
improvements
in
catalysts
can
help
manufacturers
meet
the
Tier
2
standard
at
reduced
cost
relative
to
older
three­
way
catalysts.
New
washcoat
formulations
are
now
thermally
stable
up
to
1050
°
C.
This
is
a
significant
improvement
from
conventional
washcoats,
which
are
stable
only
up
to
about
900
°
C.
With
the
improvements
in
light­
off
capability,
catalysts
may
not
need
to
be
placed
as
close
to
the
engine
as
previously
thought.
However,
if
placement
closer
to
the
engine
is
required
for
better
emission
performance,
improved
catalysts
based
on
the
enhancements
described
above
would
be
more
capable
of
surviving
the
higher
temperature
environment
without
deteriorating.
The
improved
resistance
to
thermal
degradation
will
allow
closer
placement
to
the
engines
where
feasible,
thereby
providing
more
heat
to
the
catalyst
and
allowing
them
to
become
effective
quickly.
It
is
well
established
that
a
warmedup
catalyst
is
very
effective
at
converting
exhaust
pollutants.
Recent
tests
on
advanced
catalyst
systems
in
automobiles
have
shown
that
over
90
percent
of
emissions
during
the
Federal
Test
Procedure
(FTP)
are
now
emitted
during
the
first
two
minutes
of
testing
after
engine
start
up.
Similarly,
the
highest
emissions
from
a
motorcycle
occur
shortly
after
start
up.
Although
improvements
in
catalyst
technology
have
helped
reduce
catalyst
light­
off
times,
there
are
several
methods
to
provide
additional
heat
to
the
catalyst.
Retarding
the
ignition
spark
timing
and
computer­
controlled,
secondary
air
injection
have
been
shown
to
increase
the
heat
provided
to
the
catalyst,
thereby
improving
its
cold­
start
effectiveness.
In
addition
to
using
computercontrolled
secondary
air
injection
and
retarded
spark
timing
to
increase
the
heat
provided
to
the
catalyst,
some
vehicles
may
employ
warm­
up,
precatalysts
to
reduce
the
size
of
their
main
catalytic
converters.
Palladium­
only
warm­
up
catalysts
(also
known
as
``
pipe
catalysts''
or
``
Hot
Tubes'')
using
ceramic
or
metallic
substrates
may
be
added
to
further
decrease
warm­
up
times
and
improve
emission
performance.
Although
metallic
substrates
are
usually
more
expensive
than
ceramic
substrates,
some
manufacturers
and
suppliers
believe
metallic
substrates
may
require
less
precious
metal
loading
than
ceramic
substrates
due
to
the
reduced
light­
off
times
they
provide.
Improving
insulation
of
the
exhaust
system
is
another
method
of
furnishing
heat
to
the
catalyst.
Similar
to
closecoupled
catalysts,
the
principle
behind
insulating
the
exhaust
system
is
to
conserve
the
heat
generated
in
the
engine
for
aiding
catalyst
warm­
up.
Through
the
use
of
laminated
thin­
wall
exhaust
pipes,
less
heat
will
be
lost
in
the
exhaust
system,
enabling
quicker
catalyst
light­
off.
As
an
added
benefit,
the
use
of
insulated
exhaust
pipes
will
also
reduce
exhaust
noise.
Increasing
numbers
of
manufacturers
are
expected
to
utilize
air­
gap
exhaust
manifolds
(i.
e.,
manifolds
with
metal
inner
and
outer
walls
and
an
insulating
layer
of
air
sandwiched
between
them)
for
further
heat
conservation.
Besides
the
hardware
modifications
described
above,
motorcycle
manufacturers
may
borrow
from
other
current
automobile
techniques.
These
include
using
engine
calibration
changes
such
as
a
brief
period
of
substantial
ignition
retard,
increased
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53089
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
45
See
written
testimony
of
the
Manufacturers
of
Emission
Controls
Association
on
the
Proposed
Rulemaking
on
Control
of
Emissions
from
Nonroad
Large
Spark­
Ignited
Engines
and
Recreational
Engines.
Available
in
the
public
docket
for
review
(Docket
AÐ
2000Ð
01;
document
IVÐ
DÐ
213).
cold
idling
speed,
and
leaner
air­
fuel
mixtures
to
quickly
provide
heat
to
a
catalyst
after
cold­
starts.
Only
software
modifications
are
required
for
an
engine
which
already
uses
a
computer
to
control
the
fuel
delivery
and
other
engine
systems.
For
these
engines,
calibration
modifications
provide
manufacturers
with
an
inexpensive
method
to
quickly
achieve
light­
off
of
catalytic
converters.
When
combined
with
pre­
catalysts,
computer­
controlled
secondary
air
injection,
and
the
other
heat
conservation
techniques
described
above,
engine
calibration
techniques
may
be
very
effective
at
providing
the
required
heat
to
the
catalyst
for
achieving
the
Tier
2
standard.
These
techniques
are
currently
in
use
on
most
low
emission
vehicle
(LEV)
automobiles
and
may
have
applications
in
on­
road
motorcycles.
The
nature
of
motorcycling
makes
riders
particularly
aware
of
the
many
safety
issues
that
confront
them.
Many
riders
that
submitted
comments
to
us
following
the
publication
of
the
ANPRM
in
December
of
2000
questioned
whether
catalytic
converters
could
be
implemented
on
motorcycles
without
increasing
the
risk
of
harm
to
the
rider
and/
or
passenger.
The
primary
concern
is
regarding
the
close
proximity
of
the
riders
to
hot
exhaust
pipes
and
the
catalytic
converter.
Protecting
the
rider
from
the
excessive
heat
is
a
concern
for
both
riders
and
manufacturers.
The
current
use
of
catalytic
converters
on
a
number
of
motorcycles
(accounting
for
tens
of
thousands
of
motorcycles
in
the
current
U.
S.
fleet
and
over
15
million
worldwide)
already
indicates
that
these
issues
are
not
insurmountable
on
a
variety
of
motorcycle
styles
and
engine
sizes.
Countries
that
have
successfully
implemented
catalyst­
based
emission
control
programs
for
motorcycles
(some
of
which
have
many
years
of
experience)
do
not
report
any
safety
issues
associated
with
the
use
of
catalytic
converters
on
motorcycles
under
real­
world
conditions.
45
A
number
of
approaches
to
shielding
the
rider
from
the
heat
of
the
catalytic
converter
are
possible,
such
as
exterior
pipe
covers,
shielded
foot
rests,
and
similar
components.
Some
manufacturers
have
found
that
placing
the
converter
on
the
underside
of
the
engine
can
keep
it
adequately
distant
from
the
rider.
Others
may
use
doublepipe
systems
that
reduce
overall
heat
loss
while
remaining
cooler
on
the
exterior.
Based
on
the
significant
lead
time
proposed
that
would
be
allowed
for
meeting
these
standards,
as
well
as
on
the
two
years
of
prior
experience
in
California
before
meeting
the
requirements
federally,
we
believe
that
these
issues
can
be
satisfactorily
resolved
for
the
proportion
of
motorcycles
for
which
catalytic
converters
would
likely
be
used
to
meet
the
proposed
standards.
We
do
not
expect
any
of
these
possible
changes
to
adversely
affect
performance.
Indeed,
the
transition
to
some
of
these
technologies
(e.
g.,
advanced
fuel
injection)
would
be
expected
to
improve
performance,
fuel
economy,
and
reliability.
A
direct
comparison
of
several
motorcycle
models
in
the
EPA
certification
database
between
the
``
California''
model
(where
one
is
offered;
it
is
the
exception
rather
than
the
rule
that
a
manufacturer
offers
a
separate
engine
system
for
California)
and
the
model
sold
in
the
rest
of
the
U.
S.
reveals
no
change
in
the
performance
characteristics
in
the
database
(e.
g.,
rated
horsepower,
torque).
We
request
comment
on
the
impact
these
anticipated
changes
might
have
on
performance­
related
factors.

VI.
Projected
Impacts
This
section
summarizes
the
projected
impacts
of
the
proposed
emission
standards.
The
anticipated
environmental
benefits
are
compared
with
the
projected
cost
of
the
program
for
an
assessment
of
the
cost
per
ton
of
reducing
emissions
for
this
proposal.

A.
Environmental
Impact
Diurnal
evaporative
emission
factors
from
marine
vessels
were
developed
using
established
equations
for
determining
evaporative
emission
factors
as
a
function
of
ambient
conditions
and
fuel
tank
size.
Permeation
emissions
were
developed
based
on
known
material
permeation
rates
as
a
function
of
surface
area
and
temperature.
Other
inputs
for
these
calculations
were
taken
from
the
latest
version
of
our
NONROAD
model.
Emission
estimates
for
highway
motorcycles
were
developed
using
information
on
the
emission
levels
of
current
motorcycles
and
updated
information
on
motorcycle
use
provided
by
the
motorcycle
industry.
A
more
detailed
description
of
the
methodology
used
for
projecting
inventories
and
projections
for
additional
years
can
be
found
in
the
Chapter
6
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
We
request
comment
on
all
aspects
of
the
emission
inventory
analysis,
including
the
usage
rates
and
other
inputs
used
in
the
analysis.
Tables
V.
AÐ
1
and
V.
AÐ
2
contain
the
projected
emission
inventories
for
the
years
2010
and
2020,
respectively,
from
the
engines
and
vehicles
subject
to
this
proposal.
The
inventories
are
presented
for
the
base
case
which
assumes
no
change
from
current
conditions
(i.
e.,
without
the
proposed
standards
taking
effect)
and
assuming
the
proposed
standards
take
effect.
The
inventories
for
2010
and
2020
include
the
effect
of
growth.
The
percent
reductions
based
on
a
comparison
of
estimated
emission
inventories
with
and
without
the
proposed
emission
standards
are
also
presented.

TABLE
VI.
A–
1.—
2010
PROJECTED
EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES
[Thousand
short
tons]

Category
NOX
HC*

Base
case
With
proposed
standards
Percent
reduction
Base
case
With
proposed
standards
Percent
reduction
Marine
SI
Evap
................................................................
0
0
0
106
91
14
Highway
motorcycles
.......................................................
11
10
9
46
41
11
Total
......................................................................
11
10
9
152
132
13
*Evaporative
HC
for
marine
SI;
exhaust
HC
for
highway
motorcycles.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53090
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
46
For
further
information
on
learning
curves,
see
previous
final
rules
for
Tier
2
highway
vehicles
(65
FR
6698,
February
10,
2000),
marine
diesel
engines
(64
FR
73300,
December
29,
1999),
nonroad
diesel
engines
(63
FR
56968,
October
23,
1998),
and
highway
diesel
engines
(62
FR
54694,
October
21,
1997).
TABLE
VI.
A–
2.—
2020
PROJECTED
EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES
[Thousand
short
tons]

Category
NOX
HC*

Base
case
With
proposed
standards
Percent
reductions
Base
case
With
proposed
standards
Percent
reduction
Marine
SI
Evap
................................................................
0
0
0
114
50
56
Highway
motorcycles
.......................................................
14
7
50
58
29
50
Total
......................................................................
14
7
50
172
79
53
*Evaporative
HC
for
marine
SI;
exhaust
HC
for
highway
motorcycles.

As
described
in
Section
II,
there
will
also
be
environmental
benefits
associated
with
reduced
haze
in
many
sensitive
areas.
Finally,
anticipated
reductions
in
hydrocarbon
emissions
will
correspond
with
reduced
emissions
of
the
toxic
air
emissions
referenced
in
Section
II.
In
2020,
the
projected
reduction
in
hydrocarbon
emissions
should
result
in
an
equivalent
percent
reduction
in
air
toxic
emissions.

B.
Economic
Impact
In
assessing
the
economic
impact
of
setting
emission
standards,
we
have
made
a
best
estimate
of
the
technologies
and
their
associated
costs
to
meet
the
proposed
standards.
In
making
our
estimates
we
have
relied
on
our
own
technology
assessment,
which
includes
information
supplied
by
individual
manufacturers
and
our
own
in­
house
testing.
Estimated
costs
include
variable
costs
(for
hardware
and
assembly
time)
and
fixed
costs
(for
research
and
development,
retooling,
and
certification).
We
projected
that
manufacturers
will
recover
the
fixed
costs
over
the
first
five
years
of
production
and
used
an
amortization
rate
of
7
percent
in
our
analysis.
The
analysis
also
considers
total
operating
costs,
including
maintenance
and
fuel
consumption.
Cost
estimates
based
on
the
projected
technologies
represent
an
expected
change
in
the
cost
of
engines
as
they
begin
to
comply
with
new
emission
standards.
All
costs
are
presented
in
2001
dollars.
Full
details
of
our
cost
analysis
can
be
found
in
Chapter
5
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.
We
request
comment
on
this
cost
information.
Cost
estimates
based
on
the
current
projected
costs
for
our
estimated
technology
packages
represent
an
expected
incremental
cost
of
vehicles
in
the
near
term.
For
the
longer
term,
we
have
identified
factors
that
would
cause
cost
impacts
to
decrease
over
time.
First,
as
noted
above,
we
project
that
manufacturers
will
spread
their
fixed
costs
over
the
first
five
years
of
production.
After
the
fifth
year
of
production,
we
project
that
the
fixed
costs
would
be
retired
and
the
per
unit
costs
would
be
reduced
as
a
result.
For
highway
motorcycles
above
50cc,
the
analysis
also
incorporates
the
expectation
that
manufacturers
and
suppliers
will
apply
ongoing
research
and
manufacturing
innovation
to
making
emission
controls
more
effective
and
less
costly
over
time.
Research
in
the
costs
of
manufacturing
has
consistently
shown
that
as
manufacturers
gain
experience
in
production
and
use,
they
are
able
to
apply
innovations
to
simplify
machining
and
assembly
operations,
use
lower
cost
materials,
and
reduce
the
number
or
complexity
of
component
parts.
46
(see
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
for
additional
information).
The
cost
analysis
generally
incorporates
this
learning
effect
by
decreasing
estimated
variable
costs
by
20
percent
starting
in
the
third
year
of
production
and
an
additional
20
percent
starting
in
the
sixth
year
of
production.
Long­
term
impacts
on
costs
are
expected
to
decrease
as
manufacturers
fully
amortize
their
fixed
costs
and
learn
to
optimize
their
designs
and
production
processes
to
meet
the
standards
more
efficiently.
The
learning
curve
has
not
been
applied
to
the
marine
evaporative
controls
or
the
motorcycles
under
50cc
because
we
expect
manufacturers
to
use
technologies
that
will
be
well
established
prior
to
the
start
of
the
program.
We
request
comment
on
the
methodology
used
to
incorporate
the
learning
curve
into
the
analysis.
Evaporative
emission
controls
for
boats
with
marine
SI
engines
have
an
average
projected
cost
of
about
$36
per
boat.
While
manufacturers
may
choose
from
a
wide
variety
of
technologies
to
meet
emission
standards,
we
base
these
cost
estimates
on
all
boats
using
limited
flow
orifices
for
diurnal
emission
control,
fluorination
for
fuel
tank
permeation
control
and
low
permeability
barrier
for
fuel
hose
permeation
control.
Under
the
proposed
emission­
credit
program,
manufacturers
would
have
the
option
of
offering
different
technologies
to
meet
emission
standards.
Where
there
is
a
current
demand
for
more
sophisticated
fuel­
tank
technology,
we
would
expect
a
greater
cost
impact
than
from
the
lower­
cost,
high­
production
models.
Emissions
are
reduced
by
preventing
evaporation
of
fuel,
so
these
controls
translate
directly
into
a
fuel
savings,
which
we
have
estimated
to
be
about
$27
per
boat
(net
present
value
at
the
point
of
sale).
Therefore,
we
get
an
average
cost
of
$9
per
boat
when
the
fuel
savings
are
considered.
We
project
average
costs
of
$26
per
Class
III
highway
motorcycle
to
meet
the
Tier
1
standard
and
$35
to
meet
the
Tier
2
standards.
We
anticipate
the
manufacturers
will
meet
the
proposed
emission
standards
with
several
technology
changes,
including
electronic
fuel
injection,
catalysts,
pulse­
air
systems,
and
other
general
improvements
to
engines.
For
motorcycles
with
engines
of
less
than
50cc,
we
project
average
costs
of
$44
per
motorcycle
to
meet
the
proposed
standards.
We
anticipate
the
manufacturers
of
these
small
motorcycles
(mostly
scooters)
will
meet
the
proposed
emission
standards
by
transitioning
any
remaining
two­
stroke
engines
to
four­
strokes.
The
costs
are
based
on
the
conversion
to
4­
stroke
because
we
believe
this
to
be
the
most
likely
technology
path
for
the
majority
of
scooters.
Manufacturers
could
also
choose
to
employ
advanced
technology
two­
stroke
(e.
g.,
direct
injection
and/
or
catalysts)
designs.
The
process
of
developing
clean
technologies
is
very
much
underway
already
as
a
result
of
regulatory
actions
in
Europe
and
the
rest
of
world
where
the
primary
markets
for
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53091
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
small
motorcycles
exist.
Chapter
4
of
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
describes
these
technologies
further.
Because
several
models
are
already
available
with
the
anticipated
long­
term
emission­
control
technologies,
we
believe
that
manufacturers
and
consumers
will
be
able
to
bear
the
added
cost
associated
with
the
new
emission
standards.
The
above
analysis
presents
unit
cost
estimates
for
each
engine
type.
These
costs
represent
the
total
set
of
costs
the
engine
manufacturers
will
bear
to
comply
with
emission
standards.
With
current
and
projected
estimates
of
engine
and
equipment
sales,
we
translate
these
costs
into
projected
direct
costs
to
the
nation
for
the
new
emission
standards
in
any
year.
A
summary
of
the
annualized
costs
to
manufacturers
by
equipment
type
is
presented
in
Table
VI.
BÐ
1.
(The
annualized
costs
are
determined
over
the
first
twenty­
years
that
the
proposed
standards
would
be
effective.)
The
annual
cost
savings
for
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
(<
50cc
only)
are
due
to
reduced
fuel
costs.
The
total
fleetwide
fuel
savings
start
slowly,
then
increase
as
greater
numbers
of
compliant
vessels
or
motorcycles
(<
50cc
only)
enter
the
fleet.
Table
VI.
BÐ
1
presents
a
summary
of
the
annualized
reduced
operating
costs
as
well.

TABLE
VI.
B–
1.—
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
COST
TO
MANUFACTURERS
AND
ANNUAL
FUEL
SAVINGS
DUE
TO
THE
PROPOSED
STANDARDS
[Millions/
year]

Category
Annualized
cost
to
manufacturers
Annual
fuel
savings
Marine
SI
Evap
.......
$27.5
$15.6
Highway
Motorcycles
..................
18.8
0.2
Aggregate*
..............
42.0
13.3
*
Because
of
the
different
proposed
implementation
dates
for
the
two
classes,
the
aggregate
is
based
on
a
22
year
(rather
than
20
year)
annualized
cost.
Therefore,
the
aggregate
is
not
equal
to
the
sum
of
the
costs
for
the
two
engine
types.
C.
Cost
per
Ton
of
Emissions
Reduced
We
calculated
the
cost
per
ton
of
emission
reductions
for
the
proposed
standards.
For
these
calculations,
we
attributed
the
entire
cost
of
the
proposed
program
to
the
control
of
ozone
precursor
emissions
(HC
or
NOX
or
both).
Table
VI.
CÐ
1
presents
the
discounted
cost­
per­
ton
estimates
for
this
proposal.
Reduced
operating
costs
offsets
a
portion
of
the
increased
cost
of
producing
the
cleaner
marine
vessels
and
highway
motorcycles
(<
50cc
only).

TABLE
VI.
C–
1.—
ESTIMATED
COST­
PER­
TON
OF
THE
PROPOSED
EMISSION
STANDARDS
Category
Effective
date
Discounted
reductions
per
engine
(short
tons)
Pollutants
Discounted
cost
per
ton
Without
fuel
savings
With
fuel
savings
Marine
SI:
Diurnal
..........................................................................
2008
0.01
Evaporative
HC
..................
$745
$382
Tank
permeation
..........................................................
0.02
523
160
Hose
permeation
.........................................................
0.04
367
4
Aggregate
....................................................................
0.07
478
115
Highway
motorcycles
>50cc
...............................................
2006
0.03
Exhaust
HC+
NOX
...............
970
970
Highway
motorcycles
>50cc
...............................................
2010
0.03
Exhaust
HC+
NOX
...............
1,230
1,230
Highway
motorcycles
>50cc
...............................................
2006
0.02
Exhaust
HC
........................
2,130
1,750
Because
the
primary
purpose
of
costeffectiveness
is
to
compare
our
program
to
alternative
programs,
we
made
a
comparison
between
the
cost
per
ton
values
presented
in
this
chapter
and
the
cost­
effectiveness
of
other
programs.
Table
VI.
CÐ
2
summarizes
the
cost
effectiveness
of
several
recent
EPA
actions
for
controlled
emissions
from
mobile
sources.
Additional
discussion
of
these
comparisons
is
contained
in
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis.

