Winston
H.
Hickox
Agency
Secretary
The
energy
challenge
facing
California
is
real.
Every
Californian
needs
to
take
immediate
action
to
reduce
energy
consumption.
For
a
list
of
simple
ways
you
can
reduce
demand
and
cut
your
energy
costs,
see
our
Website:
http://
www.
arb.
ca.
gov.

California
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Printed
on
Recycled
Paper
Air
Resources
Board
Alan
C.
Lloyd,
Ph.
D.
Chairman
1001
I
Street
°
P.
O.
Box
2815
°
Sacramento,
California
95812
°
www.
arb.
ca.
gov
Gray
Davis
Governor
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
Ariel
Rios
Building,
Room
3000
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Re:
AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
CALIFORNIA
EXHAUST
EMISSION
STANDARDS
AND
TEST
PROCEDURES
FOR
ON­
ROAD
MOTORCYCLES
AND
MOTORCYCLE
ENGINES:
REQUEST
FOR
CONFIRMATION
THAT
AMENDMENTS
ARE
WITHIN
THE
SCOPE
OF
PREVIOUS
WAIVERS
OF
PREEMPTION
UNDER
CLEAN
AIR
ACT
SECTION
209(
B)

Dear
Administrator
Whitman:

At
a
December
10,
1998
hearing,
the
California
Air
Resources
Board
(
ARB
or
Board)
approved
the
adoption
of
amendments
to
the
California
on­
road
motorcycle
regulations
(
section
1958,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR)).
The
amendments
apply
revised
exhaust
emission
standards
for
hydrocarbons
plus
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
HC+
NOx)
to
Class
III
on­
road
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
beginning
with
the
2004
model
year.
The
amendments
also
include
provisions
for
small­
volume
manufacturers
and
early
compliance
credits
and
modifications
to
sections
1900
(
Definitions)
and
1965
(
Emissions
Control
and
Smog
Index
Label)
that
are
consistent
with
the
amendments
to
section
1958.
Finally
the
amendments
include
several
technical
modifications.

The
amendments
were
approved
by
the
Board
in
Resolution
98­
65
and
were
formally
adopted
by
Executive
Order
G­
99­
073
on
October
22,
1999.
They
were
submitted
to
the
California
Office
of
Administrative
Law
(
OAL)
for
review
on
October
22,
1999,
and
were
approved
by
OAL
on
November
22,
1999.
The
specific
final
versions
of
the
regulations
and
incorporated
documents
covered
by
this
waiver
request
are
included
as
attachments
to
this
request.

I
am
writing
to
request
that
you
confirm
the
Board's
determination
that
these
amendments
fall
within
the
scope
of
previous
Clean
Air
Act
Section
209(
b)
waivers
of
federal
preemption
for
the
California
motorcycle
certification
standards
and
test
procedures.
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
2
I.
The
Preexisting
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulations
The
California
exhaust
emission
standards
for
new
on­
road
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
are
contained
in
section
1958,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations.
The
ARB
adopted
the
first
on­
road
motorcycle
regulation
in
1975
to
reduce
ozone­
forming
emissions
from
this
mobile
source
category.
The
regulations
established
exhaust
and
evaporative
emission
standards
for
hydrocarbon
(
HC)
and
carbon
monoxide
(
CO)
beginning
with
the
1978
model
year.
Depending
on
the
motorcycle
engine
size,
the
original
HC
exhaust
standards
ranged
from
5.0
grams
per
kilometer
(
g/
km)
to
14.0
g/
km.
Subsequently
amendments
to
the
regulations
lowered
the
HC
standards
to
1.0
g/
km
for
engines
of
50
cubic
centimeters
(
cc)
to
279
cc,
and
2.5
g/
km
for
engines
280
cc
and
greater.

In
1984,
the
ARB
amended
the
HC
standard
for
on­
road
motorcycles
to
give
manufacturers
more
flexibility.
For
Class
III
motorcycles,
defined
as
motorcycles
with
engine
displacement
of
280
cc
or
greater,
the
HC
standard
was
continued
at
2.5
g/
km
until
February
28,
1985.
An
interim
HC
standard
of
1.4
g/
km
was
set
as
a
corporate
average
from
March
1,
1985
through
the
1987
model
year
for
all
Class
III
motorcycles.
For
1988
and
subsequent
model
years,
Class
III
motorcycles
were
divided
into
two
groups
based
on
engine
displacement.
For
Class
III
motorcycles
with
engine
displacements
of
280
cc
through
699
cc,
the
HC
standard
was
set
at
1.0
g/
km
applied
as
a
corporate
average.
For
Class
III
motorcycles
with
engine
displacements
of
700
cc
and
greater,
the
HC
standard
was
set
at
1.4
g/
km
as
a
corporate
average.
No
individual
engine
family
was
allowed
to
exceed
2.5
g/
km
HC.

