[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36766-36771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12846]



[[Page 36765]]

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

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 80



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 101 / Friday, May 24, 2002 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 36766]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-7215-3]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's 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 June 24, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments: All comments and materials relevant to today's 
action have been placed in public docket A-2001-17 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Air Docket (6102), 
Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 (on the ground 
floor in Waterside Mall) from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by 
telephone at (202) 260-7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260-4400. We may 
charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40 
CFR part 2.

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:

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

    To determine whether you are affected by this rule, you should 
carefully examine the requirements in [sect] 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, [sect] 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 [sect] 80.22(f)(1) and allows the insertion of a 
nozzle with a spout as described in [sect] 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 [sect] 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers from 
meeting the ``pooling'' requirements of [sect] 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 [sect] 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 [sect] 80.24, 
including the introductory text, and modified [sect] 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

[[Page 36767]]

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 [sect] 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 [sect] 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 [sect] 80.24(b).
    In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of 
proposed rulemaking, we also removed [sect][sect] 80.24(b)(1) and 
80.24(b)(2). We believed misfueling would be unlikely, making the 
[sect] 80.24(b)(1) ``pooling'' safeguard against misfueling 
unnecessary. Once we removed [sect] 80.24(b)(1), it was appropriate for 
us to remove [sect] 80.24(b)(2) as well, since [sect] 80.24(b)(2) 
exempted motorcycle manufacturers from the requirements of 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 
[sect] 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 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 [sect] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 31, 2001, we published a Direct Final Rule (66 FR 54955) 
and concurrent Notice of Proposed Rule (66 FR 54965) to 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. We received an adverse comment, and on December 27, 2001 
withdrew the Direct Final Rule (66 FR 66867) in order to address the 
comment in today's action based on the concurrent Notice of Proposed 
Rule. The December 27, 2001 withdrawal of the direct final rule was 
inadvertently published in the Proposed Rule section of the Federal 
Register. The Office of the Federal Register is publishing elsewhere in 
this issue of the Federal Register a correction reclassifying the 
withdrawal as a 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, leaded 
gasoline has now been banned from use in all motor vehicles for over 
six 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

[[Page 36768]]

