Revisions to the Requirements on Variability in the Composition of Additives Certified Under the Gasoline Deposit Control Program; Final Rule, 69240-69245 [05-22462]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69240-69245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22462]



[[Page 69239]]

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

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 80



Revisions to the Requirements on Variability in the Composition of 
Additives Certified Under the Gasoline Deposit Control Program; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 69240]]


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

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action addresses the public comments received on the withdrawn 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 We found the adverse comments on the withdrawn amendments 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Consequently, today's action implements the previously withdrawn 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 https://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Paper 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: https://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:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NAICS
                   Category                       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 Sec.  80.161(a), the 
detergent certification requirements in Sec.  80.161(b), the program 
controls and prohibitions in Sec.  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.

[[Page 69241]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Petition for review under the Clean Air Act's judicial 
review provisions, Chemical Manufacturers Association v. U.S. EPA, 
No. 96-1297, August 26, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  80.162(a)(3)(i)(B)

    The current regulatory requirements in Sec.  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

[[Page 69242]]

objection, AAM stated that EPA should not amend Sec.  
80.162(a)(3)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA docket A-2001-15, docket item IV-D-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ACC stated that the proposed amendment to Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  80.162(a)(3)(ii)

    The current requirements in Sec.  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, anti-
oxidation 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 Sec.  
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 non-detergent-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 detergent-active 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 Sec.  80.162(a)(3)(ii) based on similar concerns to those AAM 
expressed regarding the proposed revision to (Sec.  80.162(a)(3)(i)(B). 
Specifically, AAM stated that changes to non-detergent-active 
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 non-detergent-active components.
    After EPA's withdrawal of the proposed amendments to Sec. Sec.  
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

[[Page 69243]]

address the concern voiced in the comment from Chevron Oronite by 
issuing the clarifying interpretation that carrier oils may not be 
listed as non-detergent 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-
detergent-active 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-detergent-active 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 Sec.  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 non-detergent-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \6\ Synthetic 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the above discussion, today's action amends Sec.  
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 Sec.  80.162(a)(2). Such data should be sent 
by certified mail to the address specified in Sec.  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;

[[Page 69244]]

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-for-
profit 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 cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation 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,

[[Page 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.

0
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

0
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

0
2. Section 80.162 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(B) and 
(a)(3)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 detergent-active 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 Sec.  80.162(a)(2). Such data should be sent 
by certified mail to the address specified in Sec.  80.174(b).
    (B) [Reserved.]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-22462 Filed 11-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P