Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for Highway Use

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL-5513-3]

RIN 2060-AD55

Prohibition on Gasoline Containing Lead or Lead Additives for

Highway Use

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule and an associated notice of

proposed rulemaking of the same title on February 2, 1996 (61 FR 3832

and 61 FR 3894, respectively). Both actions were to revise EPA

regulations to reflect the Clean Air Act's statutory prohibition of the

introduction into commerce of gasoline containing lead or lead

additives for use as a motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. EPA

received adverse comment on 40 CFR 80.24(b) as published in both the

direct final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking. In

response to that comment, EPA withdrew 40 CFR 80.24(b) from the direct

final rule on March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8221). All other actions of the

direct final rule became effective on March 4, 1996. In today's action,

EPA is finalizing the revised 40 CFR 80.24(b) based on the February 2,

1996 notice of proposed rulemaking.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking and written comments

on the direct final rule and notice of proposed rulemaking have been

placed in Public Docket No. A-95-13, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500),

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Documents may be inspected between the hours of 8

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, (202) 233-9473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this

action include:

[[Page 28764]]

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

Examples of regulated

Category entities

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

Industry.................................. Manufacturers of motor

vehicles.

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether

your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the provision at 40 CFR 80.24(b) dealing specifically with

specifications for fuel filler inlet restrictors. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,

consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

A. Background

As amended in 1990, the Clean Air Act prohibits the introduction of

gasoline containing lead or lead additives into commerce for use as a

motor vehicle fuel after December 31, 1995. On February 2, 1996, EPA

published in the Federal Register a direct final rule and associated

notice of proposed rulemaking revising its regulations for consistency

with this Clean Air Act prohibition.

Among other actions, the direct final rule and associated notice of

proposed rulemaking revised 40 CFR 80.24(b). This paragraph had

contained size specifications for the gasoline tank filler inlet of

motor vehicles equipped with an emission control device that would be

significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline. The purpose of

the tank filler inlet restriction was to allow the insertion of an

unleaded gasoline pump nozzle, but not a leaded gasoline pump nozzle.

Specifically, paragraph 80.24(b) required that a manufacturer of motor

vehicles ``equipped with an emission control device which the

Administrator has determined will be significantly impaired by the use

of leaded gasoline'' (per the former introductory language of paragraph

80.24) shall ``[m]anufacture such vehicle with each gasoline tank

filler inlet having a restriction which prevents the insertion of a

nozzle with a spout as described in Sec. 80.22(f)(1) and allows the

insertion of a nozzle with a spout as described in Sec. 80.22(f)(2).''

Section 80.22(f)(1), which was deleted by the February 2, 1996 direct

final rule, specified that ``[e]ach pump from which leaded gasoline is

introduced into motor vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle spout

having a terminal end with an outside diameter of not less than 0.930

inch (2.363 centimeters).'' Section 80.22(f)(2), which the February 2,

1996 direct final rule left intact, specifies that ``[e]ach pump from

which unleaded gasoline is introduced into motor vehicles shall be

equipped with a nozzle spout which meets the following specifications:

(I) The outside diameter of the terminal end shall not be greater than

0.840 inch (2.134 centimeters); (ii) . . .''

Paragraph 80.24(b) contained additional specifications to prevent

misfueling of motor vehicles with leaded gasoline. Section 80.24(b)(1)

required that the filler inlet restrictor must ``pool'' gasoline at the

restrictor's opening, if fueling is attempted when the spout of a pump

nozzle is not inserted into the restrictor opening. Historically, this

has been accomplished by a spring-loaded door on the inside of the

restrictor opening, which would be pushed open by inserting the spout

of an unleaded gasoline nozzle. Since leaded gasoline nozzle spouts are

larger than the inlet restrictor opening, they would not fit into the

restrictor opening or push open the spring loaded door. Fueling with

leaded gasoline would require the nozzle spout to be positioned in

front of the restrictor opening and spring-loaded door. If fueling were

attempted in this manner, the gasoline would pool at the restrictor

opening and cause the nozzle's automatic shut-off device to activate.

The related paragraph 80.24(b)(2) exempted motorcycle manufacturers

from meeting the ``pooling'' requirements of paragraph 80.24(b)(1).

In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of

proposed rulemaking, EPA removed various portions of section 80.24,

including the introductory text, and modified section 80.24(b) to make

the size requirements of the tank filler inlet applicable to all new

motor vehicles, and not just to those equipped with an emission control

device that would be significantly impaired by the use of leaded

gasoline. EPA reasoned that retaining the tank filler inlet restrictor

requirements would conform with the statutory ban prohibiting the use

of gasoline containing lead or lead additives as a motor vehicle fuel.

