69240 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Paper copies of materials associated with the 

notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded this 

final rule are contained in the legacy docket. Legacy 

docket number A–2001–15. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[OAR–2004–0029; FRL–7996–2] 

RIN 2060–AK62 

Revisions to the Requirements on 

Variability in the Composition of 

Additives Certified Under the Gasoline 

Deposit Control Program; Final Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 5, 2001, we 

published a direct final rule and 

concurrent notice of proposed 

rulemaking to revise the requirements 

on variability in the composition of 

additives certified EPA’s Gasoline 

Deposit Control Program. We received 

adverse comments on two of the 

amendments contained in the direct 

final rule and proposed rule. 

Consequently, we issued a partial 

withdrawal notice on January 24, 2002, 

to withdraw the amendments that 

received adverse comments. This action 

addresses the public comments received 

on the withdrawn amendments. We 

found the adverse comments on the 

withdrawn amendments unpersuasive. 

However, we agreed with one 

commenter’s suggestion that additional 

clarifying language would be useful in 

one of the subject amendments to 

prevent any potential for 

misinterpretation. Consequently, today’s 

action implements the previously 

withdrawn amendments with the 

addition of clarifying language. The 

changes to the regulatory requirements 

made by this action address additive 

manufacturer concerns that compliance 

with the previous requirements would 

be burdensome and difficult, while 

maintaining the emissions control 

benefits of the gasoline deposit control 

program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

OAR–2004–0029.1 All documents in the 

docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 

at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

material is not publicly available, i.e., 

CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET or in hard copy at the EPA 

Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Docket’s 

Public Reading room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Access to Rulemaking Documents 

Through the Internet: 

Today’s action is available 

electronically on the day of publication 

from EPA’s Federal Register Internet 

Web site listed below. Electronic copies 

of this preamble, regulatory language, 

and other documents associated with 

today’s final rule are available from the 

EPA Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality Web site listed below shortly 

after the rule is signed by the 

Administrator. This service is free of 

charge, except any cost that you already 

incur for connecting to the Internet. 

EPA Federal Register Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/epa-air/. 

(Either select a desired date or use the 

Search feature.) 

Please note that due to differences 

between the software used to develop 

the document and the software into 

which the document may be 

downloaded, changes in format, page 

length, etc., may occur. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Herzog, Assessment and Standards 

Division, Office of Transportation and 

Air Quality (Mail Code: AAFUEL), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

National Vehicle and Fuels Emission 

Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann 

Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 

(734) 214–4227, fax number: (734) 214– 

4816, e-mail address: 

herzog.jeff@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply To Me? 

Entities potentially regulated by this 

action are those that manufacture 

gasoline deposit control (detergent) 

additives. Regulated categories and 

entities include: 

Category NAICS 

code SIC code Example of regulated entities 

Industry ...................................................................................... 325998 2899 Gasoline deposit control additive manufacturers. 

a. North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS). 

b. Standard Industrial Classification 

(SIC) system code. 

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 potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

organization is regulated by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability requirements in 

§ 80.161(a), the detergent certification 

requirements in § 80.161(b), the program 

controls and prohibitions in § 80.168, 

and other related program requirements 

in Subpart G, 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. 

II. Overview of Action 

Background on the Gasoline Deposit 

Control Program: 

The accumulation of deposits in the 

engine and fuel supply systems of 

gasoline motor vehicles can 

significantly increase emissions of 

nitrous oxides (NOX), hydrocarbons 

(HC), and carbon monoxide (CO). 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 

211(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA 

implemented a gasoline deposit control 

program which requires that all gasoline 

sold for use in motor vehicles in the 

United States (U.S.) contain additives 

that are effective in limiting the 

formation of such deposits (40 CFR part 

80). Specifically, EPA requires that 

deposit control additives be certified for 

their ability to control fuel injector 

deposits (FID) and intake valve deposits 

(IVD) in EPA-specified test procedures. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69241 

2Petition for review under the Clean Air Act’s 

judicial review provisions, Chemical Manufacturers 

Association v. U.S. EPA, No. 96–1297, August 26, 

1996. 3EPA docket A–2001–15, docket item IV–D–03. 

