14410 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission’s 1995 Federal Register notice 

explained that the Rule ‘‘does not require 

manufacturers to * * * explicitly state that their 

engine oil is substantially equivalent to new oil’’

and does not mandate any qualifiers or specific 

disclosures. (60 FR 55418–55419). Until NIST 

§ 719.3 [Amended] 

■ 11. Section 719.3 is amended: 

■ a. By revising the dollar amount 

‘‘$11,000’’ to read ‘‘$50,000’’ in 

paragraph (b) and in the footnote to 

paragraph (b); and 

■ b. By revising the parenthetical ‘‘(15 

CFR 6.4(a)(3))’’ at the end of the footnote 

to paragraph (b) to read ‘‘(15 CFR 

6.4(a)(5))’’. 

PART 721—[AMENDED] 

■ 12. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 721 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.; E.O. 

13128, 64 FR 36703, 3 CFR 1999 Comp., p. 

199. 

■ 13. Section 721.2 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 721.2 Recordkeeping. 

(a) Requirements. Each person, 

facility, plant site or trading company 

required to submit a declaration, report, 

or advance notification under parts 712 

through 715 of the CWCR must retain all 

supporting materials and 

documentation used by a unit, plant, 

facility, plant site or trading company to 

prepare such declaration, report, or 

advance notification to determine 

production, processing, consumption, 

export or import of chemicals. Each 

facility subject to inspection under Part 

716 of the CWCR must retain all 

supporting materials and 

documentation associated with the 

movement into, around, and from the 

facility of declared chemicals and their 

feedstock or any product chemicals 

formed from such chemicals and 

feedstock. In the event that a declared 

facility is sold, the previous owner of 

the facility must retain all such 

supporting materials and 

documentation that were not transferred 

to the current owner of the facility (e.g., 

as part of the contract involving the sale 

of the facility)—otherwise, the current 

owner of the facility is responsible for 

retaining such supporting materials and 

documentation. Whenever the previous 

owner of a declared facility retains such 

supporting materials and 

documentation, the owner must inform 

BIS of any subsequent change in address 

or other contact information, so that BIS 

will be able to contact the previous 

owner of the facility, to arrange for 

access to such records, if BIS deems 

them relevant to inspection activities 

involving the facility (see § 716.4 of the 

CWCR). 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 21, 2007. 

Christopher A. Padilla, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–5594 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 311 

Test Procedures and Labeling 

Standards for Recycled Oil 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

has completed its regulatory review of 

the Test Procedures and Labeling 

Standards for Recycled Oil (‘‘Recycled 

Oil Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’), as part of the 

Commission’s systematic review of all 

current Commission regulations and 

guides. The Commission, with the 

exception of incorporating by reference 

American Petroleum Institute 

Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, and 

updating incorporation by reference 

approval language, has determined to 

retain the Recycled Oil Rule in its 

current form. 

DATES: This action is effective as of 

March 28, 2007. The incorporation by 

reference of the American Petroleum 

Institute Publication 1509, Fifteenth 

Edition, listed in this Rule, is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register 

as of March 28, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this 

notice should be sent to the Consumer 

Response Center, Room 130, Federal 

Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. The 

notice also is available on the Internet 

at the Commission’s Web site, http:// 

www.ftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janice Podoll Frankle, (202) 326–3022, 

Attorney, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC 

20580. E-mail: jfrankle@ftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Commission has determined, as 

part of its oversight responsibilities, to 

review its rules and guides periodically 

to seek information about their costs 

and benefits, as well as their regulatory 

and economic impact. The information 

obtained assists the Commission in 

identifying rules and guides that 

warrant modification or rescission. 

II. Background 

Section 383 of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’), 42 

U.S.C. 6363, mandated that the FTC 

promulgate a rule prescribing testing 

procedures and labeling standards for 

recycled oil. This section of EPCA is 

intended to encourage the recycling of 

used oil, promote the use of recycled 

oil, reduce consumption of new oil by 

promoting increased utilization of 

recycled oil, and reduce environmental 

hazards and wasteful practices 

associated with the disposal of used oil. 

42 U.S.C. 6363(a). 

EPCA also mandated that the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(‘‘NIST’’) develop (and report to the 

FTC) test procedures to determine 

whether processed used oil is 

substantially equivalent to new oil for a 

particular end use. 42 U.S.C. 6363(c). 