TABLE
VI.
C–
2—
COST­
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
PREVIOUSLY
IMPLEMENTED
MOBILE
SOURCE
PROGRAMS
[Costs
adjusted
to
2001
dollars]

Program
$/
ton
Tier
2
vehicle/
gasoline
sulfur
1,437–
2,423
2007
Highway
HD
diesel
......
1,563–
2,002
2004
Highway
HD
diesel
......
227–
444
Off­
highway
diesel
engine
....
456–
724
TABLE
VI.
C–
2—
COST­
EFFECTIVENESS
OF
PREVIOUSLY
IMPLEMENTED
MOBILE
SOURCE
PROGRAMS—
Continued
[Costs
adjusted
to
2001
dollars]

Program
$/
ton
Tier
1
vehicle
........................
2,202–
2,993
NLEV
....................................
2,069
Marine
SI
engines
................
1,255–
1,979
On­
board
diagnostics
...........
2,480
Marine
CI
engines
................
26–
189
D.
Additional
Benefits
For
the
marine
evaporative
emission
standards,
we
expect
there
will
be
a
fuel
savings
as
manufacturers
redesign
their
vessels
to
comply
with
the
proposed
standards.
This
savings
is
the
result
of
preventing
fuel
from
evaporating
into
the
atmosphere.
Overall,
the
fuel
savings
associated
with
the
anticipated
changes
in
technology
are
estimated
to
be
about
31
million
gallons
per
year
once
the
program
is
fully
phased
in.
For
the
motorcycle
emission
standards,
we
expect
there
will
be
a
fuel
savings
as
manufacturers
redesign
their
engines
to
comply
with
the
proposed
standards.
This
savings
is
the
result
of
converting
motorcycles
<50cc
from
2­
stroke
designs
to
more
fuel
efficient
4­
stroke
designs.
Overall,
the
fuel
savings
associated
with
the
anticipated
changes
in
technology
are
estimated
to
be
about
0.3
million
gallons
per
year
once
the
program
is
fully
phased
in.
The
controls
in
this
rule
are
a
highly
cost­
effective
means
of
obtaining
reductions
in
HC
and
NOX
emissions.
A
related
subject
concerns
the
value
of
the
health
and
welfare
benefits
these
reductions
might
produce.
While
we
have
not
conducted
a
formal
benefitcost
analysis
for
this
rule,
we
believe
the
benefits
of
this
rule
clearly
will
greatly
outweigh
any
cost.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53092
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Ozone
causes
a
range
of
health
problems
related
to
breathing,
including
chest
pain,
coughing,
and
shortness
of
breath
Exposure
to
PM
(including
secondary
PM
formed
in
the
atmosphere
from
NOX
and
NMHC
emissions)
is
associated
with
premature
death,
increased
emergency
room
visits,
and
increased
respiratory
symptoms
and
disease
Children,
the
elderly,
and
individuals
with
pre­
existing
respiratory
conditions
are
most
at
risk
regarding
both
ozone
and
PM.
In
addition,
ozone,
NOX,
and
PM
adversely
affect
the
environment
in
various
ways,
including
crop
damage,
acid
rain,
and
visibility
impairment.
In
two
recent
mobile­
source
control
rules,
for
light­
duty
vehicles
(the
Tier
2/
Gasoline
Sulfur
rule)
and
for
highway
heavy­
duty
engines
and
diesel
fuel,
we
conducted
a
full
analysis
of
the
expected
benefits
once
the
rules
were
fully
implemented.
These
rules,
which
primarily
reduced
NOX
and
NMHC
emissions,
were
seen
to
yield
health
and
welfare
benefits
far
exceeding
the
costs.
Besides
reducing
premature
mortality,
there
were
large
projected
reductions
in
chronic
bronchitis
cases,
hospital
admissions
for
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
causes,
asthma
attacks
and
other
respiratory
symptoms,
and
a
variety
of
other
effects.
Given
the
similarities
in
pollutants
being
controlled,
we
would
expect
this
rule
to
produce
substantial
benefits
compared
to
its
cost.

VII.
Public
Participation
This
rule
was
proposed
under
the
authority
of
section
307(
d)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
We
request
comment
on
all
aspects
of
this
proposal.
This
section
describes
how
you
can
participate
in
this
process.

A.
How
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

We
are
opening
a
formal
comment
period
by
publishing
this
document.
We
will
accept
comments
for
the
period
indicated
under
DATES
above.
If
you
have
an
interest
in
the
program
described
in
this
document,
we
encourage
you
to
comment
on
any
aspect
of
this
rulemaking.
We
request
comment
on
various
topics
throughout
this
proposal.
We
attempted
to
incorporate
all
the
comments
received
in
response
to
the
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
though
not
all
comments
are
addressed
directly
in
this
document.
Anyone
who
has
submitted
comments
on
the
Advance
Notice,
or
any
previous
publications
related
to
this
proposal,
and
feels
that
those
comments
have
not
been
adequately
addressed
is
encouraged
to
resubmit
comments
as
appropriate.
Your
comments
will
be
most
useful
if
you
include
appropriate
and
detailed
supporting
rationale,
data,
and
analysis.
If
you
disagree
with
parts
of
the
proposed
program,
we
encourage
you
to
suggest
and
analyze
alternate
approaches
to
meeting
the
air
quality
goals
described
in
this
proposal.
You
should
send
all
comments,
except
those
containing
proprietary
information,
to
our
Air
Docket
(see
ADDRESSES)
before
the
end
of
the
comment
period.
If
you
submit
proprietary
information
for
our
consideration,
you
should
clearly
separate
it
from
other
comments
by
labeling
it
``
Confidential
Business
Information.
''
You
should
also
send
it
directly
to
the
contact
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
instead
of
the
public
docket.
This
will
help
ensure
that
no
one
inadvertently
places
proprietary
information
in
the
docket.
If
you
want
us
to
use
your
confidential
information
as
part
of
the
basis
for
the
final
rule,
you
should
send
a
nonconfidential
version
of
the
document
summarizing
the
key
data
or
information.
We
will
disclose
information
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
only
through
the
application
of
procedures
described
in
40
CFR
part
2.
If
you
don't
identify
information
as
confidential
when
we
receive
it,
we
may
make
it
available
to
the
public
without
notifying
you.

B.
Will
There
Be
a
Public
Hearing?

We
will
hold
a
public
hearing
for
issues
related
to
highway
motorcycles
on
July
16
in
Dulles,
VA.
We
will
hold
a
public
hearing
for
issues
related
to
marine
vessels
on
July
18
in
Ann
Arbor,
MI.
The
hearings
will
start
at
9:
30
a.
m.
and
continue
until
testimony
is
complete.
See
ADDRESSES
above
for
location
and
phone
information.
If
you
would
like
to
present
testimony
at
a
public
hearing,
we
ask
that
you
notify
the
contact
person
listed
above
at
least
ten
days
before
the
hearing.
You
should
estimate
the
time
you
need
for
your
presentation
and
identify
any
needed
audio/
visual
equipment.
We
suggest
that
you
bring
copies
of
your
statement
or
other
material
for
the
EPA
panel
and
the
audience.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
send
us
a
copy
of
your
statement
or
other
materials
before
the
hearing.
We
will
make
a
tentative
schedule
for
the
order
of
testimony
based
on
the
notification
we
receive.
This
schedule
will
be
available
on
the
morning
of
each
hearing.
In
addition,
we
will
reserve
a
block
of
time
for
anyone
else
in
the
audience
who
wants
to
give
testimony.
We
will
conduct
the
hearing
informally,
and
technical
rules
of
evidence
won't
apply.
We
will
arrange
for
a
written
transcript
of
the
hearing
and
keep
the
official
record
of
the
hearing
open
for
30
days
to
allow
you
to
submit
supplementary
information.
You
may
make
arrangements
for
copies
of
the
transcript
directly
with
the
court
reporter.

VII.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Administrative
Designation
and
Regulatory
Analysis
(Executive
Order
12866)
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
this
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
any
regulatory
action
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
 
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
Local,
or
Tribal
governments
or
communities;
 
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
 
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
 
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
A
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document
has
been
prepared
and
is
available
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking
and
at
the
internet
address
listed
under
ADDRESSES
above.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
OMB
has
notified
EPA
that
it
considers
this
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
within
the
meaning
of
the
Executive
Order.
EPA
has
submitted
this
action
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
1.
Overview
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53093
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
47
``
Nonroad
Engine
and
Vehicle
Emission
StudyÑ
Report
and
Appendices,
''
EPAÐ
21AÐ
201,
November
1991
(available
in
Air
docket
AÐ
91Ð
24).
It
is
also
available
through
the
National
Technical
Information
Service,
referenced
as
document
PB
92Ð
126960.
48
59
FR
31306
(July
17,
1994).
49
See
Final
Finding,
``
Control
of
Emissions
from
New
Nonroad
Spark­
Ignition
Engines
Rated
above
19
Kilowatts
and
New
Land­
Based
Recreational
Spark­
Ignition
Engines''
for
EPA's
finding
for
Large
SI
engines
and
recreational
vehicles
(65
FR
76790,
December
7,
2000).
EPA's
findings
for
marine
engines
are
contained
in
61
FR
52088
(October
4,
1996)
for
gasoline
engines
and
64
FR
73299
(December
29,
1999)
for
diesel
engines.
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
this
action
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(1)
A
small
business
that
meet
the
definition
for
business
based
on
SBA
size
standards;
(2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
The
following
table
provides
an
overview
of
the
primary
SBA
small
business
categories
potentially
affected
by
this
regulation.

TABLE
VIII.
B–
1.—
PRIMARY
SBA
SMALL
BUSINESS
CATEGORIES
POTENTIALLY
AFFECTED
BY
THIS
PROPOSED
REGULATION
Industry
NAICS
1
codes
Defined
by
SBA
as
a
small
business
If:
2
Motorcycles
and
motorcycle
parts
manufacturers
..............................................................................
336991
<500
employees.
Independent
Commercial
Importers
of
Vehicles
and
parts
................................................................
421110
<100
employees.
Boat
Building
and
Repairing
...............................................................................................................
336612
<
500
employees.
Fuel
Tank
Manufacturers
....................................................................................................................
336211
<1000
employees.

1
North
American
Industry
Classification
System.
2
According
to
SBA's
regulations
(13
CFR
part
121),
businesses
with
no
more
than
the
listed
number
of
employees
or
dollars
in
annual
receipts
are
considered
``
small
entities''
for
purposes
of
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.

2.
Background
In
accordance
with
Section
603
of
the
RFA,
EPA
prepared
an
initial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
(IRFA)
that
examines
the
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
along
with
regulatory
alternatives
that
could
reduce
that
impact.
In
preparing
this
IRFA,
we
looked
at
both
the
effect
of
this
proposal
and
the
October
5,
2001
proposal
for
other
nonroad
categories
(66
FR
51098).
The
IRFA
is
available
for
review
in
the
docket
and
is
summarized
below.
The
process
of
establishing
standards
for
nonroad
engines
began
in
1991
with
a
study
to
determine
whether
emissions
of
carbon
monoxide
(CO),
oxides
of
nitrogen
(NOX),
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(VOCs)
from
new
and
existing
nonroad
engines,
equipment,
and
vehicles
are
significant
contributors
to
ozone
and
CO
concentrations
in
more
than
one
area
that
has
failed
to
attain
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
ozone
and
CO.
47
In
1994,
EPA
finalized
its
finding
that
nonroad
engines
as
a
whole
``
are
significant
contributors
to
ozone
or
carbon
monoxide
concentrations''
in
more
than
one
ozone
or
carbon
monoxide
nonattainment
area.
48
Upon
this
finding,
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA
or
the
Act)
requires
EPA
to
establish
standards
for
all
classes
or
categories
of
new
nonroad
engines
that
cause
or
contribute
to
air
quality
nonattainment
in
more
than
one
ozone
or
carbon
monoxide
(CO)
nonattainment
area.
Since
the
finding
in
1994,
EPA
has
been
engaged
in
the
process
of
establishing
programs
to
control
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
used
in
many
different
applications.
Nonroad
categories
already
regulated
include:
 
Land­
based
compression
ignition
(CI)
engines
(e.
g.,
farm
and
construction
equipment),
 
Small
land­
based
spark­
ignition
(SI)
engines
(e.
g.,
lawn
and
garden
equipment,
string
trimmers),
 
Marine
engines
(outboards,
personal
watercraft,
CI
commercial,
CI
engines
<37kW),
and
 
Locomotive
engines.
On
December
7,
2000,
EPA
issued
an
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(ANPRM)
for
the
control
of
emissions
from
nonroad
large
SI
engines,
recreational
vehicles
(marine
and
land­
based),
and
highway
motorcycles.
As
discussed
in
the
ANPRM,
the
proposal
under
development
will
be
a
continuation
of
the
process
of
establishing
standards
for
nonroad
engines
and
vehicles,
as
required
by
CAA
section
213(
a)(
3).
If,
as
expected,
standards
for
these
engines
and
vehicles
are
established,
essentially
all
new
nonroad
engines
will
be
required
to
meet
emissions
control
requirements.
This
proposal
is
the
second
part
of
an
effort
to
control
emissions
from
nonroad
engines
that
are
currently
unregulated
and
for
updating
Federal
emissions
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
first
part
of
this
effort
was
a
proposal
published
on
October
5,
2001
for
emission
control
from
large
sparkignition
engines
such
as
those
used
in
forklifts
and
airport
tugs;
recreational
vehicles
using
spark­
ignition
engines
such
as
off­
highway
motorcycles,
allterrain
vehicles,
and
snowmobiles;
and
recreational
marine
diesel
engines.
EPA
found
that
the
nonroad
engines
described
above
cause
or
contribute
to
air
quality
nonattainment
in
more
than
one
ozone
or
carbon
monoxide
(CO)
nonattainment
area.
49
CAA
section
213
(a)(
3)
requires
EPA
to
establish
standards
that
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emissions
reductions
achievable
taking
cost
and
other
factors
into
account.
EPA
plans
to
propose
emissions
standards
and
related
programs
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Act.
In
addition
to
proposing
standards
for
the
nonroad
vehicles
and
engines
noted
above,
this
proposal
reviews
EPA
requirements
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
emissions
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
were
established
twentythree
years
ago.
These
standards
allow
motorcycles
to
emit
about
100
times
as
much
per
mile
as
new
cars
and
light
trucks.
California
recently
adopted
new
emissions
standards
for
highway
motorcycles,
and
new
standards
and
testing
cycles
are
being
considered
internationally.
There
may
be
opportunities
to
reduce
emissions
in
a
cost­
effective
way.
The
program
under
consideration
will
cover
engines
and
vehicles
that
vary
in
design
and
use,
and
many
readers
may
only
be
interested
in
one
or
two
of
the
applications.
There
are
various
ways
EPA
could
group
the
engines
and
present
information.
For
purposes
of
the
proposed
rule
EPA
has
chosen
to
group
engines
by
common
applications
(e.
g,
recreational
land­
based
engines,
marine
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53094
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
engines,
large
spark
ignition
engines
used
in
commercial
applications).

3.
Summary
of
Regulated
Small
Entities
The
small
entities
directly
regulated
by
this
proposed
rule
are
the
following:
a.
Highway
Motorcycles.
Of
the
numerous
manufacturers
supplying
the
U.
S.
market
for
highway
motorcycles,
Honda,
Harley
Davidson,
Yamaha,
Kawasaki,
Suzuki,
and
BMW
are
the
largest,
accounting
for
95
percent
or
more
of
the
total
U.
S.
sales.
All
of
these
companies
except
Harley­
Davidson
and
BMW
also
manufacture
off­
road
motorcycles
and
ATVs
for
the
U.
S.
market.
Harley­
Davidson
is
the
only
company
manufacturing
highway
motorcycles
exclusively
in
the
U.
S.
for
the
U.
S.
market.
Since
highway
motorcycles
have
had
to
meet
emission
standards
for
the
last
twenty
years,
EPA
has
good
information
on
the
number
of
companies
that
manufacture
or
market
highway
motorcycles
for
the
U.
S.
market
in
each
model
year.
In
addition
to
the
big
six
manufacturers
noted
above,
EPA
finds
as
many
as
several
dozen
more
companies
that
have
operated
in
the
U.
S.
market
in
the
last
couple
of
model
years.
Most
of
these
are
U.
S.
companies
that
are
either
manufacturing
or
importing
motorcycles,
although
a
few
are
U.
S.
affiliates
of
larger
companies
in
Europe
or
Asia.
Some
of
the
U.
S.
manufacturers
employ
only
a
few
people
and
produce
only
a
handful
of
custom
motorcycles
per
year,
while
others
may
employ
several
hundred
and
produce
up
to
several
thousand
motorcycles
per
year.
The
proposed
emission
standards
impose
no
new
development
or
certification
costs
for
any
company
producing
compliant
engines
in
California.
If
fact,
implementing
the
California
standards
with
a
two­
year
delay
also
allows
manufacturers
to
streamline
their
production
to
further
reduce
the
cost
of
compliance.
The
estimated
hardware
costs
are
less
than
one
percent
of
the
cost
of
producing
a
highway
motorcycle,
so
none
of
these
companies
should
have
a
compliance
burden
greater
than
one
percent
of
revenues.
We
expect
that
a
small
number
of
companies
affected
by
EPA
emission
standards
will
not
already
be
certifying
products
in
California.
For
these
companies,
the
modest
effort
associated
with
applying
established
technology
will
add
compliance
costs
representing
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues.
The
flexible
approach
we
are
proposing
to
limit
testing,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
burden
prevent
excessive
costs
for
all
these
companies.
b.
Marine
Vessels.
Marine
vessels
include
the
boat,
engine,
and
fuel
system.
The
evaporative
emission
controls
discussed
above
may
affect
the
boat
builders
and/
or
the
fuel
tank
manufacturers.
Exhaust
emission
controls
including
NTE
requirements,
as
addressed
in
the
August
29,
1999
SBAR
Panel
Report,
would
affect
the
engine
manufacturers
and
may
affect
boat
builders.
EPA
has
less
precise
information
about
recreational
boat
builders
than
is
available
about
engine
manufacturers.
EPA
has
utilized
several
sources,
including
trade
associations
and
Internet
sites
when
identifying
entities
that
build
and/
or
sell
recreational
boats.
EPA
has
also
worked
with
an
independent
contractor
to
assist
in
the
characterization
of
this
segment
of
the
industry.
Finally,
EPA
has
obtained
a
list
of
nearly
1,700
boat
builders
known
to
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
to
produce
boats
using
engines
for
propulsion.
At
least
1,200
of
these
companies
install
engines
that
use
gasoline
fueled
engines
and
would
therefore
be
subject
to
the
evaporative
emission
control
program
discussed
above.
More
than
90%
of
the
companies
identified
so
far
would
be
considered
small
businesses
as
defined
by
SBA.
EPA
continues
to
develop
a
more
complete
picture
of
this
segment
of
the
industry
and
will
provide
additional
information
as
it
becomes
available.
Based
on
information
supplied
by
a
variety
of
recreational
boat
builders,
fuel
tanks
for
boats
using
SI
marine
engines
are
usually
purchased
from
fuel
tank
manufacturers.
However,
some
boat
builders
construct
their
own
fuel
tanks.
The
boat
builder
provides
the
specifications
to
the
fuel
tank
manufacturer
who
helps
match
the
fuel
tank
for
a
particular
application.
It
is
the
boat
builder's
responsibility
to
install
the
fuel
tank
and
connections
into
their
vessel
design.
For
vessels
designed
to
be
used
with
small
outboard
engines,
the
boat
builder
may
not
install
a
fuel
tank;
therefore,
the
end
user
would
use
a
portable
fuel
tank
with
a
connection
to
the
engine.
EPA
has
determined
that
total
sales
of
tanks
for
gasoline
marine
applications
is
approximately
550,000
units
per
year.
The
market
is
broken
into
manufacturers
that
produce
plastic
tanks
and
manufacturers
that
produce
aluminum
tanks.
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
at
least
seven
companies
that
make
plastic
fuel
tanks
with
total
sales
of
approximately
440,000
units
per
year.
EPA
has
determined
that
there
at
least
four
companies
that
make
aluminum
fuel
tanks
with
total
sales
of
approximately
110,000
units
per
year.
All
but
one
of
these
plastic
and
aluminum
fuel
tank
manufacturers
is
a
small
business
as
defined
under
SBA.
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
at
least
16
companies
that
manufacture
CI
diesel
engines
for
recreational
vessels.
Nearly
75
percent
of
diesel
engines
sales
for
recreational
vessels
in
2000
can
be
attributed
to
three
large
companies.
Six
of
the
16
identified
companies
are
considered
small
businesses
as
defined
by
SBA.
Based
on
sales
estimates
for
2000,
these
six
companies
represent
approximately
4
percent
of
recreational
marine
diesel
engine
sales.
The
remaining
companies
each
comprise
between
two
and
seven
percent
of
sales
for
2000.
EPA
has
determined
that
there
are
at
least
24
companies
that
manufacture
SD/
I
gasoline
engines
(including
airboats
and
jet
boats)
for
recreational
vessels.
Seventeen
of
the
identified
companies
are
considered
small
businesses
as
defined
by
SBA.
These
17
companies
represent
approximately
6
percent
of
recreational
gasoline
marine
engines
sales
for
2000.
Approximately
70Ð
80
percent
of
gasoline
SD/
I
engines
manufactured
in
2000
can
be
attributed
to
one
company.
The
next
largest
company
is
responsible
for
about
10Ð
20
percent
of
2000
sales.
For
any
boat
builders
that
would
certify
to
the
proposed
requirements,
the
costs
of
compliance
would
be
much
less
than
one
percent
of
their
revenues.
Incremental
costs
of
fuel
tanks
are
dwarfed
by
the
capital
and
variable
costs
associated
with
manufacturing
power
boats.
Of
the
six
known
small
businesses
producing
plastic
fuel
tanks
for
gasoline­
powered
marine
vessels,
these
companies
would
have
costs
approaching
10
percent
of
revenues.
While
this
is
a
large
percentage,
it
comes
predominantly
from
increasing
variable
costs
to
upgrade
the
fuel
tanks.
Capital
expenses
to
upgrade
to
compliant
products
are
relatively
small.
Also,
to
the
extent
that
tank
manufacturers
certify
their
products,
they
will
be
increasing
the
value
of
their
product
for
their
customers,
who
would
otherwise
need
to
assume
certification
responsibilities.
As
a
result,
we
believe
that
these
companies
will
be
able
to
largely
recover
their
compliance
costs
over
time.
The
net
cost
absorbed
by
tank
manufacturers
will
be
much
less
than
one
percent.
For
this
proposal
as
a
whole,
there
are
hundreds
of
small
businesses
that
will
have
total
compliance
costs
less
than
1
percent
of
their
annual
revenues.
We
estimate
that
three
companies
will
have
compliance
costs
between
1
and
3
percent
of
revenues
and
six
companies
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53095
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
will
have
compliance
costs
exceeding
3
percent
of
revenues.

