[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64072-64077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28255]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393

[DOT Docket No. FMCSA-02-13589]
RIN 2126-AA80


Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Fuel Systems

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to revise the requirements concerning fuel 
tank fill rates for gasoline- and methanol-fueled light-duty vehicles 
contained in Subpart E of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs). The purpose of the proposal is to: (1) Remove a conflict 
between the fuel tank fill rate requirements of the FMCSRs and those of 
the Environmental Protection Agency for gasoline and methanol-fueled 
vehicles up to 14,000 pounds (lbs) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR); 
and (2) to make permanent the terms of the exemptions previously 
granted to motor carriers operating certain gasoline-fueled commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs) manufactured by Ford Motor Company (Ford) and by 
General Motors (GM). The FMCSA also proposes to incorporate into the 
FMCSRs previously issued regulatory guidance concerning the 
applicability of the agency's fuel tank rules to vehicles subject to 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) fuel system 
integrity standard at the time of manufacture.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to DOT Docket Management Systems 
(DMS) Docket Number 13589 by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation subheading at the beginning of the Supplementary 
Information section of this document. Note that all comments received 
will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under 
Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Office of Bus 
and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation

    The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can 
get electronic submission and retrieval help guidelines under the 
``help'' section of the DMS web site. If you want us to notify you that 
we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped 
envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears 
after submitting comments on-line.

Background

    Section 393.67(c)(7)(ii) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), requires the fill pipe and vents of a CMV with a fuel tank of 
more than 25 gallons capacity to permit the tank to be filled at a rate 
of at least 20 gallons per minute (gpm) without fuel spillage.
    In 1999, Ford and GM filed applications for limited exemptions from 
this fuel system requirement.
    Ford manufactures a line of vehicles under the ``Econoline'' brand 
for additional work and sale by second-stage manufacturers, including 
use as CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Specifically, finished vehicles 
are based on a ``light-truck'' platform with load-or passenger-carrying 
capabilities that place them within the weight-or passenger-carrying 
thresholds of the FMCSRs.
    The fill pipe of the fuel system of these light-duty vehicles is 
routed to minimize its exposure in the event of a crash. Because of the 
design characteristics of the fuel fill-pipe and system and the vapor 
generated when filling such tanks with gasoline, Ford found that the 
fuel systems in the gasoline versions of these light-duty vehicles 
could not meet the FMCSA requirement of Sec.  393.67(c)(7)(ii). 
However, Ford noted that the diesel versions complied with the 20 
gallon per minute minimum filling rate. Ford applied for exemptions for 
the gasoline fueled light-duty vehicles from Sec.  393.67(c)(7)(ii), 
and also 49 CFR 393.67(f)(2) and (f)(3), which require that liquid fuel 
tanks be marked with the manufacturer's name and display a 
certification label that the tank conforms to all applicable rules in 
Sec.  393.67.
    On August 10, 1999, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), now 
the FMCSA, published a Notice of Intent to grant Ford's application for 
exemption (64 FR 43417). The FHWA requested public comment on Ford's 
application and the agency's safety analysis and presented other 
relevant information. After considering all the comments received, the 
agency granted an exemption to Ford on December 20, 1999 (64 FR 71184). 
In that notice (at 71185), the agency noted that the 20 gallon per 
minute rate, while appropriate for diesel fuel-powered vehicles, 
mandates that fill pipes on gasoline-powered vehicles be capable of 
receiving fuel at twice the maximum rate gasoline pumps are allowed to 
dispense fuel.\1\ The vehicles in question are gasoline-fueled and are 
capable of receiving fuel at a rate of 17 gallons per minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As noted in our discussion below, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) standard is 10 gpm.

