INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
Information
Requirements
for
Highway
Motorcycles
September
2003
Assessment
and
Standards
Division
Office
of
Transportation
and
Air
Quality
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1
Information
Collection
Request
1(
a).
Title
Information
Requirements
for
Highway
Motorcycles
ICR
Tracking
Number:
0783.46
1(
b).
Short
Characterization
The
Clean
Air
Act
authorizes
EPA
to
adopt
emission
standards
for
new
highway
motorcycles.
We
need
information
to
verify
that
manufacturers
comply
with
emission
standards
 
before
production
begins,
during
production,
and
after
units
have
been
placed
into
service.
The
final
rule
requires
manufacturers
to
generate
or
retain
information
to
demonstrate
that
their
products
comply
with
emission
standards.

Manufacturers
generally
send
us
the
data
they
collect
and
keep
these
records
and
other
pertinent
information.
We
may
request
to
see
any
of
these
records.
We
and
the
regulated
companies
will
use
the
data
exclusively
to
ensure
compliance
with
emission
standards.
Information
such
as
engine
family,
total
numbers
of
vehicles
built,
and
emission
rates
for
specific
pollutants
are
examples
of
what
we
require.

This
ICR
is
a
revision
to
the
existing
information
collection
approved
under
OMB
control
number
2060­
0104.
The
revisions
generally
include
small
incremental
reporting
requirements.
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
presented
below
describe
only
the
changes
resulting
from
this
rulemaking.
These
incremental
figures
must
be
added
into
the
existing
burden
and
cost
estimates
under
OMB
control
number
2060­
0104
to
arrive
at
cumulative
totals.

2.
Need
For
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a).
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
data
we
require
in
this
ICR
is
necessary
to
comply
with
Title
II
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended
in
1990.
The
Act
authorizes
EPA
to
set
more
stringent
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
We
can
only
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act
by
collecting
data
from
the
regulated
industry.
Also,
we
will
only
have
an
effective
program
if
we
know
that
these
vehicles
maintain
their
certified
emission
level
throughout
their
operating
lives.

2(
b).
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
We
will
oversee
the
certification
process
and
maintain
the
program
database.
We
will
use
the
data
items
to
verify
compliance
with
the
following
requirements
associated
with
the
new
2
emission
standards.


determine
whether
or
not
a
prototype
vehicle
may
adequately
represent
an
engine
family.


ensure
compliance
of
production­
line
engines.


issue
a
recall
to
correct
a
noncompliant
family
of
engines.


confirm
actual
emission
benefits
gained
by
the
program.


ensure
proper
maintenance
and
setting
of
physically
adjustable
parameters.


aid
in
the
production
projections
to
randomly
select
the
vehicles
to
undergo
testing.


determine
whether
a
prototype
or
freshly
manufactured
vehicle
should
be
issued
a
certificate
of
conformity.


ensure
that
durability
of
emission
controls
is
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
stated
useful
life.


ensure
control
of
emissions
across
the
range
of
engine
operation
expected
in
the
normal
course
of
its
lifetime
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
other
Collection
Criteria
3(
a)
Nonduplication
Manufacturers
are
currently
required
to
submit
data
and
information
to
certify
highway
motorcycles.
The
new
emission
standards
add
only
a
small
amount
of
information
collection
beyond
what
we
already
require.
Moreover,
state
and
local
governments
are
generally
preempted
from
adopting
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
For
this
reason,
the
information
requested
under
this
ICR
is
not
available
from
other
sources.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
We
published
a
proposed
rulemaking
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
14,
2002
regarding
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
This
included
an
invitation
to
comment
on
the
ICR.
We
received
comments
on
aspects
of
the
rulemaking
that
pertain
to
this
information
collection,
directly
or
indirectly.
These
comments
and
our
responses
are
summarized
in
the
following
table.
3
Table
1
Comments
Related
to
Information
Collection
Commenter
Comment
Response
MIC,
Harley
Davidson
Manufacturers
supported
design­
based
certification
for
meeting
permeation
standards.
These
requirements
should
not
begin
until
2008.
We
adopted
design­
based
certification
provisions
and
have
changed
the
start
date
to
2008.