Within 90 days after receiving NIST’s 

test procedures, EPCA required that the 

FTC prescribe, by rule, substantial 

equivalency test procedures, as well as 

labeling standards for recycled oil. 42 

U.S.C. 6363(d)(1)(A). EPCA also 

required that the Commission’s rule 

permit any container of recycled oil to 

bear a label indicating any particular 

end use (e.g., engine lubricating oil), for 

which a determination of ‘‘substantial 

equivalency’’ with new oil has been 

made in accordance with the NIST test 

procedures. 42 U.S.C. 6363(d)(1)(B). 

On July 27, 1995, NIST reported to the 

FTC test procedures for determining the 

substantial equivalence of processed 

used engine oil with new engine oil. 

The NIST test procedures and 

performance standards are the same as 

those adopted by the American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) for engine 

lubricating oils generally, regardless of 

origin. The Rule, 16 CFR part 311, 

which was issued on October 31, 1995 

(60 FR 55421), implements EPCA’s 

requirements by permitting a 

manufacturer or other seller to 

‘‘represent, * * * on a container of 

processed used oil, that such oil is 

substantially equivalent to new oil for 

use as engine oil only if the 

manufacturer has determined that the 

oil is substantially equivalent to new oil 

for use as engine oil’’ in accordance 

with the test procedures entitled 

‘‘Engine Oil Licensing and Certification 

System,’’ American Petroleum Institute 

Publication 1509, Thirteenth Edition, 

January 1995.1


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14411 

develops test procedures for other end uses, the 

Recycled Oil Rule is limited to recycled oil used as 

engine oil. Moreover, because NIST’s test 

procedures and performance standards are the same 

as those adopted by API for engine oils, the 

Commission must limit the Rule’s scope to 

categories of engine oil that are covered by the API 

Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, as 

prescribed in API Publication 1509. 

2 71 FR 38321 (July 6, 2006). 

3The comments are cited in this notice by 

reference to the name of the commenter. The 

comments are on the public record and are 

available for public inspection in the Consumer 

Response Center, Room 130, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

comments also are available on the Internet at the 

Commission’s Web site, http://www.ftc.gov. 

4The trade associations are: American Petroleum 

Institute, Automotive Oil Change Association, 

National Automobile Dealers Association, and 

National Petrochemical & Refiners Association 

(comment received after comment period closed). 

5The companies are: ExxonMobil Lubricants & 

Specialities Company, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., 

and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company. 

6The study is entitle ‘‘Used Oil Re-refining Study 

to Address Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 

1838.’’

7Section 311.1(d) of the Rule defines ‘‘recycled 

oil’’ as ‘‘processed used oil’’ that the manufacturer 

has determined, pursuant to the Rule’s required test 

procedures is ‘‘substantially equivalent to new oil 

for use as engine oil.’’

8NPRA stated that ‘‘re-refined stock shall be 

substantially free from materials introduced 

through additization and use. Re-refining produces 

a base oil comparable to virgin base oils. It is 

capable of meeting current guidelines required to 

produce most current engine oil categories and 

licensing requirements as defined by API. (API Base 

Oil Interchangeability Guidelines, E.1.2.1 and API 

1509 requirements.)’’

9NPRA defined ‘‘re-conditioning’’ as ‘‘[u]se of a 

filtration system to remove insoluble impurities, 

combines with replenishment of key additives, to 

extend the lubricant’s life.’’

10NPRA defined ‘‘re-processing’’ as ‘‘chemical or 

physical operations designed to produce from used 

Continued 

As part of the Commission’s ongoing 

project to review periodically its rules 

and guides to determine their current 

effectiveness and impact, on July 6, 

2006, the Commission published a 

Federal Register notice (‘‘FRN’’) seeking 

comment on the Recycled Oil Rule.2

The Commission sought comment on: 

(1) The continuing need for the Rule as 

currently promulgated; (2) the benefits 

the Rule has provided to purchasers; (3) 

whether the Rule has imposed costs on 

purchasers; (4) what changes, if any, 

should be made to the Rule to increase 

purchasers’ benefits and how the 

changes would affect the costs to firms; 

(5) what significant burdens or costs the 

Rule has imposed on firms; (6) what 

changes, if any, should be made to the 

Rule to reduce burdens or costs to firms; 

(7) whether the Rule overlaps or 

conflicts with other federal, state, or 

local laws or regulations; (8) what 

effects, if any, have changes in relevant 

technology or economic conditions had 

on the Rule; and (9) whether the 

updated version of American Petroleum 

Institute Publication 1509 (Fifteenth 

Edition) should be incorporated by 

reference into the Rule. 