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

[[Page 64073]]

    The FMCSA published a notice of intent on November 2, 2001 (66 FR 
55727), to renew Ford's exemption and renewed the exemption on December 
27, 2001 (66 FR 66970). Also on the same day, FMCSA published a Notice 
of Intent to extend the exemption to additional Ford vehicles of 
similar design (66 FR 66971). The agency granted that exemption on 
March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14765).
    The chronology for the GM vehicles followed a similar pattern. The 
vehicles that were the subject of the petition were the G-vans 
(Chevrolet Express and GMC Savannah) and full size C/K trucks 
(Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra). In a comment to the docket 
concerning the Ford petition, dated September 9, 1999, GM stated its 
support for the agency's preliminary determination and petitioned for 
the same exemption for its vehicles. On December 20, 1999, the FMCSA 
published a Notice of Intent to grant GM's application for exemption 
(64 FR 71186). The agency granted GM's petition on April 26, 2000 (65 
FR 24531). The FMCSA published a notice of intent to renew the 
exemption on December 27, 2001 (66 FR 66972). It was renewed on March 
27, 2002 (67 FR 14764).
    In addition to the safety regulations published by the FMCSA and 
the NHTSA, vehicles and internal-combustion engines are subject to 
environmental protection regulations published by the EPA. In many 
cases, they are also subject to energy-efficiency regulations published 
by the Department of Energy (DOE). Occasionally, these regulations 
published by the EPA or the DOE can have an influence on the safety 
regulations, as in this case.

Related EPA Regulations

    The EPA issued four final rules under Title 40 of the CFR relevant 
to the fuel-tank fill rate issue. Although the EPA rules address the 
reduction of emissions from vehicle fueling, they are relevant to the 
FMCSA safety regulations concerning fuel tank fill rates. This is 
because they place a number of refueling regulatory requirements on 
various parties. These include: Controls on the dispensing rate of 
gasoline and methanol from pumps, the rate at which gasoline and 
methanol fuels can be accepted into the tanks of certain vehicles, the 
ability of the vehicle fuel systems to safely handle vapors released 
during fueling, and the ability of the fuel systems to safely prevent 
any spitback of fuel during the fueling process.
    The four EPA rules are: (1) A final rule concerning evaporative 
emissions testing and fuel pump dispensing rates, issued March 24, 1993 
(58 FR 16002), (2) a final rule concerning on-board refueling vapor 
recovery (ORVR) systems to control refueling emissions, published in 
the Federal Register on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16262), (3) a final rule 
concerning Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Highway Heavy-
Duty Engines, published in the Federal Register on October 21, 1997 (62 
FR 54693), and (4) a final rule for covering, among other things, on-
board refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems for heavy-duty vehicles, 
issued October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59895).
    The 1993 rule added Sec.  80.22(j) to Title 40 setting a maximum 
dispensing rate of 10 gallons (37.9 liters (L)) per minute (/m) for 
most gasoline and methanol pumps, effective January 1, 1996. Certain 
facilities with low sales volume were given two additional years to 
comply. It also added new regulations which address, among other 
things, the standard for the fuel-dispensing spitback test for 1996 and 
later model year light-duty vehicles (0-6000 lbs GVWR) (Sec.  86.096-
8), 1996 and later model year light-duty trucks (6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR) 
(Sec.  86.096-9), and 1996 and later model year Otto-cycle (standard 
four-cycle electronic ignition) heavy-duty vehicles (8,501-10,000 lbs 
GVWR) and engines (Sec.  86.096-10).
    The 1994 rule sets forth additional requirements for controlling 
vehicle refueling emissions through the use of vehicle-based systems 
(that is, on-board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems). The requirements are 
to be phased in beginning with model year 1998 for light-duty vehicles, 
model year 2001 for light-duty trucks (0-6000 lbs GVWR), and model year 
2004 for light-duty trucks (6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR). The 1994 rule 
carries forward the spitback standard published in 1993, although the 
EPA provides an alternative assessment procedure that is combined with 
the ORVR testing requirement.
    Although the EPA had proposed that heavy-duty vehicles (8,501-
10,000 lbs GVWR) be subject to the same on-board vapor recovery 
requirements as light-duty vehicles, it decided not to include them in 
the 1994 final rule. EPA noted that only a small number of heavy-duty 
vehicles are gasoline powered, and that its final rule would apply to 
91 percent of all gasoline-fueled trucks. EPA's spitback and ORVR rules 
are not applicable to diesel fuels and diesel fueled vehicles because 
the Reid Vapor Pressure \2\ of diesel fuel is very low (e.g., less than 
1 pound per square inch (psi)) and, thus, spitback and refueling 
emissions are insignificant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The pressure exerted by a vapor in equilibrium with the 
solid or liquid phase of the same substance. Also, the partial 
pressure of the substance in the atmosphere above the solid or the 
liquid. (Source: http://chemengineer.miningco.com:80/library/glossary/bldef9050.htm)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA 1997 final rule adopted a new emissions standard and 
related provisions for diesel heavy-duty engines intended for highway 
operation. The standards affect emission levels and durability of 
emissions controls. They apply beginning with the 2004 model year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The terms of the Consent Decree that accelerated the 
compliance date to October 1, 2002 affects engines in diesel-fueled 
CMVs that are not the subject of this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA final rule concerning control of emissions from highway 
heavy-duty engines, published October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59896) adopted 
ORVR standards for model year 2005 and later heavy-duty vehicles (see 
40 CFR 86.1816-05(e)). ORVR standards are applicable to all complete 
heavy-duty vehicles \4\ from 8,501 lbs GVWR to 10,000 lbs GVWR. The 
ORVR standards will be phased in with 80 percent compliance required in 
2005 model year vehicles and 100 percent compliance required in 2006 
model year and later vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Clean Air Act defines heavy-duty vehicles as those with 
a GVWR of greater than 6,000 pounds. However, EPA has classified 
vehicles between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR as light-duty vehicles, 
while treating them as heavy-duty for statutory pruposes. See 65 FR 
59897 (October 6, 2000), at 59898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, as noted above, EPA requirements on evaporative emissions 
limit fuel-dispensing rates for gasoline and methanol pumps. The rates 
may not exceed 10 gpm (37.9 L/m). This action was taken to ensure that 
vehicles designed to prevent spitback during refueling at 10 gpm would 
not experience in-use fueling rates beyond the rate they were designed 
to accommodate. Also, a 10 gpm maximum fuel-dispensing rate is an 
inherent design parameter for vehicles designed to meet ORVR emission 
standards. ORVR vehicles that are refueled at dispensing rates above 10 
gpm would likely exceed ORVR emissions standards because the vehicle's 
carbon canister is not designed to adsorb hydrocarbon vapors 
satisfactorily at these higher dispensing rates.
    Retailers and wholesale purchasers-consumers handling over 10,000 
gallons (37,854 L) of fuel per month were required to comply with the 
EPA final rule starting July 1, 1996. Other retailers and wholesale 
purchasers-consumers were required to comply by January 1, 1998. Any 
dispensing pump that is dedicated exclusively to heavy-duty