MIC,
Harley
Davidson
Manufacturers
did
not
support
production
line
testing
requirements,
stating
that
current
data
shows
no
need
for
testing.
MIC
noted
that
production
line
testing
would
be
very
costly.
The
cost
for
additional
test
facilities
would
be
$
1
million
per
test
cell
plus
staffing.
We
requested
comment
on
production
line
testing
but
are
not
finalizing
any
such
requirements.

MIC,
European
mfrs
(
ACEM)
For
motorcycles
less
that
50
cc,
MIC
raised
concerns
about
the
test
cycle
being
too
aggressive
and
the
proposed
useful
life
being
too
long.
We
have
adjusted
the
useful
life
and
test
cycle
per
MIC
recommendations.

MIC
MIC
commented
that
a
useful
life
of
40,000
km
was
too
long,
especially
for
smaller
displacement
motorcycles,
and
would
disrupt
harmonization
with
California
requirements.
EPA
is
retaining
the
current
useful
life
definitions
for
highway
motorcycles,
including
the
definition
of
30,000
km
for
Class
III
motorcycles.

MIC,
Harley
Davidson
Harmonization
with
the
new
global
test
cycle
is
not
currently
feasible
due
to
the
lead
time
needed.
It
would
take
several
years
to
transition
to
a
new
cycle.
Coordination
with
California
is
needed.
EPA
is
retaining
the
current
test
cycle
but
will
evaluate
the
new
cycle
in
the
future.

Motorcycle
Riders
Foundation
EPA
has
not
properly
analyzed
the
impact
of
the
new
standards
on
small
businesses
We
properly
conducted
the
SBREFA
process
and
have
included
several
significant
flexibilities
in
the
rule
for
small
manufacturers
including
additional
lead
time.

3(
c)
Consultations
We
have
met
with
companies
that
will
be
subject
to
the
new
emission
standards.
These
contacts
are
summarized
in
the
following
table.
4
Table
2
Industry
Contacts
Regarding
Information
Collection
Date
Contact
July
26,
2000
Honda
Motor
Co.,
David
Raney
(
310)
783­
3264.]

Feb.
8,
2001
Harley­
Davidson,
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
616­
1101
April
26,
2001
Harley­
Davidson,
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
616­
1101
Oct.
8,
2002
Harley­
Davidson,
Ed
Michael
(
414)
465­
6275
and
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
465­
6275
Oct.
23,
2002
Federico
Vitale,
Piaggio
Oct.
23,
2002
Honda
Motor
Co.,
Erwin
Segers
Dec.
16,
2002
Harley­
Davidson,
Ed
Michael
(
414)
465­
6275
and
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
465­
6275
March
18,
2003
Motorcycle
Industry
Council
April
14,
2003
Harley­
Davidson,
Ed
Michael
(
414)
465­
6275
and
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
465­
6275
September
15,
2003
Harley­
Davidson,
Ed
Michael
(
414)
465­
6275
and
Jerry
Steffy
(
414)
465­
6275
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Annual
reporting
for
certifying
engine
families
is
necessary
to
align
with
the
regulatory
requirement
to
certify
engine
families
every
year.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
complies
with
general
guidelines,
except
for
the
requirement
to
retain
records
for
an
eight­
year
period,
as
described
in
4(
b)(
ii)
below.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
We
hold
information
from
the
engine
manufacturers
as
confidential
until
the
associated
vehicles
are
available
for
purchase.
Manufacturers
may
submit
proprietary
information,
consisting
generally
of
sales
projections
and
certain
sensitive
technical
descriptions.
We
grant
confidentiality
in
accordance
with
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
EPA
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B,
and
class
determinations
issued
by
our
Office
of
General
Council.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
5
We
don't
ask
sensitive
questions.
This
collection
complies
with
The
Privacy
Act
and
OMB
Circular
A­
108.