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. Response to Comment

    An adverse comment was submitted jointly from representatives of 
the multifamily rental industry: National Apartment Association, 
National Leased Housing Association, and National Multi Housing Council 
(herein referred to collectively as ``NAA''). NAA expressed concern 
about environmental exposure to lead caused by potential increased 
usage of leaded gasoline, and raised four issues, which we will address 
separately.
    Issue 1: NAA objects to EPA's proposed decision that would have the 
practical effect of making it easier for motorcycles to use leaded 
fuel, increase their usage of leaded gasoline and consequently increase 
lead emissions into the environment.
    Fuel inlet restrictors together with pooling specifications were 
required to prevent damage to emission control devices, such as 
catalytic converters, installed on many motor vehicles to reduce smog. 
Today's action does not allow a motorcycle to use leaded gasoline, nor 
does it make it more likely that a motorcycle will misfuel with leaded 
gasoline. The fact that there is no suggestion or evidence that the 
large number of motorcycles in the U.S. not equipped with a fuel inlet 
restrictor are being misfueled supports this conclusion.
    Fuel inlet restrictors have never prevented the use of leaded 
gasoline in motorcycles. Fuel inlet restrictors with size and 
``pooling'' specifications were required from the mid-1970s until 1996 
for motor vehicles with emission control devices, such a catalytic 
converters, that could be damaged by the use of leaded gasoline. At 
that time, both leaded and unleaded gasoline were generally available 
at gasoline filling stations.\5\ The size and ``pooling'' 
specifications were intended to prevent the fueling of those vehicles 
with leaded gasoline. Significantly, motorcycles have always been 
exempt from the ``pooling'' specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ While both leaded and unleaded gasoline were available at 
gasoline filling stations since the mid-1970s, the availability of 
leaded gasoline gradually diminished and became small by the early 
1990s. This was likely due to the increasing dominance of highway 
vehicles requiring unleaded gasoline, the increasing cost of 
producing and distributing the smaller volume of leaded gasoline, 
and our lead phase-down program of the 1980s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size specification prevented leaded gasoline nozzles, which had 
a larger diameter than unleaded gasoline nozzles, from being inserted 
into the fuel inlet restrictor opening. The ``pooling'' specification 
was typically met by a spring loaded door covering the fuel inlet 
opening, which could be pushed open with an unleaded gasoline nozzle 
for normal fueling. But, if fueling were attempted with a leaded 
gasoline nozzle, the spring loaded door would remain closed and 
gasoline would pool in the filler tube above the restrictor. The pooled 
gasoline would activate the gas pump's automatic cut-off device or 
overflow onto the vehicle and ground. Not only were motorcycles exempt 
from the ``pooling'' specification, but also very few motorcycles were 
required to be equipped with the filler neck restrictor because most 
did not have catalytic converters.
    The specifications of the fuel inlet restrictor were changed in 
1996 because leaded gasoline was no longer permitted as a fuel for any 
motor vehicle and we no longer considered fueling with leaded gasoline 
to be a significant possibility.\6\ We retained the specification for 
the ``shell'' of the restrictor so that vapor recovery refueling 
nozzles and fuel inlets on the motor vehicles would remain compatible. 
However, we eliminated the critical ``pooling'' specification. A filler 
inlet restrictor meeting today's specification allows fueling with 
large diameter gasoline nozzles, such as the former leaded gasoline 
nozzles, although it would be a minor inconvenience. Refueling is 
possible by holding the nozzle over the restrictor opening and letting 
the gasoline pour through the opening. This process might take somewhat 
longer because the fueling rate may need to be slowed to prevent 
splashing of the fuel off of the restrictor surface. Since motorcycles 
were already exempt from the ``pooling'' specification prior to 1996, 
the 1996 regulatory change had no practical effect on motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 61 FR 3832, February 2, 1996 (Direct Final Rule); 61 FR 
389461, February 2, 1996 (Notice of Proposed Rule); 61 FR 8221, 
March 4, 1996 (partial withdrawal of the Direct Final Rule of 
February 2, 1996); 61 FR 28763, June 6, 1996 (Final Rule to complete 
February 2, 1996 rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if a motorcycle owner wanted to use leaded fuel, it is 
relatively hard to find today. It is no longer generally available at 
retail gasoline stations because the use of leaded fuel is banned in 
motor vehicles. We estimate that only 0.3 percent of the gasoline used 
in the United States today is leaded gasoline.\7\ It is used primarily 
in some aircraft engines and some race cars.\8\ Although non-highway 
engines can use leaded gasoline, most do not. The non-highway engines 
that can use both leaded or unleaded gasoline use only unleaded 
gasoline, and the other non-highway engines that were designed to use 
leaded gasoline (other than certain racing or aircraft engines), such 
as some old farm equipment, currently use unleaded gasoline mixed with 
a commercially available lead substitute additive.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on the National Transportation Statistics 2000, Table 
4-7, BTS01-01, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, for 1998, the 
aviation component of non-highway gasoline was 351 million gallons, 
which is 10.7 percent of the total 3,284 million gallons non-highway 
gasoline. The racing component is considered negligible according to 
a conversation with the American Petroleum Institute, and a racing 
component was not broken out into a separate category in the BTS 
table. The BTS table also does not break marine engines into a 
separate category. Our contacts in the fuel industry doubt that 
leaded gasoline is used by marine engines, and we have no evidence 
of such use. If we assume 351 million gallons is the aviation and 
racing component combined (the racing component being negligible), 
and that aviation and racing are the only applications using leaded 
gasoline, than leaded gasoline represents only 0.3 percent of the 
total 128 billion gallons of highway and non-highway gasoline 
combined.
    \8\ According to the Department of Energy, jet fuel, which is a 
kerosene derivative of petroleum, comprises 98.8 percent of aviation 
energy (BTU) demand in the United States. Aviation gasoline, which 
is consumed by aircraft equipped with reciprocating engines and 
which may contain lead, comprises the remaining 1.2 percent of 
aviation energy demand. (see Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/sup_tran.pdf, Table 54) Also, not all race cars 
use gasoline--some use nitromethane or methanol.
    \9\ Some non-highway applications need to use leaded gasoline or 
its equivalent. Non-highway engines built prior to the mid-1970s 
were designed to run on leaded gasoline. The use of unleaded 
gasoline in many of those old engines could cause valve seat 
recession. However, the equivalent of leaded gasoline can be 
obtained from unleaded gasoline by mixing it with a commercially 
available lead substitute additive, such as Millers VSP, Red Line 
Lead Substitute, Superblend 12/Zero Lead 2000, and Valvemaster.