The restrictor requirements for motor vehicles would match the nozzle

size requirement for dispensing unleaded gasoline, which EPA had

retained in paragraph 80.22(f)(2). Further, General Motors and several

gasoline pump nozzle manufacturers had requested that the specification

for the fuel filler inlet size be retained so that automobile equipment

will continue to be compatible with Stage II vapor recovery pump

nozzles. EPA simplified the applicability language of paragraph

80.24(b) to refer to all motor vehicles, instead of motor vehicles

equipped with an emission control device that would be significantly

impaired by the use of leaded gasoline, because it thought that all

motor vehicles are currently manufactured with tank filler inlet

restrictors. The agency did not intend to broaden the applicability of

80.24(b).

In the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice of

proposed rulemaking, EPA also removed sections 80.24(b)(1) and

80.24(b)(2). As stated in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule (see

discussion of sections 80.24 and 80.22(d) and (e)), EPA believes

misfueling is unlikely, making the paragraph 80.24(b)(1) ``pooling''

safeguard against misfueling unnecessary. Once section 80.24(b)(1) is

removed, it is appropriate to remove section 80.24(b)(2) as well, since

80.24(b)(2) exempts motorcycle manufacturers from the requirements of

80.24(b)(1).

On February 22, 1996, EPA received an adverse comment from Harley

Davidson, Inc. (Harley) on the revised language of 40 CFR

80.24(b).1 In its comment, Harley states that motorcycles

generally do not use emission control devices that would be

significantly impaired by the use of leaded gasoline (e.g., catalytic

converters) and are therefore not manufactured with tank filler inlet

restrictors matching the requirements of the existing paragraph

80.24(b). The February 2, 1996 direct final rule and associated notice

of proposed rulemaking would require these motorcycles to meet the fuel

inlet size requirements of 40 CFR 80.24(b), thereby causing additional

economic burden and manufacturing complexity for Harley.

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

\1\ This comment has been included in docket no. A-95-13.

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

EPA did not intend or foresee that it would be expanding the

applicability of 80.24(b) by revising the applicability language.

Because of this adverse comment, EPA published in the Federal Register

a ``Partial Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule'' on March 4, 1996 (61 FR

8221). That action removed 40 CFR 80.24(b) from the direct final rule.

All other provisions of the direct final rule became effective on March

4, 1996, as planned.

In addition to the above issue, EPA has determined that the version

of 40 CFR 80.24(b) in the February 2, 1996 direct final rule and

related notice of proposed rulemaking inadvertently

[[Page 28765]]

tightened the specifications for the motor vehicle fuel inlet

restrictor. The existing regulations at 40 CFR 80.24(b) require that

the restrictor must prevent ``the insertion of a nozzle with a spout as

described in Sec. 80.22(f)(1).'' 40 CFR 80.22(f)(1) specified a nozzle

spout having a terminal end with an ``outside diameter of not less than

0.930 inch (2.363 centimeters).'' Because the February 2, 1996 direct

final rule and associated notice of proposed rulemaking deleted 40 CFR

80.22(f)(1), the text of the proposed 40 CFR 80.24(b) was changed. As

proposed, 80.24(b) would specify that the restrictor must prevent the

insertion of a nozzle of ``greater size than prescribed in

Sec. 80.22(f)(2).'' 40 CFR 80.22(f)(2) specifies a spout terminal end

having an ``outside diameter . . . not . . . greater than 0.840 inch

(2.134 centimeters).'' Thus, the proposed regulation would require that

the fuel inlet restrictor prevent the insertion of a smaller-diameter

nozzle spout than that allowed in the existing regulation.

B. Statutory Authority

EPA promulgates this final rule pursuant to its authority under

Sections 211(c), 211(n), and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

7545(c), 7545(n), 7601(a).

III. Description of Today's Action

Today's final rule revises 40 CFR 80.24(b) to complete the

regulatory revisions contemplated by the February 2, 1996 direct final

rule. Those regulatory revisions were rendered incomplete by the March

4, 1996 (61 FR 8221) partial withdrawal of the direct final rule.

Section 80.24(b)(1) and (2). As proposed, this rule deletes section

80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2), because EPA believes these ``pooling''

safeguards against misfueling are no longer necessary (see

``Background'' above).

Section 80.24(b). As finalized today, 40 CFR 80.24(b) differs from

the proposal in two respects. First, the text of 40 CFR 80.24(b) has

been changed from the proposal to retain its previous applicability.

