| EPA Emissions Proposed Ruling |
Proposed new federal highway motorcycle emission standards were released on July 25, 2002 by the EPA. Here’s a brief summary of the proposed standards:
The proposed federal Environmental Protection Agency exhaust emission standards for highway motorcycles seek to reduce the contribution of several pollutants to the atmosphere caused by the imperfect combustion of motor fuels.
With "perfect combustion," an air-fuel mixture would yield water (oxygen mixed with hydrogen), carbon dioxide (CO2, oxygen mixed with carbon), and nitrogen (a component of air). No motor vehicle achieves perfect combustion.
During "imperfect combustion," the major byproducts of concern to the EPA are HC (hydrocarbons; from unburned or partially burned fuel), NOx (oxides of nitrogen; from high pressure/temperature conditions in an engine), and CO (carbon monoxide; from incomplete combustion when carbon in the fuel is partially oxidized rather than fully oxided to carbon dioxide or CO2).
In addition to exhaust emissions, the EPA is concerned about evaporative emissions, a process during which HC pollutants escape into the air through fuel evaporation.
The EPA is proposing that federal emissions standards for all classes of highway motorcycles match those of the California program but on a delayed schedule relative to the implementation in California.
For Class I motorcycles (which have an engine displacement of 50-to- 169cc) and Class II motorcycles (which have an engine displacement of 170-to-279cc) this would mean meeting standards that apply today in California.
For Class III motorcycles (which have an engine displacement of 280cc or more) this would mean meeting the two tiers of standards that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put in place for future model years.
Processes by which manufacturers certify their motorcycles, the test procedures, the driving cycle, and other elements of the federal program would remain unchanged.
| Highway Motorcycles and Who Makes Them |
Highway motorcycles are defined as two- and three-wheeled self- powered vehicles with a curb mass less than or equal to 793 kilograms, or 1,749 pounds, designed primarily for on-road use. Mopeds and scooters that can’t exceed 25 mph or with engines of less than 50cc currently aren’t included in this definition.
Class I motorcycles have an engine displacement between 50 and 169cc; Class II, between 170 and 279cc; and Class III, equal to or greater than 280cc.
Dual-sport or dual-use motorcycles are classified as street-legal dirt bikes and are considered highway motorcycles.
Class III motorcycles manufactured in 2001 are the most popular highway motorcycles (160 out of 183 engine families) and represent more than 90 percent of projected sales. The average displacement is almost 1100cc, according to the EPA.
Class I and Class II motorcycles, with less than 8 percent (23 out of 183 engine families) of projected 2001 sales, include mostly dual-sport bikes, scooters and entry-level sport bikes and cruisers.
In 1998 there were about 5.4 million registered highway motorcycles in the United States (565,000 were dual-sport motorcycles), according to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC). About 411,000 highway motorcycles were sold in 1998 (72 percent of motorcycle sales).
BMW, Harley-Davidson, Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha account for about 95 percent of all motorcycles sold. The remaining 5 percent are built by small manufacturers.
Class I and II Motorcycles
The EPA proposes to change the status of all motorcycles, mopeds and scooters below 50cc to be included in the Class I motorcycle category, unless their top speed doesn’t exceed 25 mph.
Beginning with model year 2006, federal emission limits would be 1.0 grams per kilometer traveled (g/km) of HC (hydrocarbons) and 12.0 g/ km CO, as measured on the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) for Class I and II motorcycles. The EPA also proposes to include Class I and II motorcycles in an overall emissions averaging program. Such a program is not in place now.
Class III Motorcycles
The EPA proposes to require that the federal class III motorcycle standards match the recently finalized California program, but on a delayed schedule.
Tier 1, which applies to all Class III motorcycles starting in the 2006 model year, proposes a 1.4 g/km HC+NOx standard. Tier 2, which applies starting in the 2010 model year, proposes a 0.8 g/km HC+NOx standard. This differs from the current federal standard in that NOx is not included in the current 5.0 g/km HC federal limit.
The existing CO standard of 12.0 g/km would remain unchanged.
| Special Compliance Provisions |
The EPA recognizes there are more than 30 small motorcycle manufacturing companies that may have difficulty meeting the proposed emission standards.
The EPA proposes companies that manufacture fewer than 3,000 units (Class I, II and III motorcycles) per model year and employ fewer than 500 employees could delay meeting the Tier 1 standard of 1.4 g/km HC+NOx until the 2008 model year. It also recognizes that the Tier 2 standards could be too strict for these small manufacturers to ever meet. So the EPA proposes to re-evaluate requiring compliance of these manufacturers with the Tier 2 standards in a 2006 progress review with the CARB.
| Emissions - Credit Program |
The EPA proposes to implement an emissions-credit program, under which manufacturers could balance emissions of their Class III motorcycles such that their sales-weighted average HC+NOx emission levels meet the Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards above. Under this program, manufacturers could produce some engine families that emit higher HC+NOx levels so long as other engine families offset these levels with lower emission levels. No engine family could emit over 5.0 g/km HC+NOx.