All gasoline is required to contain a 

certified deposit control (DC) additive at 

least at the lowest additive 

concentration (LAC) established during 

certification testing. The final 

requirements of EPA’s gasoline deposit 

control program were published on July 

5, 1996, and became effective August 1, 

1997 (61 FR 35309). 

Gasoline deposit control additives act 

to control deposits by both inhibiting 

the formation of deposits and by 

removing existing deposits. DC 

additives interfere with the formation of 

deposits by coating the surfaces within 

the fuel supply system so that deposits 

do not adhere readily and by keeping 

deposit precursors in solution so that 

they are carried through the combustion 

process. The process by which DC 

additives remove existing deposits 

depends on two functionalities, a 

detergent function to free the deposit 

from the surface and a carrier oil 

function to rinse the deposit-detergent 

amalgam off the surface. Many deposit 

control additives currently in use are 

composed of at least two separate 

components, one to provide the 

detergent action (the ‘‘detergent’’) and 

one to provide the carrier oil action. 

Polyetheramine-based detergent 

additive packages combine the detergent 

and carrier oil functions into a single 

chemical additive. 

Variation in the composition of 

gasoline deposit control additives (DC 

additives) from one production batch to 

the next could have a substantial impact 

on their ability to control deposits, and 

on the emissions benefits of EPA’s 

deposit control program. To ensure that 

the in-use performance of gasoline 

deposit control additives is consistent 

with that demonstrated in the 

certification testing, EPA implemented 

requirements limiting the variability in 

the composition of additive production 

batches (from the composition reported 

in the additive’s certification). 

During development of EPA’s deposit 

control additive program, automobile 

manufacturers urged EPA to implement 

a requirement to control combustion 

chamber deposits (CCD) as well as FID/ 

IVD. The primary focus of automobile 

manufacturer concerns was the 

potential contribution to the formation 

of CCD from the use of high 

concentrations of some additives 

designed to control FID/IVD. 

Automobile manufacturers suggested 

that to limit the potential contribution 

of FID/IVD control additives to the 

formation of CCD, EPA should enact a 

maximum unwashed gum concentration 

for additized gasoline. Since gasoline 

unwashed gum level roughly correlates 

with detergent additive concentration, 

such a requirement would act to set a 

maximum allowed concentration for 

detergent additive packages. EPA 

deferred to enact a CCD control 

requirement due to lack of data with 

which to evaluate the potential benefits, 

costs, and appropriate control measures. 

Today’s Action: 

The Chemical Manufacturers 

Association (CMA, which is now the 

American Chemistry Council) notified 

EPA that certain aspects of the 

requirements to limit variability in DC 

additive composition would be 

burdensome and difficult for additive 

manufactures to comply with. CMA also 

stated that other related provisions 

needed to be clarified. Accordingly, 

CMA filed a petition for review of these 

requirements 2 and entered into a 

process with EPA to evaluate 

alternatives to the requirements of 

concern. Through this process, a 

settlement agreement to resolve CMA’s 

petition for review was reached with 

EPA. Consistent with this settlement 

agreement, we published a direct final 

rule on November 5, 2001 (66 FR 55885) 

and concurrent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM, 66 FR 55905) to 

revise the requirements on variability in 

the composition of additives under the 

gasoline deposit control program. We 

received adverse comments on two of 

the amendments contained in the direct 

final rule and NPRM. Consequently, we 

issued a partial withdrawal notice on 

January 24, 2002 (67 FR 3440) to 

withdraw the amendments on which we 

received adverse comments. 

We have evaluated all of the 

comments received on the previously 

withdrawn amendments and find the 

adverse comments unpersuasive. 

However, we agree with one 

commenter’s suggestion that additional 

clarifying language would be useful in 

one of the subject amendments to 

prevent any potential for 

misinterpretation. Therefore, today’s 

action implements the previously 

withdrawn amendments with the 

addition of clarifying language similar 

to that suggested in the public 

comments. The change to the regulatory 

requirements made by this action 

addresses additive manufacturer 

concerns that compliance with the 

original requirements would be 

burdensome and difficult, while 

maintaining the emissions control 

benefits of the gasoline deposit control 

program. 

