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.

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 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” (65 FR 67249, 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