Additionally,
in
1984
the
Board
directed
the
ARB
staff
to
revisit
the
regulations
when
catalytic
and
other
emissions
control
technologies
had
matured
to
the
point
that
it
would
be
feasible
to
apply
these
technologies
to
on­
road
motorcycles.
Significant
strides
in
controlling
emission
from
internal
combustion
engines
have
taken
place
since
then,
with
developments
in
the
automotive
sector
gradually
being
applied
to
motorcycles.
The
Board`
s
action
in
1998
to
amend
the
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycle
standards
fulfilled
the
1984
commitment
and
provided
additional
reductions
in
motor
vehicle
emissions
to
meet
the
commitments
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
State
Implementation
Plan
for
Ozone
(
SIP,
1994)
and
to
provide
ozone
emission
reductions
statewide.

II.
The
2004+
On­
Road
Class
III
Motorcycle
Standards
Introduction:
Unlike
the
preexisting
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycle
HC­
only
standard,
the
amended
standards
regulate
the
combined
level
of
hydrocarbon
(
HC)
and
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx)
emissions
as
HC+
NOx
for
2004
and
subsequent
model
years.
Because
both
pollutants
are
ozone
precursors,
the
amended
standards
reduce
ozone
formation
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
3
from
motorcycle
emissions
more
effectively
than
the
existing
HC­
only
standard.
The
combined
HC+
NOx
standards
also
provide
more
flexibility
to
manufacturers
than
would
individual
HC
and
NOx
standards.
The
flexibility
results
from
the
manufacturers'
ability
to
balance
HC
versus
NOx
emissions
in
each
engine
family.
Because
HC
and
NOx
emission
levels
are
inversely
proportional,
manufacturers
may
balance
the
constituent
emissions
to
meet
performance
goals
while
optimizing
reductions
from
the
combined
emission
levels.
The
combined
HC+
NOx
standards
are
introduced
progressively
beginning
in
2004
using
two
tiers
of
standards.
The
amendments
do
not
affect
the
standard
for
carbon
monoxide,
which
remains
subject
to
the
preexisting
standard
of
12
g/
km,
for
Class
III
on­
road
motorcycles.
Neither
do
the
amendments
affect
motorcycles
with
engines
smaller
than
280
cc,
for
which
the
preexisting
1.0
g/
km
for
HC
and
12
g/
km
for
CO
standards
remain
in
effect.
The
current
parallel
federal
standards
for
Class
III
motorcycles
are
5.0
g/
km
for
HC
or
total
hydrocarbon
equivalents.
1
Tier­
1:
The
Board
has
amended
the
standard
(
Tier­
1)
to
1.4
g/
km
for
HC+
NOx
for
Class
III
motorcycle
model
years
2004
through
2007.
The
Tier­
1
standard
is
achievable
with
demonstrated
emission
controls
that
do
not
rely
on
catalytic
after­
treatment.

Tier­
2:
The
Board
has
further
amended
the
standard
(
Tier­
2)
to
0.08
for
HC
+
NOx
for
Class
III
motorcycles
for
model
year
2008
and
beyond.
Available
information
strongly
indicates
that
the
Tier­
2
standard
is
technologically
feasible
within
the
lead­
time
allotted
when
considering
the
cost
of
the
more
advanced
emission
control
technologies
and
the
regulatory
flexibility
provided
under
corporate
averaging.

Corporate
Averaging:
The
Board
has
maintained
corporate
averaging
for
Class
III
engine
families
in
the
amended
on­
road
motorcycle
regulation.
Both
the
preexisting
regulation
and
the
amended
regulation
allow
manufacturers
to
balance
the
certified
emissions
among
Class
III
engine
families
so
that
the
sales­
weighted
average
certified
emission
level
meets
the
applicable
standard.
However,
a
not­
to­
exceed
cap
limits
the
emission
level
from
each
engine
family.
In
the
preexisting
regulations,
the
cap
was
2.5
g/
km
for
HC­
only
for
each
individual
engine
family.
In
the
amended
regulations,
the
Board
has
adopted
a
similar
cap:
for
both
the
Tier­
1
and
the
Tier­
2
standards,
the
Board
has
capped
the
HC+
NOx
emission
level
at
2.5
g/
km
for
each
individual
engine
family.