III. What Revisions Does This Rule 

Make to the Requirements for Deposit 

Control Additives? 

The requirements on DC additives 

amended by today’s action are 

contained in §§ 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) and 

80.162(a)(3)(ii) of Subpart G, title 40 of 

the CFR. The following sections contain 

a discussion of the amendments to these 

requirements, including: EPA’s reasons 

for establishing them as we originally 

did, the changes to these requirements 

made by today’s action, and our 

evaluation of the public comments on 

the proposed revisions to these 

requirements. 

A. Revisions to § 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) 

The current regulatory requirements 

in § 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) state that: 

(i) The composition of a detergent 

additive reported in a single additive 

registration (and the detergent additive 

product sold under a single additive 

registration) may not: 

* * * * * 

(B) Include a range of concentration 

for any detergent-active component 

such that, if the component were 

present in the detergent additive 

package at the lower bound of the 

reported range, the deposit control 

effectiveness of the additive package 

would be reduced as compared with the 

level of effectiveness demonstrated 

during certification testing. 

EPA’s goal in establishing this 

requirement in its current form was to 

ensure that each detergent-active 

component of a deposit control additive 

is present in additive production 

batches at no less the concentration 

needed to meet EPA’s deposit control 

performance requirements. Consistent 

with the settlement agreement reached 

with CMA, we proposed to amend this 

requirement to make it clear that 

additive manufactures could produce a 

DC additive package for sale that 

contained the component additives at a 

higher concentration than that used 

during additive certification testing. 

In its comments on the NPRM, the 

Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

(AAM) stated that allowing the ratio of 

the different detergent-active 

components in a detergent additive 

package to vary could impact the 

deposit control efficacy of some or all of 

the components in the detergent 

additive package.3 As an example, AAM 

stated that if the concentration of carrier 

oil is increased relative to the detergent 

component, a decrease in the detergency 

performance of the additive package 

would be expected. Based on this 

69242 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

4EPA docket A–2001–15, docket item IV–G–01. 

objection, AAM stated that EPA should 

not amend § 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B). 

In a letter to EPA, the Fuel Additive 

Task Group within the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) stated that 

there is no reason to expect that if one 

detergent-active component (such as a 

detergent) is present at the same 

concentration as in the test fuel used 

during additive certification testing 

while another detergent-active 

component (such as a carrier oil) is 

increased above the level present in the 

certification test fuel, there would be a 

decrease in detergency performance.4

ACC stated that if this were to have any 

impact, it would be to increase 

detergency performance. 

ACC stated that the proposed 

amendment to § 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) was 

necessary because additive 

manufacturers must target a higher 

concentration of detergent-active 

components when producing additives 

for sale than the level specified in the 

additive’s certification testing. ACC 

noted that otherwise, the variability 

inherent in the production process and 

in analytical measurements could result 

in a measured concentration of 

detergent-active components that is 

lower than the level reported in the 

additive’s certification. ACC further 

stated that since EPA does not permit 

variability below the concentration of 

detergent-active components reported in 

the certification, additive manufacturers 

need the flexibility to produce products 

having a higher concentration of these 

components. 

We believe that AAM’s objections to 

the amendment to § 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) 

are unfounded. AAM presented no data 

or scientific rationale to support its 

concerns. We agree with ACC’s 

assertion that there is no reason to 

expect a decrease in FID/IVD control 

efficacy if the concentration of one 

detergent-active component is increased 

above the level present in the test fuel 

used during additive certification 

testing, while another detergent-active 

component is present at the same 

concentration in the certification test 

fuel. We are aware that an increase in 

the concentration of certain components 

of a detergent additive package (such as 

mineral-based carrier oils) may tend to 

increase the contribution of such 

additives to the formation of CCD. 

However, for the reasons noted 

previously, EPA continues to believe 

that there is insufficient basis to support 

the development of a combustion 

chamber deposit control requirement at 

this time. Therefore, we believe that 

there is insufficient justification to 

implement a cap on the concentration of 

the components in a DC additive 

package based on the potential that 

higher concentrations may contribute to 

the formation of CCD. 

