[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26926-26967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12160]




[[Page 26925]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Federal Trade Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



16 CFR Part 309



Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled 
Vehicles; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and 
Regulations 
[[Page 26926]] 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 309

RIN 3084-AA57


Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative 
Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'') 
directs the Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') to establish 
uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for 
alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles. On November 18, 
1994, the Commission published a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing the substance of proposed 
labeling requirements and sought written comment on its proposal. In 
this notice the Commission announces its final labeling requirements, 
and explains why it has modified certain requirements from those 
proposed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Subpart A and Subpart B of 16 CFR Part 309 are 
effective on August 21, 1995. Subpart C of 16 CFR Part 309 is effective 
on November 20, 1995. The incorporation by reference of certain 
publications listed in subpart B of 16 CFR Part 309 is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 1995. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in subpart C 
of 16 CFR Part 309 is approved by the Director of the Federal Register 
as of November 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Attorney, 202/
326-2372, or Neil J. Blickman, Attorney, 202/326-3038, Division of 
Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Introduction

    EPA 92<SUP>1 establishes a comprehensive national energy strategy 
designed to increase U.S. energy security and improve the economy in 
cost effective and environmentally beneficial ways.<SUP>2 It seeks to 
reduce the dependence of the United States on oil imports; promote 
energy efficiency; reduce the use of petroleum-based fuels in motor 
vehicles; and provide new energy options. Other programs in titles III, 
IV, V, and VI of EPA 92 promote the development of alternative 
fuels<SUP>3 and alternative fueled vehicles (``AFVs'').<SUP>4

    \1\Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).
    \2\H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 132, reprinted 
in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1954, 1955.
    \3\``Alternative fuels'' are defined as:
    [M]ethanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures 
containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not 
less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], by 
rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or 
vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and 
other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied 
petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels (other 
than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity 
(including electricity from solar energy); and any other fuel the 
Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and 
would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial 
environmental benefits[.]
    42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \4\An ``alternative fueled vehicle'' is ``a dedicated vehicle or 
a dual fueled vehicle[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 13211(3). Each term is further 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 13211 (6) and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two provisions in title IV of EPA 92 require that information on 
alternative fuels and AFVs be made available to consumers. In one 
provision, section 406(a) of EPA 92 directs the Commission to issue a 
rule establishing uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent 
practicable, for alternative fuels and alternative fueled 
vehicles.<SUP>5 The Act does not specify what information should be 
displayed on these labels. Instead, it provides generally that the rule 
must require disclosure of ``appropriate,'' ``useful,'' and ``timely'' 
cost and benefit information on ``simple'' labels.<SUP>6 The purpose of 
the labeling requirements is to enable consumers to make reasonable 
choices and comparisons. In formulating the rule, the Commission must 
consider the problems associated with developing and publishing the 
required information, taking into account lead time, costs, frequency 
of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and other relevant 
factors. Where appropriate, the labels required by section 406(a) are 
to be consolidated with other labels providing information to 
consumers. EPA 92 requires the Commission to update its labeling 
requirements ``periodically to reflect the most recent available 
information.''<SUP>7

    \5\Section 406(a) is codified at 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 
1993).
    \6\42 U.S.C. 13232(a).
    \7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second and complementary provision directs the Secretary of 
Energy (``DOE'') to develop an information package for consumers.<SUP>8 
Specifically, section 405 of EPA 92 requires DOE to produce and make 
available an information package for consumers to help them choose 
among alternative fuels and AFVs.<SUP>9 DOE's information package must 
provide ``relevant and objective'' information addressing ``motor 
vehicle characteristics and fuel characteristics as compared to 
gasoline'' (including environmental performance, energy efficiency, 
domestic content, cost, maintenance requirements, reliability, and 
safety), information about the conversion of conventional motor 
vehicles to AFVs, and ``such other information as the Secretary [of 
DOE] determines is reasonable and necessary to help promote the use of 
alternative fuels in motor vehicles.''<SUP>10

    \8\42 U.S.C. 13231. DOE is also required to provide technical 
assistance to the Commission in developing labeling requirements, 
and coordinate such technical assistance with its development of a 
consumer information package. 42 U.S.C. 13232(b).
    \9\42 U.S.C. 13231. The information package required by this 
section was intended ``to enable [consumers] to understand and to 
help them choose among alternative fuels and AFVs.'' H. Rep. No. 
102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 185, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
at 1954, 2008.
    \10\42 U.S.C. 13231. EPA 92 also directs the DOE Secretary to 
create an additional public education program targeted specifically 
to the Federal government. Under that mandate, the DOE Secretary, 
``in cooperation with the Administrator of General Services,'' must 
``promote programs and educate officials and employees of Federal 
agencies on the merits of [AFVs].'' 42 U.S.C. 13214(a). That section 
further requires that the DOE Secretary ``shall provide and 
disseminate information to Federal agencies on,'' inter alia, ``the 
range and performance capabilities of [AFVs].'' Id.
    This is the Commission's second rulemaking concerning labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels. In a separate proceeding also 
required by EPA 92,<SUP>11 the Commission extended the requirements of 
its former Octane Rule<SUP>12 (renamed the ``Fuel Rating Rule'') beyond 
gasoline to include liquid alternative fuels.<SUP>13 As a result, 
retailers of such fuels are now required, among other things, to post 
labels identifying the commonly used name of the fuel and the amount, 
expressed as a minimum percentage by volume, of the fuel's principal 
component.<SUP>14

    \11\15 U.S.C. 2821-2823.
    \12\Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part 306.
    \13\16 CFR 306.0(i)(2) (1994). In that proceeding, the 
Commission had no authority to extend the rule's requirements beyond 
liquid alternative fuels. 15 U.S.C. 2821 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \14\16 CFR 306.0(j)(2) (1994). The Fuel Rating Rule became 
effective October 25, 1993. 58 FR 41356, 41356, Aug. 3, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Participation

    EPA 92 required the Commission, in formulating its labeling 
requirements, to ``obtain the views of affected industries, consumer 
organizations, Federal and State agencies, and others.''<SUP>15 It also 
required the Commission to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``NPR'') in consultation with DOE, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), and the Secretary of 
Transportation (``DOT'') [[Page 26927]] within eighteen months after 
October 24, 1992 (the statute's enactment date).<SUP>16 To comply with 
those requirements, the Commission received information from the public 
relating to this proceeding from five sources: written comments filed 
in response to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'') 
published on December 10, 1993,<SUP>17 written comments filed in 
response to an NPR published on May 9, 1994,<SUP>18 testimony during a 
Public Workshop-Conference (``Workshop'') held on July 20, 1994, 
supplemental written comments filed after the Workshop, and written 
comments filed in response to a Supplemental Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``SNPR'') published on November 18, 1994.<SUP>19 All such 
information (i.e., the written comments and Workshop transcript) was 
placed on the public record of this proceeding. The discussion below 
includes information from all five sources, as well as documents placed 
on the public record by the Commission's staff.<SUP>20 The Commission 
considered all these materials in developing this final labeling rule.

    \15\42 U.S.C. 13232(a).
    \16\Id. Commission staff consulted with staff from DOE, EPA, and 
DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration while 
developing its initial and supplemental labeling proposals.
    \17\58 FR 64914.
    \18\59 FR 24014.
    \19\59 FR 59666.
    \20\Commission's Rulemaking Record No. R311002. Comments 
submitted in response to the SNPR are coded either ``I'' (indicating 
that they were filed by nongovernmental parties) or ``J'' 
(indicating that they were filed by governmental agencies). Written 
comments submitted in response to prior Federal Register notices are 
coded either ``D'' or ``E'' (in response to the ANPR) or ``G'' or 
``H'' (in response to the NPR). Written requests to participate in 
the Workshop are coded ``A.'' The Workshop transcript is filed in 
category ``L.'' Information placed on the public record by 
Commission staff is coded ``B.''
    In this notice, comments are cited by identifying the commenter 
(by abbreviation), the comment number, and the relevant page 
number(s), e.g., ``RFA, I-3, 1-3.'' Supplemental comments filed 
after the Workshop are designated as (Supp.), e.g., ``RFA (Supp.), 
G-5, 1.'' Discussion in the Workshop is cited by identifying the 
party, a reference to the transcript, and the relevant page 
number(s), e.g., ``EPA (Tr.), 184.'' Staff submissions are cited by 
identifying the document number, relevant page number(s), and 
document date, e.g., ``B-13, 3, Jan. 25, 1994.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Commission's ANPR

    In its ANPR, the Commission sought written comment on basic issues 
raised by section 406(a)'s mandate. Accordingly, it requested comment 
on issues relating to which fuels and vehicles should be covered by the 
labeling requirements (i.e., the proposed rule's scope), and what 
information should be required to be displayed on labels (i.e., the 
proposed rule's disclosures).<SUP>21 The Commission also sought comment 
on how the labeling requirements should be updated, and the extent to 
which the labels should be consolidated with other labels providing 
information to consumers. In response, the Commission received 28 
written comments addressing these issues. The comments were summarized 
in the Commission's NPR.<SUP>22

    \21\58 FR 64914, 64915.
    \22\59 FR 24015-24017.
B. The Commission's NPR

    The Commission considered written comments responding to the ANPR 
in developing its initial labeling proposal, which was published in the 
Federal Register as the Commission's NPR. The NPR announced the 
substance of proposed labeling requirements and a proposed rule 
implementing section 406(a)'s mandate. In that NPR, the Commission 
invited interested persons to submit written comments on any issue of 
fact, law or policy that might have bearing upon the proposed labeling 
requirements. In response, the Commission received 37 written comments 
addressing the Commission's proposal. The comments responding to the 
NPR were summarized in the Commission's SNPR.

C. Public Workshop-Conference

    The Commission announced in the NPR that its staff would conduct a 
Workshop to afford staff and interested parties an opportunity to 
discuss issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding.<SUP>23 The Workshop 
was not intended to achieve a consensus of opinion among participants 
or between participants and Commission staff with respect to any issue. 
Instead, its purpose was to examine publicly areas of significant 
controversy or divergent opinions that were raised in the written 
comments.

    \23\59 FR 24014, 24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-one interested parties timely submitted written requests to 
participate in the Workshop.<SUP>24 Twenty of those parties filed 
written comments as required,<SUP>25 and all twenty were invited to 
participate. Two parties (Chrysler and Greenpeace) subsequently elected 
not to attend, and, as a result, individuals representing eighteen 
interested parties participated at the Workshop.<SUP>26 The Workshop 
was held on July 20, 1994, at the Commission's headquarters and was 
conducted as announced in the NPR.<SUP>27

    \24\AAMA, A-2 (on behalf of AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, and GM); AGA/
NGVC, A-8; AMI, A-10; API, A-12; Boston Edison, A-16; CAS, A-14; 
DOE, A-1; Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, A-17 (on behalf of 
unidentified clients in the automotive industry); EMA, A-3 (request 
submitted by Neal Gerber & Eisenberg); ETC, A-11 (request submitted 
by Van Ness Feldman); EPA, A-9; Flxible, A-6; Greenpeace, A-18; 
NACAA, A-7; NAFA, A-13 (request submitted by Kent & O'Connor, Inc.); 
NPGA, A-5 (on behalf of NPGA and Phillips 66); RFA, A-4 (request 
submitted by Downstream Alternatives, Inc.); UCS, A-15.
    \25\The law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott did not file a 
written comment.
    \26\Lois E. Bennett, GM; Timothy D. Davis, Columbia Gas 
(representing AGA/NGVC); Robert Graham and Peter Morman, CAS; Marcel 
L. Halberstadt, AAMA; Nancy L. Homeister, Ford; Evan W. Johnson, MC-
MD (representing NACAA); Martin S. Karl, Boston Edison; Allen R. 
Larson, Esq., Larson and Curry (representing Boston Edison); Paul 
McArdle, DOE; Denise McCourt, API; Patrick O'Connor, Kent & O'Connor 
(representing NAFA); Larry D. Osgood, Phillips 66 Propane Company 
(representing NPGA); Robert E. Reynolds, Downstream Alternatives, 
Inc. (representing RFA); Glyn Short, AMI; Lisa A. Stegink, Esq., 
Neal Gerber & Eisenberg (representing EMA); Jaime C. Steve, UCS; 
Lance Watt, Flxible; Ellen S. Young, Esq., Van Ness Feldman 
(representing ETC); Kenneth L. Zerafa, EPA. Philip J. Harter, Esq., 
served as the Workshop's moderator.
    \27\The NPR announced that the Workshop would take place over 
two days, but the participants concluded discussing the agenda staff 
had prepared in one day. As a result, the Workshop's second day was 
cancelled. (Tr.), 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Post-Workshop Comments

    In its NPR, the Commission announced that Workshop participants 
would be permitted one week to file supplemental written comments 
addressing concerns raised during the Workshop.<SUP>28 Eight 
participants elected to file such comments.<SUP>29 The Commission also 
announced that after reviewing written comments received in response to 
the NPR, the Workshop transcript, and the post-Workshop comments, it 
would publish an SNPR. The SNPR would propose the text of a labeling 
rule and allow the public an opportunity to comment on the revised 
labeling proposal.

    \28\59 FR 24014, 24023.
    \29\AAMA, AGA/NGVC, Boston Edison, CAS, EMA, Flxible, NPGA, and 
RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The Commission considered written comments on the public record, 
the Workshop transcript,<SUP>30 and staff submissions in developing a 
revised labeling proposal, which was published in the Federal Register 
as the Commission's SNPR. The SNPR announced modifications to the 
Commission's initial labeling proposal and the specific language of a 
proposed labeling rule. The Commission invited interested persons to 
submit written [[Page 26928]] comments until December 19, 1994, 
addressing any issue they believed might bear upon the proposed rule. 
As described below, the Commission received 24 written comments in 
response to its SNPR from vehicle manufacturers,<SUP>31 fuel 
producers,<SUP>32 governmental entities,<SUP>33 a consumer 
organization,<SUP>34 organizations representing affected 
interests,<SUP>35 and other interested individuals.<SUP>36