[[Page 64074]]

vehicles, boats, or airplanes is exempt from this requirement. EPA 
intends to make future rule changes to clarify that: (1) The 10 gpm 
refueling requirement also applies to ethanol pumps; and (2) the 
exemption does not apply to pumps used to refuel heavy-duty vehicles 
which meet ORVR emissions standards (that is, the exemption only 
applies to heavy-duty vehicles above 10,000 lbs GVWR).

Inconsistency Between FMCSA and EPA Fuel Tank Fill Rate Requirements

    The changes in the EPA regulation created an inconsistency between 
the fuel tank fill rate requirements of FMCSA and those of the EPA. As 
discussed above, Sec.  393.67(c)(7)(ii) of the FMCSRs requires a CMV 
fuel tank of 25 or more gallons capacity to accept fuel at a fill rate 
of at least 20 gpm. That is twice the maximum nozzle flow rate of 10 
gpm for gasoline and methanol fuel pumps allowed by EPA regulations at 
40 CFR 80.22(j). Ford and GM brought this inconsistency to the 
attention of the FMCSA as it applies to vehicles defined at 49 CFR 
390.5, which are subject to the FMCSRs, and, by extension, State 
regulations compatible with Part 393. It is also twice the maximum fill 
fuel dispensing rate specified by the EPA at 40 CFR 80.22(j), and twice 
the fuel fill rate specified for the various fuel spitback tests at 40 
CFR 86.1246-96.
    The EPA regulations concerning gasoline dispensing rates have 
already been implemented, and pumps subject to the regulations (i.e., 
all pumps except those dedicated to heavy-duty vehicles, boats, or 
planes) were required to comply with the 10 gpm (37.9 L/m) maximum 
dispensing rate requirements by January 1, 1998. Furthermore, depending 
upon the vehicle class, many of today's vehicles are already designed 
to meet ORVR and spitback emissions standards based on the EPA 10 gpm 
fuel fill rate requirements. Considering both of these issues, the 20-
gallon per minute fill rate required under the FMCSRs is incompatible 
with the EPA regulations for those vehicles. It is possible that some 
of the gasoline- or methanol-fueled vehicles with GVWRs above 8,500 lbs 
GVWR might be fueled at facilities not subject to the EPA regulation on 
fuel dispensing rates. However, as noted in the agency's August 10, 
1999 notice concerning the original Ford petition, Ford believed the 
20-gpm rate:

    `` * * * to be more a subject of convenience. With virtually all 
filling stations using the industry standard automatic shut-off 
nozzles, it is unlikely that fuel will be spilled even while using a 
high flow rate delivery system. These standard nozzles substantially 
reduce any potential safety risk introduced by filling an Econoline 
vehicle at a rate above its capacity of 17 gallons per minute.''

    Ford also noted that the 17-gpm rate is only 15 percent less than 
the FMCSA requirement at Sec.  393.65 (64 FR 43417, at 43418).
    The original applications for exemptions from Ford, and 
subsequently from GM, sought temporary solutions to the inconsistency 
between FMCSA safety regulations intended to prevent potential injuries 
from the spillage of fuel during the refueling process, and EPA 
regulations intended to protect against environmental harm resulting 
from fuel spillage and the release of fuel vapors into the atmosphere. 
This rulemaking is intended to provide a long-term resolution to the 
inconsistency between these safety and environmental regulations, while 
ensuring that the respective goals of FMCSA and EPA are not 
compromised.
    As stated in the August 10, 1999 notice (at 43418), the gasoline-
fueled Ford Econoline Series light-truck-platform vehicles in question 
were and continue (during the 2-year exemption) to be built with the 
fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails. They use a fuel pipe system 
routed to minimize exposure in the event of a crash. The maximum 
filling rate does not exceed 17 gpm. Thus, as far as those Ford 
vehicles for the exempted series were concerned, the agency 
subsequently determined the intent of the FMCSR safety requirement was 
satisfied because the fill rate was only slightly less than the FMCSR-
mandated rate (December 20, 1999; 64 FR 71184, at 71185). That is, for 
those vehicles not fueled at facilities dispensing gasoline at the EPA-
mandated limit of 10 gpm, i.e., those vehicles that might be fueled at 
locations used exclusively for refueling heavy-duty vehicles, the 
agency determined that the level of safety would be equivalent to the 
level of safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  
393.67(c)(7)(ii).
    As stated in the FMCSA December 20, 1999 notice (64 FR 71186, at 
71187), the GM G and C/K vehicles were and continue to be equipped with 
fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails. They use a fill pipe system 
conforming to EPA requirements. Furthermore, for those vehicles with a 
GVWR of less than 14,000 lbs (6,400 kilograms (kg)), the EPA requires 
the vehicle to pass its Fuel Dispensing Spitback test (40 CFR Sec.  
86.099-10(b)2(C); Sec. Sec.  86.1811 through 1815 paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) 
(in each case), and Sec.  86.1816-05(d)(4)).\5\ Thus again, for the 
duration of the 2-year exemption, FMCSA determined that safety concerns 
associated with different fill rates are addressed by the requirement 
that these vehicles must successfully comply with the spitback test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In a final rule concerning evaporative emissions test 
procedures (40 CFR 86, published March 24, 1993 [58 FR 16002]), EPA 
noted that heavy-duty vehicles over 14,000 lbs (6,400 kg) GVWR are 
typically designed with filler necks so short that fuel can be 
dispensed directly into the fuel tank. These vehicles would 
therefore not be expected to experience spitback. Therefore, they 
are exempt from the spitback test requirements (58 FR 16002, at 
16006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the original December 20, 1999 notice concerning the GM petition 
(at 71187), GM agreed with Ford that the 20 gallon per minute fill 
requirement is a matter of convenience. The GM vehicles that were the 
subject of its petition for a 2-year exemption were and continue to be 
equipped with fuel systems similar to those of the Ford vehicles, that 
is, with fuel tanks mounted between the frame rails, and designed to 
conform to FMVSS 301 requirements.
    GM also suggested that the applicability of the FMCSA's fuel fill 
rate regulation should be restricted to vehicles equipped with side-
mounted fuel tanks. GM contended that many of the FMCSR requirements 
were developed for heavy-duty vehicles, rather than the type of 
vehicles that were the subject of its petition. Many heavy-duty 
vehicles with side-mounted fuel tanks have fill openings directly on 
the fuel tank. Heavy-duty vehicles are also likely to be fueled at a 
location where the fuel fill rate exceeds 10 gallons per minute. (As 
noted earlier in this document, only pumps used exclusively to fuel 
heavy trucks, boats, and airplanes are exempt from the EPA's fuel 
dispensing rate requirement.)
    The FMCSA agrees with the assessment that the current FMCSR 20 gpm 
minimum fuel tank fill-rate has become a customer convenience 
requirement rather than a safety requirement for all vehicles. FMCSA 
further believes the EPA design constraints the vehicles must comply 
with for emissions and fuel spitback testing adequately address any 
problems such vehicles could encounter during refueling.