We agree with ACC’s statement that 

additive manufactures must be allowed 

to increase the concentration of 

detergent-active components in additive 

production batches in order to comply 

with EPA’s requirement that all 

detergent-active components must be 

present at least at the concentration 

present in the certification test fuel. 

Thus, today’s action implements the 

proposed change to make it clear that 

additive manufactures have this 

flexibility. 

B. Revisions to § 80.162(a)(3)(ii) 

The current requirements in 

§ 80.162(a)(3)(ii) state that: 

(ii) The identity or concentration of 

non-detergent-active components of the 

detergent additive package may vary 

under a single registration, provided 

that the range of such variation is 

specified in the registration and that 

such variability does not reduce the 

deposit control effectiveness of the 

additive package as compared with the 

level of effectiveness demonstrated 

during certification testing. 

EPA’s goal in establishing this 

requirement in its current form was to 

ensure that the effectiveness of deposit 

control additives is not adversely 

impacted by variability in the 

composition of non-detergent-active 

components. 

Non-detergent-active additives 

include corrosion inhibitors, antioxidation additives, anti-static 

additives, and metal de-activators. 

When necessary, such additives are 

added separately to gasoline. Additive 

manufactures need to ensure the 

compatibility of their additives with the 

range of in-use additives during the 

development of a DC additive package 

(and as new additives are introduced 

into the market). When it is feasible to 

include the needed non-detergent-active 

additives in the detergent additive 

package, a batch of finished gasoline 

need be injected with additives only 

once. Limiting the number of separate 

additizations needed can result in a 

reduction in overall additive costs. DC 

additive manufacturers commonly 

switch the non-detergent-active 

components in their additive package 

depending on market conditions. 

In its petition for review, CMA 

requested that § 80.162(a)(3)(ii) be 

revised by deleting: ‘‘the range of such 

variation is specified in the registration 

and that.’’ CMA stated that there is no 

need to report the range of variation in 

the identity or concentration of nondetergent-active components since such 

variation does not impact the efficacy of 

the deposit control additive package. 

CMA stated that restricting the additive 

manufacturer’s flexibility to switch the 

non-detergent-active components of 

their DC additive package would 

increase manufacturing costs, and 

potentially cause supply problems. 

In the NPRM/DFRM, we agreed with 

CMA that maximizing additive 

manufacturer flexibility in the choice of 

non-detergent-active components would 

reduce the burden of compliance on 

additive manufacturers and would not 

jeopardize the emissions benefits of the 

gasoline deposit control additive 

program. We also agreed that differences 

in the composition and concentration of 

non-detergent-additive components 

would have no impact on the efficacy of 

the deposit control additive package 

provided that such differences do not 

impact the concentration of detergentactive components in the package. 

Furthermore, we stated that there would 

continue to be adequate regulatory 

requirements to prevent such an 

occurrence, and that the proposed 

amendment would not impact the 

environmental benefits of the gasoline 

deposit control program. 

In its comments on the NPRM, AAM 

objected to the proposed amendment to 

§ 80.162(a)(3)(ii) based on similar 

concerns to those AAM expressed 

regarding the proposed revision to 

(§ 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B). Specifically, AAM 

stated that changes to non-detergentactive components in a detergent 

additive package could have an adverse 

impact on deposit control efficacy. In its 

comments on the NPRM, Chevron 

Oronite stated that all carrier oils used 

in detergent additive packages have an 

impact on deposit control efficacy and 

that EPA should not allow carrier oils to 

be treated as non-detergent-active 

components. Chevron Oronite stated 

that EPA should therefore not permit 

the switching of carrier oils under the 

same additive certification or a 

reduction in the concentration of carrier 

oils in additive production batches 

below the concentration used during 

certification testing. Chevron Oronite 

stated that it supported the proposed 

amendment as it would apply to nondetergent-active components. 