1
Title
40,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
§
86.410­
90.
Amended
federal
standards
have
been
proposed
(
see
67
F.
R.
53050
(
August
14,
2002)),
but
are
not
yet
adopted.
As
stated
in
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking,
U.
S.
EPA
is
in
general
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
(
67
F.
R.
at
page
53073).
For
Class
III
motorcycles,
U.
S.
EPA
proposes
to
adopt
the
California's
Tier­
1
standard
in
the
2006
model
year,
and
the
Tier­
2
standard
in
2010
(
67
F.
R
at
page
53079).
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
4
To
encourage
early
compliance
with
the
Tier­
2
standard,
the
Board
has
also
authorized
incentives
for
early
compliance
as
part
of
corporate
averaging
through
2008.
The
regulation
provides
for
credit
multipliers
toward
the
model
year
2008
corporate
average
for
each
certified
unit
based
on
certification
of
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
to
the
Tier­
2
standard
prior
to
2008.
In
addition
to
encouraging
compliance
with
the
Tier­
2
standard,
the
amended
regulation
encourages
manufacturers
through
model
year
2008
to
certify
to
a
0.4­
g/
km
HC+
NOx
level.
The
introduction
of
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
certified
at
the
0.4
HC+
NOx
g/
km
is
encouraged
through
the
application
of
larger
multipliers
for
units
certified
at
this
level.
Anticipating
that
Tier­
2
technologies
will
become
more
widespread
as
2008
approaches,
the
multipliers
decrease
linearly
from
2004
until
2008,
when
the
early
compliance
incentive
would
no
longer
have
any
value
(
i.
e.,
the
multiplier
has
a
value
of
1.0).

Small
Volume
Manufacturer:
The
Board
has
amended
the
definition
of
small
volume
manufacturer
that
applies
in
model
year
2008
and
beyond
to
contract
the
class
to
which
the
definition
applies
and
has
established
a
separate
HC+
NOx
standard
for
small
volume
manufacturers,
specifically,
1.4
g/
km.
Beginning
with
the
2008
model
year,
a
small
volume
manufacturer
is
defined
as
one
that
has
sold
no
more
than
300
(
combined)
new
Class
I,
II,
and
III
motorcycles
per
model
year
in
California,
starting
with
the
2004
model
year,
as
the
initial
baseline
year.

Definition
in
title
13,
CCR,
section
1900:
The
Board
adopted
a
definition
for
motorcycle
engine
to
clarify
that
the
amendments
to
the
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
apply
to
both
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines.
The
application
of
the
exhaust
standards
to
motorcycle
engines
is
consistent
with
ARB's
interpretation
and
application
of
the
preexisting
regulations.

III.
Criteria
for
Determining
Whether
Amendments
Are
Within
the
Scope
of
Previous
Waivers
of
Federal
Preemption
Section
209(
a)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
provides
that
no
state
shall
adopt
or
enforce
any
emission
standard
for
new
motor
vehicles,
and
no
state
shall
require
certification,
inspection,
or
any
other
approval
relating
to
the
control
of
emissions
from
any
new
motor
vehicle
as
a
condition
of
registration
or
titling
in
the
state.
However,
section
209(
b)
directs
the
Administrator
to
waive
federal
preemption
for
new
motor
vehicle
emission
standards
adopted
and
enforced
by
California2
if
the
state
determines
that
the
2
The
section
209(
b)
waiver
provisions
apply
to
any
state
which
has
adopted
standards
(
other
than
crankcase
emission
standards)
for
the
control
of
emissions
from
new
motor
vehicles
or
motor
vehicle
engines
prior
to
March
30,
1966.
(
CAA
§
209(
b)(
1).)
California
is
the
only
state
that
meets
this
condition.
(
S.
Rep.
No.
403,
90th
Cong.
1st
Sess.,
532
(
1967);
Motor
and
Equipment
Manufacturers
Ass'n
[
MEMA]
v.
EPA,
627
F.
2d
1095,
1100
note
1
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979).)
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
5
state
standards
will
be,
in
the
aggregate,
at
least
as
protective
of
public
health
and
welfare
as
applicable
federal
standards.
The
Administrator
is
to
deny
a
waiver
only
if
she
finds:
(
1)
that
the
protectiveness
determination
of
the
state
is
arbitrary
and
capricious,
(
2)
that
California
does
not
need
separate
state
standards
to
meet
compelling
and
extraordinary
conditions,
or
(
3)
that
the
state
standards
and
accompanying
enforcement
procedures
are
not
consistent
with
CAA
section
202(
a).