III. Regulatory Review Comments 

The Commission received comments3

from four trade associations4 and three 

companies.5 These comments are 

discussed below. 

1. Is there a continuing need for the 

Rule as currently promulgated? 

All of the comments stated that the 

Recycled Oil Rule should remain in 

effect. The Automotive Oil Change 

Association (‘‘AOCA’’), which stated 

that it is the national representative for 

over 3,000 small business fast-lube 

facilities that both generate significant 

quantities of used oil and collect ‘‘do-ityourselfer’’ used oil from the public, 

commented that the Rule furthers the 

success of the used oil recycling chain. 

AOCA also commented that consumers 

and the automotive service industry 

need uniformity in motor oil container 

labeling and that without the Rule some 

states might require recycled oil content 

labeling ‘‘that differs from other states 

thereby causing confusion and placing a 

burden on commerce.’’

The National Automobile Dealers 

Association (‘‘NADA’’), which stated 

that it represents 20,000 franchised 

automobile and truck dealers who sell 

new and used vehicles and service, 

provide auto repair, and sell auto parts, 

commented that the Rule indirectly 

impacts car and truck dealerships that 

purchase motor oil for vehicle use and 

collect used oil from the vehicles they 

service. NADA commented that since 

car and truck dealerships use only API 

certified motor oils, ‘‘the Rule’s 

requirement that used oil processors 

take appropriate steps when 

manufacturing ‘substantially equivalent’

motor oils helps make those oils 

potentially marketable to dealerships.’’

NADA further stated that by not 

requiring that ‘‘substantially equivalent’’

recycled oils be labeled ‘‘recycled’’ or 

‘‘re-refined,’’ used oil processors are 

able to market their products effectively. 

NADA also advised that the Rule has 

facilitated the growth of consumer 

acceptance of recycled oil. 

Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. (‘‘SafetyKleen’’), which stated that it re-refines 

about 160 million gallons of used oil 

each year, commented that the 

Department of Energy, in conjunction 

with the Environmental Protection 

Agency, recently completed a study 

that, in part, concluded that re-refining 

used oil is beneficial to the environment 

and noted the need to encourage the use 

of recycled oil.6 Similarly, ExxonMobil 

Lubricants & Specialties Company 

(‘‘ExxonMobil’’) commented that the 

Rule ‘‘contributes to the goal of 

encouraging responsible used oil 

management practices to protect the 

public and the environment.’’

2. What benefits has the Rule provided 

to purchasers of the products or services 

affected by the Rule? 

Safety-Kleen stated that because the 

Rule sets forth the criteria that rerefined oil must meet to be 

‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to new oil, 

end users are assured that the oil will 

perform as intended in their vehicles. 

Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Shell Oil 

Company (‘‘Shell’’), which is the 

manufacturer, marketer, and seller of a 

number of engine oils, including 

Pennzoil, Quaker State, Q, ROTELLA, 

and Formula Shell, and the owner of 

Jiffy Lube stores, commented that the 

Rule has eliminated the requirement 

that engine oils made with recycled base 

oils be labeled as such; thus, consumers 

can shop for engine oils with the 

assurance that engine oil that meets 

API’s standards will be sufficient for 

their vehicles, whether the base oil used 

is virgin or recycled. 

3. Has the Rule imposed costs on 

purchasers? 

Both Safety-Kleen and Shell stated 

that they were not aware of any 

additional costs to purchasers due to the 

Rule. No other comments addressed this 

question. 

4. What changes, if any, should be made 

to the Rule to increase the benefits of 

the Rule to purchasers? How would 

these changes affect the costs the Rule 

imposes on firms subject to its 

requirements? How would these changes 

affect the benefits to purchasers? 

The National Petrochemical & 

Refiners Association (‘‘NPRA’’), Shell, 

and Safety-Kleen, while supporting the 

Rule, suggested certain modifications. 

