[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54955-54959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27378]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-7095-8]
RIN 2060-AJ76


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This 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: This action will be effective December 31, 2001, unless the 
Agency receives adverse or critical comments or a request for a public 
hearing by November 30, 2001. If the Agency receives adverse or 
critical comments, EPA will publish in the Federal Register a timely 
withdrawal of this direct final rule informing the public that this 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Any person wishing to submit comments should submit them (in 
duplicate, if possible) to the docket listed below, with a copy 
forwarded to Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Transportation and Regional Programs Division, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, N.W., (Mail Code: 6406J), Washington, D.C. 20460.
    Public Docket: 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: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially affected by this rule are manufacturers of 
motorcycles. Regulated categories include:

[[Page 54956]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Manufacturers of motorcycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether you are affected by this rule, you should 
carefully examine the requirements in Sec. 80.24(b) of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you have any questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. History of Fuel Tank Filler Restrictor

    Prior to 1996, 40 CFR 80.24(b) 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, Sec. 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'' 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) 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) specified 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) * * *''
    Section 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 ``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 
had 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 
were larger than the inlet restrictor opening, they did 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 Sec. 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers from 
meeting the ``pooling'' requirements of Sec. 80.24(b)(1).
    Section 211(n) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(n), prohibits 
the introduction of gasoline containing lead or lead additives into 
commerce for use as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. For 
consistency with this Clean Air Act prohibition, we published in the 
Federal Register on February 2, 1996 a direct final rule and associated 
notice of proposed rulemaking revising our regulations (61 FR 3832 and 
61 FR 3894, respectively). The direct final rule became effective on 
March 4, 1996 except for language associated with Sec. 80.24(b). We 
withdrew language for that paragraph from the direct final rule on 
March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8221) due to adverse comment, and subsequently 
published revised language in the Federal Register on June 6, 1996 (61 
FR 28763).
    In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of 
proposed rulemaking, we removed various portions of Sec. 80.24, 
including the introductory text, and modified Sec. 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. We reasoned that retaining the requirement for the tank 
filler inlet restrictor 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 we had retained in Sec. 80.22(f)(2). Further, General 
Motors and several gasoline pump nozzle manufacturers had requested 
that the specification for the tank filler inlet size be retained so 
that automobile equipment would continue to be compatible with Stage II 
vapor recovery pump nozzles. We simplified the applicability language 
of Sec. 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 we 
thought that all motor vehicles were manufactured with tank filler 
inlet restrictors at that time. We did not intend to broaden the 
applicability of Sec. 80.24(b).
    In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of 
proposed rulemaking, we also removed Secs. 80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2). 
We believed misfueling would be unlikely, making the Sec. 80.24(b)(1) 
``pooling'' safeguard against misfueling unnecessary. Once we removed 
Sec. 80.24(b)(1), it was appropriate for us to remove Sec. 80.24(b)(2) 
as well, since Sec. 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers from 
the requirements of Sec. 80.24(b)(1).
    We received an adverse comment from Harley Davidson, Inc. (Harley) 
on the revised language of 40 CFR 80.24(b) in the February 2, 1996 
direct final rule and proposed rule.\1\ In its comment, Harley stated 
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 
Sec. 80.24(b). The February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated 
notice of proposed rulemaking would have required these motorcycles to 
meet the fuel inlet size requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 80.24(b), thereby 
causing additional economic burden and manufacturing complexity for 
Harley. We did not intend or foresee that we would be expanding the 
applicability of Sec. 80.24(b) by the revised applicability language. 
Because of this adverse comment, we withdrew paragraph 40 CFR 80.24(b) 
from the direct final rule, and published it in the June 6, 1996 final 
rule with its previous applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This comment can be found in docket No. A-95-13 for the 
February 2, 1996 direct final rule and proposed rule, and for the 
June 6, 1996 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Why Are We Exempting Motorcycles?

    There are few, if any, offsetting environmental benefits to support 
the continued use of gasoline tank filler inlet restrictors in 
motorcycles equipped with emission control devices that would be 
significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. Today there is 
relatively little risk of misfueling a motorcycle. Gasoline tank filler 
inlet restrictors were originally required to prevent motor vehicles 
with an emission control device, such as a catalytic converter, from 
using leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline can damage catalytic converters 
and certain other emission control devices. Significantly,

[[Page 54957]]

