Jump to main content.

Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption for Motorcycles

Related Material




[Federal Register: October 31, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 211)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54965-54967]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31oc01-24]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-7095-9]
RIN 2060-AJ76
 
Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for 
Highway Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption for Motorcycles

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Today's proposed rule exempts motorcycles with emission 
control devices that could be affected by the use of leaded gasoline 
from having to be equipped with gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors. 
As before, motorcycles and other motor vehicles without such emission 
control devices are not required to be equipped with gasoline tank 
filler inlet restrictors.
    The Clean Air Act and corresponding EPA regulations prohibit 
gasoline containing lead or lead additives (leaded gasoline) as a motor 
vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. As a deterrent to misfueling 
prior to that date, the EPA regulations required filler inlet 
restrictors on motor vehicles equipped with an emission control device 
that could be affected by the use of leaded gasoline, such as a 
catalytic converter. EPA retained that provision after 1995 because the 
filler inlet restrictor, besides being a deterrent to misfueling, has 
also been incorporated into the design of some vapor recovery gasoline 
nozzle spouts. Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors do not work well 
with most motorcycle fuel tanks, especially the saddle type of tank, 
because of their shallow depth. A gasoline tank filler inlet restrictor 
may cause gasoline spitback or spillage when a motorcycle is refueled, 
which increases evaporative emissions. Today there is relatively little 
risk of misfueling a motorcycle. Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline 
tank filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle helps to control gasoline 
vapors when the motorcycle is refueled.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rule are available for inspection 
in public docket A-2001-17 at the Air Docket Office of the EPA, Room M-
1500, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20460, (202)260-7548, 
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As 
provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Babst at (202) 564-9473, 
facsimile: (202) 565-2085, e-mail address: babst.richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For more information on this proposal, 
please see EPA's direct final rule published in the Rules and 
Regulations section of this Federal Register which amends the 
regulations to exempt motorcycles from the tank filler inlet restrictor 
provision of 40 CFR 80.24(b). The Agency views this direct final rule 
as a noncontroversial action for the reasons discussed in the Direct 
Final Rule published in today's Federal Register. If no adverse or 
critical comments or requests for a public hearing are received in 
response to this proposal, no further action is contemplated in 
relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will 
withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will 
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive 
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that 
is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) 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;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

[[Page 54966]]

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose any new information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) Public 
Law 104-4 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, more 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 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 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.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Today's rule exempts motorcycles from a current 
provision that requires them, under certain circumstances, to be 
equipped with fuel inlet restrictors, and thus avoids the costs imposed 
by the existing Federal regulations. Today's rule, therefore, is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. As discussed above, the proposed rule is a deregulatory 
action and affects only motorcycle manufacturers.

D. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997) applies to 
any rule that: (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, the Agency must 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 
is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because 
the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children. EPA reduced the content of lead in leaded gasoline, 
because EPA found that lead particle emissions from motor vehicles 
presented a significant risk of harm to the health of urban 
populations, especially children (38 FR 33734, Dec. 6, 1973). Congress 
ultimately banned the use of leaded gasoline in motor vehicles after 
1995. 42 U.S.C. 7545(n). Gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors were 
related to the phase-out of leaded gasoline to prevent a motor vehicle 
with an emission control device, such as a catalytic converter, from 
using leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage such emission control 
devices. Today there is relatively little risk of misfueling a 
motorcycle with an emission control device that could be damaged by the 
use of leaded gasoline, because leaded gasoline has now been banned 
from use in all motor vehicles for over five years and is generally no 
longer available for sale at gasoline filling stations.
    The public is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies 
and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assessed results 
of early life exposure to lead, evaporative gasoline emissions, or 
ozone (caused by any increased evaporative emissions) resulting from 
the absence of fuel filler neck restrictors on motorcycles that are 
equipped with emission control devices that are impacted by the use of 
leaded gasoline.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 
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.''
    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. Today's proposed rule eliminates 
the existing requirement that manufacturers of motorcycles must equip 
certain motorcycles with fuel tank filler inlet restrictors. Thus, 
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pub L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do 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. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of

[[Page 54967]]

the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to 
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    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 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 today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business, 
including its affiliates, that has a maximum of 1,000 employees (13 CFR 
121.201 for SIC code 3711 ``Motor Vehicles and Passenger Car Bodies''); 
(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-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a 
positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the 
rule. Today's proposed rule is a deregulatory action and affects all 
motorcycle manufacturers. It eliminates the existing requirement that 
manufacturers of motorcycles must equip certain motorcycles with fuel 
tank filler inlet restrictors. We have therefore concluded that today's 
proposed rule will relieve regulatory burden for any small entity.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    On January 1, 2001 Executive Order 13084 was superseded by 
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during 
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development 
of the final rule will address tribal considerations. Executive Order 
13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951, Nov. 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.''
    Today's 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. 
The proposed rule affects the applicability of the fuel tank filler 
inlet restrictor to motorcycles. It therefore affects only 
manufacturers of motorcycles. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this proposed rule.

I. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

    For more information about this proposed rule and more details as 
described in the preamble to the direct final rule see a copy of this 
rule on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq under the title: 
``Proposed Rule--Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead 
Additives for Highway Use: Fuel Inlet Restrictor Exemption for 
Motorcycles.''

K. Statutory Authority

    Authority for this action is in sections 211, and 301(a) of the 
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545, 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Motor vehicle and 
motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle pollution, Penalties.

    Dated: October 24, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 01-27379 Filed 10-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.