NPRA, which stated that it is a national 

trade association with 450 members, 

including those who own or operate 

virtually all U.S. refining capacity, in 

addition to most of the nation’s 

petrochemical manufacturers, 

commented that the Rule’s definition of 

‘‘recycled oil’’ 7 ‘‘is too broad and could 

result in sub-standard products in the 

marketplace.’’ NPRA attached to its 

comment three proposed definitions for 

recycled oil (‘‘re-refining,’’ 8 ‘‘reconditioning,’’ 9 and ‘‘reprocessing.’’ 10), which it said ‘‘reflect 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
14412 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

oil, or to make used oil more amenable for 

production of, fuel oils, lubricants, or other used 

oil-derived products. Processing includes, but is not 

limited to: blending used oil with virgin petroleum 

products, blending used oils to meet the fuel 

specification, filtration, simple distillation.’’

11H.R. Rep. No. 96–1415, 96th Cong. 2d Sess. 6 

(1980), reproduced at 1980 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. 

News 4354, 4356. (‘‘Oil should be labeled on the 

basis of performance characteristics and fitness for 

its intended use, and not on the basis of the origin 

of the oil.’’) 

12Shell contends that recycled oils vary in how 

well the impurities are removed during their 

manufacture. Shell further asserts that these 

impurities ‘‘present’’ a skin cancer hazard. 

However, Shell did not present any studies that 

showed a link between recycled oil and any health 

ailments. Rather, Shell stated that limited health 

data on re-refined base oils is available as compared 

to studies of virgin base oils. Shell also did not 

propose a specific study protocol for evaluating the 

health effects of recycled oil. 

13Attachment 1 to Shell’s comment contains a 

detailed discussion of this matter and the basis for 

Shell’s recommendation. 

14 60 FR 55418 (October 31, 1995). 

15Specifically, Safety-Kleen commented that rerefined motor oil requires less energy to produce 

than motor oil derived from crude oil and results 

in fewer emissions. 

16 60 FR 55419. The Commission, however, 

explained that manufacturers using such terms 

need to consider the Commission’s Guides for the 

Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. See, e.g., 

16 CFR 260.7(e). 

17Safety-Kleen also noted that any requirements 

that only apply to recycled oil, and not to new oil, 

would be counter to the Rule’s purpose. 

18Safety-Kleen’s response to this question 

referred back to its response to question 4. 

19Safety-Kleen responded that the Rule is 

consistent with Executive Orders 13101 (1998) and 

13149 (2000) that direct the federal government to 

buy re-refined oil when it is available at the same 

quality and price as new oil. 

20The current Rule references the Thirteenth 

Edition. 

today’s current manufacturing 

procedures and would help ensure 

uniform, reliable products.’’

NPRA, however, did not explain how 

the manufacturing processes underlying 

its proposed new definitions impact the 

performance characteristics of recycled 

oil. Significantly, Congress was 

primarily concerned with the 

performance characteristics of recycled 

oil, not the recycling process used to 

manufacture the oil.11 The current 

definition of recycled oil, requiring that 

the oil perform substantially 

equivalently to new oil, meets this goal. 

Furthermore, the Commission has not 

received any complaints or any other 

comments regarding the current 

definition of ‘‘recycled oil.’’

Shell commented that the 

‘‘ ‘substantially equivalent’ criterion is 

solely performance-based and does not 

include a consideration of the possible 

health effects of engine oils and other 

products manufactured with recycled 

base oils, rather than virgin petroleum 

base oils.’’ 12 Thus, Shell recommended 

that the FTC ‘‘require ’substantial 

equivalency’ to include health-based 

criteria in addition to the performancebased criteria.’’ 13

The Commission observes that Exxon 

Company, U.S.A., in connection with 

the 1995 Recycled Oil rulemaking, also 

proposed that the Recycled Oil Rule 

establish health-based ‘‘substantial 

equivalency’’ standards. In addressing 

Exxon’s concerns, the Commission 

found that consideration of the potential 

health effect of recycled oil was beyond 

its statutory mandate and that ‘‘it is 

clear from the legislative history of EPA 

that Congress was concerned only with 

the performance characteristics of 

recycled oil, not potential health 

consequences * * *. Although Exxon’s 

concerns may be important, they cannot 

be addressed in this proceeding. The 

Commission has no factual or legal basis 

to address the health effects, or any 

other nonperformance qualities, of 

recycled oil in this rulemaking.’’ 14

Accordingly, the Commission reiterates 

that it is beyond the Commission’s 

legislative mandate to amend the Rule 

to incorporate health-based criteria. 