4.
Respondents
and
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
NAICS
and
SIC
Codes
The
respondents
are
generally
involved
in
the
industries
shown
in
the
following
table:

Table
3
NAICS
and
SIC
Codes
for
Respondent
Categories
Respondent
Categories
NAICS
Codesa
Motorcycles
and
motorcycle
parts
manufacturers
336991
Independent
Commercial
Importers
of
Vehicles
and
Parts
421110
aNorth
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)

4(
b)
Respondents
and
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
Items
Manufacturers
must
send
us
an
application
for
certification,
including
emission
data
and
other
descriptive
information.
Manufacturers
must
also
send
us
reports
of
other
emission
testing.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Companies
retain
records
as
hard
copy
and
may
also
reduce
the
information
to
microfilm,
computer
disks,
etc.
We
require
very
little
submission
of
information
to
process
applications
for
certification.
This
reduces
the
resource
burden,
both
for
the
industry
and
for
us.
However,
because
we
don't
have
the
information
on
file,
we
depend
on
manufacturers
to
retain
the
records
to
allow
us
to
verify
compliance
throughout
the
useful
life
of
the
vehicles.
Eight
years
is
sufficient
time
for
most
vehicles.
Any
investigation
of
in­
use
vehicles
generally
does
not
start
until
three
or
more
years
after
the
manufacturer
completes
the
application
for
certification.

All
reports,
submissions,
notifications,
and
requests
for
approval
must
be
addressed
to:
Manager,
Engine
Programs
Group
(
6405­
J),
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Respondents
must
submit
information
in
an
approved
EPA
format.

5.
The
Information
Collected­­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
6
5
(
a)
Agency
Activities
Our
certification
and
tracking
process
involves
reviewing
applications
and
emission
data
from
vehicle
manufacturers.
From
this
data,
we
issue
certificates
of
conformity
and
may
confirm
that
production
and
in­
use
engines
continue
to
comply
with
standards.
We
may
also
select
families
to
be
tested
in
a
given
production
year
and
require
additional
testing,
based
on
an
analysis
of
the
submitted
data.

5
(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
We
currently
use
computers
extensively
to
collect
information
from
vehicle
manufacturers.
Based
on
this
approach
as
a
model,
much
routine
information
(
test
results,
projections)
can
be
electronically
transmitted
directly
from
the
manufacturers
to
our
computer
database.
We
expect
to
publish
this
information
on
our
website
once
certified
engines
go
into
production
(
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/).

5
(
c)
Small­
Entity
Flexibility
We
have
a
variety
of
existing
provisions
to
ease
the
compliance
burden
on
small
businesses,
and
we
are
adding
more
that
relate
specifically
to
the
new
emission
standards.
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
adding
new
flexibilities
that
will
be
available
for
small
entities
with
U.
S.
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
worldwide.
These
provisions
are
appropriate
because
of
the
significant
research
and
development
resources
may
be
necessary
to
meet
the
emission
standards
and
related
requirements.
These
provisions
will
reduce
the
burden
while
ensuring
the
vast
majority
of
the
program
is
implemented
to
ensure
timely
emission
reductions.
These
new
flexibilities
include
a
delay
of
the
standards
for
qualifying
manufacturers
to
four
years
later
than
large
manufacturers
and
an
emission
credit
program.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
principal
reporting
requirements
are
associated
with
certification
to
the
new
exhaust
emission
standards,
which
are
scheduled
to
apply
beginning
in
January
2006.
New
reporting
requirements
therefore
don't
begin
until
the
end
of
the
preceding
year
at
the
earliest.
Annual
reporting
is
based
on
the
beginning
of
the
model
year,
which
can
vary
for
each
manufacturer
and
for
each
engine
family.
7
6.
Estimating
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
We
estimate
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
vehicle
manufacturers,
who
comply
by
submitting
an
application
for
certification.
This
obligates
them
to
do
a
certain
amount
of
testing
to
show
they
meet
emission
standards.
The
following
discussion
develops
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
the
first
three
years
of
the
program.

The
burden
and
cost
estimates
presented
below
describe
only
the
changes
resulting
from
this
rulemaking.
These
incremental
figures
must
be
added
into
the
existing
burden
and
cost
estimates
under
OMB
control
number
2060­
0104
to
arrive
at
cumulative
totals.