After EPA’s withdrawal of the 

proposed amendments to 

§§ 80.162(a)(3)(i)(B) and 80.162(a)(3)(ii) 

due to the receipt of adverse comments, 

ACC convened its Fuel Additive Task 

Group (which includes Chevron 

Oronite) to discuss how these adverse 

comments might be resolved. In a letter 

to EPA, ACC stated that EPA could 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69243 

5 In such cases the additive treatment rate is 

increased to ensure that the detergent-active 

components are present in the additized gasoline at 

least at the concentration established during 

certification testing. 6Synthetic carrier oils have come to replace 

mineral-based carrier oils in many DC additive 

packages. Synthetic carrier oils possess high boiling 

characteristics similar to those for mineral-based 

carrier oils. 

address the concern voiced in the 

comment from Chevron Oronite by 

issuing the clarifying interpretation that 

carrier oils may not be listed as nondetergent active unless the additive 

certifier has data to support the 

assertion that the carrier oil is not 

detergent-active. 

We are aware of no data or other 

evidence to suggest that non-detergentactive additives present in a DC additive 

package (or added to gasoline 

separately) influence the package’s 

deposit control efficacy. Hence we see 

no compelling reason to limit the 

flexibility of additive manufacturers to 

make changes in the composition or 

concentration to the non-detergentactive components of their DC additive 

packages. Existing safeguards in the 

regulatory requirements will ensure that 

variability in non-detergent-active 

components does not reduce the in-use 

concentration of detergent-active 

components compared to that in the 

certification test fuels. Therefore, we 

believe that the proposed amendment to 

§ 80.162(a)(3)(ii) would not adversely 

impact deposit control efficacy or the 

emissions benefits of the gasoline 

deposit control program. 

We agree with the suggestion from 

ACC that adding clarifying language to 

the regulatory text regarding when a 

carrier might be considered nondetergent-active would be useful in 

preventing potential misunderstandings 

during DC additive certification. When 

a DC additive package contains a 

separate carrier oil, it is typically a 

necessary component with respect to 

the package’s deposit control efficacy. In 

fact, we are aware of no instance where 

such a carrier oil might reasonably be 

considered non-detergent-active. 

Therefore, today’s action adds language 

to the proposed regulatory text to make 

it clear that all carrier oils present in the 

detergent certification test fuel will be 

considered as detergent active by EPA 

unless the additive manufacturer 

provides data to substantiate the carrier 

oil is non-detergent-active. 

Solvents such as xylene are 

sometimes used to dilute a DC additive 

package to improve its cold-flow 

performance during the winter.5 Both 

solvents and carrier oils may be 

composed of nothing more than a 

specific petroleum boiling fraction.6

However, such solvents are easily 

differentiated from carrier oils based on 

their boiling characteristics. Carrier oils 

must have a high boiling range to 

provide the washing action for which 

they are intended, while cold-flow 

solvents must have a substantially lower 

boiling range in order to provide the 

intended improvement in cold-flow 

performance. Therefore, we believe that 

there is no potential for additive 

manufacturers to confuse the two when 

reporting the component parts of their 

DC additive package at the time of 

certification. A high boiling fraction oil 

will always be considered as a carrier 

oil by EPA, and as such be presumed to 

be detergent active unless the additive 

manufacturer provides data to 

substantiate that the oil is non-detergent 

active. EPA will scrutinize such data on 

a case-by-case basis. 

Consistent with the above discussion, 

today’s action amends § 80.162(a)(3)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

(ii) The identity or concentration of 

non-detergent-active components of the 

detergent additive package may vary 

under a single registration provided that 

such variability does not reduce the 

deposit control effectiveness of the 

additive package as compared with the 

level of effectiveness demonstrated 

during certification testing. 

(A) Unless the additive manufacturer 

(or other certifying party) provides EPA 

with data to substantiate that a carrier 

oil does not act to enhance the detergent 

additive package’s ability to control 

deposits, any carrier oil contained in the 

detergent additive package, whether 

petroleum-based or synthetic, must be 

treated as a detergent-active component 

in accordance with the additive 

compositional reporting requirements in 

§ 80.162(a)(2). Such data should be sent 

by certified mail to the address specified 

in § 80.174(b). 

IV. What Are the Economic and 

Environmental Impacts? 

