[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28763-28766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14307]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5513-3]
RIN 2060-AD55
Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for
Highway Use
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule and an associated notice of
proposed rulemaking of the same title on February 2, 1996 (61 FR 3832
and 61 FR 3894, respectively). Both actions were to revise EPA
regulations to reflect the Clean Air Act's statutory prohibition of the
introduction into commerce of gasoline containing lead or lead
additives for use as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. EPA
received adverse comment on 40 CFR 80.24(b) as published in both the
direct final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking. In
response to that comment, EPA withdrew 40 CFR 80.24(b) from the direct
final rule on March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8221). All other actions of the
direct final rule became effective on March 4, 1996. In today's action,
EPA is finalizing the revised 40 CFR 80.24(b) based on the February 2,
1996 notice of proposed rulemaking.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on July 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking and written comments
on the direct final rule and notice of proposed rulemaking have been
placed in Public Docket No. A-95-13, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500),
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Documents may be inspected between the hours of 8
a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 233-9473.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
[[Page 28764]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Manufacturers of motor
vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the provision at 40 CFR 80.24(b) dealing specifically with
specifications for fuel filler inlet restrictors. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
II. Introduction
A. Background
As amended in 1990, the Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of
gasoline containing lead or lead additives into commerce for use as a
motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. On February 2, 1996, EPA
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule and associated
notice of proposed rulemaking revising its regulations for consistency
with this Clean Air Act prohibition.
Among other actions, the direct final rule and associated notice of
proposed rulemaking revised 40 CFR 80.24(b). This paragraph had
contained size specifications for the gasoline tank filler inlet of
motor vehicles equipped with an emission control device that would be
significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. The purpose of
the tank filler inlet restriction was to allow the insertion of an
unleaded gasoline pump nozzle, but not a leaded gasoline pump nozzle.
Specifically, paragraph 80.24(b) required that a manufacturer of motor
vehicles ``equipped with an emission control device which the
Administrator has determined will be significantly impaired by the use
of leaded gasoline'' (per the former introductory language of paragraph
80.24) shall ``[m]anufacture such vehicle with each gasoline tank
filler inlet having a restriction which prevents the insertion of a
nozzle with a spout as described in Sec. 80.22(f)(1) and allows the
insertion of a nozzle with a spout as described in Sec. 80.22(f)(2).''
Section 80.22(f)(1), which was deleted by the February 2, 1996 direct
final rule, specified that ``[e]ach pump from which leaded gasoline is
introduced into motor vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle spout
having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than 0.930
inch (2.363 centimeters).'' Section 80.22(f)(2), which the February 2,
1996 direct final rule left intact, specifies that ``[e]ach pump from
which unleaded gasoline is introduced into motor vehicles shall be
equipped with a nozzle spout which meets the following specifications:
(I) The outside diameter of the terminal end shall not be greater than
0.840 inch (2.134 centimeters); (ii) . . .''
Paragraph 80.24(b) contained additional specifications to prevent
misfueling of motor vehicles with leaded gasoline. Section 80.24(b)(1)
required that the filler inlet restrictor must ``pool'' gasoline at the
restrictor's opening, if fueling is attempted when the spout of a pump
nozzle is not inserted into the restrictor opening. Historically, this
has been accomplished by a spring-loaded door on the inside of the
restrictor opening, which would be pushed open by inserting the spout
of an unleaded gasoline nozzle. Since leaded gasoline nozzle spouts are
larger than the inlet restrictor opening, they would not fit into the
restrictor opening or push open the spring loaded door. Fueling with
leaded gasoline would require the nozzle spout to be positioned in
front of the restrictor opening and spring-loaded door. If fueling were
attempted in this manner, the gasoline would pool at the restrictor
opening and cause the nozzle's automatic shut-off device to activate.
The related paragraph 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers
from meeting the ``pooling'' requirements of paragraph 80.24(b)(1).
In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA removed various portions of section 80.24,
including the introductory text, and modified section 80.24(b) to make
the size requirements of the tank filler inlet applicable to all new
motor vehicles, and not just to those equipped with an emission control
device that would be significantly impaired by the use of leaded
gasoline. EPA reasoned that retaining the tank filler inlet restrictor
requirements would conform with the statutory ban prohibiting the use
of gasoline containing lead or lead additives as a motor vehicle fuel.