Additionally, Safety-Kleen suggested 

that the Commission consider labeling 

changes that emphasize that ‘‘re-refined 

motor oil is ‘recycled’ and 

environmentally preferable to other end 

uses of used motor oil.’’ 15 As the 

Commission stated in the 1995 Recycled 

Oil rulemaking: ‘‘Because the rule does 

not mandate the use of specific 

disclosures, recycled oil manufacturers 

or other sellers have flexibility to 

promote the performance of their 

products and their ‘substantial 

equivalency’ with new oil * * *. 

Manufacturers can voluntarily label 

recycled oil with terms such as 

‘recycled’ to assist in the marketing of 

their products.’’ 16 In the present Rule 

review, the Commission continues to 

adhere to that position because the Rule 

already provides manufacturers and 

sellers the discretion to label and market 

their processed used engine oil as 

‘‘recycled.’’

5. What significant burdens or costs, 

including costs of compliance, has the 

Rule imposed on firms subject to its 

requirements? Has the Rule provided 

benefits to such firms? If so, what 

benefits? 

Safety-Kleen commented that by 

referencing the API certification, the 

Rule has minimized duplication of costs 

in obtaining engine oil approval. SafetyKleen commented that it would oppose 

any requirements beyond those 

specified by the API because any 

additional testing or requirements 

would be a burden.17 Shell commented 

that it did not have any data regarding 

the compliance costs for manufacturers 

of refined oil. 

6. What changes, if any, should be made 

to the Rule to reduce the burdens or 

costs imposed on firms subject to its 

requirements? How would these changes 

affect the benefits provided by the 

Rule? 18

Shell recommended that the 

Commission make no changes to the 

performance-based criteria but 

reiterated its recommendation that the 

Commission include health-based 

criteria. 

7. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with 

other federal, state, or local laws or 

regulations? 

Safety-Kleen commented that the Rule 

is consistent with federal efforts to 

encourage re-refining used oil and that 

there is no significant overlap between 

the Rule and other government 

initiatives.19 Shell commented that it is 

not aware of any conflict or overlap 

with other federal, state, or local laws or 

regulations. 

8. Since the Rule was issued, what 

effects, if any, have changes in relevant 

technology or economic conditions had 

on the Rule? 

Safety-Kleen commented that ‘‘[t]he 

rising price of crude oil and the political 

instability in many crude-producing 

regions has made re-refining more 

attractive both economically and 

strategically.’’ Safety-Kleen observed 

that advances in re-refining have ‘‘led 

re-refined oil to be warranty approved 

by all major U.S. manufacturers as long 

as the oil is API approved.’’

9. Since the Rule was issued, the API 

has published the Fifteenth Edition of 

Publication 1509.20 Should this updated 

version of Publication 1509 be 

incorporated by reference into the Rule? 

All of the comments recommended 

that the Commission incorporate by 

reference the Fifteenth Edition of 

Publication 1509 into the Rule and that 

the Commission amend the Rule’s 

reference to Publication 1509 to 

accommodate edition updates. API 

observed that the Sixteenth Edition of 

API 1509 is ‘‘expected to be issued 

shortly’’ and thus recommended that the 

reference to API Publication 1509 in 

Section 311.4 of the Rule be amended to 

read ‘‘latest edition.’’ API stated that 

adopting the ‘‘latest edition’’ language 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14413 

21See, National Archives and Records 

Administration, Office of the Federal Register, 

‘‘Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook,’’

ch. 6 (1998). This handbook contains the rules 

federal agencies must follow to incorporate 

materials by reference into regulatory text. This 

handbook is issued under the Federal Register Act 

(44 U.S.C. 1501–1511) and the regulations of the 

Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (1 

CFR 15.10). 

22Comments made in connection with the 

Recycled Oil rulemaking in 1995 similarly 

suggested that the final rule require use of test 

procedures found in the ‘‘latest’’ or ‘‘current’’

version of API Publication 1509. In addressing 

comments made in connection with the 1995 

rulemaking, the Commission’s Federal Register 

notice detailed why such proposals were not 

feasible. (60 FRN 55417–55418). 

will prevent confusion as new editions 

are issued. 