The revisions made by today’s notice 

will reduce the burden of compliance 

with the gasoline deposit control 

additive program while not impacting 

the environmental benefits of the 

program. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency is 

required to determine whether the 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

the requirements of the Executive Order. 

The order defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may: 

• 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; 

• Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

• Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or, 

• Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that this rule 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose a new 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

previously approved the information 

collection requirements (ICR) of EPA’s 

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive 

Program contained in 40 CFR Part 80 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0275 to these 

information collection requirements 

(EPA ICR No. 1655.04). Today’s rule 

does not result in a change in the 

requirements contained in the existing 

ICR for EPA’s Gasoline Deposit Control 

Additive Program. No new information 

collection requirements or increase in 

the information collection burden will 

result from the implementation of 

today’s action. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

69244 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions. For the purpose of 

assessing the impacts of today’s rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s final rule on small 

entities, I certify 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 analysis is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify 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. 

Today’s rule simplifies the 

requirements for additive manufacturers 

under the gasoline deposit control 

program and does not impose any 

significant new requirements. The 

regulatory changes made by today’s 

action will reduce the burden of 

compliance for all regulated parties. We 

have therefore concluded that today’s 

final rule will relieve regulatory burden 

for all small entities. Therefore, EPA 

determined that it is not necessary to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

in connection with this final rule. 

D. 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 costeffective, 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 of 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 

potentially 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. 

The plan must also provide for 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Today’s rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State, local, or tribal governments as 

defined by the provisions of Title II of 

the UMRA. The rule imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local or 

tribal governments. Therefore, nothing 

in the rule will significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

We have determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated expenditures of 

more than $100 million to the private 

sector in any single year. The 

amendments contained in this final rule 

simplify the requirements under the 

gasoline deposit control program, and 

do not impose any significant new 

requirements. Therefore, today’s rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 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 final 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. The 

requirements of the rule will be 

enforced by the federal government at 

the national level. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. Today’s action 

amends the reporting requirements for 

manufactures of deposit control 

additives regarding the allowed 

variability in the composition of 

additives certified under EPA’s gasoline 

deposit program. These amendments do 

not impose any new requirements and 

will not result in any additional costs 

for Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 218 / Monday, November 14, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 69245 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 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 

we have 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 final rule is not subject to the 

Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined by 

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. The 

revisions made by today’s notice will 

reduce the burden of compliance with 

the gasoline deposit control additive 

program while not impacting the 

environmental benefits of the program. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

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. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 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. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

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(2). This rule 

will be effective November 14, 2005. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80 

Environmental protection, Fuel 

additives, Gasoline, Motor vehicle 

pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, part 80 of title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS 

AND FUEL ADDITIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 80 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of 

the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 

7414, 7545, and 7601(a)). 

Subpart G—Detergent Gasoline 

■ 2. Section 80.162 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(B) and 

(a)(3)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 80.162 Additive compositional data. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Include a range of concentration 

for any detergent-active component 

such that, if the component were 

present in the detergent additive 

package at the lower bound of the 

reported range, the deposit control 

effectiveness of the additive package 

would be reduced as compared with the 

level of effectiveness demonstrated 

during certification testing. Subject to 

the foregoing constraint, a detergent 

additive product sold under a particular 

additive registration may contain a 

higher concentration of the detergentactive component(s) than the 

concentration(s) of such component(s) 

reported in the registration for the 

additive. 

(ii) The identity or concentration of 

non-detergent-active components of the 

detergent additive package may vary 

under a single registration provided that 

such variability does not reduce the 

deposit control effectiveness of the 

additive package as compared with the 

level of effectiveness demonstrated 

during certification testing. 

(A) Unless the additive manufacturer 

(or other certifying party) provides EPA 

with data to substantiate that a carrier 

oil does not act to enhance the detergent 

additive package’s ability to control 

deposits, any carrier oil contained in the 

detergent additive package, whether 

petroleum-based or synthetic, must be 

treated as a detergent-active component 

in accordance with the additive 

compositional reporting requirements in 

§ 80.162(a)(2). Such data should be sent 

by certified mail to the address specified 

in § 80.174(b). 

(B) [Reserved.] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–22462 Filed 11–10–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P