Proposal Concerning Fuel Fill Rate Requirements

    As discussed in the FHWA's August 10, 1999 Notice of Application 
from Ford Motor Company (64 FR 43417, at 43418), FMCSA believes the 
fill pipe capacity criterion, when applied to gasoline-powered 
vehicles, is inconsistent with EPA regulations

[[Page 64075]]

concerning gasoline fuel pumps. The FMCSR mandates that these vehicles 
be capable of receiving fuel at twice the maximum rate that these pumps 
are allowed to dispense fuel by EPA regulations. The FMCSA also 
continues to believe that a revision to the fuel fill rate requirements 
should not present a safety problem because the vehicles using the fill 
pipe and fueling system designs under consideration here are not likely 
to be fueled at locations where fuel could be dispensed at the higher 
rate.
    The FMCSA believes that the other existing regulatory requirements, 
including a restricted fuel-pump dispensing rate, fuel fill rate for 
many (if not most) of these light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, 
plus required spitback and on-board refueling tests adequately address 
the safety of fueling these vehicles. (These requirements are discussed 
in detail under the above heading ``Related EPA Regulations.'') 
Therefore, the FMCSA proposes to require gasoline- and methanol-fueled 
vehicles with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds (3,744 kg) or less to comply with 
the applicable spitback and onboard refueling regulations of the 
Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR parts 86 and 88 (part 88 
concerns clean-fuel vehicles). For gasoline- and methanol-fueled 
vehicles with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds (6,400 kg) or less, the FMCSA 
proposes to require that the vehicle comply with the applicable fuel-
spitback prevention regulations and onboard refueling regulations of 
the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR part 86.

Applicability of FMVSS 301 to Certain Additional CMVs

    The FMCSA periodically codifies published regulatory guidance. 
Therefore, this NPRM also proposes to place in the FMCSRs previously 
published FMCSA regulatory guidance concerning the applicability of 
FMVSS 301 (Fuel System Integrity) to CMVs that have a GVWR of 10,000 
lbs or less. In addition to the concern raised about the Ford and GM 
vehicles, there is another family of vehicles that fall under the 
definition of CMVs: Passenger vehicles designed or used to transport 
between 9 and 15 passengers (including the driver), in interstate 
commerce, and similar vehicles carrying placardable amounts of 
hazardous materials.
    The existing Regulatory Guidance, published on April 4, 1997 (65 FR 
16369, at 16417), reads as follows:


    Question: Must a motor vehicle that meets the definition of a 
``commercial motor vehicle'' in Sec.  390.5 because it transports 
hazardous materials in a quantity requiring placarding under the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-180) comply with 
the fuel system requirements of Subpart E of Part 393, even though 
it has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or 
less?
    Guidance: No. FMVSS No. 301 contains fuel system integrity 
requirements for passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks, and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and use 
fuel with a boiling point above 0 deg. Celsius (32 deg. Fahrenheit). 
Subpart E of part 393 was issued to provide fuel system requirements 
to cover motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,001 or more pounds. FMVSS 
No. 301 adequately addresses the fuel systems of placarded motor 
vehicles with a GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds and compliance with 
subpart E of part 393 would be redundant. However, commercial motor 
vehicles that are not covered by FMVSS No. 301 must continue to 
comply with subpart E of part 393.