4.
Potential
Reporting,
Recordkeeping,
and
Compliance
For
any
emission
control
program,
EPA
must
have
assurances
that
the
regulated
engines
will
meet
the
standards.
Historically,
EPA
programs
have
included
provisions
placing
manufacturers
responsible
for
providing
these
assurances.
The
program
that
EPA
is
considering
for
manufacturers
subject
to
this
proposal
may
include
testing,
reporting,
and
record
keeping
requirements.
Testing
requirements
for
some
manufacturers
may
include
certification
(including
deterioration
testing),
and
production
line
testing.
Reporting
requirements
would
likely
include
test
data
and
technical
data
on
the
engines
including
defect
reporting.
Manufacturers
would
likely
have
to
keep
records
of
this
information.

5.
Related
Federal
Rules
The
Panel
is
aware
of
several
other
current
Federal
rules
that
relate
to
the
proposed
rule
under
development.
During
the
Panel's
outreach
meeting,
SERs
specifically
pointed
to
Consumer
Product
Safety
Commission
(CPSC)
regulations
covering
ATVs,
and
noted
that
they
may
be
relevant
to
crafting
an
appropriate
definition
for
a
competition
exclusion
in
this
category.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
consult
with
the
CPSC
in
developing
a
proposed
and
final
rule
in
order
to
better
understand
the
scope
of
the
Commission's
regulations
as
they
may
relate
to
the
competition
exclusion.
Other
SERs,
representing
manufacturers
of
marine
engines,
noted
that
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
regulates
vessel
tanks,
most
notably
tank
pressure
and
anti­
siphoning
requirements
for
carburetted
engines.
Tank
manufacturers
would
have
to
take
these
requirements
into
account
in
designing
evaporative
control
systems.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
work
with
the
Coast
Guard
to
evaluate
the
safety
implications
of
any
proposed
evaporative
emissions
standards
and
to
avoid
interference
with
Coast
Guard
safety
regulations.
The
Panel
is
also
aware
of
other
Federal
rules
that
relate
to
the
categories
that
EPA
would
address
with
the
proposed
rule,
but
are
not
likely
to
affect
policy
considerations
in
the
rule
development
process.
For
example,
there
are
now
EPA
noise
standards
covering
off­
road
motorcycles;
however,
EPA
expects
that
most
emission
control
devices
are
likely
to
reduce,
rather
than
increase,
noise,
and
that
therefore
the
noise
standards
are
not
likely
to
be
important
in
developing
a
proposed
rule.
OTAQ
is
currently
developing
a
proposal
that
would
revise
the
rule
assigning
fees
to
be
paid
by
parties
required
to
certify
engines
in
return
for
continuing
Government
oversight
and
testing.
Among
other
options,
EPA
could
propose
to
extend
the
fee
structure
to
several
classes
of
non­
road
engines
for
which
requirements
are
being
established
for
the
first
time
under
the
Recreation
Rule.
The
Panel
understands
that
EPA
will
carefully
examine
the
potential
impacts
of
the
Fees
Rule
on
small
businesses.
The
Panel
also
notes
that
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality,
Planning,
and
Standards
(OAQPS)
is
preparing
a
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(MACT)
standard
for
Engine
Testing
Facilities,
which
is
a
related
matter.

6.
Significant
Panel
Findings
The
Panel
considered
a
wide
range
of
options
and
regulatory
alternatives
for
providing
small
businesses
with
flexibility
in
complying
with
the
proposed
emissions
standards
and
related
requirements.
As
part
of
the
process,
the
Panel
requested
and
received
comment
on
several
ideas
for
flexibility
that
were
suggested
by
SERs
and
Panel
members.
The
major
options
recommended
by
the
Panel
are
summarized
below.
The
complete
set
of
recommendations
can
be
found
in
Section
9
of
the
Panel's
full
Report.
The
panel
recommendations
for
motorcycles
described
below
were
developed
for
the
exhaust
emission
standards.
Potential
controls
for
permeation
emissions
from
motorcycles
were
not
part
of
the
panel
process,
because
review
of
the
need
for
such
controls
resulted
from
comments
received
on
the
related
recreational
vehicles
proposal
and
further
investigation
by
EPA
following
the
end
of
the
panel
process.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
potential
permeation
emission
controls
on
motorcycles
would
not,
if
promulgated,
have
a
significant
effect
on
the
burdens
of
this
rule
on
regulated
entities,
or
on
small
entities
in
particular,
due
to
the
relatively
low
cost
and
the
availability
of
materials
and
treatment
support
by
outside
vendors.
Low
permeation
fuel
hoses
are
available
from
vendors
today,
and
we
would
expect
that
surface
treatment
for
tanks
would
be
applied
through
an
outside
company.
We
request
comment
on
the
need
for
flexibilities
for
the
potential
permeation
standards,
if
they
are
adopted.
If
the
comments
or
other
information
the
Agency
receives
indicate
that
flexibilities
similar
to
(or
the
same
as)
those
for
the
motorcycle
exhaust
standards
are
appropriate
for
the
motorcycle
permeation
standards,
then
we
will
adopt
such
flexibilities
as
part
of
our
final
rule
if
we
adopt
such
permeation
standards.
Many
of
the
flexible
approaches
recommended
by
the
Panel
can
be
applied
to
either
marine
vessels
or
highway
motorcycles.
These
approaches
are
listed
below:
1.
Additional
lead
time
for
compliance.
2.
Hardship
provisions.
3.
Certification
flexibility.
4.
Broadly
defined
product
certification
families.
5.
Averaging,
banking,
and
trading.
Based
on
consultations
with
SERs,
the
Panel
believes
that
the
first
two
provisions
listed
above
are
likely
to
provide
the
greatest
flexibility
for
many
small
entities.
These
provisions
are
likely
to
be
most
valuable
because
they
either
provide
more
time
for
compliance
(e.
g.,
additional
lead
time
and
hardship
provisions).
The
remaining
three
approaches
have
the
potential
to
reduce
near­
term
and
even
long­
term
costs
once
a
small
entity
has
a
product
it
is
preparing
to
certify.
These
are
important
in
that
the
reducing
costs
of
testing
several
emission
families
and/
or
developing
deterioration
factors.
Small
businesses
could
also
meet
an
emission
standard
on
average
or
generate
credits
for
producing
engines
which
emit
at
levels
below
the
standard;
these
credits
could
then
be
sold
to
other
manufacturers
for
compliance
or
banked
for
use
in
future
model
years.
During
the
consultation
process,
it
became
evident
that,
in
a
few
situations,
it
could
be
helpful
to
small
entities
if
unique
provisions
were
available.
Two
such
provisions
are
described
below.
a.
Marine
Vessel
Tanks.
Most
of
this
sector
involves
small
fuel
tank
manufacturers
and
small
boat
builders.
The
Panel
recommends
that
the
program
be
structured
with
longer
lead
times
and
an
early
credit
generation
program
to
enable
the
fuel
tank
manufacturers
to
implement
controls
on
tanks
on
a
schedule
consistent
with
their
normal
turnover
of
fuel
tank
molds.
Also,
the
panel
recommends
that
the
program
allow
small
businesses
have
the
option
of
certifying
to
the
evaporative
emission
performance
standards
based
on
fuel
tank
design
characteristics
designed
to
reduce
emissions.
b.
Highway
Motorcycles.
The
California
Air
Resources
Board
(CARB)
has
found
that
California's
Tier
2
standard
is
potentially
infeasible
for
small
manufacturers.
Therefore,
the
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
delay
making
decisions
on
the
applicability
to
small
businesses
of
Tier
2
or
other
such
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53096
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
revisions
to
the
federal
regulations
until
California's
2006
review
is
complete.

7.
Summary
of
SBREFA
Process
and
Panel
Outreach
As
required
by
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA,
as
amended
by
SBREFA,
EPA
also
conducted
outreach
to
small
entities
and
convened
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
to
obtain
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
the
small
entities
that
potentially
would
be
subject
to
the
rule's
requirements.
On
May
3,
2001,
EPA's
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chairperson
convened
this
Panel
under
Section
609(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA)
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA).
In
addition
to
the
Chair,
the
Panel
consisted
of
the
Director
of
the
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
(ASD)
within
EPA's
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration,
and
the
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
within
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
As
part
of
the
SBAR
process,
the
Panel
met
with
small
entity
representatives
(SERs)
to
discuss
the
potential
emission
standards
and,
in
addition
to
the
oral
comments
from
SERs,
the
Panel
solicited
written
input.
In
the
months
preceding
the
Panel
process,
EPA
conducted
outreach
with
small
entities
from
each
of
the
five
sectors
as
described
above.
On
May
18,
2001,
the
Panel
distributed
an
outreach
package
to
the
SERs.
On
May
30
and
31,
2001,
the
Panel
met
with
SERs
to
hear
their
comments
on
preliminary
alternatives
for
regulatory
flexibility
and
related
information.
The
Panel
also
received
written
comments
from
the
SERs
in
response
to
the
discussions
at
this
meeting
and
the
outreach
materials.
The
Panel
asked
SERs
to
evaluate
how
they
would
be
affected
under
a
variety
of
regulatory
approaches,
and
to
provide
advice
and
recommendations
regarding
early
ideas
for
alternatives
that
would
provide
flexibility
to
address
their
compliance
burden.
SERs
representing
companies
in
each
of
the
sectors
addressed
by
the
Panel
raised
concerns
about
the
potential
costs
of
complying
with
the
rules
under
development.
For
the
most
part,
their
concerns
were
focused
on
two
issues:
(1)
The
difficulty
(and
added
cost)
that
they
would
face
in
complying
with
certification
requirements
associated
with
the
standards
EPA
is
developing,
and
(2)
the
cost
of
meeting
the
standards
themselves.
SERs
observed
that
these
costs
would
include
the
opportunity
cost
of
deploying
resources
for
research
and
development,
expenditures
for
tooling/
retooling,
and
the
added
cost
of
new
engine
designs
or
other
parts
that
would
need
to
be
added
to
equipment
in
order
to
meet
EPA
emission
standards.
In
addition,
in
each
category,
the
SERs
noted
that
small
manufacturers
(and
in
the
case
of
one
category,
small
importers)
have
fewer
resources
and
are
therefore
less
well
equipped
to
undertake
these
new
activities
and
expenditures.
Furthermore,
because
their
product
lines
tend
to
be
smaller,
any
additional
fixed
costs
must
be
recovered
over
a
smaller
number
of
units.
Thus,
absent
any
provisions
to
address
these
issues,
new
emission
standards
are
likely
to
impose
much
more
significant
adverse
effects
on
small
entities
than
on
their
larger
competitors.
The
Panel
discussed
each
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
outreach
meetings
and
in
written
comments
by
the
SERs.
The
Panel
agreed
that
EPA
should
consider
the
issues
raised
by
the
SERs
and
that
it
would
be
appropriate
for
EPA
to
propose
and/
or
request
comment
on
various
alternative
approaches
to
address
these
concerns.
The
Panel's
key
discussions
centered
around
the
need
for
and
most
appropriate
types
of
regulatory
compliance
alternatives
for
small
businesses.
The
Panel
considered
a
variety
of
provisions
to
reduce
the
burden
of
complying
with
new
emission
standards
and
related
requirements.
Some
of
these
provisions
would
apply
to
all
companies
(e.
g.,
averaging,
banking,
and
trading),
while
others
would
be
targeted
at
the
unique
circumstances
faced
by
small
businesses.
A
complete
discussion
of
the
regulatory
alternatives
recommended
by
the
Panel
can
be
found
in
the
Final
Panel
Report.
Copies
of
the
Final
Report
can
be
found
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking
or
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
sbrefa.
Summaries
of
the
Panel's
recommended
alternatives
for
each
of
the
sectors
subject
to
this
action
can
be
found
in
the
respective
sections
of
the
preamble.
As
required
by
section
609(
b)
of
the
RFA,
as
amended
by
SBREFA,
EPA
also
conducted
outreach
to
small
entities
and
convened
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
Panel
to
obtain
advice
and
recommendations
of
representatives
of
the
small
entities
that
potentially
would
be
subject
to
the
rule's
requirements.
EPA's
Small
Business
Advocacy
Chairperson
convened
this
on
May
3,
2001.
In
addition
to
the
Chair,
the
Panel
consisted
of
the
Director
of
the
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
(ASD)
within
EPA's
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality,
the
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy
of
the
Small
Business
Administration,
and
the
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
within
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
The
proposal
being
developed
includes
marine
sterndrive
and
inboard
(SD/
I)
engines
and
boats
powered
by
SI
marine
engines.
In
addition,
EPA
also
intends
to
update
EPA
requirements
for
highway
motorcycles.
Finally,
the
proposal
being
developed
included
evaporative
emission
control
requirements
for
gasoline
fuel
tanks
and
systems
used
on
marine
vessels.
The
Panel
met
with
Small
Entity
Representatives
(SERs)
to
discuss
the
potential
emissions
standards
and,
in
addition
to
the
oral
comments
from
SERs,
the
Panel
solicited
written
input.
In
the
months
preceding
the
Panel
process,
EPA
conducted
outreach
with
small
entities
from
each
of
the
five
sectors
as
described
above.
On
May
18,
2001,
the
Panel
distributed
an
outreach
package
to
the
SERs.
On
May
30
and
31,
2001,
the
Panel
met
with
SERs
to
hear
their
comments
on
preliminary
options
for
regulatory
flexibility
and
related
information.
The
Panel
also
received
written
comments
from
the
SERs
in
response
to
the
discussions
at
this
meeting
and
the
outreach
materials.
The
Panel
asked
SERs
to
evaluate
how
they
would
be
affected
under
a
variety
of
regulatory
approaches,
and
to
provide
advice
and
recommendations
regarding
early
ideas
to
provide
flexibility.
See
Section
8
of
the
Panel
Report
for
a
complete
discussion
of
SER
comments,
and
Appendices
A
and
B
for
summaries
of
SER
oral
comments
and
SER
written
comments.
Consistent
with
the
RFA/
SBREFA
requirements,
the
Panel
evaluated
the
assembled
materials
and
small­
entity
comments
on
issues
related
to
the
elements
of
the
IRFA.
A
copy
of
the
Panel
report
is
included
in
the
docket
for
this
proposed
rule.
The
following
are
Panel
recommendations
adopted
by
the
Agency.
Please
note
all
Panel
recommendations
were
adopted
for
this
proposal.
a.
Related
Federal
Rules.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
consult
with
the
CPSC
in
developing
a
proposed
and
final
rule
in
order
to
better
understand
the
scope
of
the
Commission's
regulations
as
they
may
relate
to
the
competition
exclusion.
In
addition,
the
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
work
with
the
Coast
Guard
to
evaluate
the
safety
implications
of
any
proposed
evaporative
emissions
standards
and
to
avoid
interference
with
Coast
Guard
safety
regulations.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53097
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
b.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Alternatives.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
consider
and
seek
comments
on
a
wide
range
of
alternatives,
including
the
flexibility
options
described
below.
(i)
Marine
Vessels.
(A)
Smooth
Transition
to
Proposed
Standards.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
an
approach
that
would
implement
any
evaporative
standards
five
years
after
a
regulation
for
marine
engines
takes
effect.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
seek
comment
on
this
five
year
period
and
on
whether
there
are
small
entities
whose
product
line
is
dominated
by
tanks
that
turn
over
at
a
time
rate
slower
time
than
five
years.
(B)
Design­
Based
Certification.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
to
grant
small
businesses
the
option
of
certifying
to
the
evaporative
emission
performance
requirements
based
on
fuel
tank
design
characteristics
that
reduce
emissions.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
seek
comment
on
and
consider
proposing
an
approach
that
would
allow
manufacturers
to
use
this
averaging
approach
with
designs
other
than
those
listed
in
the
final
rule.
(C)
ABT
of
Emission
Credits
with
Design­
Based
Certification.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
allow
manufacturers
using
design­
based
certification
to
generate
credits.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
provide
adequately
detailed
design
specifications
and
associated
emission
levels
for
several
technology
options
that
could
be
used
to
certify.
(D)
Broadly
Defined
Product
Certification
Families.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
take
comment
on
the
need
for
broadly
defined
emission
families
and
how
these
families
should
be
defined.
(E)
Hardship
Provisions.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
two
types
of
hardship
programs
for
marine
engine
manufacturers,
boat
builders
and
fuel
tank
manufacturers:
(1)
Allow
small
businesses
to
petition
EPA
for
additional
lead
time
to
comply
with
the
standards;
and
(2)
allow
small
businesses
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
fuel
tanks
or
boats
would
have
a
major
impact
on
the
company's
solvency.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
work
with
small
manufacturers
to
develop
these
criteria
and
how
they
would
be
used.
(ii)
Highway
Motorcycles.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
include
the
flexibilities
described
below
for
small
entities
with
highway
motorcycle
annual
sales
of
less
than
3,000
units
per
model
year
(combined
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles)
and
fewer
than
500
employees.
(A)
Delay
of
Proposed
Standards.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
to
delay
compliance
with
the
Tier
1
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
HC+
NOX
until
the
2008
model
year
for
small
volume
manufacturers.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
seek
comment
on
whether
additional
time
is
needed
for
small
businesses
to
comply
with
the
Federal
program.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
participate
with
CARB
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.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
any
potential
Tier
2
requirements
for
small
manufacturer
motorcycles
consider
potential
test
procedure
changes
arising
from
the
ongoing
World
Motorcycle
Test
Cycle
work
described
in
the
Panel
Report.
(B)
Broader
Engine
Families.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
keep
the
current
existing
regulations
for
small
volume
highway
motorcycle
manufacturers.
(C)
Exemption
from
Production
Line
Testing.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
keep
the
current
provisions
for
no
mandatory
production
line
testing
requirement
for
highway
motorcycles
and
allow
the
EPA
to
request
production
vehicles
from
any
certifying
manufacturer
for
testing.
(D)
Averaging,
Banking,
and
Trading
(ABT).
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
an
ABT
program
for
highway
motorcycles.
(E)
Hardship
Provisions.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
propose
two
types
of
hardship
programs
for
highway
motorcycles:
(1)
Allow
small
businesses
to
petition
EPA
for
additional
lead
time
to
comply
with
the
standards;
and
(2)
allow
small
businesses
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
failure
to
sell
the
subject
engines
or
vehicles
would
have
a
major
impact
on
the
company's
solvency.
The
Panel
also
recommends
that
EPA
request
comment
on
the
California
requirements,
which
do
not
include
hardship
provisions.
(F)
Reduced
Certification
Data
Submittal
and
Testing
Requirements.
The
Panel
recommends
that
EPA
keep
current
EPA
regulations
allow
significant
flexibility
for
certification
by
manufacturers
who
project
fewer
than
10,000
unit
sales
of
combined
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles.
We
invite
comments
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposal
and
its
impacts
on
small
entities.

C.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
proposed
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
Information
Collection
Requests
(ICR
No.
1897.03
for
marine
vessels
and
0783.43
for
highway
motorcycles)
have
been
prepared
by
EPA,
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(202)
566Ð
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http:/
/www.
epa.
gov.
icr.
The
information
being
collected
is
to
be
used
by
EPA
to
ensure
that
new
marine
vessels
and
fuel
systems
and
new
highway
motorcycles
comply
with
applicable
emissions
standards
through
certification
requirements
and
various
subsequent
compliance
provisions.
For
marine
vessels,
the
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
6
hours
per
response,
with
collection
required
annually.
The
estimated
number
of
respondents
is
810.
The
total
annual
cost
for
the
first
3
years
of
the
program
is
estimated
to
be
$230,438
year
and
includes
no
annualized
capital
costs,
$14,000
in
operating
and
maintenance
costs,
at
a
total
of
4,838
hours
per
year.
For
highway
motorcycles,
the
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
228
hours
per
response,
with
collection
required
annually.
The
estimated
number
of
respondents
is
73.
The
total
annual
cost
for
the
first
3
years
of
the
program
is
estimated
to
be
$3,430,908
per
year
and
includes
no
annualized
capital
costs,
$2,728,000
in
operating
and
maintenance
costs,
at
a
total
of
16,647
hours
per
year.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjusting
the
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53098
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
displayed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
St.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503,
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
August
14,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
ensured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
September
13,
2002.
The
final
rule
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

D.
Intergovernmental
Relations
1.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Pub.
L.
104Ð
4,
establishes
requirements
for
federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
state,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
of
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
This
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandates
for
state,
local,
or
tribal
governments
as
defined
by
the
provisions
of
Title
II
of
the
UMRA.
The
rule
imposes
no
enforceable
duties
on
any
of
these
governmental
entities.
Nothing
in
the
rule
would
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
federal
mandates
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
less
than
$100
million
to
the
private
sector
in
any
single
year.
EPA
believes
that
the
proposal
represents
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
approach
to
achieve
the
air
quality
goals
of
the
rule.
The
costs
and
benefits
associated
with
the
proposal
are
discussed
in
Section
VI
and
in
the
Draft
Regulatory
Support
Document.

2.
Executive
Order
13175
(Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments)

Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.
''
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
This
rule
contains
no
federal
mandates
for
tribal
governments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
However,
in
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13175,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
tribal
governments,
we
specifically
solicit
additional
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
tribal
officials.