With
regard
to
amendments
that
follow
a
previously
granted
waiver
of
federal
preemption,
the
Administrator
has
stated
that
if
California
acts
to
amend
a
previously
waived
standard
or
accompanying
enforcement
procedure,
the
change
may
be
included
within
the
scope
of
the
previous
waiver
if
it
does
not
undermine
California's
determination
that
its
standards,
in
the
aggregate,
are
as
protective
of
public
health
and
welfare
as
comparable
federal
standards;
does
not
affect
the
consistency
of
California's
requirements
with
section
202(
a)
of
the
Act;
and
raises
no
new
issues
affecting
the
Administrator's
previous
waiver
determination.
3
With
regard
to
the
consistency
issue,
the
Administrator
has
stated
that
California's
standards
and
accompanying
test
procedures
are
inconsistent
with
section
202(
a)
if:
(
1)
there
is
inadequate
lead
time
to
permit
the
development
of
technology
to
meet
those
requirements,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance
within
that
time
frame;
or
(
2)
the
federal
and
California
test
procedures
impose
inconsistent
certification
requirements
so
as
to
make
manufacturers
unable
to
meet
both
sets
of
requirements
with
the
same
vehicle.
4
IV.
The
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
On­
Road
Class
III
Motorcycle
Standards
Are
Within
the
Scope
of
the
Previous
Waivers
of
Federal
Preemption
for
On­
Road
Motorcycles
The
Board
made
a
protectiveness
determination
for
the
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
in
Resolution
98­
65.
The
Board
found
that
that
sections
1900
and
1958,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations,
as
amended,
will
not
cause
the
California
requirements
to
be
inconsistent
with
section
202(
a)
of
the
federal
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
and
that
the
amended
sections
raise
no
new
issues
affecting
previous
waiver
determinations
of
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
CAA
section
209(
b).
As
noted
above,
the
current
parallel
3
Decision
Document
accompanying
scope
of
waiver
determination
in
51
F.
R.
12391
(
April
10,
1986),
at
p.
2;
see
also,
e.
g.,
46
F.
R.
36742
(
July
15,
1981).

4
See,
e.
g.,
46
F.
R.
26371
(
May
12,
1981).
Even
where
there
is
incompatibility
between
the
California
and
federal
test
procedures,
EPA
has
granted
a
waiver
under
circumstances
where
EPA
accepts
a
demonstration
of
federal
compliance
based
on
California
test
results,
thus
obviating
the
need
for
two
separate
tests.
(
43
F.
R.
1829,
1830
(
January
12,
1978);
40
F.
R.
30311,
30314
(
July
18,
1975).)
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
6
federal
standards
for
Class
III
motorcycles
are
5.0
g/
km
for
HC
or
total
hydrocarbon
equivalents.
5
Effect
on
Prior
Protectiveness
Determinations:
The
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
previously
waived
federal
preemption
for
California's
exhaust
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
for
1978
and
subsequent
model
year
motorcycles.
6
EPA
confirmed
that
a
subsequent
amendment
to
the
HC
exhaust
standard
that
relaxed
the
standard
for
certain
small
volume
manufacturers
for
the
1982
model
year
was
within
the
scope
of
the
previously
granted
waiver.
7
EPA
also
confirmed
that
a
subsequent
amendment
to
the
HC
exhaust
standards
for
1984
and
subsequent
model
year
Class
III
motorcycles
that
lowered
the
exhaust
emissions
was
within
the
scope
of
the
previously
granted
waivers.
8
EPA
also
previously
waived
federal
preemption
for
California's
evaporative
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
for
motorcycles
and
confirmed
subsequent
amendments
as
within
the
scope
of
the
previously
granted
waiver.
9
Consistency
with
CAA
section
202(
a):
The
Administrator
has
stated
that
California's
standards
and
accompanying
enforcement
procedures
would
be
inconsistent
with
section
202(
a)
if:
(
1)
there
is
inadequate
lead
time
to
implement
the
new
procedures,
giving
appropriate
consideration
to
the
cost
of
compliance
within
the
applicable
time
frame;
or
(
2)
the
federal
and
California
test
procedures
impose
inconsistent
certification
requirements
so
as
to
make
manufacturers
unable
to
meet
both
sets
of
requirements
with
the
same
vehicle.

Adequacy
of
lead
time:
With
regard
to
lead
time
for
any
needed
technology,
it
is
enough
for
consistency
with
CAA
section
202(
a)
if
the
ARB
identifies
or
predicts
the
technology
that
can
be
used
to
comply
with
the
requirements,

.
.
.
answers
any
theoretical
objections
to
the
[
projected
control
technology],
identifies
the
major
steps
necessary
for
the
refinement
of
the
5
Title
40,
Code
of
Federal
Regulations,
§
86.410­
90.

6
See
41
F.
R.
44209
(
October
7,
1976)
and
43
F.
R.
998
(
January
5,
1978).

7
See
47
F.
R.
23204
(
May
27,
1982).

8
See
53
F.
R.
6195
(
March
1,
1988).

9
See
47
F.
R.
1015
(
January
8,
1982);
47
F.
R.
23204
(
May
27,
1982);
53
F.
R.
6195
(
March
1,
1988);
53
F.
R.
36116
(
September
16,
1988).
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
7
[
technology],
and
offers
plausible
reasons
for
believing
that
each
of
these
steps
can
be
completed
in
the
time
available.
10
While
manufacturers
will
use
various
means
to
meet
the
Tier­
1
standard,
four
lowemission
technologies
already
available
to
Class
III
motorcycle
manufacturers
are
noncatalyst
based:
secondary
pulse­
air
injection,
more
precise
fuel
control,
better
fuel
atomization
and
delivery,
and
reduced
engine­
out
levels
from
engine
modifications.
The
combinations
of
low­
emission
technologies
ultimately
chosen
by
manufacturers
to
meet
the
Tier­
1
standard
will
depend
on
the
engine­
out
emission
levels
of
the
motorcycles,
the
effectiveness
of
the
prior
emission
control
systems,
and
individual
manufacturer
preferences.
Achieving
the
Tier­
2
standard
may
represent
some
challenges
to
manufacturers,
but
available
information
strongly
indicates
that
the
standard
is
technologically
feasible
within
the
lead­
time
allotted,
when
considering
the
cost,
by
the
2008
model
year
when
the
Tier­
2
standard
is
operative.