6
(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
The
estimates
of
respondent
burden
utilizes
data
from
the
affected
industries
or
commercially
available
databases.
Burden
hours
per
engine
family
are
based
upon
established
hour
amounts
for
engine
families,
as
published
in
the
"
Application
for
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
Certification
and
Fuel
Economy
Labeling"
(
OMB
No.
2060­
0104).

Highway
motorcycles
are
already
subject
to
standards
for
HC
and
CO
emissions.
The
new
proposal
contemplates
three
changes
that
would
affect
reporting
requirements.
First,
reporting
NOx
emission
results
would
add
a
small
incremental
testing
and
reporting
burden
to
each
application
for
certification.
Second,
we
are
adopting
emission
standards
for
motorcycles
with
displacement
under
50
cc.
This
would
add
a
small
number
of
companies
and/
or
engine
families
to
the
current
certification
list.
Third,
we
are
adding
requirements
for
manufacturers
to
control
evaporative
hydrocarbon
emissions.

The
burden
for
certification
testing
for
exhaust
emissions
is
generally
based
on
conducting
two
engine
tests
for
each
engine
family,
then
using
that
test
data
for
several
years.
The
estimated
cost
for
full
certification
testing,
including
durability
demonstration
testing,
is
$
7,500
per
test
(
combining
labor
and
O&
M
expenses).
The
manufacturer's
application
for
certification
involves
an
extensive
effort
the
first
year,
followed
by
relatively
little
effort
in
subsequent
years.
We
estimate
that
manufacturers
will
conduct
new
certification
testing
every
five
years;
the
costs
have
been
estimated
on
an
annual
average
basis.

In
addition
to
testing,
manufacturers
must
prepare
the
application
for
certification
and
maintain
appropriate
records.
We
have
estimated
the
cost
of
these
activities,
which
include
engineering
and
clerical
effort,
to
be
$
10,000
per
engine
family
per
certification
cycle
(
5
years).
As
with
the
testing
costs,
we
are
presenting
annual
average
costs.

To
comply
with
evaporative
emission
requirements,
manufacturers
are
expected
to
conduct
durability
and
certification
testing
in
the
first
year
with
a
value
of
about
$
15,000
per
company.
In
addition,
we
estimate
about
$
10,000
for
engineering
and
clerical
work
to
support
the
effort
to
certify
that
these
products
are
meeting
standards.
However,
these
costs
would
apply
8
only
to
10
percent
of
manufacturers,
since
the
rest
of
the
companies
use
metal
fuel
tanks,
which
automatically
comply
with
permeation
requirements.
We
consider
an
additional
$
1,000
for
hose
testing,
though
manufacturers
may
be
able
to
avoid
this
by
using
design­
based
certification
with
hoses
that
already
meet
industry
standards
for
permeation­
resistance.

These
burden
estimates
apply
equally
whether
the
manufacturer
conducts
the
required
activities,
or
if
the
manufacturer
hires
a
third
party
for
some
of
these
activities.

6
(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
Labor
rates
on
a
per­
hour
basis,
are
taken
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
web
site
at
http://
stats.
bls.
gov/
news.
release/
ecec.
t12.
htm
(
accessed
November
24,
2000).
Technical
labor
is
$
42.89/
hr,
managerial
labor
is
$
65.19/
hr,
clerical
labor
is
$
27.11/
hr.
Labor
rates
were
multiplied
by
1.5
to
account
for
fringe
benefits
and
other
overhead
expenses.

(
ii)
Estimating
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
Operation
and
maintenance
costs
include
expenses
related
to
emission
testing.
Costs
are
for
laboratory
time,
the
use
of
test
equipment,
engine
parts,
fuel
and
other
supplies,
and
fabrication
of
test
tools
and
fixtures.
Direct
labor
costs
and
operations
and
maintenance
costs
combine
for
the
total
test
costs
described
above.

(
iii)
Capital/
Start­
up
Costs
Companies
required
to
conduct
testing
either
have
testing
facilities
or
are
expected
to
conduct
testing
at
a
contractor's
laboratory.
Thus,
no
capital
or
startup
costs
are
anticipated
for
purchasing
emission
testing
equipment.