E.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(``
NTTAA''),
Public
Law
104Ð
113,
§
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
doing
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
proposed
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
following
paragraphs
describe
how
we
specify
testing
procedures
for
engines
subject
to
this
proposal.
We
are
proposing
to
test
highway
motorcycles
with
the
Federal
Test
Procedure,
a
chassis­
based
transient
test.
There
is
no
voluntary
consensus
standard
that
would
adequately
address
engine
or
vehicle
operation
for
suitable
emission
measurement.
For
marine
vessels,
we
are
proposing
to
use
an
evaporative
emission
test
procedure
based
on
the
highway
Federal
Test
Procedure.
There
is
no
voluntary
consensus
standard
for
testing
evaporative
emission
from
marine
vessels.
In
addition,
we
are
proposing
the
option
of
using
design­
based
certification.

F.
Protection
of
Children
(Executive
Order
13045)
Executive
Order
13045,
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53099
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(1)
is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
Section
5Ð
501
of
the
Order
directs
the
Agency
to
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
it
does
not
involve
decisions
on
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
that
may
disproportionately
affect
children.
The
effects
of
ozone
and
PM
on
children's
health
were
addressed
in
detail
in
EPA's
rulemaking
to
establish
the
NAAQS
for
these
pollutants,
and
EPA
is
not
revisiting
those
issues
here.
EPA
believes,
however,
that
the
emission
reductions
from
the
strategies
proposed
in
this
rulemaking
will
further
reduce
air
toxics
and
the
related
adverse
impacts
on
children's
health.

G.
Federalism
(Executive
Order
13132)
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
Under
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
Section
4
of
the
Executive
Order
contains
additional
requirements
for
rules
that
preempt
State
or
local
law,
even
if
those
rules
do
not
have
federalism
implications
(i.
e.,
the
rules
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government).
Those
requirements
include
providing
all
affected
State
and
local
officials
notice
and
an
opportunity
for
appropriate
participation
in
the
development
of
the
regulation.
If
the
preemption
is
not
based
on
express
or
implied
statutory
authority,
EPA
also
must
consult,
to
the
extent
practicable,
with
appropriate
State
and
local
officials
regarding
the
conflict
between
State
law
and
Federally
protected
interests
within
the
agency's
area
of
regulatory
responsibility.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Although
Section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule,
EPA
did
consult
with
representatives
of
various
State
and
local
governments
in
developing
this
rule.
EPA
has
also
consulted
representatives
from
STAPPA/
ALAPCO,
which
represents
state
and
local
air
pollution
officials.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicits
comment
on
this
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

H.
Energy
Effects
(Executive
Order
13211)
This
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(66
FR
28355
(May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution
or
use
of
energy.
The
proposed
standards
have
for
their
aim
the
reduction
of
emission
from
certain
nonroad
engines,
and
have
no
effect
on
fuel
formulation,
distribution,
or
use.
Generally,
the
proposed
program
leads
to
reduced
fuel
usage
due
to
the
reduction
of
wasted
fuel
through
evaporation.

I.
Plain
Language
This
document
follows
the
guidelines
of
the
June
1,
1998
Executive
Memorandum
on
Plain
Language
in
Government
Writing.
To
read
the
text
of
the
regulations,
it
is
also
important
to
understand
the
organization
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(CFR).
The
CFR
uses
the
following
organizational
names
and
conventions.
Title
40Ñ
Protection
of
the
Environment
Chapter
IÑ
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Subchapter
CÑ
Air
Programs.
This
contains
parts
50
to
99,
where
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
has
usually
placed
emission
standards
for
motor
vehicle
and
nonroad
engines.
Subchapter
UÑ
Air
Programs
Supplement.
This
contains
parts
1000
to
1299,
where
we
intend
to
place
regulations
for
air
programs
in
future
rulemakings.
Part
1045Ñ
Control
of
Emissions
from
Marine
Spark­
ignition
Engines
and
Vessels
Part
1068Ñ
General
Compliance
Provisions
for
Engine
Programs.
Provisions
of
this
part
apply
to
everyone.
Each
part
in
the
CFR
has
several
subparts,
sections,
and
paragraphs.
The
following
illustration
shows
how
these
fit
together.
Part
1045
Subpart
A
Section
1045.1
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(A)
(B)
A
cross
reference
to
§
1045.1(
b)
in
this
illustration
would
refer
to
the
parent
paragraph
(b)
and
all
its
subordinate
paragraphs.
A
reference
to
``§
1045.1(
b)
introductory
text''
would
refer
only
to
the
single,
parent
paragraph
(b).

List
of
Subjects
40
CFR
Part
86
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Labeling,
Motor
vehicle
pollution,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
40
CFR
Part
90
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Labeling,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Research,
Warranties
40
CFR
Part
1045
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53100
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Air
pollution
control,
Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Labeling,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Research,
Warranties
40
CFR
Part
1051
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Labeling,
Penalties,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Warranties.

40
CFR
Part
1068
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Confidential
business
information,
Imports,
Motor
vehicle
pollution,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Warranties.

Dated:
July
25,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.

For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
set
forth
below:

PART
86—
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
NEW
AND
IN­
USE
HIGHWAY
VEHICLES
AND
ENGINES
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
86
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401Ð
7521(
l)
and
7521(
m)Ð
7671q.

Subpart
E—[
Amended]

2.
A
new
§
86.401Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.401–
2006
General
applicability.
This
subpart
applies
to
1978
and
later
model
year,
new,
gasoline­
fueled
motorcycles
built
after
December
31,
1977,
and
to
1990
and
later
model
year,
new
methanol­
fueled
motorcycles
built
after
December
31,
1989,
and
to
1997
and
later
model
year,
new
natural
gasfueled
and
liquefied
petroleum
gasfueled
motorcycles
built
after
December
31,
1996,
and
to
2006
and
later
model
year
new
motorcycles,
regardless
of
fuel.
3.
Section
86.402Ð
78(
a)
is
amended
by
adding
a
definition
for
``
Motor
vehicle''
in
alphabetical
order
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.402–
78
Definitions.
(a)
*
*
*
Motor
vehicle
has
the
meaning
we
give
in
40
CFR
85.1703.
*
*
*
*
*
4.
A
new
§
86.410Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.410–
2006
Emission
standards
for
2006
and
later
model
year
motorcycles.
(a)(
1)
Exhaust
emissions
from
Class
I
and
Class
II
motorcycles
shall
not
exceed
the
standards
listed
in
the
following
table:

TABLE
E.—
2006.1
CLASS
I
AND
II
MOTORCYCLE
EMISSION
STANDARDS
Model
year
Emission
standards
(g/
km)

HC
CO
2006
and
later
..........
1.0
12.0
(2)
Exhaust
emissions
from
Class
III
motorcycles
shall
not
exceed
the
standards
listed
in
the
following
table:

TABLE
E.—
2006.2
CLASS
III
MOTORCYCLE
EMISSION
STANDARDS
Tier
Model
year
Emission
standards
(g/
km)

HC+
NOX
CO
1
.......
2006–
2009
1.4
12.0
2
.......
2010
and
later.
0.8
12.0
(b)
The
standards
set
forth
in
paragraphs
(a)
(1)
and
(2)
of
this
section
refer
to
the
exhaust
emitted
over
the
driving
schedule
as
set
forth
in
subpart
F
and
measured
and
calculated
in
accordance
with
those
procedures.
(c)
Compliance
with
the
HC+
NOX
standards
set
forth
in
paragraph
(a)(
2)
of
this
section
may
be
demonstrated
using
the
averaging
provisions
of
§
86.449.
(d)
No
crankcase
emissions
shall
be
discharged
into
the
ambient
atmosphere
from
any
new
motorcycle
subject
to
this
subpart.
(e)
Manufacturers
with
fewer
than
500
employees
and
producing
fewer
than
3000
motorcycles
per
year
are
considered
small­
volume
manufacturers
for
the
purposes
of
this
section.
The
following
provisions
apply
for
these
small­
volume
manufacturers:
(1)
Small­
volume
manufacturers
are
not
required
to
comply
with
the
Tier
1
standards
until
model
year
2008.
(2)
Small­
volume
manufacturers
are
not
required
to
comply
with
the
Tier
2
standards.
5.
A
new
§
86.419Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.419–
2006
Engine
displacement,
motorcycle
classes.

(a)(
1)
Engine
displacement
shall
be
calculated
using
nominal
engine
values
and
rounded
to
the
nearest
whole
cubic
centimeter,
in
accordance
with
ASTM
E
29Ð
67
(incorporated
by
reference
in
§
86.1).
(2)
For
rotary
engines,
displacement
means
the
maximum
volume
of
a
combustion
chamber
between
two
rotor
tip
seals,
minus
the
minimum
volume
of
the
combustion
chamber
between
those
two
rotor
tip
seals,
times
three
times
the
number
of
rotors,
according
to
the
following
formula:
cc
=
(max.
chamber
volume
¥
min.
chamber
volume)
×
3
×
no.
of
rotors
(b)
Motorcycles
will
be
divided
into
classes
based
on
engine
displacement.
(1)
Class
IÑ
0
to
169
cc
(0
to
10.4
cu.
in.).
(2)
Class
IIÑ
170
to
279
cc
(10.4
to
17.1
cu.
in.).
(3)
Class
IIIÑ
280
cc
and
over
(17.1
cu.
in.
and
over).
(c)
At
the
manufacturer's
option,
a
vehicle
described
in
an
application
for
certification
may
be
placed
in
a
higher
class
(larger
displacement).
All
procedures
for
the
higher
class
must
then
be
complied
with,
compliance
withemission
standards
will
be
determined
on
the
basis
of
engine
displacement.
6.
A
new
§
86.445Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.445–
2006
What
temporary
provisions
address
hardship
due
to
unusual
circumstances?
(a)
After
considering
the
circumstances,
we
may
permit
you
to
introduce
into
commerce
highway
motorcycles
that
do
not
comply
with
emission
standards
if
all
the
following
conditions
and
requirements
apply:
(1)
Unusual
circumstances
that
are
clearly
outside
your
control
and
that
could
not
have
been
avoided
with
reasonable
discretion
prevent
you
from
meeting
requirements
from
this
chapter.
(2)
You
exercised
prudent
planning
and
were
not
able
to
avoid
the
violation;
you
have
taken
all
reasonable
steps
to
minimize
the
extent
of
the
nonconformity.
(3)
Not
having
the
exemption
will
jeopardize
the
solvency
of
your
company.
(4)
No
other
allowances
are
available
under
the
regulations
to
avoid
the
impending
violation.
(b)
To
apply
for
an
exemption,
you
must
send
the
Designated
Officer
a
written
request
as
soon
as
possible
before
you
are
in
violation.
In
your
request,
show
that
you
meet
all
the
conditions
and
requirements
in
paragraph
(a)
of
this
section.
(c)
Include
in
your
request
a
plan
showing
how
you
will
meet
all
the
applicable
requirements
as
quickly
as
possible.
(d)
You
must
give
us
other
relevant
information
if
we
ask
for
it.
(e)
We
may
include
reasonable
additional
conditions
on
an
approval
granted
under
this
section,
including
provisions
to
recover
or
otherwise
address
the
lost
environmental
benefit
or
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
22:
38
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm20
PsN:
14AUP2
53101
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
paying
fees
to
offset
any
economic
gain
resulting
from
the
exemption.
For
example,
we
may
require
that
you
meet
standards
less
stringent
than
those
that
currently
apply.
7.
A
new
§
86.446Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.446–
2006
What
are
the
provisions
for
extending
compliance
deadlines
for
smallvolume
manufacturers
under
hardship?

(a)
After
considering
the
circumstances,
we
may
extend
the
compliance
deadline
for
you
to
meet
new
or
revised
emission
standards,
as
long
as
you
meet
all
the
conditions
and
requirements
in
this
section.
(b)
To
be
eligible
for
this
exemption,
you
must
qualify
as
a
small­
volume
manufacturer
under
§
86.410Ð
2006(
e).
(c)
To
apply
for
an
extension,
you
must
send
the
Designated
Officer
a
written
request.
In
your
request,
show
that
all
the
following
conditionsand
requirements
apply:
(1)
You
have
taken
all
possible
business,
technical,
and
economic
steps
to
comply.
(i)
In
the
case
of
importers,
show
that
you
are
unable
to
find
a
manufacturer
capable
of
supplying
complying
products.
(ii)
For
all
other
manufacturers,
show
that
the
burden
of
compliance
costs
prevents
you
from
meeting
the
requirements
of
this
chapter.
(2)
Not
having
the
exemption
will
jeopardize
the
solvency
of
your
company.
(3)
No
other
allowances
are
available
under
the
regulations
to
avoidthe
impending
violation.
(d)
In
describing
the
steps
you
have
taken
to
comply
under
paragraph
(c)(
1)
of
this
section,
include
at
least
the
following
information:
(1)
Describe
your
business
plan,
showing
the
range
of
projects
active
or
under
consideration.
(2)
Describe
your
current
and
projected
financial
standing,
with
and
without
the
burden
of
complying
with
regulations.
(3)
Describe
your
efforts
to
raise
capital
to
comply
with
regulations.
(4)
Identify
the
engineering
and
technical
steps
you
have
taken
or
planto
take
to
comply
with
regulations.
(5)
Identify
the
level
of
compliance
you
can
achieve.
For
example,
you
may
be
able
to
produce
engines
that
meet
a
somewhat
less
stringent
emission
standard
than
the
regulations
require.
(e)
Include
in
your
request
a
plan
showing
how
you
will
meet
all
the
applicable
requirements
as
quickly
as
possible.
(f)
You
must
give
us
other
relevant
information
if
we
ask
for
it.
(g)
An
authorized
representative
of
your
company
must
sign
the
request
andinclude
the
statement:
``
All
the
information
in
this
request
is
true
andaccurate,
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge.
''
(h)
Send
your
request
for
this
extension
at
least
nine
months
before
new
standards
apply.
Do
not
send
your
request
before
the
regulations
in
question
apply
to
other
manufacturers.
(i)
We
may
include
reasonable
requirements
on
an
approval
granted
underthis
section,
including
provisions
to
recover
or
otherwise
address
the
lostenvironmental
benefit.
For
example,
we
may
require
that
you
meet
a
less
stringent
emission
standard
or
buy
and
use
available
emission
credits.
(j)
We
will
approve
extensions
of
up
to
one
year.
We
may
review
and
revisean
extension
as
reasonable
under
the
circumstances.
8.
A
new
§
86.447Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.447–
2006
What
are
the
provisions
for
exempting
motorcycles
under
50
cc
from
the
requirements
of
this
part
if
they
use
engines
you
certify
under
other
programs?
(a)
This
section
applies
to
you
if
you
manufacture
engines
under
50
cc
for
installation
in
a
highway
motorcycle.
See
§
86.448Ð
2006
if
you
are
not
the
engine
manufacturer.
(b)
The
only
requirements
or
prohibitions
from
this
part
that
apply
to
a
motorcycle
that
is
exempt
under
this
section
are
in
this
section
and
§
86.448Ð
2006.
(c)
If
you
meet
all
the
following
criteria
regarding
your
new
engine,
itis
exempt
under
this
section:
(1)
You
must
produce
it
under
a
valid
certificate
of
conformity
for
one
of
the
following
types
of
engines
or
vehicles:
(i)
Class
II
engines
under
40
CFR
part
90.
(ii)
Recreational
vehicles
under
40
CFR
part
1051.
(2)
You
must
not
make
any
changes
to
the
certified
engine
that
we
could
reasonably
expect
to
increase
its
exhaust
emissions.
For
example,
if
you
make
any
of
the
following
changes
to
one
of
these
engines,
you
do
not
qualify
for
this
exemption:
(i)
Change
any
fuel
system
parameters
from
the
certified
configuration.
(ii)
Change
any
other
emission­
related
components.
(iii)
Modify
or
design
the
engine
cooling
system
so
that
temperatures
or
heat
rejection
rates
are
outside
the
original
engine's
specified
ranges.
(3)
You
must
make
sure
the
engine
has
the
emission
label
we
require
under
40
CFR
part
90
or
part
1051.
(4)
You
must
make
sure
that
fewer
than
50
percent
of
the
engine
model'stotal
sales,
from
all
companies,
are
used
in
highway
motorcycles.
(d)
If
you
produce
only
the
engine,
give
motorcycle
manufacturers
anynecessary
instructions
regarding
what
they
may
or
may
not
change
under
paragraph
(c)(
2)
of
this
section.
(e)
If
you
produce
both
the
engine
and
motorcycle
under
this
exemption,
you
must
do
all
of
the
following
to
keep
the
exemption
valid:
(1)
Make
sure
the
original
emission
label
is
intact.
(2)
Add
a
permanent
supplemental
label
to
the
engine
in
a
position
where
it
will
remain
clearly
visible
after
installation
in
the
vehicle.
In
your
engine's
emission
label,
do
the
following:
(i)
Include
the
heading:
``
Highway
Motorcycle
Emission
ControlInformation''.
(ii)
Include
your
full
corporate
name
and
trademark.
(iii)
State:
``
THIS
ENGINE
WAS
ADAPTED
FOR
HIGHWAY
USE
WITHOUT
AFFECTING
ITS
EMISSION
CONTROLS.
''.
(iv)
State
the
date
you
finished
installation
(month
and
year).
(3)
Send
the
Designated
Officer
a
signed
letter
by
the
end
of
each
calendar
year
(or
less
often
if
we
tell
you)
with
all
the
following
information:
(i)
Identify
your
full
corporate
name,
address,
and
telephone
number.
(ii)
List
the
models
you
expect
to
produce
under
this
exemption
in
the
coming
year.
(iii)
State:
``
We
produce
each
listed
model
as
a
highway
motorcycle
without
making
any
changes
that
could
increase
its
certified
emission
levels,
as
described
in
40
CFR
86.447.''.
(f)
If
your
vehicles
do
not
meet
the
criteria
listed
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section,
they
will
be
subject
to
the
standards
and
prohibitions
of
this
part.
Producing
these
vehicles
without
a
valid
exemption
or
certificate
of
conformity
would
violate
the
prohibitions
in
Clean
Air
Act
section
203
(42
U.
S.
C.
7522).
(g)
If
we
request
it,
you
must
send
us
emission
test
data
on
the
duty
cycle
for
Class
I
motorcycles.
You
may
include
the
data
in
your
application
for
certification
or
in
your
letter
requesting
the
exemption.
(h)
Vehicles
exempted
under
this
section
are
subject
to
all
the
requirements
affecting
engines
and
vehicles
under
40
CFR
part
90
or
part
1051,
as
applicable.
The
requirements
and
restrictions
of
40
CFR
part
90
or
1051
apply
to
anyone
manufacturing
these
engines,
anyone
manufacturing
vehicles
that
use
these
engines,
and
all
other
persons
in
the
same
manner
as
if
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53102
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
these
engines
were
used
in
a
nonroad
application.
9.
A
new
§
86.448Ð
2006
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.448–
2006
What
are
the
provisions
for
producing
motorcycles
under
50
cc
with
engines
already
certified
under
other
programs?

(a)
You
may
produce
a
highway
motorcycle
under
50
cc
using
a
nonroad
engine
if
you
meet
three
criteria:
(1)
The
engine
or
vehicle
is
certified
to
40
CFR
part
90
or
part
1051.
(2)
The
engine
is
not
adjusted
outside
the
manufacturer's
specifications,
as
described
in
§
86.447Ð
2006(
c)(
2)
and
(d).
(3)
The
engine
or
vehicle
is
not
modified
in
any
way
that
may
affect
its
emission
control.
(b)
This
section
does
not
apply
if
you
manufacture
the
engine
yourself;
see
§
86.447Ð
2006.
10.
A
new
§
86.449
is
added
to
subpart
E
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.449
Averaging
provisions.

(a)
Compliance
with
the
HC+
NOX
standards
set
forth
in
§
86.410Ð
2006(
a)(
2)
may
be
demonstrated
using
the
averaging
provisions
of
this
section.
To
do
this
you
must
show
that
your
average
emission
levels
are
at
or
below
the
applicable
standards
in
§
86.410Ð
2006.
Family
emission
limits
(FELs)
may
not
exceed
5.0
g/
km.
(b)
Do
not
include
any
exported
vehicles
in
the
certification
averaging
program.
Include
only
motorcycles
certified
under
this
subpart.
(c)
To
use
the
averaging
program,
do
the
following
things:
(1)
Certify
each
vehicle
to
a
family
emission
limit.
(2)
Calculate
a
preliminary
average
emission
level
according
to
paragraph
(d)
of
this
section
using
projected
production
volumes
for
your
application
for
certification.
(3)
After
the
end
of
your
model
year,
calculate
a
final
average
emission
level
according
to
paragraph
(d)
of
this
section
for
each
type
of
recreational
vehicle
or
engine
you
manufacture
or
import.
Use
actual
production
volumes.
(d)
Calculate
your
average
emission
level
for
each
type
of
recreational
vehicle
or
engine
for
each
model
year
according
to
the
following
equation
and
round
it
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
g/
km.
Use
consistent
units
throughout
the
calculation.
(1)
Calculate
the
average
emission
level
as:

Emission
level
=
FEL
Production
UL
i
i
i
(
)
×
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UL
oduction
i
i
i
i
Pr
Where:
FELi
=
The
FEL
to
which
the
engine
family
is
certified.
ULi
=
The
useful
life
of
the
engine
family.
Productioni
=
The
number
of
vehicles
in
the
engine
family.
(2)
Use
production
projections
for
initial
certification,
and
actual
production
volumes
to
determine
compliance
at
the
end
of
the
model
year.
(e)(
1)
Maintain
and
keep
five
types
of
properly
organized
and
indexed
records
for
each
group
and
for
each
emission
family:
(i)
Model
year
and
EPA
emission
family.
(ii)
FEL.
(iii)
Useful
life.
(iv)
Projected
production
volume
for
the
model
year.
(v)
Actual
production
volume
for
the
model
year.
(2)
Keep
paper
records
of
this
information
for
three
years
from
the
due
date
for
the
end­
of­
year
report.
You
may
use
any
additional
storage
formats
or
media
if
you
like.
(3)
Follow
paragraphs
(f)
through
(i)
of
this
section
to
send
us
the
information
you
must
keep.
(4)
We
may
ask
you
to
keep
or
send
other
information
necessary
to
implement
this
subpart.
(f)
Include
the
following
information
in
your
applications
for
certification:
(1)
A
statement
that,
to
the
best
of
your
belief,
you
will
not
have
a
negative
credit
balance
for
any
type
of
recreational
vehicle
or
engine
when
all
credits
are
calculated.
This
means
that
if
you
believe
that
your
average
emission
level
will
be
above
the
standard
(i.
e.,
that
you
will
have
a
deficit
for
the
model
year),
you
must
have
banked
credits
pursuant
to
paragraph
(j)
of
this
section
to
offset
the
deficit.
(2)
Detailed
calculations
of
projected
emission
credits
(zero,
positive,
or
negative)
based
on
production
projections.
If
you
project
a
credit
deficit,
state
the
source
of
credits
needed
to
offset
the
credit
deficit.
(g)
At
the
end
of
each
model
year,
send
an
end­
of­
year
report.
(1)
Make
sure
your
report
includes
three
things:
(i)
Calculate
in
detail
your
average
emission
level
and
any
emission
credits
based
on
actual
production
volumes.
(ii)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
above
the
allowable
average
standard,
state
the
source
of
credits
needed
to
offset
the
credit
deficit.
(2)
Base
your
production
volumes
on
the
point
of
first
retail
sale.
This
point
is
called
the
final
product­
purchase
location.
(3)
Send
end­
of­
year
reports
to
the
Designated
Officer
within
120
days
of
the
end
of
the
model
year.
If
you
send
reports
later,
you
are
violating
the
Clean
Air
Act.
(4)
If
you
generate
credits
for
banking
pursuant
to
paragraph
(j)
of
this
section
and
you
do
not
send
your
end­
of­
year
reports
within
120
days
after
the
end
of
the
model
year,
you
may
not
use
or
trade
the
credits
until
we
receive
and
review
your
reports.
You
may
not
use
projected
credits
pending
our
review.
(5)
You
may
correct
errors
discovered
in
your
end­
of­
year
report,
including
errors
in
calculating
credits
according
to
the
following
table:

If.
.
.
And
if.
.
.
Then
we
.
.
.