The
descriptions
for
the
technologies
available
to
meet
the
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
are
summarized
below.
More
complete
descriptions
of
the
technologies
are
presented
in
the
Staff
Report:
Initial
Statement
of
Reasons
for
the
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulation
(
Staff
Report),
enclosed
with
this
request.

Secondary
Pulse­
Air
Injection.
This
low­
emission
technology
employs
a
technique
that
introduces
fresh
air
into
the
exhaust
pipe
immediately
after
the
exhaust
gases
exit
the
engine.
The
extra
air
causes
further
combustion
to
occur,
thereby
controlling
more
of
the
hydrocarbons
that
escape
the
combustion
chamber.
Secondary
pulse­
air
injection
is
relatively
inexpensive
and
uncomplicated
and
is
one
of
the
most
effective
noncatalytic
emission
control
technologies,
reducing
HC
emissions
by
10
to
40
percent.
Thirty­
five
of
the
87
Class
III
motorcycle
engine
families
certified
for
sale
in
California
in
1998
employed
secondary
pulse­
air
injection
to
help
meet
the
model
year
standard.
The
Board
anticipates
that
most
of
the
remaining
engine
families
will
use
this
technique
to
help
meet
the
Tier­
1
and
the
later
Tier­
2
standards.

Fuel
Control,
Atomization,
and
Delivery.
Improving
fuel
delivery
and
atomization
most
often
involves
the
use
of
precise
fuel
injection
systems
in
place
of
the
carburetors
currently
used
on
motorcycles.
Manufacturers
may
choose
from
several
types
of
fuel
injection
systems
and
components.
Notably
sequential
multi­
point
fuel
injection
(
SFI)
may
be
chosen
to
help
meet
the
Tier­
1
standard.
Use
of
SFI
helps
reduce
cold
start
emissions,
when
emissions
are
highest.
Motorcycle
manufacturers
are
already
using
SFI
in
some
engine
families;
of
the
87
Class
III
motorcycle
engine
families
certified
in
California
in
1988,
seven
employed
SFI
systems.
The
Board
anticipates
increased
use
10
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
v.
U.
S.
EPA,
655
318,
331­
2
(
D.
C.
Cir.,
1981).
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
8
of
SFI
or
similar
fuel
injection
systems
to
achieve
the
Tier­
1
and
the
later
Tier­
2
standards.

Engine
Modifications.
Emission
control
technologies
include
engine
modifications
that
reduce
the
engine­
out
levels
of
HC+
NOx.
Among
the
potential
modifications
noted
in
the
Staff
Report
are
reducing
engine
crevice
volumes,
improving
engine
tolerances
and
finishes,
and
changing
cam
timing
and
intake
manifold
design
to
reduce
engine­
out
emissions.
The
Board
anticipates
increased
use
of
engine
modifications
to
achieve
the
Tier­
1
and
the
later
Tier­
2
standards.

Computer­
Controlled
Secondary
Pulse­
Air
Injection.
This
technology
parallels
the
secondary
pulse­
air
injection
described
above,
but
provides
more
precise
injection
by
connecting
the
injection
valve
to
a
computer­
controlled
solenoid.
The
Board
anticipates
use
of
this
technology
to
achieve
the
Tier­
2
standard.

More
Advanced
Technologies
for
Improving
Fuel
Control.
The
technologies
need
to
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard
may
include
heated
oxygen
sensors
in
the
exhaust
manifold,
software
algorithms
to
provide
individual
cylinder
fuel
control,
and
adaptive
transient
fuel
control
software.

Three­
Way
Catalyst.
Manufacturers
will
likely
use
a
three­
way
catalyst,
controlling
HC,
NOx,
and
CO,
in
addition
to
the
above
described
engine
modifications
and
computercontrolled
secondary
pulse­
air
injection
to
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard.
Three­
way
catalytic
converters
that
use
improved
materials,
higher
cell
density
substrates,
and
dual­
layered
washcoats
will
help
manufacturers
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard
at
reduced
costs
relative
to
older
generations
of
three­
way
catalytic
converters.
Warm­
up
catalysts
(
also
known
as
pipe
catalysts
or
"
Hot
Tubes")
and
catalysts
with
open­
cell­
foam
substrate
structures
may
further
improve
emission
performance.