The restrictor requirements for motor vehicles would match the nozzle
size requirement for dispensing unleaded gasoline, which EPA had
retained in paragraph 80.22(f)(2). Further, General Motors and several
gasoline pump nozzle manufacturers had requested that the specification
for the fuel filler inlet size be retained so that automobile equipment
will continue to be compatible with Stage II vapor recovery pump
nozzles. EPA simplified the applicability language of paragraph
80.24(b) to refer to all motor vehicles, instead of motor vehicles
equipped with an emission control device that would be significantly
impaired by the use of leaded gasoline, because it thought that all
motor vehicles are currently manufactured with tank filler inlet
restrictors. The agency did not intend to broaden the applicability of
80.24(b).
In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of
proposed rulemaking, EPA also removed sections 80.24(b)(1) and
80.24(b)(2). As stated in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule (see
discussion of sections 80.24 and 80.22(d) and (e)), EPA believes
misfueling is unlikely, making the paragraph 80.24(b)(1) ``pooling''
safeguard against misfueling unnecessary. Once section 80.24(b)(1) is
removed, it is appropriate to remove section 80.24(b)(2) as well, since
80.24(b)(2) exempts motorcycle manufacturers from the requirements of
80.24(b)(1).
On February 22, 1996, EPA received an adverse comment from Harley
Davidson, Inc. (Harley) on the revised language of 40 CFR
80.24(b).1 In its comment, Harley states that motorcycles
generally do not use emission control devices that would be
significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline (e.g., catalytic
converters) and are therefore not manufactured with tank filler inlet
restrictors matching the requirements of the existing paragraph
80.24(b). The February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice
of proposed rulemaking would require these motorcycles to meet the fuel
inlet size requirements of 40 CFR 80.24(b), thereby causing additional
economic burden and manufacturing complexity for Harley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This comment has been included in docket no. A-95-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA did not intend or foresee that it would be expanding the
applicability of 80.24(b) by revising the applicability language.
Because of this adverse comment, EPA published in the Federal Register
a ``Partial Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule'' on March 4, 1996 (61 FR
8221). That action removed 40 CFR 80.24(b) from the direct final rule.
All other provisions of the direct final rule became effective on March
4, 1996, as planned.
In addition to the above issue, EPA has determined that the version
of 40 CFR 80.24(b) in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and
related notice of proposed rulemaking inadvertently
[[Page 28765]]
tightened the specifications for the motor vehicle fuel inlet
restrictor. The existing regulations at 40 CFR 80.24(b) require that
the restrictor must prevent ``the insertion of a nozzle with a spout as
described in Sec. 80.22(f)(1).'' 40 CFR 80.22(f)(1) specified a nozzle
spout having a terminal end with an ``outside diameter of not less than
0.930 inch (2.363 centimeters).'' Because the February 2, 1996 direct
final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking deleted 40 CFR
80.22(f)(1), the text of the proposed 40 CFR 80.24(b) was changed. As
proposed, 80.24(b) would specify that the restrictor must prevent the
insertion of a nozzle of ``greater size than prescribed in
Sec. 80.22(f)(2).'' 40 CFR 80.22(f)(2) specifies a spout terminal end
having an ``outside diameter . . . not . . . greater than 0.840 inch
(2.134 centimeters).'' Thus, the proposed regulation would require that
the fuel inlet restrictor prevent the insertion of a smaller-diameter
nozzle spout than that allowed in the existing regulation.
B. Statutory Authority
EPA promulgates this final rule pursuant to its authority under
Sections 211(c), 211(n), and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7545(c), 7545(n), 7601(a).
III. Description of Today's Action
Today's final rule revises 40 CFR 80.24(b) to complete the
regulatory revisions contemplated by the February 2, 1996 direct final
rule. Those regulatory revisions were rendered incomplete by the March
4, 1996 (61 FR 8221) partial withdrawal of the direct final rule.
Section 80.24(b)(1) and (2). As proposed, this rule deletes section
80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2), because EPA believes these ``pooling''
safeguards against misfueling are no longer necessary (see
``Background'' above).
Section 80.24(b). As finalized today, 40 CFR 80.24(b) differs from
the proposal in two respects. First, the text of 40 CFR 80.24(b) has
been changed from the proposal to retain its previous applicability.