Although this suggestion has 

considerable merit, each statement of 

incorporation by reference in regulatory 

text must specifically identify the 

material to be incorporated, including 

the title, date, edition, author, publisher, 

and identification number of the 

publication.21 Therefore, the 

Commission does not have discretion to 

refer generally to the ‘‘latest’’ or 

‘‘current’’ edition of API Publication 

1509 in the Rule.22 Because Publication 

1509 is in its Fifteenth Edition, the 

Commission is incorporating it by 

reference by publishing an amendment 

to the Code of Federal Regulations in 

the current rulemaking. 

IV. Conclusion 

The comments provide evidence that 

the Rule serves a useful purpose, while 

imposing minimal costs on the industry; 

and the Commission has no evidence to 

the contrary. Accordingly, with the 

exception of incorporating by reference 

API Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, 

and adding an updated explanation of 

incorporation by reference in Section 

311.4, the Commission has determined 

to retain the Recycled Oil Rule in its 

current form. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires an 

agency to provide a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis with the final rule, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603–605. The Rule 

permits rather than requires any 

container of recycled oil to bear a label 

indicating that it is substantially 

equivalent to new engine oil, if such 

determination has been made in 

accordance with the prescribed test 

procedures. The Rule imposes no 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements, and it permits recycled 

oil to be labeled with information that 

is basic and easily ascertainable. In 

addition, the Rule does not require 

recycled oil manufacturers to conduct 

substantial equivalency tests themselves 

and maintain their own testing 

equipment. Rather, they may use third 

parties to minimize testing costs. In any 

event, the Commission believes the 

Rule, as amended, does not affect a 

substantial number of small entities 

because relatively few companies 

currently manufacture and sell recycled 

oil as engine oil, and that most would 

not be ‘‘small entities’’ under applicable 

regulations, 13 CFR part 121. Although 

there may be some ‘‘small entities’’

among private-label retail sellers or 

distributors of recycled engine oil, the 

Rule’s labeling standards should 

continue to have only a minimal impact 

on such entities, because the Rule is 

limited to voluntary labeling disclosures 

beyond the labeling costs that such 

entities already incur. Accordingly, for 

the reasons above, the Commission 

certifies that the Rule, as amended, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This document serves as notice 

of that determination to the Small 

Business Administration. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520, federal 

agencies must obtain approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ means 

agency requests or requirements that 

members of the public submit reports, 

keep records, or provide information to 

a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 

1320.3(c). The amended Rule does not 

involve the ‘‘collection of information’’

under the PRA and, therefore, OMB 

approval is not required. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 311 

Energy conservation, Incorporation by 

reference, Labeling, Recycled oil, Trade 

practices. 

Text of Amendments 

■ For the reason set forth in the 

preamble, 16 CFR part 311 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 311—TEST PROCEDURES AND 

LABELING STANDARDS FOR 

RECYCLED OIL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 311 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6363(d). 

■ 2. Revise § 311.4 to read as follows: 

§ 311.4 Testing. 

To determine the substantial 

equivalency of processed used oil with 

new oil for use as engine oil, 

manufacturers or their designees must 

use the test procedures that were 

reported to the Commission by the 

National Institutes of Standards and 

Technology (‘‘NIST’’) on July 27, 1995, 

entitled ‘‘Engine Oil Licensing and 

Certification System,’’ American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’), Publication 

1509, Thirteenth Edition, January 1995. 

API Publication 1509, Thirteenth 

Edition has been updated to API 

Publication 1509, Fifteenth Edition, 

April 2002. API Publication 1509, 

Fifteenth Edition, April 2002, is 

incorporated by reference. This 

incorporation by reference is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. Copies of the materials 

incorporated by reference may be 

obtained from: API, 1220 L Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005. Copies may be 

inspected at the Federal Trade 

Commission, Consumer Response 

Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 

or at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (‘‘NARA’’). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–5678 Filed 3–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 30 

Foreign Futures and Options 

Transactions 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Order. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (Commission or 

(CFTC) is granting an exemption to 

firms designated by the Taiwan Futures 

Exchange (TAIFEX) from the 

application of certain of the 

Commission’s foreign futures and 

option regulations based upon 

substituted compliance with certain 

comparable regulatory and selfregulatory requirements of a foreign 

regulatory authority consistent with 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES