42556 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.516, Disaster Assistance.)

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–20916 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Open Meeting, Technical Mapping

Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

gives notice that the following meeting

will be held:

Name: Technical Mapping Advisory

Council.

Dates of Meeting: September 11 and

12, 1997.

Places: The meeting will be held in

the Civil Engineering Research

Foundation Room at the American

Society of Civil Engineers building,

1015 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

Times: 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on

Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday.

Proposed Agenda: Council members

will hear presentations from the

National Association of Flood and

Stormwater Management Agencies and

the FEMA’s Hazard Identification & Risk

Assessment Branch. The Council will

also discuss the contents of its second

annual report to the Director of FEMA,

update their Plan of Action, and hear a

report on the workgroup for Elevation

Certificates.

Status: This meeting is open to the

public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael K. Buckley, PE, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C

Street SW., Room 421, Washington, DC

20472; telephone (202) 646–2756 or by

fax at (202) 646–4596.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

Craig Wingo,

Deputy Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–20847 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License

Revocations

The Federal Maritime Commission

hereby gives notice that the following

freight forwarder licenses have been

revoked pursuant to section 19 of the

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app.

1718) and the regulations of the

Commission pertaining to the licensing

of ocean freight forwarders, effective on

the corresponding revocation dates

shown below:

License Number: 3678.

Name: Total Transport, Inc.

Address: 7749 East 11th Street, Tulsa,

OK 74112.

Date Revoked: May 12, 1997.

Reason: Surrendered license

voluntarily.

License Number: 1957.

Name: Universal Freight Forwarders,

Ltd. d/b/a Universal Freight Forwarders

and Customs Brokers, Ltd.

Address: 83 South King Street, Suite

205, Seattle, WA 98104.

Date Revoked: May 2, 1997.

Reason: Surrendered license

voluntarily.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and

Licensing.

[FR Doc. 97–20820 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Labeling Requirements for Alternative

Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Grant of Partial Exemption from

the Commission’s Alternative Fuels and

Alternative Fueled Vehicles Rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has granted

the petition of the Ford Motor Company

(‘‘Ford’’) requesting permission to use

an alternative fueled vehicle (‘‘AFV’’)

label in California that differs from the

AFV label specified in the

Commission’s rule concerning Labeling

Requirements for Alternative Fuels and

Alternative Fueled Vehicles (‘‘Rule’’).

Pursuant to Rule 1.26 of the

Commission’s Rules of Practice, and

Commission grants, for good cause, the

requested relief without a notice and

comment period because the

Commission finds that such a procedure

is unnecessary to protect the public

interest in this case.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Enforcement,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20580, (202)

326–3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A—Background Information

On May 19, 1995, the Commission

published the Alternative Fuels and

Alternative Fueled Vehicles Rule in the

Federal Register (60 FR 26926). The

Rule, in pertinent part, established

labeling requirements for new covered

AFVs. The labels disclose specific cost

and benefit information to enable

consumers to make reasonable

purchasing choices and comparisons.

The labeling requirements for new

covered AFVs became effective

November 20, 1995.

Section 309.20 of the Rule provides

that before offering a new covered AFV

for acquisition to consumers,

manufacturers must affix on a visible

surface of each such vehicle a new

vehicle label consisting of three parts.

Part one must disclose objective

information about the estimated

cruising range and environmental

impact of the particular AFV. Part two

must disclose and explain specific

factors consumers should consider

before buying an AFV. Part three must

list specific toll-free telephone numbers

for consumers who want to call the

Federal government for more

information about AFVs. Section 309.20

of the Rule further states that no marks

or information other than that specified

by the Rule may appear on the label.

With respect to environmental

impact, the labels must tell consumers

whether or not the vehicle has met an

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’) emission certification standard

and, if so, what standard. If a vehicle

has been certified, that fact must be

noted with a mark in a box on the label,

and a caret must be inserted above the

standard the vehicle has been certified

to meet. The graphic on the label

depicts seven EPA emissions standards

in increasing order of stringency.

For several years, EPA has

promulgated emissions classification

standards as part of its Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program, which

establishes pollution limits for ‘‘criteria

air pollutants’’ (i.e., hydrocarbons,

carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and

particulate matter). Each of these

pollutants is released into the air from

an automobile’s tailpipe as exhaust. In

addition, hydrocarbons in vapor form

also are released due to the evaporation

of fuel and during refueling. The

standards apply to new motor vehicles

manufactured in specified model years.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 152 / Thursday, August 7, 1997 / Notices 42557

1Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).

2See 40 CFR 88 (1996).

3 60 FR 26926, 26946 (May 19, 1995).

4According to EPA, a vehicle certified as meeting

the requirements to both the ULEV and ILEV

standards has lower combined exhaust and

evaporative emission than an ILEV certified vehicle.

5Ford is a manufacturer of AFVs covered by the

Rule. See 16 CFR 309.1(f) and 309.1(r).

6The Commission previously has granted similar

requests without notice and comment procedures.

See Fuel Rating Rule (formerly Octane Rule)

exemptions granted to Sunoco in 1979 (44 FR

33740) and in 1990 (55 FR 1871); to Gilbarco, Inc.

in 1988 (53 FR 29277); to Gilbarco on behalf of

Exxon in 1989 (54 FR 14072); to Dresser Industries,

Inc. on behalf of several gasoline refiners in 1991

(56 FR 26821); to the Bennett Pump Co. on behalf

of Wesco Oil Co. in 1993 (58 FR 64406); and to

Gilbarco on behalf of several gasoline refiners in

1995 (60 FR 57584).

7Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).

8 60 FR 26926, 26946.

After manufacturers submit appropriate

test reports and data, the EPA

Administrator issues a ‘‘certificate of

conformity’’ to those vehicle

manufacturers demonstrating

compliance with the applicable

emissions standards.

Pursuant to its authority under the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,1 EPA

began issuing stricter emission

standards for each model year as a way

of reducing levels of the criteria air

pollutants. One set of standards, the

Tier 1 standards, was phased in

beginning with the 1994 model year.

The second set of standards establishes

five stricter standards as part of a new

‘‘clean-fuel vehicles’’ program.2 To

qualify as a clean-fuel vehicle, a vehicle

must meet one of five sets of

increasingly stringent standards. The

standards are denominated, in

increasing order of stringency, TLEV

(‘‘Transitional Low Emission Vehicle’’),

LEV (‘‘Low Emission Vehicle’’), ULEV

(‘‘Ultra Low Emission Vehicle’’), ILEV

(‘‘Inherently Low Emission Vehicle’’),

and ZEV (‘‘Zero Emission Vehicle’’).

Disclosures regarding both sets of EPA

emission standards are required on the

Rule’s labels for new covered AFVs

because the Commission determined

that information concerning EPA

emission certification levels provides a

simple way of comparing different AFVs

and, therefore, is useful to consumers

considering AFV acquisitions.3

Part B—Ford’s Proposal

In 1996, after the Commission

promulgated its Rule, the State of

California Air Resources Board

(‘‘CARB’’) established a stringent

emission standard denominated SULEV

(‘‘Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle’’).

Although EPA has not amended its

regulations to adopt this standard,

according to staff at EPA and CARB, an

AFV in California certified as meeting

the requirements of the CARB SULEV

standard is certified to a stricter

emissions standard than a ULEV plus

ILEV certified vehicle.4 Furthermore, a

vehicle certified to a SULEV plus ILEV

standard is certified to a stricter

emissions standard than a SULEV

certified vehicle.

The California LEV program requires

Ford to sell a specified percentage of

vehicles that are certified to the LEV

and ULEV standards. By certifying

vehicles to the SULEV standard,

however, Ford receives additional

vehicle credits to comply with this

program. Ford is in the process of

certifying AFVs in California to the

CARB SULEV emission standard and

the EPA ILEV emission standard. Ford

wishes to disclose to consumers in

California information indicating that an

AFV has been certified to the CARB

SULEV emission standard. The problem

Ford has encountered is that the

Commission’s AFV label provides no

means of conveying such information

because the SULEV emission standard

did not exist at the time the Rule was

promulgated, and, therefore, is not

included as a disclosure on the

Commission’s AFV label.

Ford, therefore, petitioned the

Commission to permit it to use an AFV

label, in California only, that differs in

two respects from the AFV label

described in section 309.20 of the

Rule: 5

(1) To convey accurate information to

consumers in California, Ford requested

permission to add a check-box to the

label with accompanying text that reads,

‘‘This vehicle meets the California Air

Resources Board emission standard

noted below.’’

(2) For applicable new covered

vehicles, Ford also requested

permission to add ‘‘SULEV’’ and

‘‘SULEV + ILEV’’ disclosures to the list

of emissions standards on the AFV

label, between the ‘‘ULEV + ILEV’’ and

‘‘ZEV’’ standards.

Ford asserted that granting its petition

will provide additional useful

information to consumers considering

AFV acquisitions in California, and will

permit it to demonstrate to consumers

in that state the technological advances

it has made in producing cleaner, loweremitting vehicles.6

The Commission has determined that

including the CARB SULEV emission

standard on labels in California for new

covered AFVs, in the format proposed

by Ford, is appropriate, feasible, and

consistent with the Rule’s intent. In

issuing the Rule, the Commission

concluded that requiring disclosure of

emission certification standards is

appropriate and would be useful to

consumers. The Commission noted

further that incorporating

environmental considerations into

national energy policy was a key goal of

the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPA

92’’),7 pursuant to which the Rule was

promulgated, and improving the

environment was a principal purpose of

that statute. EPA 92 gives special

attention to the fact that the

environmental performance of

alternative fuels differs, and that those

differences need to be explained to

consumers.8

In the Commission’s view, granting

Ford’s petition to permit it to include

the SULEV emission standard on AFV

labels will provide additional

comparative information regarding

alternative fuels that will be helpful to

consumers in California considering

AFV acquisitions (e.g., fleet operators as

well as environmentally concerned

consumers). Specifically, because AFVs

are certified to a specific emission

standard, disclosure of the SULEV

certification level will provide a simple

and even more useful way of comparing

different AFVs in California. Disclosure

of additional objective data such as the

SULEV certification level also will

benefit consumers in California

attempting to evaluate competitive

advertising and marketing claims

regarding any AFV’s environmental

performance.

In addition, the Commission has

determined that the AFV labeling

approach proposed by Ford offers a

clear, conspicuous, and easily readable

disclosure to consumers of all Rulerequired information and complies with

the intent of the regulation.

Furthermore, granting the AFV label

variances requested will not adversely

affect the public interest or result in any

consumer injury, but rather will provide

additional useful information to

consumers while accommodating a

technological development in the

industry. Therefore, the Commission is

granting Ford permission to use its

proposed AFV label on new covered

AFVs, provided that Ford uses its

modified AFV label only in the State of

California, and complies with the Rule’s

AFV label specifications in all other

respects.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–20797 Filed 8–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M