As noted above, the EPA may allow all Class I, II and III motorcycles to be included in an overall averaging program. There is also a proposal to include incentives for early compliance with Tier 2 standards for Class III motorcycles.
The EPA currently uses the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) as the method for evaluating motorcycles against current federal emission standards. It has considered other testing procedures that it believes could provide a more realistic representation of how motorcycles are operated in the real world. The US06 test cycle and the WMTC (World Motorcycle Test Cycle) are mentioned as possible replacement procedures. No effort to replace the FTP is under way at this time, although this could change if the EPA determines either the US06 or WMTC (or another as-yet undeveloped test) is more appropriate.
The EPA recognizes the tendency of owners to modify their motorcycles to enhance performance and style. It cited the Clean Air Act section 203(a) as the legal authority that makes it 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…"
The EPA stated: "We use the term "tampering" to refer specifically to actions that are illegal under the 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." The EPA further stated: "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."
| Technical Feasibility of the Standards |
Tier 1 Standards
To help manufacturers meet Tier 1 standards for the 2006 model year, the EPA determined there are four basic types of existing, non-catalyst- based, emission-control systems available. These include secondary pulse-air injection, precise fuel control, improved fuel atomization and delivery, and reduced engine-out emission levels from engine changes.
Secondary pulse-air injection is already used on 65 of the 151 2001 model year Class III engine families. This technology (using a one-way reed valve) involves the introduction of fresh air into the exhaust pipe to cause further combustion of unburned HC molecules.
Precise fuel control and improved fuel atomization and delivery are achieved by using sequential multi-port fuel injection (SFI). Twenty-five of the 151 2001 model year Class III engine families use SFI technology.
Engine modifications that reduce the amount of unburned HC molecules include piston modifications, tighter tolerances and improved surface finishes on cylinders, and piston ring and exhaust valve stem seals redesign. Cam timing changes and intake manifold redesign can increase valve overlap, shown to be effective in reducing NOx emissions.
For Class I and II motorcycles, the EPA notes that 21 of 22 EPA- certified engine families already meet the proposed new standards. All of these engine families are four-stroke technology with basic engine modifications; some include secondary air injection and/or a two-way oxidation catalyst. A single two-stroke engine family is non-compliant. Under the proposed emissions-credit program, this engine family might be certified because it doesn’t exceed the cap of 5.0 g/km HC+NOx.
For Class III motorcycles, the EPA believes that Tier 1 standards could be met with basic engine modifications rather than catalytic converters.
Tier 2 Standards
In order to meet proposed Tier 2 standards by 2010, the EPA recognizes that manufacturers may have to use technologies not currently in widespread use on motorcycles.
These technologies include computer-controlled secondary pulse-air injection and catalytic converters. Since two-way catalysts only reduce HC and CO emissions, manufacturers may be forced to use three-way catalysts to lessen HC, CO and NOx emissions.
Other technologies mentioned by the EPA include heated oxygen sensors in exhaust manifolds and adaptive transient fuel control software in the onboard computer that controls the fuel injection system.
Clearly, cost, performance and safety issues will have to be addressed with the introduction of any new technologies designed to reduce emissions.
The EPA has proposed implementation of new federal exhaust emission standards for highway motorcycles based on the current CARB standards but delayed by two years for each level. New 2006 model year motorcycles would be required to meet proposed Tier 1 standards (1.4 g/km HC+NOx and 12.0 g/km CO) and new 2010 model year motorcycles would be required to meet proposed Tier 2 standards (0.8 g/km HC+NOx and 12.0 g/km CO).
The official proposal in PDF format.
November 2000. The EPA proposed Docket A-2000-01. Public comments were directed to Margaret Borushko in Ann Arbor.
February 13, 2001. The MRF submitted their "Public Comment" to the EPA on Docket A-2000-01. At the same time, the EPA extended it's public comment period until September 14, 2001 - due to so many people wanting to speak on this issue.
November 14, 2001.The EPA was expected to release the rule on this date. However, they chose to hold off until January 2002. This was due to intense lobbying of motorcyclists and small manufactures.