(i)
Our
review
discovers
an
error
in
your
end
of­
year
report
that
increases
your
credit
bal
ance.
the
discovery
occurs
within
180
days
of
re
ceipt.
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

(ii)
You
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
increases
your
credit
balance.
the
discovery
occurs
within
180
days
of
re
ceipt.
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
EP14AU02.000</
GPH>
53103
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
If.
.
.
And
if.
.
.
Then
we
.
.
.

(iii)
We
or
you
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
increases
your
credit
balance.
the
discovery
occurs
more
than
180
days
after
receipt.
do
not
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

(iv)
We
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
reduces
your
credit
balance.
at
any
time
after
receipt
.................................
reduce
your
credit
balance.

(h)
Include
in
each
report
a
statement
certifying
the
accuracy
and
authenticity
of
its
contents.
(i)
We
may
void
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
any
emission
family
if
you
do
not
keep
the
records
this
section
requires
or
give
us
the
information
when
we
ask
for
it.
(j)
You
may
include
motorcycles
that
you
certify
with
HC+
NOX
emissions
below
0.8
g/
km
in
the
following
optional
early
banking
program:
(1)
To
include
a
motorcycle
in
the
early
banking
program,
assign
it
an
emission
rate
of
0.8
g/
km
when
calculating
your
average
emission
level
for
compliance
with
the
Tier
1
standards.
(2)(
i)
Calculate
bankable
credits
from
the
following
equation:
Bonus
credit
=
Y
x
[
(0.8
g/
kmÑ
Certfied
emission
level)
]x
[(
Production
volume
of
engine
family)
x
(Useful
life)
]

(ii)
The
value
of
Y
is
defined
by
the
model
year
and
emission
level,
as
shown
in
the
following
table:

Model
year
Multiplier
(Y)
for
use
in
MY
2010
or
later
corporate
averaging
If
your
certified
emission
level
is
less
than
0.8
g/
km,
but
greater
than
0.4
g/
km,
then
Y
=
.
.
.
If
your
certified
emission
level
is
less
than
0.4
g/
km,
then
Y
=
.
.
.

2003
through
2006
................................................................................................................
1.5
3.0
2007
.......................................................................................................................................
1.375
2.5
2008
.......................................................................................................................................
1.250
2.0
2009
.......................................................................................................................................
1.125
1.5
(3)
Credits
banked
under
this
paragraph
(j)
may
be
used
for
compliance
with
any
2010
or
later
model
year
standards
as
follows:
(i)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
above
the
average
standard,
calculate
your
credit
deficit
according
to
the
following
equation,
rounding
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
gram:
Deficit
=
(Emission
Level
¥
Average
Standard)
x
(Total
Annual
Production)
(ii)
Credits
deficits
may
be
offset
using
banked
credits.
Subpart
F—[
Amended]

11.
A
new
§
86.513Ð
2004
is
added
to
subpart
F
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.513–
2004
Fuel
and
engine
lubricant
specifications.

Section
86.513Ð
2004
includes
text
that
specifies
requirements
that
differ
from
§
86.513Ð
94.
Where
a
paragraph
in
§
86.513Ð
94
is
identical
and
applicable
to
§
86.513Ð
2004,
this
may
be
indicated
by
specifying
the
corresponding
paragraph
and
the
statement
``[
Reserved].
For
guidance
see
§
86.513Ð
94.''
Where
a
corresponding
paragraph
of
§
86.513Ð
94
is
not
applicable,
this
is
indicated
by
the
statement
``[
Reserved].
''
(a)
Gasoline.
(1)
Gasoline
having
the
following
specifications
will
be
used
by
the
Administrator
in
exhaust
emission
testing
of
gasoline­
fueled
motorcycles.
Gasoline
having
the
following
specifications
or
substantially
equivalent
specifications
approved
by
the
Administrator,
shall
be
used
by
the
manufacturer
for
emission
testing
except
that
the
octane
specifications
do
not
apply.

TABLE
1
OF
§
86.513–
2004.—
GASOLINE
TEST
FUEL
SPECIFICATIONS
Item
Procedure
Value
Distillation
Range:
1.
Initial
boiling
point,
°
C
.................................................................................
ASTM
D
86–
97
...........................
23.9—
35.0.
1
2.
10%
point,
°
C
..............................................................................................
ASTM
D
86–
97
...........................
48.9—
57.2
3.
50%
point,
°
C
..............................................................................................
ASTM
D
86–
97
...........................
93.3—
110.0.
4.
90%
point,
°
C
..............................................................................................
ASTM
D
86–
97
...........................
148.9—
162.8.
5.
End
point,
°
C
...............................................................................................
ASTM
D
86–
97
...........................
212.8.
Hydrocarbon
composition:
1.
Olefins,
volume
%
.......................................................................................
ASTM
D
1319–
98
.......................
10
maximum.
2.
Aromatics,
volume
%
..................................................................................
ASTM
D
1319–
98
.......................
35
minimum.
3.
Saturates
.....................................................................................................
ASTM
D
1319–
98
.......................
Remainder.
Lead
(organic),
g/
liter
.............................................................................................
ASTM
D
3237
.............................
0.013
maximum.
Phosphorous,
g/
liter
................................................................................................
ASTM
D
3231
.............................
0.005
maximum.
Sulfur,
weight
%
.....................................................................................................
ASTM
D
1266
.............................
0.08
maximum.
Volatility
(Reid
Vapor
Pressure),
kPa
.....................................................................
ASTM
D
3231
.............................
55.2
to
63.4.
1
1
For
testing
at
altitudes
above
1
219
m,
the
specified
volatility
range
is
52
to
55
kPa
and
the
specified
initial
boiling
point
range
is
23.9
to
40.6
C.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53104
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(2)
Unleaded
gasoline
and
engine
lubricants
representative
of
commercial
fuels
and
engine
lubricants
which
will
be
generally
available
though
retail
outlets
shall
be
used
in
service
accumulation.
(3)
The
octane
rating
of
the
gasoline
used
shall
be
no
higher
than
4.0.
Research
octane
numbers
above
the
minimum
recommended
by
the
manufacturer.
(4)
The
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
of
the
gasoline
used
shall
be
characteristic
of
commercial
gasoline
fuel
during
the
season
in
which
the
service
accumulation
takes
place.
(b)
through
(d)
[Reserved].
For
guidance
see
§
86.513Ð
94.
12.
Section
86.544Ð
90
is
amended
by
revising
the
text
preceding
the
formula
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.544–
90
Calculations;
exhaust
emissions.
The
final
reported
text
results,
with
oxides
of
nitrogen
being
optional
for
model
years
prior
to
2006
and
required
for
2006
and
later
model
years,
shall
be
computed
by
use
of
the
following
formula
(The
results
of
all
emission
tests
shall
be
rounded,
in
accordance
with
ASTM
E29Ð
90
(incorporated
by
reference
in
§
86.1),
to
the
number
of
places
to
the
right
of
the
decimal
point
indicated
by
expressing
the
applicable
standard
to
three
significant
figures.):
*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
I    
[Amended]

13.
Section
86.884Ð
14
is
amended
by
revising
the
equation
in
paragraph
(a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
86.884–
14
Calculations.
(a)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

N
N/
s
m
=
×
 
 
(
)
(
)
100
1
1
100
L
L
s
m
/

PART
90—
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
NONROAD
SPARK­
IGNITION
ENGINES
14.
The
authority
for
part
90
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7521,
7522,
7523,
7524,
7525,
7541,
7542,
7543,
7547,
7549,
7550,
and
7601(
a).

Subpart
A—[
Amended]

15.
Section
90.1
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51181
is
amended
by
adding
a
new
paragraph
(f)
to
read
as
follows:

§
90.1
Applicability.

*
*
*
*
*
(f)
This
part
also
applies
to
engines
under
50
cc
used
in
highway
motorcycles
if
the
manufacturer
uses
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
86.447Ð
2006
to
meet
the
emission
standards
in
this
part
instead
of
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
86.
Compliance
with
the
provisions
of
this
part
is
a
required
condition
of
that
exemption.

Subchapter
U—
Air
Pollution
Controls
16.
Part
1045
is
added
to
subchapter
U
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51189
to
read
as
follows:

PART
1045—
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
SPARK­
IGNITION
MARINE
VESSELS
Subpart
A—
Determining
How
to
Follow
This
Part
Sec.
1045.1
Does
this
part
apply
to
me?
1045.5
Are
any
of
my
vessels
excluded
from
the
requirements
of
this
part?
1045.10
What
main
steps
must
I
take
to
comply
with
this
part?
1045.15
Do
any
other
regulation
parts
affect
me?
1045.20
Can
I
certify
just
the
fuel
system
instead
of
the
entire
vessel?

Subpart
B—
Emission
Standards
and
Related
Requirements
1045.105
What
evaporative
emission
standards
must
my
vessels
meet?
1045.115
What
other
requirements
must
my
vessels
meet?
1045.120
What
warranty
requirements
apply
to
me?
1045.125
What
maintenance
instructions
must
I
give
to
buyers?
1045.130
What
installation
instructions
must
I
give
to
vessel
manufacturers?
1045.135
How
must
I
label
and
identify
the
vessels
and
fuel
systems
I
produce?
1045.140
What
interim
provisions
apply
only
for
a
limited
time?
1045.145
What
provisions
apply
to
noncertifying
manufacturers?

Subpart
C—
Certifying
Emission
Families
1045.201
What
are
the
general
requirements
for
submitting
a
certification
application?
1045.205
How
must
I
prepare
my
application?
1045.215
What
happens
after
I
complete
my
application?
1045.225
How
do
I
amend
my
application
to
include
a
new
or
modified
product?
1045.230
How
do
I
select
emission
families?
1045.235
How
does
testing
fit
with
my
application
for
a
certificate
of
conformity?
1045.240
How
do
I
determine
if
my
emission
family
complies
with
emission
standards?
1045.245
What
records
must
I
keep
and
make
available
to
EPA?
1045.250
When
may
EPA
deny,
revoke,
or
void
my
certificate
of
conformity?
Subpart
D—[
Reserved]

Subpart
E—
Testing
In­
use
Engines
1045.401
What
provisions
apply
for
in­
use
testing
of
vessels?

Subpart
F—
Test
Procedures
1045.501
What
equipment
and
general
procedures
must
I
use
to
test
my
vessels?
1045.505
How
do
I
test
for
diurnal
evaporative
emissions?
1045.506
How
do
I
test
my
fuel
tank
for
permeation
emissions?

Subpart
G—
Compliance
Provisions
1045.601
What
compliance
provisions
apply
to
these
vessels?

Subpart
H—
Averaging,
Banking,
and
Trading
for
Certification
1045.701
General
provisions.
1045.705
How
do
I
average
emission
levels?
1045.710
How
do
I
generate
and
bank
emission
credits?
1045.715
How
do
I
trade
or
transfer
emission
credits?
1045.720
How
do
I
calculate
my
average
emission
level
or
emission
credits?
1045.725
What
information
must
I
keep?
1045.730
What
information
must
I
report?

Subpart
I—
Definitions
and
Other
Reference
Information
1045.801
What
definitions
apply
to
this
part?
1045.805
What
symbols,
acronyms,
and
abbreviations
does
this
part
use?
1045.810
What
materials
does
this
part
reference?
1045.815
How
should
I
request
EPA
to
keep
my
information
confidential?
1045.820
How
do
I
request
a
public
hearing?

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401Ð
7671(
q).

Subpart
A—
Determining
How
To
Follow
This
Part
§
1045.1
Does
this
part
apply
to
me?
(a)
This
part
applies
to
you
if
you
manufacture
or
import
new
sparkignition
marine
vessels
(defined
in
§
1045.801)
or
part
of
a
fuel
system
for
such
vessels
(defined
in
§
1045.801),
unless
we
exclude
the
vessels
under
§
1045.5.
You
should
read
§
1045.145
to
determine
whether
we
require
all
manufacturers
to
meet
a
specific
requirement.
(b)
See
40
CFR
part
90
to
meet
exhaust­
emission
requirements
for
spark­
ignition
marine
engines.
Note
that
40
CFR
part
90
does
not
apply
to
all
spark­
ignition
marine
engines.
(c)
Note
in
subpart
G
of
this
part
that
40
CFR
part
1068
applies
to
everyone,
including
anyone
who
manufactures,
owns,
operates,
or
repairs
any
of
the
vessels
this
part
covers.
(d)
You
need
not
follow
this
part
for
vessels
produced
before
the
2008
model
year,
unless
you
certify
voluntarily.
See
§
1045.105,
§
1045.145,
and
the
definition
of
model
year
in
§
1045.801
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
EP14AU02.001</
MATH>
53105
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
for
more
information
about
the
timing
of
new
requirements.
(e)
See
§§
1045.801
and
1045.805
for
definitions
and
acronyms
that
apply
to
this
part.
(f)
For
now,
ignore
references
to
engines,
which
will
apply
when
we
establish
exhaust
emission
standards
in
this
part
for
spark­
ignition
marine
engines.

§
1045.5
Are
any
of
my
vessels
excluded
from
the
requirements
of
this
part?

(a)
The
requirements
of
this
part
do
not
apply
to
either
of
two
types
of
marine
vessels:
(1)
Hobby
vessels.
(2)
Vessels
fueled
with
diesel
fuel,
LPG,
natural
gas,
or
other
fuel
that
is
not
a
volatile
liquid
fuel.
(b)
See
part
1068,
subpart
C,
of
this
chapter
for
exemptions
of
specific
vessels.
(c)
We
may
require
you
to
label
a
vessel
if
this
section
excludes
it
and
other
requirements
in
this
chapter
do
not
apply
(for
example,
hobby
vessels).
(d)
Send
the
Designated
Officer
a
written
request
with
supporting
documentation
if
you
want
us
to
determine
whether
this
part
covers
or
excludes
certain
vessels.
Excluding
engines
from
this
part's
requirements
does
not
affect
other
requirements
that
may
apply
to
them.

§
1045.10
What
main
steps
must
I
take
to
comply
with
this
part?

(a)
Every
new
vessel
subject
to
the
standards
in
this
part
must
be
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity
before
it
is
sold,
offered
for
sale,
introduced
into
commerce,
distributed
or
delivered
for
introduction
into
commerce,
or
imported
into
the
United
States.
For
evaporative
emissions,
either
the
vessel
manufacturer
or
the
fuel
system
manufacturer
must
apply
for
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
each
new
model
year.
(b)
To
get
a
certificate
of
conformity
and
comply
with
its
terms,
you
must
do
three
things:
(1)
Show
that
each
vessel
will
meet
one
of
the
individual
emission
standards
and
other
requirements
in
subpart
B
of
this
part.
You
may
also
need
to
meet
a
corporate­
average
emission
standard
(see
§
1045.105).
(2)
Apply
for
certification
(see
subpart
C
of
this
part).
(3)
Follow
our
instructions
throughout
this
part.
(c)
Subpart
F
of
this
part
and
40
CFR
part
86
describe
the
procedures
you
must
follow
to
test
your
vessels.
Subpart
F
of
this
part
and
§
1045.20
describe
cases
for
which
you
may
test
the
fuel
system
alone
instead
of
testing
the
entire
vessel.
(d)
Subpart
G
of
this
part
and
40
CFR
part
1068
of
this
chapter
describe
requirements
and
prohibitions
that
apply
to
manufacturers,
owners,
operators,
repairers,
and
all
others
associated
with
spark­
ignition
marine
vessels.

§
1045.15
Do
any
other
regulation
parts
affect
me?

(a)
Part
86
of
this
chapter
describes
how
to
measure
evaporative
emissions.
Subpart
F
of
this
part
describes
how
to
apply
part
86
of
this
chapter
to
show
you
meet
this
part's
emission
standards.
(b)
Part
1068
of
this
chapter
describes
general
provisions,
including
these
seven
areas:
(1)
Prohibited
acts
and
penalties
for
manufacturers
and
others.
(2)
Rebuilding
and
other
aftermarket
changes.
(3)
Exemptions
for
certain
vessels.
(4)
Importing
vessels.
(5)
Selective
enforcement
audits
of
your
production.
(6)
Defect
reporting
and
recall.
(7)
Procedures
for
public
hearing.
(c)
Other
parts
of
this
chapter
affect
you
if
referenced
in
this
part.

§
1045.20
Can
I
certify
just
the
fuel
system
instead
of
the
entire
vessel?

(a)
You
may
certify
only
the
fuel
system
if
you
manufacture
part
or
all
of
the
system
for
a
vessel.
Vessels
using
certified
fuel
systems
do
not
need
to
be
certified
separately.
(b)
If
you
certify
a
fuel
system,
you
must
do
two
things:
(1)
Use
good
engineering
judgment
to
ensure
the
engine
will
comply
with
emission
standards
after
it
is
installed
in
a
vessel.
(2)
Comply
with
§
1045.130.
(c)
Do
not
use
the
provisions
of
this
section
to
circumvent
emission
standards
or
other
requirements
of
this
part.
Subpart
B—
Emission
Standards
and
Related
Requirements
§
1045.105
What
evaporative
emission
standards
must
my
vessels
meet?

Beginning
January
1,
2008,
each
new
vessel
and
new
portable
fuel
tank
must
be
certified
to
the
emission
standards
of
paragraphs
(a)
and
(b)
of
this
section
(except
as
allowed
by
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section).
Vessel
manufacturers
may
certify
vessels
directly
or
use
fuel
systems
certified
by
fuel­
system
manufacturers.
(a)
Diurnal
Emissions.
Diurnal
emissions
from
your
vessel
may
not
exceed
1.1
grams
per
gallon
per
day
as
measured
according
to
the
diurnal
evaporative
test
procedures
in
subpart
F
of
this
part.
You
may
use
the
averaging
provisions
in
Subpart
H
of
this
part
to
show
you
meet
the
standards
of
this
paragraph
(a).
Emission
standards
described
in
this
paragraph
apply
to
marine
vessels
with
installed
fuel
tanks;
they
do
not
apply
to
portable
fuel
tanks,
which
are
addressed
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section.
(b)
Permeation
emissions.
Permeation
emissions
may
not
exceed
the
following
standards:
(1)
Permeation
emissions
from
your
vessel's
fuel
tank(
s)
may
not
exceed
0.08
grams
per
gallon
per
day
as
measured
according
to
the
tank
permeation
test
procedures
in
subpart
F
of
this
part.
(2)
Permeation
emissions
from
your
vessel's
fuel
lines
may
not
exceed
5
grams
per
square­
meter
per
day
as
measured
according
to
the
fuel
line
permeation
test
procedures
in
subpart
F
of
this
part.
Use
the
inside
diameter
of
the
hose
to
determine
the
surface
area
of
the
hose.
(c)
You
may
certify
portable
fuel
tanks
to
the
diurnal
emission
standards
in
paragraph
(a)
of
this
section
by
meeting
the
following
design
criteria:
(1)
The
tank
may
include
no
more
than
two
vents,
which
must
be
readily
sealable
for
pressures
up
3
psig.
(2)
All
vents
and
the
fuel­
line
connection
to
the
engine
must
seal
automatically
when
disconnected.
(d)
You
may
certify
vessels
and
fuel
systems
using
the
control
technologies
shown
in
the
following
tables
``
by
design.
''
This
means
the
design
of
these
technologies
certifies
them
to
the
standards
specified
in
paragraph
(a)
of
this
section:

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53106
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
1
OF
§
1045.105.—
DIURNAL
LEVELS
FOR
DESIGN
CERTIFICATION
If
the
diurnal
control
technology
is
.
.
.
Then
you
may
design­
certify
with
a
diurnal
emission
level
of
.
.
.

1.
Open­
vented
fuel
tank
................................................................................................................................................
1.5
g/
gal/
test.