Heat­
Optimized
Exhaust
Pipes.
Improving
insulation
in
the
exhaust
system
may
aid
catalytic
converter
performance
to
achieve
the
Tier­
2
standard.

Engine
Calibration
Techniques.
To
meet
the
Tier­
2
standard
motorcycle
manufacturers
may
borrow
current
automobile
techniques
such
as
retarding
ignition,
increasing
cold
idling
speed,
and
leaning
air
to
fuel
mixtures
to
improve
catalytic
converter
performance.
Only
software
modifications
are
required
to
realize
these
techniques
in
engines
that
already
use
a
computer
to
control
the
fuel
delivery
and
other
engine
systems.

For
the
above
reason,
the
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
are
deemed
technologically
feasible
within
the
lead­
time
provided.
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
9
The
cost
of
compliance
within
the
lead­
time
provided
was
also
given
appropriate
consideration.
As
noted
in
the
Staff
Report
on
pages
VI­
7
through
VI­
16,
the
costs
associated
with
the
amended
standards
include
variable,
fixed,
investment­
recovery,
and
dealer
costs.
These
costs
compare
favorably
with
other
measures
adopted
by
the
Board.
As
cited
on
pages
VI­
15
and
VI­
16
of
the
Staff
Report,
the
cost
of
the
standards
is
$
3
per
pound
to
about
$
5.60
per
pound
of
HC
and
NOx
reduced.
These
costs
compare
favorably
with
other
ARB­
adopted
emission
control
measures
for
which
the
Board
has
received
a
waiver
of
preemption.
11
Consistency
of
test
procedures:
We
are
not
aware
of
any
instances
in
which
a
manufacturer
is
precluded
from
conducting
one
set
of
tests
on
an
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycle
or
motorcycle
engine
to
determine
compliance
with
both
the
California
and
federal
procedures.
The
test
procedures
for
on­
road
motorcycles
and
engines
were
not
amended
by
the
Board
in
this
rulemaking
action
and
continue
to
be
the
federal
procedures
incorporated
by
reference
in
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations,
section
1958(
c).

New
issues
affecting
the
previous
waiver
determination:
No
new
issues
preclude
a
conclusion
that
the
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
are
within
the
scope
of
the
previous
waiver.
Although
rulemaking
commenters
raised
issues
about
the
amended
standards,
the
issues
do
not
preclude
the
conclusion
that
the
amended
standards
are
within
the
scope
of
the
previously
granted
waiver.
The
issues
are
summarized
and
addressed
in
the
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
the
rulemaking.
The
discussion
that
follows
examines
the
issues
that
relate
to
the
previous
waiver
determination.

Need
for
the
amended
standards.
The
Tier­
1
and
Tier­
2
standards
reduced
both
HC
and
NOx
which
are
precursors
for
the
ozone.
The
projected
emission
reductions
upon
full
implementation
of
the
amended
standards
are
1.3
tons
per
day
(
tpd)
by
2010
and
2.9
tpd
by
2020.
California's
plan
for
achieving
the
federal
one­
hour
ozone
standard
is
contained
in
the
California
State
Implementation
Plan
(
ozone
SIP)
that
was
approved
by
the
Board
in
1994.
A
significant
part
of
the
ozone
SIP
pertains
to
the
control
of
mobile
sources,
which
are
estimated
to
account
for
approximately
70
percent
of
ozone
precursor
emissions
statewide.
The
ozone
SIP
calls
for
new
measures
to
cut
ozone
precursor
emissions
from
mobile
sources
to
half
of
what
the
emissions
would
be
under
existing
California
regulations.

Beyond
the
specific
measures
identified
when
it
was
adopted,
the
ozone
SIP
for
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
(
an
extreme
ozone­
nonattainment
area)
relies
on
the
development
of
additional
technology
measures
as
allowed
in
section
182(
e)(
5)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990.
Under
the
so­
called
"
black
box"
provisions
of
11
53
F.
R.
7021
(
March
4,
1988).
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
10
section
182(
e)(
5),
the
ozone
SIP
calls
for
additional
motor
source
emission
reductions
in
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
of
approximately
75
tons
per
day
(
tpd)
of
reactive
organic
gases
(
ROG)
plus
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx).
These
reduction
commitments,
while
not
assigned
to
a
specific
mobile
source
sector,
must
nevertheless
be
met
for
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
to
attain
the
federal
ozone
air
quality
standard
by
the
required
2010
deadline.