    Motor vehicles that meet the fuel system integrity requirements of 
NHTSA Sec.  571.301 would be exempt from the requirements of FMCSA 
Subpart E of Part 393. The FMCSA proposes to include this provision 
under Sec.  393.67 rather than Sec.  393.65. Since the NHTSA standard 
deals with the overall integrity of liquid fuel systems, referencing it 
in the FMCSRs would take the place of a set of component-oriented 
standards for the class of smaller vehicles that are considered CMVs 
under the FMCSRs.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Regulatory Notices

    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.) You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FMCSA has determined that this proposed regulatory action is 
not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and under 
the regulatory policies and procedures of the DOT.
    This proposed rule would revise the regulations concerning the fuel 
systems of certain light-duty vehicles used as CMVs. First, it would 
exclude from the fuel system integrity requirements of the FMCSRs 
certain light-duty vehicles that are required to comply with the fuel 
system integrity requirements of FMVSS 301. Second, it would revise the 
requirements of section 393.67, Fill pipe, to bring them into 
conformity with EPA regulations. The FMCSA believes these changes would 
simplify motor carriers' ability to comply with the FMCSRs, and would 
not diminish the safe operation of these vehicles.
    Based on the information presented here, FMCSA anticipates that 
this rulemaking will have minimal economic impact on the interstate 
motor carrier industry. Unless a motor carrier operates pumps that are 
used exclusively to fuel heavy-duty vehicles, motor carriers have been 
required to comply with the limitation on fueling rate since January 1, 
1998.
    Under provisions of The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act (``Vehicle Safety Act'') (49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., codified at 49 
U.S.C. 30112) and NHTSA's implementing regulations, vehicles must be 
certified to meet all applicable FMVSSs at the time of their 
manufacture. Since the fuel systems of vehicles under 10,000 lbs GVWR 
are required to comply with FMVSS 301, there is no need for the FMCSA 
to require a separate fuel certification label on the fuel tanks of 
these vehicles.
    This rulemaking imposes no requirements that would generate new 
costs for motor carriers. Those entities would see no change to their 
operations, provided they ensure that their CMVs with GVWRs of up to 
10,000 pounds already comply with FMVSS 301, and their gasoline- and 
methanol-fueled CMVs comply with the applicable EPA regulations. This 
rulemaking is being proposed to harmonize the fuel system integrity 
requirements of FMCSA with those of the NHTSA and the EPA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612) the FMCSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed rulemaking on 
small entities. Motor carriers would not be subject to any new 
requirements under this proposal. Generally, they would only have 
access to vehicles that comply with the FMVSSs and the EPA 
requirements. As a result, motor carriers may incur only minimal new 
costs, considerably less than the guideline of $100 million or more in 
any one year.
    Therefore, the FMCSA has preliminarily determined that this 
regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The FMCSA invites public comment 
on this determination.

[[Page 64076]]