2.
A
sealed
fuel
tank
with
a
pressure­
relief
valve
that
would
open
at
a
pressure
of
0.5
psi
........................................
1.3
g/
gal/
test.

3.
A
sealed
insulated
fuel
tank
(R­
value
of
15
or
better)
with
a
limited
flow
orifice
with
a
maximum
cross­
sectional
area
defined
by
the
following
equation:
Area
in
mm
2
=
0.04
×
fuel
tank
capacity
in
gallons
(Example:
A
20
gallon
tank
with
an
orifice
no
more
than
1.0
mm
in
diameter.)
1.3
g/
gal/
test.

4.
A
sealed
fuel
tank
with
a
pressure­
relief
valve
that
would
open
at
a
pressure
of
1.0
psi
........................................
1.1
g/
gal/
test.

5.
A
sealed
fuel
tank
with
a
pressure­
relief
valve
that
would
open
at
a
pressure
of
1.5
psi
........................................
0.9
g/
gal/
test.

6.
A
sealed
fuel
tank
with
a
pressure­
relief
valve
that
would
open
at
a
pressure
of
2.0
psi
........................................
0.7
g/
gal/
test.

7.
A
sealed
fuel
tank
with
a
pressure­
relief
valve
that
would
open
at
a
pressure
of
0.5
psi,
and
with
a
volume­
compensating
bag
made
from
a
low­
permeability
material
1
with
a
bag
volume
equal
to
at
least
25
percent
of
the
volume
of
the
fuel
tank.
0.5
g/
gal/
test.

8.
A
sealed
bladder
fuel
tank
made
from
a
low­
permeability
........................................................................................
0.1
g/
gal/
test.

1
Permeability
of
5
g/
m
2
/day
or
less.

TABLE
2
OF
§
1045.105.—
TANK
PERMEATION
LEVELS
FOR
DESIGN
CERTIFICATION
If
the
tank
permeability
control
technology
is
.
.
.
Then
you
may
design­
certify
with
a
tank
emission
level
of
.
.
.

1.
A
metal
fuel
tank
with
no
non­
metal
gaskets
or
with
gaskets
made
from
a
low­
permeability
material
1
..................
0.08
g/
gal/
test­
day.

2.
A
metal
fuel
tank
with
non­
metal
gaskets
with
an
exposed
surface
area
of
1000
mm
2
or
less
...............................
0.08
g/
gal/
test­
day.

1
Permeability
of
10
g/
m
2
/day
or
less.

TABLE
3
OF
§
1045.105.—
FUEL
AND
VENT­
LINE
PERMEATION
LEVELS
FOR
DESIGN
CERTIFICATION
If
the
fuel­
line
and
vent­
line
permeability
control
technology
is
.
.
.
Then
you
may
design­
certify
with
a
fuel
line
permeation
emission
level
of
.
.
.

Hose
meeting
SAE
2260
Category
1
permeation
level
1
...............................................................................................
5
g/
m
2
/test­
day.

1
Hose
must
also
meet
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
Regulations.

(e)
We
may
establish
additional
design
certification
options
based
on
test
data.

§
1045.115
What
other
requirements
must
my
vessels
meet?

(a)
through
(d)
[Reserved]
(e)
Prohibited
controls.
You
may
not
do
either
of
the
following
things:
(1)
You
may
not
design
engines
or
vessels
with
an
emission­
control
system
that
emits
any
noxious
or
toxic
substance
that
the
engine
would
not
emit
during
operation
in
the
absence
of
such
a
system,
except
as
specifically
permitted
by
regulation.
(2)
You
may
not
design
engines
or
vessels
with
an
emission­
control
system
that
is
unsafe.
For
example,
emission
controls
must
comply
with
all
applicable
U.
S.
Coast
Guard
regulations.
(f)
Defeat
devices.
You
may
not
equip
your
vessels
with
a
defeat
device.
A
defeat
device
is
an
auxiliary
emission
control
device
or
other
control
feature
that
degrades
emission
controls
under
conditions
you
may
reasonably
expect
the
vessel
to
encounter
during
normal
operation
and
use.
(g)
Evaporative
technology.
Make
sure
(by
testing
or
engineering
analysis)
that
technologies
used
to
meet
evaporative
emission
standards
keep
working
for
at
least
30
days
while
the
boat
or
engine
is
not
used.
Design
them
to
last
for
the
full
useful
life.
The
useful
life
for
evaporative
controls
is
ten
years.
(h)
Fuel­
tank
location.
The
test
procedures
in
subpart
F
of
this
part
do
not
represent
the
experience
of
a
vessel
with
the
fuel
tank
exposed
to
direct
sunlight
(sun
exposure
can
cause
much
greater
fuel­
temperature
swings,
which
would
increase
evaporative
emissions).
If
you
design
your
vessel
this
way,
you
must
show
that
you
meet
emission
standards
by
measuring
emissions
with
a
test
that
incorporates
the
effect
of
the
sun's
radiant
heat.
Note:
This
requirement
does
not
apply
to
portable
fuel
tanks.

§
1045.120
What
warranty
requirements
apply
to
me?

(a)
You
must
warrant
to
the
ultimate
buyer
that
the
new
vessel
meets
two
conditions:
(1)
You
have
designed,
built,
and
equipped
it
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
part.
(2)
It
is
free
from
defects
in
materials
and
workmanship
that
may
keep
it
from
meeting
these
requirements.
(b)
Your
emission­
related
warranty
for
evaporative
controls
must
be
valid
for
at
least
50
percent
of
the
useful
life
in
years.
You
may
offer
a
warranty
more
generous
than
we
require.
This
warranty
may
not
be
shorter
than
any
published
or
negotiated
warranty
you
offer
for
the
vessel
or
any
of
its
components.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53107
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
§
1045.125
What
maintenance
instructions
must
I
give
to
buyers?
Give
the
ultimate
buyer
of
each
new
vessel
written
instructions
for
properly
maintaining
and
using
the
vessel,
including
the
emission­
control
system.

§
1045.130
What
installation
instructions
must
I
give
to
vessel
manufacturers?
(a)
If
you
sell
a
certified
fuel
system
for
someone
else
to
install
in
a
sparkignition
marine
vessel,
give
the
buyer
of
the
fuel
system
written
instructions
for
installing
it
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
this
part.
Make
sure
these
instructions
have
the
following
information:
(1)
Include
the
heading:
``
Emissionrelated
installation
instructions.
''
(2)
State:
``
Failing
to
follow
these
instructions
when
installing
a
certified
fuel
system
in
a
spark­
ignition
marine
vessel
violates
federal
law
(40
CFR
1068.105(
b)),
subject
to
fines
or
other
penalties
as
described
in
the
Clean
Air
Act.
''.
(3)
Describe
any
other
instructions
to
make
sure
the
installed
fuel
system
will
operate
according
to
design
specifications
in
your
application
for
certification.
(4)
State:
``
If
you
obscure
the
fuel
system's
emission
label,
you
must
attach
a
duplicate
label
to
your
vessel,
as
described
in
40
CFR
1068.105.''.
(b)
You
do
not
need
installation
instructions
for
fuel
systems
you
install
in
your
own
vessel.

§
1045.135
How
must
I
label
and
identify
the
vessels
and
fuel
systems
I
produce?
(a)
[Reserved]
(b)
At
the
time
of
manufacture,
add
a
permanent
label
identifying
each
tank.
To
meet
labeling
requirements,
do
three
things:
(1)
Attach
the
label
in
one
piece
so
it
is
not
removable
without
being
destroyed
or
defaced.
(2)
Design
and
produce
it
to
be
durable
and
readable
for
the
vessel's
entire
life.
(3)
Write
it
in
block
letters
in
English.
(c)
On
your
fuel
tank
label,
do
ten
things:
(1)
Include
the
heading
``
EMISSION
CONTROL
INFORMATION.
''
(2)
Include
your
full
corporate
name
and
trademark.
(3)
State:
``
THIS
VESSEL
IS
CERTIFIED
TO
OPERATE
ON
[specify
operating
fuel
or
fuels].
''.
(4)
State
the
date
of
manufacture
[DAY
(optional),
MONTH,
and
YEAR].
(5)
State:
``
THIS
VESSEL
MEETS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGULATIONS
FOR
[MODEL
YEAR]
VESSELS].
''.
(6)
Include
EPA's
standardized
designation
for
the
emission
family.
(7)
Include
the
model
number
(or
part
number)
of
the
fuel
tank.
(8)
Include
the
part
number(
s)
of
the
fuel
lines.
(9)
Include
the
fuel
tank
capacity
in
U.
S.
gallons.
(10)
Describe
other
information
on
proper
maintenance
and
use.
(11)
Identify
any
other
emission
standards
to
which
you
have
certified
the
vessel.
(d)
You
may
combine
the
EPA
emission
control
label
with
the
label
required
by
the
U.
S.
Coast
Guard.
If
you
are
unable
to
meet
the
exact
labeling
requirements
described
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section
for
your
combined
label,
you
may
ask
us
to
modify
the
requirements
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
section.
(e)
Some
vessels
may
not
have
enough
space
for
a
label
with
all
the
required
information.
In
this
case,
we
may
allow
you
to
omit
some
of
the
information
required
if
you
print
it
in
the
owner's
manual
instead.
(f)
If
you
are
unable
to
meet
these
labeling
requirements,
you
may
ask
us
to
modify
them
consistent
with
the
intent
of
this
section.
(g)
If
you
obscure
the
fuel­
tank
label
while
installing
the
tank
in
the
vessel,
you
must
place
a
duplicate
label
on
the
vessel.
If
someone
else
installs
the
fuel
tank
in
a
vessel,
give
them
duplicate
labels
if
they
ask
for
them
(see
40
CFR
1068.105).
(h)
Non­
metallic
fuel
lines
must
be
labeled
with
the
name
of
the
fuel
line
manufacturer
and
with
a
permeability
classification.

§
1045.140
What
interim
provisions
apply
only
for
a
limited
time?

From
2004
to
2007,
if
you
certify
to
an
FEL
below
the
average
standard
in
§
1045.105(
a),
you
may
generate
early
credits.
Calculate
credits
according
to
§
1045.720(
b)
by
replacing
``
Average
Standard''
with
1.1
g/
gallon
and
``
Emission
Level''
with
the
FEL
to
which
the
emission
family
is
certified.

§
1045.145
What
provisions
apply
to
noncertifying
manufacturers?

(a)
General
requirements.
The
following
general
requirements
apply
to
non­
certifying
manufacturers:
(1)
Every
manufacturer
is
responsible
for
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
this
part
that
apply
to
manufacturers.
However,
if
one
manufacturer
complies
with
a
requirement,
then
we
will
consider
all
manufacturers
to
have
complied
with
that
specific
requirement.
(2)
Where
more
than
one
entity
meets
the
definition
of
manufacturer
for
a
particular
vessel
and
any
one
of
the
manufacturers
obtains
a
certificate
of
conformity
covering
the
whole
vessel,
the
requirements
of
subparts
C
and
H
of
this
part
and
subparts
E
and
F
of
part
1068
of
this
chapter
apply
to
the
manufacturer
that
holds
the
certificate
of
conformity.
Other
manufacturers
must
meet
the
requirements
of
subparts
C
and
H
of
this
part
and
subparts
E
and
F
of
part
1068
of
this
chapter
only
if
we
say
so.
In
this
case,
we
will
allow
a
reasonable
time
to
meet
the
requirements
that
apply.
(b)
Requirements
for
permeability
treatment.
If
you
treat
fuel
tanks
or
fuel
lines
to
reduce
permeability
but
do
not
hold
the
certificate,
you
must
keep
records
of
the
treatment
process
for
three
years
after
the
treatment
occurs.
You
must
make
these
records
available
to
us
if
we
request
them.
(c)
Requirements
for
fuel
system
or
emission
control
components.
If
you
manufacture
a
fuel
system
component
or
an
emission
control
component
or
fuel
lines
used
to
reduce
permeability
but
do
not
hold
the
certificate,
we
may
require
you
to
keep
records
of
your
manufacturing
process
for
three
years
after
the
component
is
manufactured.
You
must
make
these
records
available
to
us
if
we
request
them.
(d)
Requirements
for
emission
test
data.
If
a
certifying
manufacturer
uses
your
emission
test
data
to
certify,
we
may
require
you
to
give
us
a
signed
statement
verifying
that
your
tests
were
conducted
using
the
test
procedures
in
this
part.

Subpart
C—
Certifying
Emission
Families
§
1045.201
What
are
the
general
requirements
for
submitting
a
certification
application?
(a)
Send
us
an
application
for
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
each
emission
family.
Each
application
is
valid
for
only
one
model
year.
(b)
The
application
must
not
include
false
or
incomplete
statements
or
information
(see
§
1045.250).
We
may
choose
to
ask
you
to
send
us
less
information
than
we
specify
in
this
subpart,
but
this
would
not
change
your
recordkeeping
requirements.
(c)
Use
good
engineering
judgment
for
all
decisions
related
to
your
application
(see
§
1068.005
of
this
chapter).
(d)
An
authorized
representative
of
your
company
must
approve
and
sign
the
application.

§
1045.205
How
must
I
prepare
my
application?
In
your
application,
you
must
do
all
the
following
things:
(a)
Describe
the
emission
family's
specifications
and
other
basic
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53108
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
parameters
of
the
design.
List
the
types
of
fuel
you
intend
to
use
to
certify
the
emission
family
(for
example,
gasoline
or
methanol).
(b)
Explain
how
the
emission­
control
system
operates.
Describe
in
detail
all
the
system's
components,
auxiliary
emission­
control
devices,
and
all
fuelsystem
components
you
will
install
on
any
production
or
test
system.
Explain
how
you
determined
that
the
emissioncontrol
system
comply
with
the
requirements
of
§
1045.115,
including
why
any
auxiliary
emission­
control
devices
are
not
defeat
devices
(see
§
1045.115(
f)).
Do
not
include
detailed
calibrations
for
components
unless
we
ask
for
them.
(c)
Describe
the
vessels,
engines,
tanks,
and/
or
hoses
you
selected
for
testing
and
the
reasons
for
selecting
them.
(d)
Describe
any
special
or
alternate
test
procedures
you
used
(see
§
1045.501).
(e)
[Reserved]
(f)
List
the
specifications
of
the
test
fuel
to
show
that
it
falls
within
the
required
ranges
we
specify
in
40
CFR
part
1065,
subpart
C.
(g)
Identify
the
emission
family's
useful
life.
(h)
Propose
maintenance
and
use
instructions
for
the
ultimate
buyer
(see
§
1045.125).
(i)
Propose
emission­
related
installation
instructions
if
you
sell
fuel
systems
for
someone
else
to
install
in
a
vessel
(see
§
1045.130).
(j)
Propose
an
emission­
control
label.
(k)
Present
emission
data
for
HC
to
show
you
meet
the
emission
standards
we
specify
in
§
1045.105.
(l)
Report
all
test
results,
including
those
from
invalid
tests
or
from
any
nonstandard
tests.
(m)
[Reserved]
(n)
Describe
all
adjustable
operating
parameters.
(o)
If
you
conducted
testing,
state
that
you
conducted
your
emission
tests
according
to
the
specified
procedures
and
test
parameters
using
the
fuels
described
in
the
application
to
show
you
meet
the
requirements
of
this
part.
(p)
If
you
did
not
conduct
testing,
state
how
your
emission
family
meets
the
requirements
for
design
certification.
(q)
State
unconditionally
that
all
the
vessels
in
the
emission
family
comply
with
the
requirements
of
this
part,
other
referenced
parts,
and
the
Clean
Air
Act
(42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.).
(r)
Include
estimates
of
vessel
(or
fuel
system)
production.
(s)
Add
other
information
to
help
us
evaluate
your
application
if
we
ask
for
it.
§
1045.215
What
happens
after
I
complete
my
application?
(a)
If
any
of
the
information
in
your
application
changes
after
you
submit
it,
amend
it
as
described
in
§
1045.225.
(b)
We
may
decide
that
we
cannot
approve
your
application
unless
you
revise
it.
(1)
If
you
inappropriately
use
the
provisions
of
§
1045.230(
c)
or
(d)
to
define
a
broader
or
narrower
emission
family,
we
will
require
you
to
redefine
your
emission
family.
(2)
If
your
proposed
label
is
inconsistent
with
§
1045.135,
we
will
require
you
to
change
it
(and
tell
you
how,
if
possible).
(3)
If
you
require
or
recommend
maintenance
and
use
instructions
inconsistent
with
§
1045.125,
we
will
require
you
to
change
them.
(4)
If
we
find
any
other
problem
with
your
application,
we
will
tell
you
how
to
correct
it.
(c)
If
we
determine
your
application
is
complete
and
shows
you
meet
all
the
requirements,
we
will
issue
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
your
emission
family
for
that
model
year.
If
we
deny
the
application,
we
will
explain
why
in
writing.
You
may
then
ask
us
to
hold
a
hearing
to
reconsider
our
decision
(see
§
1045.820).

§
1045.225
How
do
I
amend
my
application
to
include
a
new
or
modified
product?
(a)
You
must
amend
your
application
for
certification
before
you
take
either
of
the
following
actions:
(1)
Add
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
to
a
certificate
of
conformity.
(2)
Make
a
design
change
for
a
certified
emission
family
that
may
affect
emissions
or
an
emission­
related
part
over
the
lifetime
of
the
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system.
(b)
Send
the
Designated
Officer
a
request
to
amend
the
application
for
certification
for
an
emission
family.
In
your
request,
do
all
of
the
following:
(1)
Describe
the
model
or
configuration
you
are
adding
or
changing.
(2)
Include
engineering
evaluations
or
reasons
why
the
original
testing
is
or
is
not
still
appropriate.
(3)
If
the
original
testing
for
the
emission
family
is
not
appropriate
to
show
compliance
for
the
new
or
modified
vessel,
include
new
test
data
showing
that
the
new
or
modified
product
meets
the
requirements
of
this
part.
(c)
You
may
start
producing
the
new
or
modified
product
anytime
after
you
send
us
your
request.
(d)
You
must
give
us
test
data
within
30
days
if
we
ask
for
more
testing,
or
stop
production
if
you
are
not
able
do
this.
(e)
If
we
determine
that
the
certificate
of
conformity
would
not
cover
your
new
or
modified
product,
we
will
send
you
a
written
explanation
of
our
decision.
In
this
case,
you
may
no
longer
produce
these
vessels,
engines,
or
fuel
systems,
though
you
may
ask
for
a
hearing
for
us
to
reconsider
our
decision
(see
§
1045.820).

§
1045.230
How
do
I
select
emission
families?

(a)
Divide
your
product
line
into
groups
of
vessels
(or
fuel
systems)
that
you
expect
to
have
similar
emission
characteristics.
These
groups
are
call
emission
families.
(b)
You
need
a
separate
emission
family
for
each
model
year.

§
1045.235
How
does
testing
fit
with
my
application
for
a
certificate
of
conformity?

This
section
describes
how
to
do
testing
in
your
effort
to
apply
for
a
certificate
of
conformity.
(a)
Test
your
vessels
using
the
procedures
and
equipment
specified
in
subpart
F
of
this
part.
(1)
For
evaporative
testing,
you
may
test
the
fuel
system
without
the
vessel.
(2)
For
exhaust
testing,
test
the
engine
without
the
vessel.
(b)
Select
from
each
emission
family
a
test
vessel
for
each
fuel
type
with
a
configuration
you
believe
is
most
likely
to
exceed
an
applicable
standard
(e.
g.,
the
diurnal
evaporative
standard).
Using
good
engineering
judgment,
consider
the
emission
levels
of
all
regulated
constituents
over
the
full
useful
life
of
the
vessel.
(c)
You
may
submit
emission
data
for
equivalent
emission
families
from
previous
years
instead
of
doing
new
tests,
but
only
if
the
data
shows
that
the
test
vessel
would
meet
all
the
requirements
for
the
latest
models.
We
may
require
you
to
do
new
emission
testing
if
we
believe
the
latest
models
could
be
substantially
different
from
the
previously
tested
vessel.
(d)
We
may
choose
to
measure
emissions
from
any
of
your
test
vessels.
(1)
If
we
do
this,
you
must
provide
the
test
vessel
at
the
location
we
select.
We
may
decide
to
do
the
testing
at
your
plant
or
any
other
facility.
If
we
choose
to
do
the
testing
at
your
plant,
you
must
schedule
it
as
soon
as
possible
and
make
available
the
instruments
and
equipment
we
need.
This
provision
does
not
apply
for
evaporative
emission
testing
for
manufacturers
that
use
the
design
certification
provisions
for
all
of
the
products
under
§
1045.105(
d).
(2)
If
we
measure
emissions
on
one
of
your
test
vessels,
the
results
of
that
testing
become
the
official
data
for
the
vessel.
Unless
we
later
invalidate
this
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53109
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
data,
we
may
decide
not
to
consider
your
data
in
determining
if
your
emission
family
meets
the
emission
standards.
(e)
We
may
allow
you
to
certify
vessels
using
existing
data
from
vessels
with
similarly­
designed
fuel
systems
that
you
did
not
manufacture.
In
those
cases,
you
are
not
required
to
emissiontest
your
vessels
or
fuel
systems.
(f)
For
fuel
tanks
that
are
designcertified
based
on
permeability
treatments
for
plastic
fuel
tanks,
you
do
not
need
to
test
each
emission
family.
However,
you
must
use
good
engineering
judgment
to
determine
permeation
rates
for
the
tanks.
Good
engineering
judgment
requires
that
at
least
one
fuel
tank
be
tested
for
each
set
of
treatment
conditions.
For
example,
if
you
treat
tanks
made
from
the
same
material
using
the
identical
tretament
process,
but
that
are
in
different
emission
families,
then
you
would
only
need
to
test
one
tank.