As
described
above,
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycles
represent
both
technologically
feasible
and
cost­
effective
sources
of
additional
emission
reductions.
The
additional
emission
reductions
would
cover
shortfalls
in
defined
ARB
measures
and
make
progress
on
the
black
box.
Although
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
is
the
only
area
of
California
with
a
black
box,
the
emission
reductions
are
needed
statewide.
The
amended
standards
will
help
achieve
and
maintain
the
federal
1­
hour
ozone
standard
in
regions
such
as
the
San
Joaquin
Valley
and
the
Sacramento
area;
the
federal
8­
hour
ozone
and
particulate
matter
standards
in
a
number
of
areas;
and
the
state
ozone
and
particulate
matter
standards
throughout
California.

The
contribution
of
on­
road
motorcycles
to
the
state
emissions
inventory.
As
mentioned
above,
California
needs
to
achieve
emission
reductions
from
every
feasible
source
to
meet
the
ozone
SIP
commitments.
After
several
decades
of
regulatory
programs,
it
is
generally
recognized
that
the
"
easy
and
large"
reductions
from
a
few,
very
visible
source
categories
have
already
been
achieved.
Future
reductions
will
necessarily
be
achieved
from
many
smaller
emission
sources
and
from
incremental
reductions
to
currently
regulated
sources.
On­
road
Class
III
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines
fall
within
the
group
of
sources
from
which
incremental
reductions
may
be
achieved.
As
described
in
the
Staff
Report,
the
reduction
in
emissions
from
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycles
compares
favorably
with
other
emission
control
measures,
representing
2.9
tpd
by
2020.12
The
technological
feasibility
within
the
lead­
time
allotted
when
considering
the
cost
of
the
Tier­
2
standard.
These
issues
are
discussed
above
and
in
greater
detail
in
the
Staff
Report.
13
The
Board
has
recognized
the
issues
in
adopting
the
Tier­
2
standard.
The
Board
expects
the
use
of
catalytic
converters
on
selected
product
lines,
rather
than
on
most
motorcycles.
Manufacturers
will
need
to
develop
and
to
use
catalysts
only
to
the
extent
required
under
corporate
averaging
to
reach
an
average
level
of
0.8
g/
km
HC+
NOx.
Catalyst
use
has
already
been
demonstrated
on
nearly
all
BMW
motorcycles,
some
Japanese
product
lines,
and
on
one
Harley­
Davidson
line.
Catalytic
converters
will
require
some
effort
to
install
in
an
acceptable
manner:
riders
will
need
to
be
12
See
Staff
Report
pages
VII­
1
to
VII­
4
and
IX­
2.

13
See
Staff
Report
sections
V
and
VI.
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
11
protected
from
the
catalyst's
heat;
vibrational
and
other
engine
stresses
will
need
to
be
addressed.
But
manufacturers
of
some
currently
certified
motorcycles
have
already
met
these
and
other
challenges.
Also
the
Board
anticipates
that
manufacturers
will
resolve
these
issues
prior
to
the
implementation
of
the
Tier­
2
standard
in
model
year
2008.

V.
Amendment
of
California
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
Control
Label
Specifications,
Title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations,
Section
1965
ARB
amended
the
regulations
containing
the
specifications
for
motor
vehicle
emission
control
labels
for
2004
and
subsequent
model
year
motorcycles
and
motorcycle
engines.
They
are
found
in
section
1965,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations
(
CCR)
and
the
incorporated
"
California
Emission
Control
Label
Specifications."
The
regulations
require
emission­
control
labels
for
motorcycle
engines
and
require
a
statement
as
to
the
actual
certified
engine
family
exhaust
emissions
level
in
grams
per
kilometer
for
HC+
NOx
to
meet
the
requirements
for
early
compliance
credits
in
title
13,
CCR,
section
1958(
g).

Because
they
do
not
pertain
to
a
manufacturer's
ability
to
certify
and
produce
motor
vehicles
that
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
standards,
the
emission
control
label
specifications
are
not
standards
or
accompanying
enforcement
procedures.
14
The
specifications
are,
however,
subject
to
federal
preemption
pursuant
to
Clean
Air
Act
Section
209(
a)
because
they
are
a
condition
precedent
to
the
initial
retail
sale
of
new
vehicles
in
California.
15
EPA
has
stated
with
respect
to
the
application
of
Section
209
of
the
Clean
Air
Act:

Once
California
has
received
a
waiver
of
federal
preemption
for
its
standards
and
enforcement
procedures
for
a
class
of
vehicles,
it
may
adopt
other
conditions
precedent
to
initial
retail
sale,
titling
or
registration
of
the
subject
class
of
vehicles
without
the
necessity
of
receiving
a
further
waiver
of
Federal
preemption.
16
In
the
most
recent
determination
for
emission
control
labeling,
the
U.
S.
EPA
stated:

14
54
F.
R.
13427
(
April
3,
1989);
43
F.
R.
36679
(
August
18,
1978).