(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs
There
are
no
anticipated
capital
costs.

6
(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Our
Engine
Programs
Compliance
Group
administers
emission
certification
programs.
This
group
has
approximately
17
full­
time
employees.
We
project
10
hours
per
week
of
staff
time
(
at
$
40
per
hour,
loaded)
to
manage
engine
compliance
programs
related
to
new
emission
standards.
This
comes
to
approximately
500
hours
or
$
20,000
per
year
to
oversee
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule.

6
(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
9
Table
4
shows
the
labor
and
other
costs
associated
with
meeting
the
new
requirements
for
each
engine
family.
These
numbers
represent
the
incremental
burden
relative
to
current
reporting
requirements.
This
includes
certification
costs,
plus
the
cost
of
any
additional
testing.
Per­
family
costs
for
meeting
exhaust
emission
standards
are
multiplied
by
the
number
of
engine
families
to
arrive
at
an
estimated
total
cost.
Costs
for
evaporative
standards
are
treated
the
same,
except
that
the
costs
are
calculated
on
a
company
basis
and
multiplied
by
the
number
of
companies.
10
Table
4
Average
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Information
Collection
Activity
Average
annual
burden
and
cost
per
family
#
of
Families
Capital
&

Startup
cost
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Mgr.
@

$
65/
hr
Tech.
@

$
43/
hr
Cler.
@

$
27/
hr
Hours
per
family
Labor
cost
per
family
O&
M
Cost
Total
Hours/
yr
Total
Cost/
yr
Cert.
application
 
incremental
0
1
1
2
$
70
$
0
185
$
0
370
$
12,950
Recordkeeping
 
incremental
0
1
1
2
$
70
$
0
185
$
0
370
$
12,950
New
Cert.
application
2
36
6
44
$
1,840
$
0
5
$
0
220
$
9,200
Recordkeeping
for
new
applications
0.2
2.2
2
4.4
$
162
$
0
5
$
0
22
$
808
Cert./
durability
testing
for
new
applications
0
28
0
28
$
1,204
$
1,796
5
$
0
140
$
15,000
Evaporative
controls
(
per
co
mpany)
5
56
10
71
$
3,003
$
3,197
5
companies
$
0
327
$
28,520
Subtotal
Total
O&
M
cost
=
$
23686
1,449
$
79,428
11
6
(
e)
Bottom­
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Tables
(
i)
Respondent
Tally
Bottom­
line
burden
and
cost
for
the
first
three
years
of
the
rulemaking
are
shown
in
Table
5.
The
table
shows
industry
totals
and
average
values
for
each
respondent
by
category.
These
estimated
costs
include
startup
expenses
(
for
example,
the
purchase
of
emission
sampling
equipment
and
new
recordkeeping
software).

Table
5
Summary
of
Bottom­
line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Affected
Entities
Number
of
Respondents
Industry
Totals
Average
per
Respondent
Total
O&
M
Costs
per
Year
Total
Hours
per
Year
Total
Costs
per
Year
Total
Hours
per
Year
Total
Costs
per
Year
Highway
motorcycle
manufacturers
46
$
23,686
1,449
$
79,428
32
$
1,727
(
ii)
Agency
Tally
Our
estimated
burden
is
approximately
500
hours
or
per
year
(
or
$
20,000)
to
oversee
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule,
as
described
in
Section
6(
c).

6(
f)
Burden
Statement:
The
estimated
annual
respondent
burden
for
the
different
categories
of
companies
affected
by
the
final
rule
is
presented
in
Table
5.
These
estimates
include
time
to
conduct
testing,
prepare
applications,
prepare
and
submit
reports,
and
record
and
keep
required
information.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
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;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
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
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
12
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2001­
0014,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center,
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OAR­
2001­
0014)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2060­
0104)
in
any
correspondence.

6
(
g)
Reason
for
Change
in
Burden
We
have
adopted
a
new
tier
of
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles.
The
estimated
change
in
burden
reflects
the
testing
and
reporting
requirements
related
to
the
new
emission
standards.