§
1045.240
How
do
I
determine
if
my
emission
family
complies
with
emission
standards?
(a)
Your
emission
family
complies
with
the
applicable
numerical
emission
standards
in
§
1045.105
if
all
emissiondata
vessels
representing
that
family
have
test
results
showing
emission
levels
at
or
below
all
applicable
standards,
provided
you
also
comply
with
the
average
emission
standard
for
your
total
production.
(b)
Your
emission
family
does
not
comply
if
any
emission­
data
vessel
representing
that
family
has
test
results
showing
emission
levels
above
the
applicable
standards
from
§
1045.105.
(c)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
above
an
applicable
standard,
then
all
of
emission
families
with
emission
levels
above
the
average
standard
are
noncompliant.

§
1045.245
What
records
must
I
keep
and
make
available
to
EPA?
(a)
Organize
and
maintain
the
following
records
to
keep
them
readily
available;
we
may
review
these
records
at
any
time:
(1)
A
copy
of
all
applications
and
any
summary
information
you
sent
us.
(2)
Any
of
the
information
we
specify
in
§
1045.205
that
you
did
not
include
in
your
application.
(3)
A
detailed
history
of
each
emission­
data
vessel.
In
each
history,
describe
the
test
vessel's
construction,
including
its
origin
and
buildup,
steps
you
took
to
ensure
that
it
represents
production
vessels,
any
components
you
built
specially
for
it,
and
all
emission­
related
components.
(b)
Keep
data
from
routine
emission
tests
for
one
year
after
we
issue
the
associated
certificate
of
conformity.
Keep
all
other
information
specified
in
paragraph
(a)
of
this
section
for
eight
years
after
we
issue
your
certificate.
(c)
Store
these
records
in
any
format
and
on
any
media,
as
long
as
you
can
promptly
send
us
organized,
written
records
in
English
if
we
ask
for
them.
(d)
Send
us
copies
of
any
vessel
maintenance
instructions
or
explanations
if
we
ask
for
them.

§
1045.250
When
may
EPA
deny,
revoke,
or
void
my
certificate
of
conformity?

(a)
We
may
deny
your
application
for
certification
if
your
emission­
data
vessels
fail
to
comply
with
emission
standards
or
other
requirements.
Our
decision
may
be
based
on
any
information
available
to
us.
If
we
deny
your
application,
we
will
explain
why
in
writing.
(b)
In
addition,
we
may
deny
your
application
or
revoke
your
certificate
if
you
do
any
of
the
following:
(1)
Refuse
to
comply
with
any
testing
or
reporting
requirements.
(2)
Submit
false
or
incomplete
information
(paragraph
(d)
of
this
section
applies
if
this
is
fraudulent).
(3)
Render
inaccurate
any
test
data.
(4)
Deny
us
from
completing
authorized
activities
despite
our
presenting
a
warrant
or
court
order
(see
§
1068.020
of
this
chapter).
(5)
Produce
vessels
for
importation
into
the
United
States
at
a
location
where
local
law
prohibits
us
from
carrying
out
authorized
activities.
(c)
We
may
void
your
certificate
if
you
do
not
keep
the
records
we
require
or
do
not
give
us
information
when
we
ask
for
it.
(d)
We
may
void
your
certificate
if
we
find
that
you
committed
fraud
to
get
it.
This
means
intentionally
submitting
false
or
incomplete
information.
(e)
If
we
deny
your
application
or
revoke
or
void
your
certificate,
you
may
ask
for
a
hearing
(see
§
1045.820).
Any
such
hearing
will
be
limited
to
substantial
and
factual
issues.

Subpart
D—[
Reserved]

Subpart
E—
Testing
In­
use
Engines
§
1045.401
What
provisions
apply
for
inuse
testing
of
vessels?

We
may
conduct
in­
use
testing
of
any
vessel
(or
part
of
a
vessel)
subject
to
the
standards
of
this
part.
If
we
determine
that
a
substantial
number
of
vessels
do
not
comply
with
the
regulations
of
this
part,
we
may
order
the
manufacturer
to
conduct
a
recall
as
specified
in
40
CFR
part
1068.
Subpart
F—
Test
Procedures
§
1045.501
What
equipment
and
general
procedures
must
I
use
to
test
my
vessels?

(a)
Diurnal
testing.
Use
the
equipment
specified
in
40
CFR
part
86
subpart
B
(i.
e.,
the
procedures
used
to
measure
diurnal
evaporative
emissions
for
gasoline­
fueled
highway
vehicles).
Use
the
procedures
specified
in
§
1045.505
to
measure
diurnal
emissions.
(1)
These
provisions
require
placing
your
vessel
or
fuel
system
within
a
sealed,
temperature­
controlled
enclosure
called
a
SHED
(Sealed
Housing
for
Evaporative
Determination).
(2)
You
must
include
a
fan
to
maintain
a
minimum
wind
speed
of
5
miles
per
hour
across
the
tank.
(b)
Permeation
testing.
Use
the
following
equipment
and
procedures
for
measuring
permeation
emissions:
(1)
For
fuel
tank
permeation,
see
§
1045.506.
(2)
For
fuel
line
permeation,
see
SAE
J1527
(incorporated
by
reference
in
§
1045.810).
Alternatively,
you
may
use
the
equipment
and
procedures
specified
in
SAE
J1737
(incorporated
by
reference
in
§
1045.810),
except
that
all
tests
must
be
conducted
at
23
C
±
2
C.
(c)
Special
or
alternate
procedures.
You
may
use
special
or
alternate
procedures,
as
described
in
§
1065.010
of
this
chapter.

§
1045.505
How
do
I
test
for
diurnal
evaporative
emissions?

Measure
evaporative
emissions
by
placing
the
preconditioned
vessel
or
fuel
system
within
a
sealed,
temperature­
controlled
SHED
and
recording
the
concentration
of
fuel
vapors
within
the
SHED
as
the
temperature
cycles
between
22.2
C
and
35.6
C.
(a)
Preconditioning
and
test
preparation.
To
prepare
your
vessel
or
fuel
system,
follow
these
seven
steps:
(1)
To
precondition
the
tank,
fill
it
to
its
nominal
capacity
and
allow
it
to
soak
at
30
C
±
5
C
for
one
month.
Note:
You
may
omit
this
step;
however,
if
you
omit
this
step,
you
may
not
correct
measured
emissions
for
permeation
that
occurs
during
the
test.
(2)
Determine
the
tank's
fuel
capacity
in
gallons
as
configured
in
the
vessel
(using
at
least
three
significant
figures).
(3)
Fill
the
fuel
tank
with
the
test
fuel
to
its
capacity.
If
you
fill
the
tank
within
the
SHED,
do
not
spill
any
fuel.
(4)
Allow
the
tank
and
its
contents
to
equilibrate
to
22.2
C
±
1
C
within
the
SHED.
(5)
Connect
a
fuel
siphon
to
the
tank
outlet
and
drain
60
percent
of
the
fuel.
You
may
vent
the
tank
before
draining
it.
Do
not
spill
any
fuel.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53110
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(6)
Close
the
SHED
and
set
the
temperature
control
to
22.2
F.
Allow
the
SHED
to
equilibrate
for
two
hours.
(7)
If
the
fuel
tank
vent
will
have
an
attached
vent
hose
when
installed
in
the
vessel,
attach
a
vent
hose
representative
of
the
shortest
length
of
vent
hose
that
will
be
used
when
the
tank
is
installed
in
the
vessel.
You
may
attach
the
hose
at
any
time
before
you
start
the
test
run
(§
1045.505(
b)).
(b)
Test
run.
To
measure
emissions
from
your
vessel
or
fuel
system,
follow
these
six
steps:
(1)
Ensure
that
the
measured
temperature
within
the
SHED
is
22.2
±
0.2
C.
(2)
Ventilate
the
SHED.
(3)
Seal
the
SHED
and
record
the
hydrocarbon
concentration
within
the
SHED.
This
is
the
zero­
hour
value.
(4)
Begin
the
temperature
cycle
in
Table
1
of
§
1045.505.
Run
the
temperature
cycle
three
times.
(5)
Record
the
hydrocarbon
concentration
at
the
end
of
each
temperature
cycle.
(6)
Use
the
calculation
procedures
of
40
CFR
86.143Ð
96
to
calculate
the
mass
emissions
for
each
of
the
three
24­
hour
temperature
cycles.
The
highest
of
the
these
three
is
the
official
test
result.
If
you
precondition
the
tank
as
specified
in
§
1045.505(
a)(
1),
you
may
correct
these
results
by
subtracting
the
permeation
emissions
from
the
total,
consistent
with
good
engineering
judgment.

TABLE
1
OF
§
1045.505—
24­
HOUR
TEMPERATURE
CYCLE
FOR
EMISSION
TESTING
Time
(hours)
Temperature
(
C)

0
....................................................
22.2
1
....................................................
22.5
2
....................................................
23.6
3
....................................................
26.6
4
....................................................
29.5
5
....................................................
31.8
6
....................................................
34.0
7
....................................................
34.8
8
....................................................
35.5
9
....................................................
35.6
10
..................................................
35.3
11
..................................................
34.4
12
..................................................
33.5
13
..................................................
31.8
14
..................................................
30.0
15
..................................................
28.6
16
..................................................
27.1
17
..................................................
26.1
18
..................................................
25.0
19
..................................................
24.3
20
..................................................
23.7
21
..................................................
23.3
22
..................................................
22.8
23
..................................................
22.5
24
..................................................
22.2
§
1045.506
How
do
I
test
my
fuel
tank
for
permeation
emissions?

Measure
permeation
emissions
by
weighing
a
sealed
fuel
tank
before
and
after
a
temperature
controlled
soak.
(a)
Preconditioning.
To
precondition
your
fuel
tank,
follow
these
six
steps:
(1)
Fill
the
tank
and
allow
it
to
soak
at
30
C
±
10
C
for
60
days.
(2)
Determine
the
tank's
fuel
capacity
as
configured
in
the
vessel
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
gallon.
(3)
Fill
the
fuel
tank
with
the
test
fuel
to
its
capacity.
If
you
fill
the
tank
within
the
SHED,
do
not
spill
any
fuel.
(4)
Allow
the
tank
and
its
contents
to
equilibrate
to
40
C
±
2
C.
(5)
Seal
the
fuel
tank
using
nonpermeable
fittings,
such
as
metal
or
Teflon
TM
.
(b)
Test
run.
To
measure
emissions
from
your
fuel
tank,
follow
these
nine
steps:
(1)
Weigh
the
sealed
fuel
tank,
and
record
the
weight
to
the
nearest
0.1
grams.
(You
may
use
less
precise
weights,
provided
that
the
difference
in
mass
from
the
start
of
the
test
to
the
end
of
the
test
has
at
least
three
significant
figures.)
(2)
Carefully
place
the
tank
within
the
temperature
controlled
container
or
SHED.
Do
not
spill
any
fuel.
(3)
Close
the
container
or
SHED
and
record
the
time.
(4)
Ensure
that
the
measured
temperature
within
the
container
or
SHED
is
40
C
±
2
C.
(5)
Leave
the
tank
in
the
container
or
SHED
for
10
to
30
days,
consistent
with
good
engineering
judgment
(based
on
the
expected
permeation
rate).
(6)
Hold
the
temperature
of
the
container
or
SHED
to
40
C
±
2
C
and
record
at
least
daily.
(7)
At
the
end
of
the
soak
period,
weigh
the
sealed
fuel
tank
and
record
the
weight
to
the
nearest
0.1
grams.
(You
may
use
less
precise
weights,
provided
that
the
difference
in
mass
from
the
start
of
the
test
to
the
end
of
the
test
has
at
least
three
significant
figures.)
(8)
Subtract
the
weight
of
the
tank
at
the
end
of
the
test
from
the
weight
of
the
tank
at
the
beginning
of
the
test,
and
divide
the
difference
by
the
capacity
of
the
fuel
tank.
Divide
this
gram/
gallon
value
by
the
number
of
test
days
to
calculate
the
gram/
gallon/
test­
day
emission
rate.
Example:
If
a
20.4­
gallon
tank
weighed
31782.3
grams
at
the
beginning
of
the
test,
weighed
31760.2
grams
after
soaking
for
25.03
days,
then
the
gram/
gallon/
test­
day
emission
rate
would
be:
(31882.3
gÑ
31760.2
g)
/
20.4
gal
/
25.03
test
days
=
0.239
g/
gal/
test
day
(9)
Round
your
result
to
the
same
number
of
decimal
places
as
the
standard.

Subpart
G—
Compliance
Provisions
§
1045.601
What
compliance
provisions
apply
to
these
vessels?

Vessel
manufacturers,
as
well
as
owners,
operators,
and
rebuilders
of
these
vessels,
and
all
other
persons,
must
observe
the
requirements
and
prohibitions
in
part
1068
of
this
chapter.

Subpart
H—
Averaging,
Banking,
and
Trading
for
Certification
§
1045.701
General
provisions.

(a)
You
may
average,
bank,
and
trade
emission
credits
for
certification
as
described
in
this
subpart
to
meet
the
average
standards
of
this
part.
You
must
comply
with
the
averaging
requirements
if
you
certify
with
an
emission
level
higher
than
the
applicable
average
standard.
Participation
in
banking
and
trading
is
voluntary.
Note:
Some
standards,
such
as
the
tank
permeation
standard,
do
not
allow
you
to
comply
on
average.
(b)
The
definitions
of
Subpart
I
of
this
part
apply
to
this
subpart.
The
following
definitions
also
apply:
(1)
Average
standard
means
the
standard
that
applies
on
average
to
all
your
vessels,
engines,
or
fuel
systems
that
are
subject
to
this
part
(except
portable
fuel
tanks).
(2)
Broker
means
any
entity
that
facilitates
a
trade
between
a
buyer
and
seller.
(3)
Buyer
means
the
entity
that
receives
credits
as
a
result
of
trade
or
transfer.
(4)
FEL
means
the
familiy
emission
limit
to
which
an
emission
family
is
certified
(5)
Group
means
a
group
of
vessels
having
the
same
evaporative
control
technology,
model
year,
and
fuel­
tank
capacity.
(6)
Reserved
credits
means
credits
generated
but
not
yet
verified
by
EPA
in
the
end
of
year
report
review.
(7)
Seller
means
the
entity
that
provides
credits
during
a
trade
or
transfer.
(8)
Transfer
means
to
convey
control
of
credits
an
individual
tank
generatesÑ
(i)
From
a
certifying
tank
manufacturer
to
a
vessel
manufacturer
that
buys
the
tank;
or
(ii)
To
a
certifying
tank
manufacturer
from
a
vessel
manufacturer
that
buys
the
tank.
(c)
Do
not
include
any
exported
vessel,
engine,
or
tank
in
the
certification
averaging,
banking,
and
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53111
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
trading
program.
Include
only
vessels,
engines,
or
fuel
tanks
certified
under
this
part.

§
1045.705
How
do
I
average
emission
levels?
(a)
As
specified
in
subpart
B
of
this
part,
certify
each
emission
family
that
you
are
including
the
averaging
program
to
an
FEL.
(b)
Calculate
a
preliminary
average
emission
level
according
to
§
1045.720
using
projected
production
volumes
for
your
application
for
certification.
(c)
After
the
end
of
your
model
year,
calculate
a
final
average
emission
level
according
to
§
1045.720
using
actual
production
volumes.
(d)
If
your
preliminary
average
emission
level
is
below
the
allowable
average
standard,
see
§
1045.710
for
information
about
generating
and
banking
emission
credits.
These
credits
will
be
considered
reserved
until
verified
by
EPA
during
the
end
of
year
report
review.

§
1045.710
How
do
I
generate
and
bank
emission
credits?
(a)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
below
the
average
standard,
you
may
calculate
credits
according
to
§
1045.720.
(b)
You
may
generate
credits
if
you
are
a
certifying
manufacturer.
You
may
hold
them
if
you
are
a
fuel
tank
or
vessel
manufacturer
(c)
You
may
bank
unused
emission
credits,
but
only
after
the
end
of
the
calendar
year
and
after
we
have
reviewed
your
end­
of­
year
reports.
(d)
During
the
calendar
year
and
before
you
send
in
your
end­
of­
year
report,
you
may
consider
reserved
any
credits
you
originally
designate
for
banking
during
certification.
You
may
redesignate
these
credits
for
trading
or
transfer
in
your
end­
of­
year
report,
but
they
are
not
valid
to
demonstrate
compliance
until
verified.
(e)
You
may
use
for
averaging
or
trading
any
credits
you
declared
for
banking
from
the
previous
calendar
year
that
we
have
not
reviewed.
But,
we
may
revoke
these
credits
laterÑ
following
our
review
of
your
end­
of­
year
report
or
audit
actions.
For
example,
this
could
occur
if
we
find
that
credits
are
based
on
erroneous
calculations;
or
that
emission
levels
are
misrepresented,
unsubstantiated,
or
derived
incorrectly
in
the
certification
process.

§
1045.715
How
do
I
trade
or
transfer
emission
credits?

(a)
You
may
trade
only
banked
credits,
not
reserved
credits.
(b)
Whether
or
not
you
hold
a
certificate,
you
may
transfer
unbanked
credits
to
a
manufacturer
that
is
supplying
a
fuel
tank
to
you
or
a
vessel
manufacturer
that
is
buying
a
fuel
tank
from
you.
(c)
How
you
handle
unused
transferred
credits
at
the
end
of
a
model
year
depends
on
whether
or
not
you
hold
a
certificate.
(1)
If
you
hold
a
certificate,
you
may
bank
these
credits.
(2)
If
you
do
not
hold
a
certificate,
you
may
not
bank
these
credits;
you
may
only
transfer
them
to
a
certificate
holder.
(d)
If
a
negative
credit
balance
results
from
a
credit
trade
or
transfer,
both
buyers
and
sellers
are
liable,
except
in
cases
involving
fraud.
We
may
void
the
certificates
of
all
emission
families
participating
in
a
negative
trade.
(1)
If
you
buy
credits
but
have
not
caused
the
negative
credit
balance,
you
must
only
supply
more
credits
equivalent
to
the
amount
of
invalid
credits
you
used.
(2)
If
you
caused
the
credit
shortfall,
you
may
be
subject
to
the
requirements
of
§
1045.730(
b)(
6).

§
1045.720
How
do
I
calculate
my
average
emission
level
or
emission
credits?

(a)
Calculate
your
average
emission
level
for
each
model
year
according
to
the
following
equation
and
round
it
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
gram
per
gallon.
Use
consistent
units
throughout
the
calculation.
(1)
Calculate
the
average
emission
level
as:

Emission
level
=
FEL
Capacity
Production
Production
Capacity
i
i
i
i
(
)
×
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i
i
i
Where:
FELi
=
The
FEL
to
which
the
engine
family
is
certified.
Capacityi
=
The
capacity
of
the
fuel
tanks.
Productioni
=
The
number
of
fuel
tanks
produced
in
that
model
year
with
a
capacity
of
Capacityi.
(2)
Sum
the
emissions
for
each
unique
combination
of
emission
family
and
fuel
tank
capacity.
(3)
Use
production
projections
for
initial
certification,
and
actual
production
volumes
to
determine
compliance
at
the
end
of
the
model
year.
(b)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
below
the
average
standard,
calculate
credits
available
for
banking
according
to
the
following
equation
and
round
them
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
gram:

Credit
Average
standard­
Emission
level
Production
Capacity
i
i
=
(
)
[
]
×
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
i
(c)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
above
the
average
standard,
calculate
your
preliminary
credit
deficit
according
to
the
following
equation,
rounding
to
the
nearest
tenth
of
a
gram:

Deficit
Emission
level­
Average
standard
Production
Capacity
i
i
=
(
)
[
]
×
(
)
×
(
)
 
 
 
 
 
 
i
§
1045.725
What
information
must
I
keep?

(a)
Maintain
and
keep
five
types
of
properly
organized
and
indexed
records
for
each
group
and
for
each
emission
family:
(1)
Model
year
and
EPA
emission
family.
(2)
Bin
standard.
(3)
Fuel
tank
capacity.
(4)
Projected
production
volume
for
the
model
year.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
EP14AU02.002</
MATH>
EP14AU02.003</
MATH>
EP14AU02.004</
MATH>
53112
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(5)
Actual
production
volume
for
the
model
year.
(b)
Keep
paper
records
of
this
information
for
three
years
from
the
due
date
for
the
end­
of­
year
report.
You
may
use
any
additional
storage
formats
or
media
if
you
like.
(c)
Follow
§
1045.730
to
send
us
the
information
you
must
keep.
(d)
We
may
ask
you
to
keep
or
send
other
information
necessary
to
implement
this
subpart.

§
1045.730
What
information
must
I
report?
(a)
Include
the
following
information
in
your
applications
for
certification:
(1)
A
statement
that,
to
the
best
of
your
belief,
you
will
not
have
a
negative
credit
balance
when
all
credits
are
calculated.
This
means
that
if
you
believe
that
your
average
emission
level
will
be
above
the
standard
(i.
e.,
that
you
will
have
a
deficit
for
the
model
year),
you
must
have
banked
credits
(or
project
to
have
traded
credits)
to
offset
the
deficit.
(2)
Detailed
calculations
of
projected
emission
credits
(zero,
positive,
or
negative)
based
on
production
projections.
(i)
If
you
project
a
credit
deficit,
state
the
source
of
credits
needed
to
offset
the
credit
deficit.
(ii)
If
you
project
credits,
state
whether
you
will
reserve
them
for
banking
or
transfer
them.
(b)
At
the
end
of
each
model
year,
send
an
end­
of­
year
report.
(1)
Make
sure
your
report
includes
three
things:
(i)
Calculate
in
detail
your
average
emission
level
and
any
emission
credits
(zero,
positive,
or
negative)
based
on
actual
production
volumes.
(ii)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
above
the
allowable
average
standard,
state
the
source
of
credits
needed
to
offset
the
credit
deficit.
(iii)
If
your
average
emission
level
is
below
the
allowable
average
standard,
state
whether
you
will
reserve
the
credits
for
banking
or
transfer
them.
(2)
Base
your
production
volumes
on
the
point
of
first
retail
sale.
This
point
is
called
the
final
product­
purchase
location.
(3)
Send
end­
of­
year
reports
to
the
Designated
Officer
within
120
days
of
the
end
of
the
model
year.
If
you
send
reports
later,
you
are
violating
the
Clean
Air
Act.
(4)
If
you
generate
credits
for
banking
and
you
do
not
send
your
end­
of­
year
reports
within
120
days
after
the
end
of
the
model
year,
you
may
not
use
or
trade
the
credits
until
we
receive
and
review
your
reports.
You
may
not
use
projected
credits
pending
our
review.
(5)
You
may
correct
errors
discovered
in
your
end­
of­
year
report,
including
errors
in
calculating
credits
according
to
the
following
table:

If.
.
.
And
if.
.
.
Then
we.
.
.