Specifically, EPA has incorporated into the revised paragraph 80.24(b)
the introductory text previously contained in section 80.24 that
described which motor vehicle manufacturers are subject to 80.24(b)
fuel inlet restrictor specifications.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The phrase ``leaded gasoline'' in the former introductory
text is changed to ``gasoline other than unleaded gasoline'',
because the term ``leaded gasoline'' has been deleted from the
regulations. This textual change does not change the scope of the
regulation, because the deleted term ``leaded gasoline'' encompassed
all gasoline which did not qualify as unleaded gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has changed the proposed language of 80.24(b) in this way to
avoid creating additional compliance burdens for manufacturers of
motorcycles and other motor vehicles currently produced without the
fuel inlet restrictors. In its February 2, 1996 notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA proposed to expand the requirement for fuel inlet
restrictors to all motor vehicles. EPA reasoned that retaining the fuel
inlet restrictor requirement would conform with the statutory ban, and
did not realize that some motor vehicles continue to be produced
without fuel inlet restrictors. EPA therefore proposed to retain the
fuel inlet restrictor requirement and simplify the applicability
language to refer to all motor vehicles.
After reviewing the comment submitted by Harley, EPA now recognizes
that the proposed revisions to the applicability language would impose
additional burden for motor vehicles that are not required to have the
fuel inlet restrictor under the previous regulations. The Agency
believes that expansion of the applicability of the restrictor
requirement is not appropriate. The economic burden of applying the
restrictor requirement to motorcycles and any other motor vehicles not
previously subject to the requirement outweighs the benefit of
facilitating the statutory ban by installing restrictors on these
vehicles.
Second, the text of 80.24(b) finalized today has been changed from
the proposal to retain the size specifications for the fuel inlet
restrictor set forth in the previous version of this regulation. As
explained above (see ``Background''), that previous version referenced
the specification set forth in section 80.22(f)(1), which was deleted
by the February 2, 1996 direct final rule. The proposed text of
80.24(b) failed to incorporate the nozzle specification set forth in
deleted 80.22(f)(1). In today's final rule, EPA has incorporated the
nozzle specification contained in the previous section 80.22(f)(1). EPA
makes this change to insure that the Agency does not increase the
burden of complying with the fuel inlet restrictor size specifications
of section 80.24(b).
IV. Environmental Impact
This rule is expected to have no net environmental impact.
V. Economic Impact
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires
that Federal Agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small
entities. The Act requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in conjunction with notice and comment rulemaking,
unless the Agency head certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.
605(b). The Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because
this rule deletes a previous requirement and retains another
requirement without substantive change, it is not expected to result in
any additional compliance cost to regulated parties, and in fact, is
expected to reduce compliance cost to regulated parties.
VI. Effective Date
This action will become effective on July 8, 1996.
VII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866,3 the Agency must determine
whether a regulation 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 of 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 entitlements, 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
this Executive Order.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. at section 3(f)(1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``UMRA''), Pub. L. 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate which may
[[Page 28766]]
result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
Section 205, for any rule subject to Section 202 EPA generally must
select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Under Section 203, before establishing any
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, EPA must take steps to inform and advise small governments
of the requirements and enable them to provide input.
EPA has determined that the final rule promulgated today does not
trigger the requirements of UMRA. The rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more, and it does not establish regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
IX. Judicial Review
Because this action promulgates a control or prohibition under
Section 211 of the Clean Air Act and is nationally applicable, under
Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act judicial review of this action
is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within sixty days of publication
of this action in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Fuel Additives,
Gasoline, Leaded Gasoline, Unleaded Gasoline, and Motor Vehicle
Pollution.
Dated: May 24, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
2. Section 80.24 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 80.24 Controls applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers.
* * * * *
(b) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle equipped with an emission
control device which the Administrator has determined will be
significantly impaired by the use of gasoline other than unleaded
gasoline shall manufacture such vehicle with each gasoline tank filler
inlet having a restriction which prevents the insertion of a nozzle
with a spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of 0.930
inch (2.363 centimeters) or more and allows the insertion of a nozzle
with a spout meeting the specifications of Sec. 80.22(f)(2).
[FR Doc. 96-14307 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P