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. Also, it is unlikely that a gasoline tank 
filler inlet restrictor on a motorcycle helps to control gasoline 
vapors when the motorcycle is refueled. Although a vapor recovery 
gasoline nozzle, in conjunction with the gasoline tank filler inlet 
restrictor, helps to control gasoline vapors and emissions when used to 
refuel most motor vehicles, they are relatively ineffective when used 
to refuel motorcycles.
    During refueling of a car or truck, the fuel nozzle spout is 
inserted into the fill tube and through the filler neck restrictor 
plate. The fuel nozzle automatically stops the flow of gasoline when it 
senses a sufficiently high level of gasoline vapors below the 
restrictor plate, which indicates the fuel tank is full. We understand 
that, beginning with the introduction of Stage I vapor recovery fueling 
systems in the early 1990s and continuing with current Stage II vapor 
recovery systems, the fuel tank inlet restrictor of a car or truck has 
been used as a guide, a seat and a pressure contact point for some 
vapor recovery gasoline nozzle spouts.
    For some vapor recovery fueling systems, the restrictor plate lines 
up the nozzle and helps concentrate the fugitive emissions for 
collection. Without the restrictor plate, more fugitive emissions would 
be released. The ``balance'' type of vapor recovery system uses a boot 
to seal around the outside of the tank filler inlet tube. While this 
system does not require the restrictor plate to help capture fugitive 
emissions, it requires the restrictor plate to push against in order to 
activate an interlock. An ``emission'' or ``efficiency'' control vapor 
recovery device does not need the restrictor plate to control fugitive 
emissions. This device consists of a cup, which has an outside diameter 
the same as the inside diameter of the fill hole, that is clipped to 
the spout. A similar type of vapor recovery system, the Marconi system, 
does not need the restrictor plate or the plastic cup.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Conversation with Catlow on April 3, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most on-board vapor recovery systems, which are required for light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks but not for motorcycles, are also 
designed around the restrictor plate. A seal is needed between the pump 
nozzle and the tank filler inlet tube to prevent fugitive emissions 
from escaping. This seal is normally located below the restrictor 
plate, and uses the restrictor plate to line-up the nozzle with the 
seal. Fugitive emissions below the seal are then diverted to a canister 
in the vehicle.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We understand that 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. The use of gasoline tank inlet 
restrictors in motorcycles may in fact contribute to unnecessary 
releases of gasoline vapors and emissions. Unlike a car or truck, 
motorcycles are typically fueled while the operator observes the tank 
fuel level, similar to filling a small gasoline container typically 
used to refuel lawnmowers and other small gasoline powered equipment. 
However, the restrictor plate obstructs the view of the fuel level, and 
could contribute to inadvertent fuel overfill and spillage. If fueling 
with the ``balance'' type of vapor recovery nozzle, motorcycle 
operators generally pull back and hold the rubber boot to activate the 
interlock and allow for better visibility, but that defeats the vapor 
recovery system.\4\ Further, the filler inlet restrictor may cause the 
nozzle spout to be inserted deeper into the motorcycle tank than 
otherwise would be necessary, potentially causing increased splash back 
from the shallow tank. Besides causing excess gasoline vapors and 
spitback through the restrictor plate openings, this splashback could 
cause the pump nozzle to prematurely stop the flow of gasoline. The 
operator may have to reactivate the pump nozzle, possible several 
times, before the tank is full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Also, for those motorcycles where the filler cap is attached 
to the gas tank by a hinge, the rubber boot of a ``balance'' type of 
vapor recovery nozzle would not seat correctly anyway, and the 
insertion pressure required to compress the boot may damage the gas 
cap, hinge, and tank finish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These problems were not much of an issue in the 1995 and earlier 
time frame, because only relatively few motorcycles were equipped with 
catalytic converters, and thus, only relatively few required tank inlet 
restrictors. However, a significant number of 2001 model year 
motorcycles have been equipped with catalytic converters.

III. Final EPA Action

    Today's direct final rule revises 40 CFR 80.24(b) to exempt 
motorcycles equipped with an emission control device that will be 
affected by the use of leaded gasoline, such as a catalytic converter, 
from having to be equipped with a fuel tank inlet restrictor.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. 
This rulemaking is very narrow in scope and exempts motorcycles from a 
requirement that, when applied to motorcycles, generally has no air 
quality benefits and that, in fact, could cause increased evaporative 
emissions from motorcycles during refueling. In the ``Proposed Rules'' 
section of today's Federal Register, however, we are publishing a 
separate document that will serve as the proposal to exempt motorcycles 
from having to be equipped with a tank filler inlet restrictor if 
adverse comments are filed. This direct final rule will be effective on 
December 31, 2001 without further notice unless we receive adverse 
comment by November 30, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will 
publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal 
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We 
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on 
today's proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this 
time.

IV. 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 rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of EO 12866 and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This 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.

[[Page 54958]]

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, most 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 rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. As discussed above, the 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 rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 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.

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 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 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 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 action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

G. Congressional Review

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule'' 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(a).

[[Page 54959]]

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

    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, EPA has concluded 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. 603 
and 604. Thus, an agency may conclude 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. We 
have therefore concluded that today's final rule will relieve 
regulatory burden for all small entities affected by this rule.
    Today's 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 
rule will relieve regulatory burden for any small entity.

I. 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 rule was developed during the 
period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. 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 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 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 rule.

J. 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.

K. Electronic Copies of Rulemaking

    A copy of this action is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/otaq under the title: ``Direct Final Rule--Prohibition on 
Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use: Fuel Inlet 
Restrictor Exemption for Motorcycles.''

L. 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.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 80--REGULATIONS OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545 and 7601(a).


    2. Section 80.24 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 80.24  Controls applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers.

* * * * *
    (c) A motorcycle, as defined at 40 CFR 86.402 for the applicable 
model year, is exempt from to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.

[FR Doc. 01-27378 Filed 10-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P