(i)
Our
review
discovers
an
error
in
your
endof
year
report
that
increases
your
credit
balance
the
discovery
occurs
within
180
days
of
receipt
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

(ii)
You
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
increases
your
credit
balance.
the
discovery
occurs
within
180
days
of
receipt
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

(iii)
We
or
you
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
increases
your
credit
balance.
the
discovery
occurs
more
than
180
days
after
receipt.
do
not
restore
the
credits
for
your
use.

(iv)
We
discover
an
error
in
your
report
that
reduces
your
credit
balance.
at
any
time
after
receipt
....................................
reduce
your
credit
balance.

(6)
If
our
review
of
your
end­
of
yearreport
shows
a
negative
balance,
you
may
buy
credits
to
bring
your
credit
balance
to
zero.
But
you
must
buy
1.1
credits
for
each
1.0
credit
needed.
If
enough
credits
are
not
available
to
bring
your
credit
balance
to
zero,
we
may
void
the
certificates
for
all
families
certified
to
standards
above
the
allowable
average.
(c)
Within
90
days
of
any
credit
trade
or
transfer,
you
must
send
the
Designated
Officer
a
report
of
the
trade
or
transfer
that
includes
three
types
of
information:
(1)
The
corporate
names
of
the
buyer,
seller,
and
any
brokers.
(2)
Information
about
the
credits
that
depends
on
whether
you
trade
or
transfer
them.
(i)
For
trades,
describe
the
banked
credits
being
traded.
(ii)
For
transfers,
calculate
the
credits
in
detail
and
identify
the
source
or
use
of
the
credits.
(3)
Copies
of
contracts
related
to
credit
trading
or
transfer
from
the
buyer,
seller,
and
broker,
as
applicable.
(d)
Include
in
each
report
a
statement
certifying
the
accuracy
and
authenticity
of
its
contents.
(e)
We
may
void
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
any
emission
family
if
you
do
not
keep
the
records
this
section
requires
or
give
us
the
information
when
we
ask
for
it.

Subpart
I—
Definitions
and
Other
Reference
Information
§
1045.801
What
definitions
apply
to
this
part?

The
definitions
in
this
section
apply
to
this
part.
The
definitions
apply
to
all
subparts
unless
we
note
otherwise.
All
undefined
terms
have
the
meaning
the
Act
gives
to
them.
The
definitions
follow:
Act
means
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended,
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et
seq.
Adjustable
parameter
means
any
device,
system,
or
element
of
design
that
someone
can
adjust
(including
those
which
are
difficult
to
access)
and
that,
if
adjusted,
may
affect
emissions
or
vessel
performance
during
emission
testing
or
normal
in­
use
operation.
Aftertreatment
means
relating
to
any
system,
component,
or
technology
mounted
downstream
of
the
exhaust
valve
or
exhaust
port
whose
design
function
is
to
reduce
exhaust
emissions.
Auxiliary
emission­
control
device
means
any
element
of
design
that
senses
temperature,
engine
rpm,
boat
speed,
transmission
gear,
atmospheric
pressure,
manifold
pressure
or
vacuum,
or
any
other
parameter
to
activate,
modulate,
delay,
or
deactivate
the
operation
of
any
part
of
the
emissioncontrol
system.
This
also
includes
any
other
feature
that
causes
in­
use
emissions
to
be
higher
than
those
measured
under
test
conditions,
except
as
we
allow
under
this
part.
Broker
means
any
entity
that
facilitates
a
trade
of
emission
credits
between
a
buyer
and
seller.
Calibration
means
the
set
of
specifications
and
tolerances
specific
to
a
particular
design,
version,
or
application
of
a
component
or
assembly
capable
of
functionally
describing
its
operation
over
its
working
range.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53113
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Capacity
means
the
maximum
volume
of
liquid
fuel
that
a
fuel
tank
can
hold
when
installed
in
a
vessel.
Certification
means
obtaining
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
an
emission
family
that
complies
with
the
emission
standards
and
requirements
in
this
part.
Compression­
ignition
means
relating
to
a
type
of
reciprocating,
internalcombustion
vessel
that
is
not
a
sparkignition
vessel.
Crankcase
emissions
means
airborne
substances
emitted
to
the
atmosphere
from
any
part
of
the
vessel
crankcase's
ventilation
or
lubrication
systems.
The
crankcase
is
the
housing
for
the
crankshaft
and
other
related
internal
parts.
Designated
Officer
means
the
Manager,
Engine
Compliance
Programs
Group
(6403Ð
J),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Emission­
control
system
means
any
device,
system,
or
element
of
design
that
controls
or
reduces
the
regulated
emissions
from
an
vessel.
Emission­
data
vessel
means
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
that
is
tested
for
certification.
Emission
family
means
a
group
of
vessels,
engines
or
fuel
systems
with
similar
emission
characteristics,
as
specified
in
§
1045.230.
Emission­
related
maintenance
means
maintenance
that
substantially
affects
emissions
or
is
likely
to
substantially
affect
emissions
deterioration.
Fuel
system
means
any
or
all
of
the
components
involved
in
transporting,
metering,
and
mixing
the
fuel
from
the
fuel
tank
to
the
combustion
chamber(
s),
including
the
fuel
tank,
fuel
tank
cap,
fuel
pump,
fuel
filters,
fuel
lines,
carburetor
or
fuel­
injection
components,
and
all
fuel­
system
vents.
Good
engineering
judgment
has
the
meaning
we
give
it
in
§
1068.005
of
this
chapter.
Hobby
vessel
means
a
recreational
vessel
that
is
a
reduced­
scale
model
vessel
that
is
not
capable
of
transporting
a
person.
Hydrocarbon
(HC)
means
the
hydrocarbon
group
on
which
the
emission
standards
are
based
for
each
fuel
type.
For
gasoline­
and
LPG­
fueled
vessels,
HC
means
total
hydrocarbon
(THC).
For
natural
gas­
fueled
vessels,
HC
means
nonmethane
hydrocarbon
(NMHC).
For
alcohol­
fueled
vessels,
HC
means
total
hydrocarbon
equivalent
(THCE).
Identification
number
means
a
unique
specification
(for
example,
model
number/
serial
number
combination)
that
allows
someone
to
distinguish
a
particular
vessel
from
other
similar
vessels.
Manufacturer
has
the
meaning
given
in
section
216(
1)
of
the
Act.
In
general,
this
term
includes
any
person
who
manufactures
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
component
for
sale
in
the
United
States
or
otherwise
introduces
a
new
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
component
into
commerce
in
the
United
States.
This
includes
importers
and
entities
that
treat
fuel
system
components
to
reduce
permeability.
Maximum
test
power
means
the
power
output
observed
with
the
maximum
fueling
rate
possible
at
the
maximum
test
speed.
Maximum
test
speed
means
the
speed
specified
by
40
CFR
1065.515.
Model
year
means
one
of
the
following
things:
(1)
For
freshly
manufactured
vessels
(see
definition
of
``
new
vessel,
''
paragraph
(1),
of
this
section),
model
year
means
one
of
the
following:
(i)
Calendar
year.
(ii)
Your
annual
new
model
production
period
if
it
is
different
than
the
calendar
year.
This
must
include
January
1
of
the
calendar
year
for
which
the
model
year
is
named.
It
may
not
begin
before
January
2
of
the
previous
calendar
year
and
it
must
end
by
December
31
of
the
named
calendar
year.
(2)
For
a
vessel
modified
by
an
importer
(not
the
original
vessel
manufacturer)
who
has
a
certificate
of
conformity
for
the
imported
vessel
(see
definition
of
``
new
vessel,
''
paragraph
(2),
of
this
section),
model
year
means
one
of
the
following:
(i)
The
calendar
year
in
which
the
importer
finishes
modifying
and
labeling
the
vessel.
(ii)
Your
annual
production
period
for
producing
vessels
if
it
is
different
than
the
calendar
year;
follow
the
guidelines
in
paragraph
(1)(
ii)
of
this
definition.
(3)
For
a
vessel
you
import
that
does
not
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(1)
or
(2)
of
the
definition
of
``
new
vessel''
in
this
section,
model
year
means
the
calendar
year
in
which
the
manufacturer
completed
the
original
assembly
of
the
vessel.
In
general,
this
applies
to
used
vessels
that
you
import
without
conversion
or
major
modification.
New
vessel
means
any
of
the
following
things:
(1)
A
freshly
manufactured
vessel
for
which
the
ultimate
buyer
has
never
received
the
equitable
or
legal
title.
The
vessel
is
no
longer
new
when
the
ultimate
buyer
receives
this
title
or
the
product
is
placed
into
service,
whichever
comes
first.
(2)
An
imported
vessel
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity
issued
under
this
part,
where
someone
other
than
the
original
manufacturer
modifies
the
vessel
after
its
initial
assembly
and
holds
the
certificate.
The
vessel
is
no
longer
new
when
it
is
placed
into
service.
(3)
An
imported
nonroad
vessel
that
is
not
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity
issued
under
this
part
at
the
time
of
importation.
Noncompliant
vessel
means
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
that
was
originally
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity,
but
is
not
in
the
certified
configuration
or
otherwise
does
not
comply
with
the
conditions
of
the
certificate.
Nonconforming
vessel
means
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
not
covered
by
a
certificate
of
conformity
that
would
otherwise
be
subject
to
emission
standards.
Nonroad
means
relating
to
nonroad
engines
or
nonroad
vehicles.
Nonroad
engine
has
the
meaning
given
in
§
1068.025
of
this
chapter.
Oxides
of
nitrogen
means
nitric
oxide
(NO)
and
nitrogen
dioxide
(NO2).
Oxides
of
nitrogen
are
expressed
quantitatively
as
if
the
NO
were
in
the
form
of
NO2
(assume
a
molecular
weight
for
oxides
of
nitrogen
equivalent
to
that
of
NO2).
Physically
adjustable
range
means
the
entire
range
over
which
a
vessel
parameter
can
be
adjusted,
except
as
modified
by
§
1045.115(
c).
Placed
into
service
means
used
for
its
intended
purpose.
Portable
fuel
tank
means
a
fuel
tank
that
has
a
permanently
affixed
handle,
has
a
fuel
capacity
no
greater
than
12
gallons,
and
is
not
permanently
mounted
to
a
marine
vessel.
Propulsion
marine
engine
means
a
marine
engine
that
moves
a
vessel
through
the
water
or
directs
the
vessel's
movement.
Revoke
means
to
discontinue
the
certificate
for
an
emission
family.
If
we
revoke
a
certificate,
you
must
apply
for
a
new
certificate
before
continuing
to
produce
the
affected
vessels.
This
does
not
apply
to
vessels
you
no
longer
possess.
Round
means
to
round
numbers
according
to
ASTM
E29Ð
93a,
which
is
incorporated
by
reference
(see
§
1045.810),
unless
otherwise
specified.
Scheduled
maintenance
means
adjusting,
repairing,
removing,
disassembling,
cleaning,
or
replacing
components
or
systems
that
is
periodically
needed
to
keep
a
part
from
failing
or
malfunctioning.
It
also
may
mean
actions
you
expect
are
necessary
to
correct
an
overt
indication
of
failure
or
malfunction
for
which
periodic
maintenance
is
not
appropriate.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53114
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Spark­
ignition
means
relating
to
a
type
of
engine
with
a
spark
plug
(or
other
sparking
device)
and
with
operating
characteristics
significantly
similar
to
the
theoretical
Otto
combustion
cycle.
Spark­
ignition
engines
usually
use
a
throttle
to
regulate
intake
air
flow
to
control
power
during
normal
operation.
Spark­
ignition
marine
vessel
means
marine
vessel
that
is
powered
by
a
spark­
ignition
engine.
Stoichiometry
means
the
proportion
of
a
mixture
of
air
and
fuel
such
that
the
fuel
is
fully
oxidized
with
no
remaining
oxygen.
For
example,
stoichiometric
combustion
in
gasoline
vessels
typically
occurs
at
an
air­
fuel
mass
ratio
of
about
14.7.
Suspend
means
to
temporarily
discontinue
the
certificate
for
an
emission
family.
If
we
suspend
a
certificate,
you
may
not
sell
vessels
from
that
emission
family
unless
we
reinstate
the
certificate
or
approve
a
new
one.
Test
sample
means
the
collection
of
vessels
selected
from
the
population
of
an
emission
family
for
emission
testing.
Test
vessel
means
a
vessel,
engine,
or
fuel
system
in
a
test
sample.
Total
Hydrocarbon
Equivalent
means
the
sum
of
the
carbon
mass
contributions
of
non­
oxygenated
hydrocarbons,
alcohols
and
aldehydes,
or
other
organic
compounds
that
are
measured
separately
as
contained
in
a
gas
sample,
expressed
as
petroleumfueled
vessel
hydrocarbons.
The
hydrogen­
to­
carbon
ratio
of
the
equivalent
hydrocarbon
is
1.85:
1.
Ultimate
buyer
means
ultimate
purchaser.
Ultimate
purchaser
means,
with
respect
to
any
new
nonroad
equipment
or
new
nonroad
vessel,
the
first
person
who
in
good
faith
purchases
such
new
nonroad
equipment
or
new
nonroad
vessel
for
purposes
other
than
resale.
United
States
means
the
States,
the
District
of
Columbia,
the
Commonwealth
of
Puerto
Rico,
the
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
Guam,
American
Samoa,
the
U.
S.
Virgin
Islands,
and
the
Trust
Territory
of
the
Pacific
Islands.
U.
S.­
directed
production
volume
means
the
number
of
vessel
units,
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
part,
produced
by
a
manufacturer
for
which
the
manufacturer
has
a
reasonable
assurance
that
sale
was
or
will
be
made
to
ultimate
buyers
in
the
Unites
States.
Useful
life
means
the
period
during
which
the
vessel
or
engine
is
designed
to
properly
function
in
terms
of
reliability
and
fuel
consumption,
without
being
remanufactured,
specified
as
a
number
of
hours
of
operation
or
calendar
years.
It
is
the
period
during
which
a
new
vessel
or
new
engine
is
required
to
comply
with
all
applicable
emission
standards.
Vessel
means
marine
vessel
as
defined
in
the
General
Provisions
of
the
United
States
Code,
1
U.
S.
C.
3.
Void
means
to
invalidate
a
certificate
or
an
exemption.
If
we
void
a
certificate,
all
the
vessels
produced
under
that
emission
family
for
that
model
year
are
considered
noncompliant,
and
you
are
liable
for
each
vessel
produced
under
the
certificate
and
may
face
civil
or
criminal
penalties
or
both.
If
we
void
an
exemption,
all
the
vessels
produced
under
that
exemption
are
considered
uncertified
(or
nonconforming),
and
you
are
liable
for
each
vessel
produced
under
the
exemption
and
may
face
civil
or
criminal
penalties
or
both.
You
may
not
produce
any
additional
vessels
using
the
voided
exemption.
Volatile
liquid
fuel
means
any
fuel
other
than
diesel
or
biodiesel
that
is
a
liquid
at
atmospheric
pressure.

§
1045.805
What
symbols,
acronyms,
and
abbreviations
does
this
part
use?
The
following
symbols,
acronyms,
and
abbreviations
apply
to
this
part:
°
C
degrees
Celsius.
ASTM
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials.
ATV
all­
terrain
vessel.
cc
cubic
centimeters.
CO
carbon
monoxide.
CO2
carbon
dioxide.
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
FEL
Family
emission
limit.
g/
kW­
hr
grams
per
kilowatt­
hour.
LPG
liquefied
petroleum
gas.
m
meters.
mm
Hg
millimeters
of
mercury.
NMHC
nonmethane
hydrocarbon.
NMHCE
nonmethane
hydrocarbon
equivalent.
NOX
oxides
of
nitrogen
(NO
and
NO2).
psig
pounds
per
square
inch
of
gauge
pressure.
rpm
revolutions
per
minute.
SAE
Society
of
Automotive
Engineers
SHED
Sealed
Housing
for
Evaporative
Determination.
SI
spark­
ignition.
THC
total
hydrocarbon.
THCE
total
hydrocarbon
equivalent
U.
S.
United
States
U.
S.
C.
United
States
Code.

§
1045.810
What
materials
does
this
part
reference?
We
have
incorporated
by
reference
the
documents
listed
in
this
section.
The
Director
of
the
Federal
Register
approved
the
incorporation
by
reference
as
prescribed
in
5
U.
S.
C.
552(
a)
and
1
CFR
part
51.
Anyone
may
inspect
copies
at
U.
S.
EPA,
OAR,
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
or
Office
of
the
Federal
Register,
800
N.
Capitol
St.,
NW.,
7th
Floor,
Suite
700,
Washington,
DC.
(a)
ASTM
material.
Table
1
of
§
1045.810
lists
material
from
the
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
that
we
have
incorporated
by
reference.
The
first
column
lists
the
number
and
name
of
the
material.
The
second
column
lists
the
sections
of
this
part
where
we
reference
it.
The
second
column
is
for
information
only
and
may
not
include
all
locations.
Anyone
may
receive
copies
of
these
materials
from
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials,
1916
Race
St.,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103.
Table
1
follows:

TABLE
1
OF
§
1045.810.—
ASTM
MATERIALS
Document
number
and
name
Part
1045
reference
ASTM
E29–
93a,
Standard
Practice
for
Using
Significant
Digits
in
Test
Data
to
Determine
Conformance
with
Specifications.
1045.240,
1045.315,
1045.345,
1045.410,
1045.415.

(b)
ISO
material.
[Reserved]
(c)
SAE
material.
[Reserved]

§
1045.815
How
should
I
request
EPA
to
keep
my
information
confidential?

(a)
Clearly
show
what
you
consider
confidential
by
marking,
circling,
bracketing,
stamping,
or
some
other
method.
We
will
store
your
confidential
information
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Also,
we
will
disclose
it
only
as
specified
in
40
CFR
part
2.
(b)
If
you
send
us
a
second
copy
without
the
confidential
information,
we
will
assume
it
contains
nothing
confidential
whenever
we
need
to
release
information
from
it.
(c)
If
you
send
us
information
without
claiming
it
is
confidential,
we
may
make
it
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
you,
as
described
in
40
CFR
2.204.

§
1045.820
How
do
I
request
a
public
hearing?

(a)
File
a
request
for
a
hearing
with
the
Designated
Officer
within
15
days
of
a
decision
to
deny,
suspend,
revoke,
or
void
your
certificate.
If
you
ask
later,
we
may
give
you
a
hearing
for
good
cause,
but
we
do
not
have
to.
(b)
Include
the
following
in
your
request
for
a
public
hearing:
(1)
State
which
emission
family
is
involved.

VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2
53115
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
157
/
Wednesday,
August
14,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
(2)
State
the
issues
you
intend
to
raise.
We
may
limit
these
issues,
as
described
elsewhere
in
this
part.
(3)
Summarize
the
evidence
supporting
your
position
and
state
why
you
believe
this
evidence
justifies
granting
or
reinstating
the
certificate.
(c)
We
will
hold
the
hearing
as
described
in
40
CFR
part
1068,
subpart
F.

PART
1051—
CONTROL
OF
EMISSIONS
FROM
RECREATIONAL
ENGINES
AND
VEHICLES
17.
The
authority
citation
for
part
1051
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51219
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401Ð
7671(
q).

Subpart
A—[
Amended]

18.
Section
1051.1
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51220
is
amended
by
adding
a
new
paragraph
(e)
to
read
as
follows:
§
1051.1
Does
this
part
apply
to
me?

*
*
*
*
*
(e)
This
part
also
applies
to
engines
under
50
cc
used
in
highway
motorcycles
if
the
manufacturer
uses
the
provisions
of
40
CFR
86.447Ð
2006
to
meet
the
emission
standards
in
this
part
instead
of
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
86.
Compliance
with
the
provisions
of
this
part
is
a
required
condition
of
that
exemption.

PART
1068—
GENERAL
COMPLIANCE
PROVISIONS
FOR
NONROAD
PROGRAMS
19.
The
authority
citation
for
part
1068
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51252
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401Ð
7671(
q).
Subpart
A—[
Amended]

20.
Section
1068.1
as
proposed
at
66
FR
51253
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(a)
to
read
as
follows:

§
1068.1
Does
this
part
apply
to
me?

(a)
The
provisions
of
this
part
apply
to
everyone
with
respect
to
the
following
engines
or
to
equipment
using
the
following
engines:
(1)
Marine
vessels
powered
by
sparkignition
engines
we
regulate
under
40
CFR
1045.
(2)
Large
nonroad
spark­
ignition
engines
we
regulate
under
40
CFR
part
1048.
(3)
Snowmobiles,
all­
terrain
vehicles,
and
off­
highway
motorcycles
we
regulate
under
40
CFR
part
1051.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR
Doc.
02Ð
19437
Filed
8Ð
13Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
VerDate
Aug<
2,>
2002
18:
43
Aug
13,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
14AUP2.
SGM
pfrm17
PsN:
14AUP2