15
See,
e.
g.,
49
F.
R.
18887
(
May
5,
1984);
47
F.
R.
1015
(
January
8,
1982);
46
F.
R.
36237
(
July
14,
1981).

16
46
F.
R.
36742
(
July
15,
1981),
footnotes
omitted;
45
F.
R.
54131
(
August
14,
1980);
43
F.
R.
36579
(
August
18,
1978).
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
12
EPA's
prior
issuance
of
waivers
for
the
affected
classes
of
vehicles
and
engines,
based
on
California's
standards
and/
or
accompanying
enforcement
procedures,
removes
the
prohibitions
of
section
209(
a)
regarding
such
conditions
precedent
for
these
classes.
Hence
no
waiver
under
section
209(
b)
is
required
for
California
to
enforce
the
amended
[
Emission
Control]
Label
Specifications.
17
As
discussed
above,
the
ARB
has
previously
received
a
section
209(
b)
waiver
for
onroad
motorcycles
and
is
requesting
a
determination
that
the
regulations
submitted
herein
remain
within
the
scope
of
the
waiver.
For
the
emission­
control
label
specifications,
the
ARB
requests
confirmation
that
the
previous
section
209(
b)
waiver
issued
for
emission
standards
and
test
procedures
for
on­
road
motorcycles
relieves
the
ARB
of
the
need
to
demonstrate
that
the
specifications
independently
meet
the
waiver
criteria
and
that
the
amended
specifications
may
be
enforced
in
California
without
further
action
by
the
Administrator.

VI.
Conclusion
Based
on
the
foregoing,
I
respectfully
request
that
you
confirm
that
the
amendments
to
California's
requirements
for
on­
road
Class
III
motorcycles
adopted
for
the
interim
2004
standard
(
Tier­
1)
and
the
final
2008
standard
(
Tier­
2)
are
within
the
scope
of
the
previous
waiver
of
federal
preemption
for
this
category.
For
the
label
specifications,
the
Board
concludes
that
the
Administrator
may
enforce
the
amended
specifications
without
further
action.
Listed
below
are
the
documents
pertaining
to
the
regulations
covered
by
this
request.

Materials
from
the
On­
Road
Class
III
Motorcycle
and
Motorcycle
Engine
Rulemaking
1.
Public
Hearing
Notice,
dated
October
13,
1998;

2.
Staff
Report:
Initial
Statement
of
Reasons
for
Proposed
Amendments
to
the
California
On­
Road
Motorcycle
Regulations,
with
Appendices
A
through
C;

3.
Transcript
of
the
December
10,
1998
Hearing;

4.
Copy
of
Slides
for
Staff
Presentation;

5.
Resolution
98­
65,
dated
December
10,
1998
and
Attachment
A;

17
54
F.
R.
13427
(
April
3,
1989)
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
13
6.
Notice
of
Public
Availability
of
Modified
Text;
Modified
Text;
Dates
of
Availability:
June
18,
1999
through
July
6,
1999;

7.
Second
Notice
of
Public
Availability
of
Modified
Text;
Modified
Text;
Dates
of
Availability
September
17,
1999
through
October
4,
1999;

8.
Executive
Order
G­
99­
073,
dated
October
22,
1999
and
Attachment;

9.
Final
Statement
of
Reasons
for
Rulemaking,
Including
Summary
of
Comments
and
Agency
Responses;

10.
Final
Regulation
Order,
as
filed
with
the
Office
of
Administrative
Law
on
October
22,
1999;

11.
Fully
endorsed
STD
400
face
sheet
and
Final
Regulation
Order
as
approved
by
OAL
and
filed
with
the
Secretary
of
State
November
22,
1999,
containing
amended
sections
1900,
1958,
and
1965,
title
13,
California
Code
of
Regulations.

If
you
need
additional
technical
information
on
this
item,
please
contact
Jack
Kitowski,
Chief
of
the
On­
Road
Control
Regulations
Branch
of
the
Mobile
Source
Control
Division,
at
(
916)
323­
6169
or
jkitowsk@
arb.
ca.
gov.
You
may
address
legal
questions
to
Diane
Moritz
Johnston,
Senior
Staff
Counsel,
at
(
916)
323­
9609
or
djohnsto@
arb.
ca.
gov.

Sincerely,

Catherine
Witherspoon
Executive
Officer
Enclosures
cc:
Jack
Kitowski,
Chief
On­
Road
Control
Regulations
Branch
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Diane
Moritz
Johnston
Senior
Staff
Counsel
Office
of
Legal
Affairs
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
14
The
Honorable
Christine
Todd
Whitman
Page
15
bcc:
Kathleen
Walsh,
General
Counsel
Jim
Ryden,
Chief,
Enforcement
Division
Bob
Cross,
Chief,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division
Steve
Hada,
Mobile
Source
Control
Division,
El
Monte
Floyd
Vergara,
Office
of
Legal
Affairs
Mr.
Robert
M.
Doyle
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Headquarters
Ariel
Rios
Building
Engine
Programs
and
Compliance
Division
(
6403J)
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