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires 
that agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules that concern 
an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to 
believe may disproportionately affect children must include an 
evaluation of the environmental health and safety effects of the 
regulation on children. Section 5 of Executive Order 13045 directs an 
agency to submit for a ``covered regulatory action'' an evaluation of 
its environmental health or safety effects on children.
    The agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``covered regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 13045. 
First, this NPRM is not economically significant under Executive Order 
12866. Second, the agency has no reason to believe that the proposed 
rule would result in an environmental health risk or safety risk that 
would disproportionately affect children. The vehicles that are the 
subject of this rulemaking are required to comply with both NHTSA and 
EPA standards concerning fuel system integrity and fuel tank fill rate. 
The agency has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule would 
have no significant environmental impacts.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This proposed rule would revise the FMCSRs concerning fuel system 
integrity and fuel tank fill rate, as they apply to gasoline-fueled 
CMVs, to bring them into conformance with current NHTSA and EPA 
regulations. It would also make permanent the exemptions previously 
granted at the request of Ford and GM.
    No new action is required on the part of those motor carriers that 
currently operate or plan to operate on U.S. highways, because these 
vehicles are already required to comply with the NHTSA and EPA 
requirements referenced in this proposal. If the FMCSA issues a final 
rule, motor carriers operating vehicles on or after that rule's 
effective date, in compliance with the NHTSA and EPA requirements, 
would not need to apply for an exemption.
    The FMCSA therefore has preliminarily determined that this proposed 
rule has no taking implications under the Fifth Amendment or Executive 
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with 
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the 
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated 
August 4, 1999. The FMCSA has preliminarily determined this proposed 
rule does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient 
federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the 
policymaking discretion of the States.
    These proposed changes to the FMCSRs would not directly preempt any 
State law or regulation. They would not impose additional costs or 
burdens on the States. Although the States are required to adopt part 
393 as a condition for receiving Motor Carrier Safety Assistance 
Program grants, the additional training and orientation that would be 
required for roadside enforcement officials would be minimal, and it 
would be covered under the existing grant program. Also, this action 
would not have a significant effect on the States' ability to execute 
traditional State governmental functions.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action would not involve an information collection 
that is subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
has preliminarily determined in an environmental assessment (EA) that 
this proposed action would not have an adverse effect on the quality of 
the environment. A copy of the EA is contained in the public docket.
    This notice of proposed rulemaking involves: (1) A revision of the 
FMCSRs' CMV fuel fill rate requirements to align them with those of the 
EPA for gasoline and methanol-fueled vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR; 
(2) making permanent the terms of the exemptions previously granted to 
motor carriers operating certain gasoline-fueled commercial motor 
vehicles manufactured by Ford and by GM; and (3) incorporating into the 
FMCSRs previously issued regulatory guidance concerning the 
applicability of the agency's fuel tank rules to vehicles subject to 
the NHTSA fuel system integrity standard at the time of manufacture.
    The agency's proposed revision to the FMCSRs would not cause a 
change in the EPA's regulations, nor would it require a change in the 
design, operation, or fueling of these vehicles. It would simply 
acknowledge the existence of a different set of fuel fill-rate 
regulations for gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles, promulgated by 
the EPA to improve air quality by reducing vapor emissions from 
refueling, which were not considered at the time the fuel tank fill 
rate provision was added to the FMCSRs in 1952. The proposal would also 
make permanent the exemptions previously granted to motor carriers 
operating certain gasoline-fueled CMVs manufactured by Ford and GM 
which comply with the EPA regulations applicable to them. Finally, the 
proposal would also explicitly acknowledge these vehicles' compliance 
with FMVSS 301, thus eliminating redundancy with NHTSA regulations. The 
FMCSA has preliminarily determined that these proposals would have no 
significant impact on the environment. Thus, the proposed action does 
not require an environmental impact statement. FMCSA invites comments 
from the public to assess any potential environmental impacts 
associated with this proposal.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. We have preliminarily determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. It would revise the regulations concerning fuel system 
integrity and fuel tank fill rate, as they apply to gasoline-fueled 
CMVs, to bring them into conformance with current NHTSA and EPA 
regulations. It has no direct relation to energy consumption. The 
Administrator of the

[[Page 64077]]

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a 
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement 
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Unfunded Mandates

    This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in 
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The FMCSA merely seeks to implement a 
regulation that is inherently a design requirement for the vehicle and 
does not lend itself to roadside verification. Persons performing 
inspections at the roadside would likely receive orientation on this 
proposal (if it becomes a rule) as part of their regular in-service 
training. However, they would not be trained, equipped, or expected to 
check fuel tank fill rates at the roadside. Also, since the FMCSA is 
proposing to codify an existing exemption that had already been 
provided for light-duty CMVs with certain VINs, the agency anticipates 
that minimal, if any, additional training would be required. The 
inspectors would only need to refer to a reference card listing those 
grandfathered VINs. To the extent that States incur costs due to 
implementation of this proposal, they would be minimal and covered 
under the existing MCSAP grant program.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway and roads, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle equipment, Motor 
vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA proposes to amend 
title 49, CFR, subchapter B, chapter III, part 393 as follows:

PART 393--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 393 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914; 49 
U.S.C. 31136 and 31502; and 49 CFR 1.73.

    2. Section 393.67 is proposed to be amended by adding new 
paragraphs (a)(7) and (f)(4), and revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  393.67  Liquid Fuel Tanks.

    (a) * * *
    (7) Motor vehicles that meet the fuel system integrity requirements 
of 49 CFR 571.301 are exempt from the requirements of this subpart, as 
they apply to the vehicle's fueling system.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) Fill pipe.
    (i) Each fill pipe must be designed and constructed to minimize the 
risk of fuel spillage during fueling operations and when the vehicle is 
involved in a crash.
    (ii) For diesel-fueled vehicles, the fill pipe and vents of a fuel 
tank having a capacity of more than 25 gallons (94.75 L) of fuel must 
permit filling the tank with fuel at a rate of at least 75.8 L/m (20 
gallons per minute) without fuel spillage.
    (iii) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 
8,500 pounds (3,744 kg) or less, the vehicle must permit filling the 
tank with fuel dispensed at the applicable fill rate required by the 
regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 80.22.
    (iv) For gasoline- and methanol-fueled vehicles with a GVWR of 
14,000 pounds (6,400 kg) or less, the vehicle must comply with the 
applicable fuel-spitback prevention and onboard refueling vapor 
recovery (ORVR) regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency 
under 40 CFR part 86.
    (v) Each fill pipe must be fitted with a cap that can be fastened 
securely over the opening in the fill pipe. Screw threads or a bayonet-
type point are methods of conforming to the requirements of paragraph 
(c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (f)(4) Exception. The following previously exempted vehicles are 
not required to carry the certification and marking specified in 
Paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (i) First group of Ford E-Series vehicles identified as follows: 
The vehicle identification numbers (VINs) contain E30, E37, E39, E40, 
or E47 codes in the fifth, sixth, and seventh positions. The fuel tanks 
are marked with Ford part numbers F3UA-9002-G*, F3UA-9002-H*, F4UA-
9002-V*, F4UA-9002-X*, F5UA-9002-V*, F5UA-9002-X*, F6UA-9002-Y*, F6UA-
9002-Z*, F7UA-9002-C*, and F7UA-9002D* where the asterisk (*) 
represents a ``wild card'' character (any character of the alphabet).
    (ii) Second group of Ford E-Series vehicles identified as follows: 
The VINs contain E35 or E55 codes in the fifth, sixth, and seventh 
positions. The fuel tanks are marked with Ford part numbers F3UA-9002-
G*, F3UA-9002-H*, F4UA-9002-V*, F4UA-9002-X*, F5UA-9002-V*, F5UA-9002-
X*, F6UA-9002-Y*, F6UA-9002-Z*, F7UA-9002-C*, F7UA-9002D*, YC25-9002-D* 
(a new fuel tank for E37 series vehicles), or 2C24-9002-E* (a new fuel 
tank for E55 series vehicles) where the asterisk (*) represents a 
``wild card'' character (any character of the alphabet).
    (iii) Ford F-Series vehicles identified as follows: The VINs 
contain an F53 code in the fifth, sixth, and seventh positions. The 
fuel tanks are marked with part numbers 1C34-9K007-F*, 1C34-9K007-G*, 
and 1C34-9K007-H* where the asterisk (*) represents a ``wild card'' 
character (any character of the alphabet).
    (iv) GM G-Vans (Chevrolet Express and GMC Savanna) and full-sized 
C/K trucks (Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra) with gross vehicle 
weight ratings over 10,000 pounds identified as follows: The VINs 
contain either a ``J'' or a ``K'' in the fourth position. In addition, 
the seventh position of the VINs on the G-Van would contain a ``1.''
* * * * *

    Issued on: November 4, 2003.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-28255 Filed 11-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P