Specifically, EPA has incorporated into the revised paragraph 80.24(b)

the introductory text previously contained in section 80.24 that

described which motor vehicle manufacturers are subject to 80.24(b)

fuel inlet restrictor specifications.2

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

\2\ The phrase ``leaded gasoline'' in the former introductory

text is changed to ``gasoline other than unleaded gasoline'',

because the term ``leaded gasoline'' has been deleted from the

regulations. This textual change does not change the scope of the

regulation, because the deleted term ``leaded gasoline'' encompassed

all gasoline which did not qualify as unleaded gasoline.

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

EPA has changed the proposed language of 80.24(b) in this way to

avoid creating additional compliance burdens for manufacturers of

motorcycles and other motor vehicles currently produced without the

fuel inlet restrictors. In its February 2, 1996 notice of proposed

rulemaking, EPA proposed to expand the requirement for fuel inlet

restrictors to all motor vehicles. EPA reasoned that retaining the fuel

inlet restrictor requirement would conform with the statutory ban, and

did not realize that some motor vehicles continue to be produced

without fuel inlet restrictors. EPA therefore proposed to retain the

fuel inlet restrictor requirement and simplify the applicability

language to refer to all motor vehicles.

After reviewing the comment submitted by Harley, EPA now recognizes

that the proposed revisions to the applicability language would impose

additional burden for motor vehicles that are not required to have the

fuel inlet restrictor under the previous regulations. The Agency

believes that expansion of the applicability of the restrictor

requirement is not appropriate. The economic burden of applying the

restrictor requirement to motorcycles and any other motor vehicles not

previously subject to the requirement outweighs the benefit of

facilitating the statutory ban by installing restrictors on these

vehicles.

Second, the text of 80.24(b) finalized today has been changed from

the proposal to retain the size specifications for the fuel inlet

restrictor set forth in the previous version of this regulation. As

explained above (see ``Background''), that previous version referenced

the specification set forth in section 80.22(f)(1), which was deleted

by the February 2, 1996 direct final rule. The proposed text of

80.24(b) failed to incorporate the nozzle specification set forth in

deleted 80.22(f)(1). In today's final rule, EPA has incorporated the

nozzle specification contained in the previous section 80.22(f)(1). EPA

makes this change to insure that the Agency does not increase the

burden of complying with the fuel inlet restrictor size specifications

of section 80.24(b).

IV. Environmental Impact

This rule is expected to have no net environmental impact.

V. Economic Impact

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires

that Federal Agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small

entities. The Act requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in conjunction with notice and comment rulemaking,

unless the Agency head certifies that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.

605(b). The Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because

this rule deletes a previous requirement and retains another

requirement without substantive change, it is not expected to result in

any additional compliance cost to regulated parties, and in fact, is

expected to reduce compliance cost to regulated parties.

VI. Effective Date

This action will become effective on July 8, 1996.

VII. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866,3 the Agency must determine

whether a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB

review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

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

\3\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

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

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,

or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments of communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof, or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

this Executive Order.4

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

\4\ Id. at section 3(f)(1)-(4).

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

It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``UMRA''), Pub. L. 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate which may

[[Page 28766]]

result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under

Section 205, for any rule subject to Section 202 EPA generally must

select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent

with statutory requirements. Under Section 203, before establishing any

regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, EPA must take steps to inform and advise small governments

of the requirements and enable them to provide input.

EPA has determined that the final rule promulgated today does not

trigger the requirements of UMRA. The rule does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100

million or more, and it does not establish regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

IX. Judicial Review

Because this action promulgates a control or prohibition under

Section 211 of the Clean Air Act and is nationally applicable, under

Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act judicial review of this action

is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within sixty days of publication

of this action in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Fuel Additives,

Gasoline, Leaded Gasoline, Unleaded Gasoline, and Motor Vehicle

Pollution.

Dated: May 24, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

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

Authority: Section 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as

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

2. Section 80.24 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 80.24 Controls applicable to motor vehicle manufacturers.

* * * * *

(b) The manufacturer of any motor vehicle equipped with an emission

control device which the Administrator has determined will be

significantly impaired by the use of gasoline other than unleaded

gasoline shall manufacture such vehicle with each gasoline tank filler

inlet having a restriction which prevents the insertion of a nozzle

with a spout having a terminal end with an outside diameter of 0.930

inch (2.363 centimeters) or more and allows the insertion of a nozzle

with a spout meeting the specifications of Sec. 80.22(f)(2).

[FR Doc. 96-14307 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P