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

[[Page 36769]]

    One reason why the non-highway market (other than certain aviation 
and racing engines) has switched to unleaded gasoline and, thereby, 
made leaded gas harder to find is the cost of maintaining separate fuel 
distribution systems for highway and non-highway applications. 
Maintaining an additional tank and fuel pump for a small volume of 
leaded gasoline at a retail gasoline station is generally not cost 
effective. This is particularly true if the local non-highway consumer 
market can use unleaded highway gasoline instead. Also leaded gasoline 
must be segregated in dedicated storage and shipping tanks and must use 
dedicated transfer lines to prevent lead contamination of the unleaded 
highway gasoline supply.
    Another reason why the non-highway market (other than certain 
aviation and racing engines) has switched to unleaded gasoline is that 
leaded gasoline causes corrosive lead compound deposits in the engines 
and lubricating oil. Consequently, using leaded gasoline requires more 
frequent oil changes and reduces engine and exhaust system life. Even 
those engines designed to run on leaded gasoline can use unleaded 
highway gasoline and reap the benefits of unleaded gasoline if it is 
mixed with a commercially available lead substitute additive. Thus all 
non-road engines (except for certain racing and aircraft engines) can 
use unleaded highway gasoline, although some may need to also use a 
lead substitute additive.
    A motorcycle owner, therefore, that wanted to use leaded gasoline 
would either have to go to an airport, a race track or a racing supply 
center. Even if such an owner obtained leaded gasoline at one of these 
locations, the fuel would be specially formulated as aviation gasoline 
or racing gasoline that may not be suitable for use in a highway 
motorcycle.
    Finally, even if a motorcycle owner could find a leaded gasoline, 
it is unlikely that he or she would want to pay more for leaded 
gasoline than for cheaper unleaded gasoline that is conveniently 
available at retail gasoline stations. In January 2002, for example, 
the price of aviation fuel at an airport in the Washington D.C. area 
was $2.65 per gallon.\10\ By comparison, the price of unleaded gasoline 
at retail gasoline stations in the same community during that same time 
period was less than $1.10. Racing gasolines are even more expensive 
than aviation fuels. In January 2002, racing gasolines in the 
Washington D.C. area cost an average of about $3 to $5 per gallon 
depending on the blend (especially depending on the desired octane), 
and could be as high as $7 per gallon.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ From conversation with aviation firm at Frederick Airport 
in Frederick Maryland on January 7, 2002.
    \11\ From conversation with racing firm in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland on January 7, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 2: NAA claims that EPA's proposal is inconsistent with 
findings of the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety to Children, report titled ``Eliminating Childhood Lead 
Poisoning: a Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint hazards. NAA also 
claims the proposal is inconsistent with EPA's regulatory mandate under 
other statutes to limit exposure to lead. Although leaded gasoline has 
been prohibited for use in motor vehicles since 1995, NAA indicates 
that leaded gasoline remains available for military, construction and 
agricultural use.
    Eliminating the fuel inlet requirement for motorcycles equipped 
with catalytic converters is not inconsistent with longstanding efforts 
to reduce lead in the environment. As discussed above, fuel inlet 
restrictors together with pooling specifications were required to 
prevent damage to emission control devices, such as catalytic 
converters, installed on many motor vehicles to reduce smog. Today's 
action does not allow a motorcycle to use leaded gasoline, nor does it 
make it more likely that a motorcycle will misfuel with leaded 
gasoline.
    Issue 3: NAA asked for copies of the risk assessments and the cost 
benefit analysis conducted by EPA in support of the proposed rule.
    EPA does not believe that today's action will result in an 
increased risk of greater lead emissions into the environment. EPA, 
therefore, did not conduct a risk assessment or a cost benefit-analysis 
for today's rule. Based on the facts discussed above and in the direct 
final rule, EPA has concluded that fuel inlet restrictors are not 
needed in motorcycles with emission control devices and that the 
absence of a fuel inlet restrictor does not make it more likely that a 
motorcycle will be misfueled with leaded gasoline. The fact that there 
is no suggestion or evidence that the large number of motorcycles in 
the U.S. not equipped with a fuel inlet restrictor are being misfueled 
supports this conclusion.
    Issue 4: NAA suggested that the proposed rule go through a formal 
rulemaking process in order to allow for public notice and comment 
period.
    Today's action is an ``informal'' or notice-and-comment rulemaking. 
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 31, 2001 
soliciting public comment on the proposed rule. We also published a 
companion direct final rule which would have gone into effect on 
December 31, 2001 had we not received any adverse comment on the 
proposed rule. Upon receiving adverse comment to the proposed rule we 
withdrew the direct final rule. Today's action responds the adverse 
comment and promulgates the Agency's final rule.
    Formal rulemaking under sections 556 and 557 of the Administrative 
Procedure Act is a trial-type procedure before an agency that is used 
very infrequently. The Clean Air Act does not require formal or ``on-
the-record'' rulemaking for today's action.

IV. Final EPA Action

    Today's 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.

V. 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 Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

[[Page 36770]]

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.

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''), Public Law 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

[[Page 36771]]

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).

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)

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 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.''
    This final 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: ``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, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle 
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 16, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.


    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 80 of 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:


[sect] 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 the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.

[FR Doc. 02-12846 Filed 5-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P