February 2002. According to the analysis by the Regulatory Studies Program of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the result of that failure is that "policymakers - including those in the Agency - cannot properly assess how the proposed rule will affect the health and welfare of U.S. citizens." The study quotes extensively from a September 2001 letter by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation. That letter states that tougher emissions standards will "hike substantially the costs to consumers of machines with more performance problems when viewed from the motorcyclist's perspective, yet radically reduce if not eliminate the choices available to the community of American motorcyclists to improve them." The study continues: "A true benefit-cost analysis would estimate the loss in consumer welfare described by Mr. Wyld - at least in qualitative terms (if quantitative measures are impractical). Such an analysis would also avoid misinterpreting a loss in consumer welfare as a 'benefit.'" The executive order in question, E.O. 12688, states that agencies should "select the approaches that maximize the net benefits." "Maximizing net benefits requires an economic benefit-cost analysis," the Mercatus Center study states, which EPA has not conducted for either on- or off-road motorcycles. MRF Release - February 16, 2002
July 25, 2002. Then EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman signed the proposal. Although it was not published in the Federal Register (anticipated publication in August), the Proposed Rule states that the deadline for public comments was November 8, 2002, and scheduled a public hearing September 17, 2002 in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
September 17, 2002. In Ann Arbor Michigan, John Silk (ABATE of Michigan) delivered the updated MRF's Public Comment on the proposed rule. "I heard no testimony today that favored EPA's proposed rule," Silk reported, "and virtually every speaker appealed for a delay in the deadline for public comments." Many others also gave testimony, but many were not able to as the EPA changed the site of the Public Comment at the last possible moment from Ypsilanti to Ann Arbor. MRF Testifies
September 19, 2002. Tom Wyld asked Margaret Borushko of the EPA to extend the public comment period to January 8, 2003. The reasons was the sheer volume of impacted small businesses, the degree to which the proposed rule adversely impacts the American motorcyclist culture, the complexity of the proposed rule itself and the need for further study. MRF Letter
September 24, 2002. Congressman James Barcia (D-Michigan) introduces the "Motorcycle and Motorcycling Small Business Protection Act", which was introduced "to insure reasonable emission standards for highway motorcycles, and other purposes."
October 29, 2002. The EPA extended the Public Comment period until January 7, 2003. Due to the volume of people wanting to comment on the proposed rule.
December 11, 2002. The MRF announced that through donations from individuals and SMRO's that a major study on the proposed rule would be launched by Dr. Garrett Vaughn to be completed by December 31, 2002. The Vaughn Study - PDF Format
January 5, 2003. The MRF and many other citizens and SMRO's submitted Public Comments to the EPA. The Vaughn Study was also submitted.
March 3, 2003. Two EPA staffer attending the American Motorcyclist Association's (AMA) "Introduction to Washington," an educational seminar designed to provide tools to citizens eager to make a difference in Washington, made the following comment to concerned members of the MRF and SMRO's concerning the agency's rulemaking process: "YOU GET NO VOTE!"
May 28, 2003. Congressional members Ted Strickland (R-Ohio) and John Shimkus (R-Illinois) put together a letter from Congress to the EPA, asking the EPA to "prove" their case. To date, over 50 congressmen have signed on to the "letter" along with some who drafted their own. View the Shimkus and Strickland Letter to the EPA
September 10, 2003. The EPA answers the Strickland and Shimkus letter. View their answer.
- New street bikes are cleaner than ever before – entirely market-driven, not government-dictated – with many, if not most, new motorcycles close to or better than the current California standard.
- Street bikes are responsible for a tiny portion of the pollution inventory attributable to street motor vehicles of all kinds. (In California, which boasts more bikes per capita than any other state, 0.006% -- or the equivalent of 1/4-inch of a football field.)
- Tougher standards will shock the $14 billion industry and devastate the industry's most fragile element: the aftermarket, some 10,000 custom shops and neighborhood mechanics nationwide, franchised dealers and small-volume motorcycle makers.
- Tougher standards WILL REDUCE MOTORCYCLING IN AMERICA. The fallout is inevitable: sales declines and unemployment in an industry that left the last century more robust than ever before. And, as riders turn to passenger cars, the result will be more gas consumption, more road wear, more gridlock, hence MORE POLLUTION.
- When realistic cost estimates are used, EPA's proposed emission standards for on-highway motorcycles would cost from $3,500 to more than $7,500 per ton (2001 dollars) - far higher than the per-ton costs of previously implemented mobile source pollution prevention programs.
- The EPA did not meet its obligations under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) because its analysis of the proposed emissions considers only motorcycle manufacturers - and especially a handful of large motorcycle manufacturers. EPA never considers the economic impacts that the proposed standards would have on the tens of thousands of small businesses that also belong to the U.S. motorcycle industry: franchised dealers, performance shops and aftermarket suppliers.
- The EPA ignores the issue of rider safety. None of the major EPA documents that discuss the proposed standards even make a single mention of either "rider safety" or "consumer safety."
- The EPA's analysis ignores possible impacts of the proposed standards on future motorcycle sales by assuming sales will grow smoothly at 1 percent annually, despite the historical evidence showing that national sales are subject to radical year-to-year swings and despite the long-term downward trend between the early 1980s and the late 1990s (despite the recent upswing in annual sales).
- The EPA wants to "harmonize" California's proposed emission standards to the other 49 states (regardless of those states' air pollution regulatory needs), but ignores that states 7.7% reduction in motorcycle registrations between 1996 and 2001 when registrations increased by 32.2% in the other 49 states. Even a cursory look at the data suggests that government regulations explain much of the fall in California's motorcycle registrations.
- The EPA did not meet its obligations under Executive Order 12866 to consider a less stringent alternative to the proposed emission standards. Yet, ample warnings abound that the catalyst-forcing Tier 2 standards will produce negligible environmental benefit at considerable cost to jobs and personal freedom, compared to only a slightly less stringent standard.