[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