    \30\Two commenters endorsed the Commission's reliance on the 
Workshop transcript in its preparation of the SNPR. See API, I-15, 
cover letter at 3 (``We believe the issues expressed in the July 
[Workshop] were fairly addressed by the FTC in its [SNPR].''); RFA, 
I-3, 2 (``We believe that the changes reflected in the revised final 
rule were justified based on written comments and the information 
covered at the public workshop.'').
    \31\Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), I-4; Electro Automotive 
(``Electro Auto''), I-7; Toyota Motor Corporation (``Toyota''), I-
11; Chrysler Corporation (``Chrysler''), I-13.
    \32\Mobil Oil Corporation (``Mobil''), I-2; Unocal Corporation 
(``Unocal''), I-5; Commercial Electronics NGV Systems Division 
(``Comm Elec''), I-8; Boston Edison and Edison Electric Institute 
(submitted by Larson and Curry) (``Boston Edison/EEI''), I-14.
    \33\U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE''), J-1; City of Chicago, 
Illinois (``Chicago''), J-2; California Air Resources Board 
(``CARB''), J-3; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration, Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division 
(``EIA/EEU-ISD''), J-4; U.S. Department of Transportation, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``DOT/NHTSA''), J-5.
    \34\Center for Auto Safety (``CAS''), I-12.
    \35\Renewable Fuels Association (submitted by Downstream 
Alternatives, Inc.) (``RFA''), I-3; Engine Manufacturers Association 
(submitted by Neal Gerber & Eisenberg) (``EMA''), I-6; Electric 
Transportation Coalition (submitted by Van Ness Feldman) (``ETC''), 
I-9; National Association of Fleet Administrators, Inc. (``NAFA''), 
I-10; American Petroleum Institute (``API''), I-15; American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA''), I-16; American Gas 
Association and Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (``AGA/NGVC''), I-18; 
Natural Gas Vehicle Producers Association (``NGVPA''), I-19.
    \36\E. A. Mechtly, Ph.D., Engineering Educator, University of 
Illinois (``Mechtly''), I-1; Louis F. Sokol, CAMS, Metrification 
Consultant (``Sokol''), I-17.
III. Labeling Requirements Proposed in the SNPR

A. Comment Suggestions Beyond Commission's Authority Under EPA 92

    As noted previously, section 406(a) directs the Commission to 
establish labeling requirements for alternative fuels and AFVs 
disclosing cost and benefit information. Because this rulemaking 
proceeding is mandated by statute, the Commission's authority is 
limited to what is authorized by EPA 92. During this proceeding, 
however, several commenters suggested regulatory options that are 
beyond the Commission's statutory authority because they involve 
matters other than labeling requirements, alternative fuels or AFVs, 
and cost and benefit information.
    For example, several commenters suggested that the Commission 
require AFV dealers to have copies of the DOE brochure available for 
consumer inspection and use.<SUP>37 These commenters believed that the 
Commission could model such a requirement on an existing EPA regulation 
directing automobile dealers to make available free copies of EPA's Gas 
Mileage Guide (a booklet comparing the fuel economy of similarly-sized 
new automobiles).<SUP>38 Such a requirement does not appear to be 
reasonably within section 406(a)'s scope, which is limited to uniform 
labeling requirements. In any event, the Commission notes that EPA's 
regulation was promulgated pursuant to a specific Congressional 
directive that EPA require dealers to provide such information to 
consumers.<SUP>39 In the absence of a similar Congressional directive, 
the Commission believes that such a requirement may be beyond its 
authority under EPA 92.<SUP>40

    \37\ETC, G-24, 6; NAFA, G-20, 3-5; NPGA (Tr.), 188-89. CAS 
suggested that the Commission require AFV dealers and conversion 
companies to provide copies of the DOE package to consumers, and 
that consumers acknowledge receipt by signing a designated sales 
document. CAS, G-17, 7; (Tr.), 174; (Supp.), G-17, 4. See also CAS, 
I-12, 1 (FTC should ``encourage availability'' of DOE brochure at 
AFV dealerships). CAS also proposed that the AFV label advise 
consumers that a free copy of the DOE brochure is available from the 
dealer. CAS (Supp.), G-17, 4. ETC also suggested, however, that 
dealers would find it in their interest to have the DOE brochures 
available to consumers. ETC (Tr.), 168.
    \38\40 CFR 600.401-77 to 600.407-77 (1993).
    \39\See 15 U.S.C. 2006(b)(2) (``The EPA Administrator * * * 
shall prescribe rules requiring dealers to make available to 
prospective purchasers [fuel economy information] compiled by the 
EPA Administrator under paragraph (1).'').
    \40\The Commission notes, however, that a DOE official at the 
Workshop stated that DOE would consider distributing copies of the 
information package to AFV dealerships. DOE (Tr.), 227-28. In its 
comment, RFA wrote to ``encourage some formal review process'' of 
that brochure by industry. RFA, I-3, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the Commission has also concluded that 
requiring any of the following may exceed its authority under EPA 92: 
(1) labeling for conventional fueled vehicles;<SUP>41 (2) that 
information on AFV labels be provided to consumers (in a non-label 
format) at the time an AFV is offered for sale;<SUP>42 (3) that ``all 
pertinent information'' (e.g., fuel hazards, tank capacity, refueling 
or recharging time, and cruising range) be disclosed in vehicle owners' 
manuals;<SUP>43 and (4) that a ``simple card'' describing factors 
consumers should consider before acquiring an AFV be placed within new 
and used vehicles.<SUP>44

    \41\AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11 (requiring disclosures only for AFVs could 
unnecessarily raise consumer concerns about these products).
    \42\NAFA, I-10, 2; G-20, 2 (``For example, when a representative 
of a conversion company meets with a consumer to offer to convert a 
vehicle, the representative would provide the consumer with the 
appropriate information in a format similar to the vehicle 
label.''). NAFA based this suggestion on its concern that consumers 
would not always be able to inspect labels prior to acquisition. Id.
    \43\NACAA, H-6, 2. The Commission also believes that one 
suggestion (that it develop an information bulletin discussing 
pertinent considerations), while not beyond its authority, may not 
be necessary because of DOE's mandate to complete the same task. 
CEC, H-8, 1-2, 6; NAFA, G-20, 3. In any event, the Commission 
normally issues consumer education materials after new rules are 
issued, and that will be considered when this proceeding is 
completed.
    \44\AAMA, I-16, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels

1. Scope of the Labeling Requirements
    In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that the scope of its labeling 
requirements extend to three non-liquid alternative fuels: compressed 
natural gas (``CNG''), hydrogen gas (``hydrogen'') and 
electricity.<SUP>45 One comment addressed this aspect of the 
Commission's proposal.<SUP>46 For safety reasons, that comment 
recommended that the Commission limit the scope of the rule to 
alternative fuels that have been tested and approved for use by 
EPA.<SUP>47 The Commission notes that EPA 92 specifically defines the 
term ``alternative fuel'' to include the three fuels at issue;<SUP>48 
and because they are readily available, DOE identifies them and 
encourages their use in its literature.<SUP>49 Furthermore, other than 
emission certification procedures, EPA has no procedures for certifying 
fuels as being safe for use.

    \45\These are the only non-liquid fuels defined as ``alternative 
fuels'' in EPA 92. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \46\Five other comments generally supported all aspects of the 
Commission's alternative fuels labeling proposal without addressing 
this specific issue. Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 4; Chicago, J-2, 2-3; 
DOE, J-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; RFA, I-3, 2. In addition, comments 
on an earlier Commission proposal similarly supported limiting the 
scope of this proceeding to non-liquid alternative fuels. API, G-25, 
1-3; CEC, H-8, 1-6; Mobil, G-2, 1-3; NAFA, G-20, 1; NPGA, G-18, 2-3; 
Phillips 66, G-15, 1; RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1; SIGMA, G-23, 1; Sun, G-1, 
1.
    \47\Chicago, J-2, 2-3.
    \48\42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \49\U.S. Dep't of Energy, Taking An Alternative Route, B-33.
    The Commission's SNPR proposal was limited to non-liquid fuels 
because the Commission's Fuel Rating Rule contains labeling 
requirements for liquid alternative fuels. Further, the Commission 
proposed requirements for the non-liquid fuels that are similar to the 
Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for liquid alternative fuels. Although 
that rule serves a somewhat different purpose,<SUP>50 the Commission 
believes that harmonizing labeling requirements, [[Page 26929]] when 
practicable, is appropriate. Thus, the Commission's SNPR proposal had 
the effect of imposing labeling requirements on non-liquid alternative 
fuels that are similar to those that currently exist for liquid 
alternative fuels.

    \50\The purpose of the EPA 92 amendments to Title II of the 
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2821-2825, was to give 
purchasers information they need to choose the correct type or grade 
of fuel for their vehicles. 58 FR 41356. Section 406(a)'s purpose is 
to provide consumers with appropriate cost and benefit information 
to enable them to make informed choices among alternative fuels and 
AFVs. 59 FR 59666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined that 
the scope of the rule shall be limited to the non-liquid alternative 
fuels CNG, hydrogen and electricity.<SUP>51 This will result in equal, 
uniform, fuel-neutral labeling requirements for all alternative fuels 
that are currently used or contemplated for use as automotive fuels. 
Further, in accordance with section 406(a)'s directive to review the 
rule ``periodically to reflect the most recent available 
information,''<SUP>52 the Commission will supplement the list of 
covered fuels if and when DOE designates new non-liquid fuels as 
alternative fuels.<SUP>53

    \51\See 59 FR 59666, 59669-59670 for a general description of 
the qualities of the alternative fuels covered by the final rule.
    \52\42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \53\The Secretary of the Department of Energy has the 
responsibility to designate, by rule, new fuels as alternative 
fuels. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Label Disclosures for Non-liquid Alternative Fuels
    a. SNPR proposals. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that 
retailers selling CNG, hydrogen and electricity to consumers post 
standard labels identifying the commonly used names of those fuels on 
public fuel dispensers (including electric dispensers used to recharge 
batteries in electric vehicles).<SUP>54 The labels would be placed 
conspicuously in full view of consumers (i.e., ultimate purchasers) and 
as near as reasonably practical to the fuel's unit price disclosure. No 
comments were submitted regarding this facet of the SNPR proposal. The 
Commission, therefore, has determined to adopt these requirements in 
the final rule for the reasons stated in the SNPR.<SUP>55

    \54\See proposed rule Secs. 309.1(q) and 309.15, 59 FR 59666, 
59704, 59706.
    \55\59 FR 59666, 59671-59672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to CNG and hydrogen, the Commission also proposed 
requiring disclosure of the fuel's principal component and permitting 
disclosure of other components,<SUP>56 expressed as minimum molecular 
percentages (``minimum mole percent'').<SUP>57 These proposals are 
analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquid 
alternative fuels.<SUP>58 In the SNPR, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that its proposal to require disclosure of the minimum 
methane content of CNG would assist consumers in purchasing CNG that 
satisfies requirements specified by engine manufacturers to meet 
performance and emissions certification levels.<SUP>59 The Commission 
also concluded that its proposal would be consistent with the Fuel 
Rating Rule's requirements for liquid alternative fuels,<SUP>60 and 
would assist consumers in identifying the proper fuel for their 
vehicles. The Commission further noted that because CNG exists with too 
low a methane content to be used as a transportation fuel,<SUP>61 
requiring disclosure of the minimum methane content would help ensure 
that CNG that is not suitable for use as a transportation fuel is not 
inadvertently sold for that purpose. Although CNG sold as a 
transportation fuel must always meet minimum vehicle needs, information 
about minimum methane content could help assure consumers that the CNG 
they are purchasing will meet their engines' needs.<SUP>62

    \56\CNG vehicle fuel is composed primarily of methane with small 
percentages of ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, helium, carbon 
dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen vehicle fuel is composed 
primarily of hydrogen, with very small percentages of water, oxygen, 
and nitrogen.
    \57\Under the international system of units, ``the mole is the 
amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary 
entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12. When the 
mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be 
atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified 
groups of such particles.'' ``The International System of Units 
(SI),'' NIST Special Publication 330 (1991 edition), August 1991, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (hereinafter ``NIST Publication 330''), B-43, 4-5.
    \58\16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and 306.10(f) (1994).
    \59\59 FR 59666, 59671. See AAMA (Tr.), 37, 62 (label should 
identify the fuel), 81 (at this time a minimum methane content 
disclosure is appropriate); Flxible (Tr.), 74, (Supp.), G-12, 2 
(dispensers for CNG should be labeled with the minimum methane 
content due to the requirements dictated by some engine 
manufacturers to meet performance and emissions certification 
levels); RFA, G-5, 3; Sun, G-1, 1.
    \60\59 FR 59666, 59671. See API, G-25, 1-3 (until a private, 
voluntary, consensus standards organization develops specifications 
for alternative fuels, additional disclosure requirements are 
inappropriate; expand Fuel Rating Rule to cover non-liquid 
alternative fuels to encourage fuel-neutral regulatory scheme; and 
labeling of principal component may provide useful information to 
consumers); EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1 (expressed general support for the 
proposed rule); Mobil, G-2, 1-3 (the proposed label is consistent 
with the Fuel Rating Rule, and no other disclosures should be 
required); NAFA, G-20, 1 (endorses a uniform labeling requirement 
for alternative fuels); NPGA, G-18, 2-3 (extremely important that 
all alternative fuels be subject to essentially identical 
requirements, and the Commission's proposal is sufficient under the 
statutory requirements), (Tr.) 48-49 (issue is how to get the 
consumer to the correct pump, and in that respect, the orange labels 
for liquid alternative fuels do an effective job); Phillips 66, G-
15, 1; RFA, G-5, 2-3 (the benefit of providing additional 
information beyond that proposed is not well established), (Tr.), 
28, 31, 38, (Supp.), G-5, 1 (the current labeling requirements for 
alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule are adequate and the 
same labeling requirements should be extended to gaseous fuels); 
SIGMA, G-23, 1 (supports the proposed requirements and urges the 
Commission to adopt the proposed rule without change); Sun, G-1, 1-2 
(agrees with the Commission's proposal to extend the Fuel Rating 
Rule labeling requirements to non-liquid alternative fuels thereby 
placing equal regulatory requirements on all alternative fuels).
    \61\See Flxible (Tr.), 74-77.
    \62\59 FR 59666, 59671.
    The Commission also recognized that electricity used for recharging 
electric vehicle (``EV'') batteries might need to be subject to 
different labeling disclosures.<SUP>63 Accordingly, for electricity, 
the SNPR proposed requiring that labels on public electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing systems include the commonly used name of the fuel, kilowatt 
capacity, voltage, current (either AC or DC), amperage and type of 
charger (either conductive or inductive).<SUP>64 In the SNPR, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that such disclosures were the minimum 
operating parameters that would be necessary to protect consumers 
operating the equipment, the vehicles whose batteries would be charged, 
as well as the charging equipment.<SUP>65

    \63\Unlike the other alternative fuels, the electricity used to 
recharge the batteries that power electric vehicles is not dispensed 
from a conventional fuel pump. It is dispensed from an electrical 
dispenser or recharging station and produces different physical 
effects depending on the type of dispenser or charging equipment 
through which it is dispensed. Therefore, the Commission recognized 
that electricity used as a vehicle fuel might have to be rated in 
accordance with the characteristics of the specific electrical 
dispenser or recharging station.
    \64\See proposed rule Secs. 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15, 59 FR 59666, 
59704, 59706.
    \65\The specific bases for the Commission's SNPR proposal are 
discussed in more detail at 59 FR 59666, 59671-59672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sixteen comments addressed the issues raised in the SNPR. Five 
comments generally supported the Commission's proposals in their 
entirety because if adopted, the proposals would provide appropriate 
and useful information to consumers attempting to make alternative fuel 
purchasing decisions.<SUP>66 The remaining eleven comments are 
discussed in the following section and in section III(B)(3) infra.

    \66\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 4; Chicago, J-2, 2-3; DOE, J-1, 2; 
EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; RFA, I-3, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Comments on SNPR concerning CNG. Two comments questioned whether 
the Commission's SNPR proposal to require disclosure of the minimum 
methane content of CNG would be helpful to consumers in the absence of 
standards requiring a minimum methane content for CNG vehicle 
fuel.<SUP>67 The Commission believes [[Page 26930]] that consensus 
standards specifying a minimum methane content for CNG as a vehicle 
fuel would be helpful, but recognizes that they do not presently exist. 
The Commission's proposed labeling approach for CNG and hydrogen 
provides a basic measure of fuel quality and, used in conjunction with 
the owner's manual containing the vehicle manufacturer's fuel 
recommendations, it provides consumers with the information necessary 
to select the fuel on which their vehicle has been designed to 
perform.<SUP>68

    \67\API, I-15, 2; Mobil, I-2, 3.
    \68\Although at present CNG vehicles apparently are designed to 
run on the broad range of methane content in available vehicle CNG, 
in the future manufacturers may design vehicles favoring specific, 
higher methane contents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the fuel rating for 
CNG and hydrogen must include the commonly used name of the fuel and 
the amount, expressed as a minimum molecular percentage, of the 
principal component of the fuel. The label also may include a 
disclosure of other components as minimum molecular percentages, if 
desired.<SUP>69 This rating approach will provide consumers with 
information necessary to make informed fuel purchasing decisions. It 
also will provide fuel producers and marketers with the flexibility to 
develop and blend fuels appropriate for location and climate, 
consistent with United States Environmental Protection Agency and 
original equipment manufacturer requirements. The Commission's action, 
therefore, will assist in the development and use of non-liquid 
alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles.

    \69\See final rule Secs. 309.1(q)(1) and 309.15 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Comments on SNPR concerning electricity. The Commission proposed 
in the SNPR that the electric recharging station label disclose the 
voltage at which electrical power is supplied by the electric charging 
equipment, the maximum current in amperes that can be delivered, 
whether the charging equipment supplies alternating or direct current, 
whether the unit is a conductive charger (a plug on a cord) or an 
inductive charger (a paddle in a port system), and the kilowatt 
capacity of the charging equipment to tell consumers how quickly their 
vehicles can recharge. Three comments specifically related to these 
proposals. One comment questioned the need for a kilowatt capacity 
disclosure since consumers could derive it from the proposed voltage/
amperage disclosure for electricity dispensers. The comment also 
recommended that when two charging methods are available from the same 
electricity dispenser (e.g., 240 vac/40 amps and 120 vac/15 amps) the 
Commission should require that both methods be disclosed.<SUP>70

    \70\Toyota, I-11, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An explicit kilowatt capacity disclosure is an important dispenser 
parameter that is useful in assisting consumers to determine 
immediately how quickly their vehicles' batteries will recharge. 
Although the Commission acknowledges that kilowatt capacity can be 
calculated from the voltage/amperage disclosure, the kilowatt capacity 
disclosure obviates the need for engaging in mathematical calculations 
at the dispenser. The Commission has decided to address the issue of 
the availability of multiple charging methods from the same dispenser 
by requiring in the final rule that they both be disclosed, as 
recommended by the comment, but on separate labels on the 
dispenser.<SUP>71

    \71\See proposed rule Sec. 309.15, 59 FR 59666, 59706, and final 
rule Sec. 309.15 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another comment recommended that the Commission's amperage 
disclosure on the label be expressed as an ``A'' instead of by the word 
``amps,'' as proposed.<SUP>72 The Commission has concluded, however, 
that use of the word ``amps'' on the label, because it is more 
descriptive than an ``A,'' may make consumers more familiar with the 
electricity refueling infrastructure and, therefore, be more useful in 
assisting consumers to locate the correct electricity dispenser. 
Finally, one comment suggested that the efficiency of electric vehicle 
chargers is a parameter that perhaps should eventually appear on 
charger labels once standardized test procedures are developed to 
determine efficiency.<SUP>73 The Commission notes that electric vehicle 
chargers are not 100 percent efficient. Some energy is lost to heat in 
the process of converting the energy that is supplied to the charger to 
a form that is usable by the vehicle battery. The Commission will 
monitor the development of standardized test procedures to determine 
electric vehicle charger efficiency, and consider including this factor 
when more information becomes available.

    \72\Sokol, I-17, 1.
    \73\CARB, J-3, 1.
    Accordingly, after considering the comments on its SNPR proposal, 
the Commission has determined that labels on public electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing systems shall include the commonly used name of the 
fuel (e.g., electricity), kilowatt capacity, voltage, current (either 
AC or DC), amperage and type of charger (either conductive or 
inductive).<SUP>74 Such disclosures will assist consumers in locating 
electric fuel dispensers that are compatible with their vehicles, and 
in determining how much time it will take for their vehicles' batteries 
to recharge.

    \74\See final rule Secs. 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Summary. In summary, the requirements for CNG, hydrogen and 
electricity will provide consumers with the most important pieces of 
information needed when refueling: fuel type and composition (or, for 
electricity, other relevant parameters). Although in the absence of 
such requirements sellers could be expected to identify the fuels sold, 
they may not do so in a standardized format that assists consumers in 
identifying the proper fuel quickly. Furthermore, it is uncertain 
absent these requirements whether sellers would provide information 
regarding the precise composition of the fuels, or relevant parameters 
of the EV fuel dispenser.
3. Label Disclosures Considered but not Adopted in Final Rule
    In addition, the Commission concludes that other information on the 
fuel dispenser concerning alternative fuels is unlikely to be useful in 
most instances. For consumers with dedicated AFVs (i.e., vehicles 
capable of operating on only one fuel), the selection process between 
competing fuels is concluded once an AFV is acquired. Consumers driving 
dual or flexible fueled vehicles (i.e., vehicles capable of being 
powered both by a conventional and an alternative fuel) will be limited 
to purchasing fuels meeting their engines' requirements. Thus, 
providing consumers with other information designed to permit 
comparisons among various types of alternative fuels is best done prior 
to the time the vehicle is acquired.
    Further, excluding less important information avoids information 
overload. In contrast to vehicle purchases, fuel purchases typically 
occur in a quick transaction. In a report to Congress assessing the 
need for a uniform national label on fuel pumps, the Commission noted 
that time constraints may affect how consumers read, understand, and 
use information.<SUP>75 Indeed, ``studies show that less accurate 
information processing occurs under time constraints; test subjects 
focus on fewer pieces of information and unduly emphasize negative 
information.''<SUP>76 Simplicity therefore is an even greater 
[[Page 26931]] consideration in the labeling of fuels than in the 
labeling of AFVs.

    \75\Federal Trade Commission, Study of a Uniform National Label 
for Devices That Dispense Automotive Fuels to Consumers (1993), at 
29.
    \76\Id., at 29 n.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In formulating its labeling requirements, the Commission sought to 
reconcile several competing concerns. As noted previously, EPA 92 
directs the Commission to develop uniform labels disclosing appropriate 
cost and benefit information. However, in determining what information 
is appropriate, the Commission must consider the problems associated 
with developing and publishing such information on simple labels. Given 
this context, and after considering the comments, the Commission 
considered and rejected in the SNPR several alternative disclosures for 
dispenser labels suggested by various comments. The SNPR generated 
additional comments, however, as discussed below. An analysis of these 
comments has not persuaded the Commission to require any of the 
previously rejected disclosures.
    a. Octane rating. In the SNPR, the Commission rejected a proposal 
that it require the posting of octane ratings for non-liquid 
alternative fuels. Three comments were submitted in response to that 
tentative determination in the SNPR. To prevent commercial, heavy-duty 
vehicle and fleet operators from misfueling and experiencing related 
problems, EMA recommended that the Commission require the posting of 
octane ratings for all non-liquid alternative fuels.<SUP>77 Due to the 
variability in the fuel quality of natural gas, Commercial Electronics 
recommended that the Commission require disclosure of CNG's octane 
rating.<SUP>78 API, however, stated that the non-liquid alternative 
fuel dispenser labels should not include octane ratings.<SUP>79

    \77\EMA, I-6, 2-4.
    \78\Comm Elec, I-8, 2-7.
    \79\API, I-15, 1.
    After considering the comments submitted, the Commission has 
determined not to require the posting of octane ratings for CNG and 
hydrogen. To the extent that commercial fleet operators have their own 
fueling facilities, they can specify a required octane rating and 
insist in contracts with their suppliers that they determine such 
rating by an agreed method for the fuel purchased. Commercial operators 
might also obtain such information if, for example, it were posted 
voluntarily on fuel dispensers. Generally, however, as explained in the 
SNPR, the Commission concludes that octane ratings for alternative 
fuels are high enough to avoid engine knock problems in vehicles 
presently designed to use alternative fuels, and such ratings do not 
provide significant information relevant to vehicle performance of 
alternative fueled vehicles.<SUP>80 In addition, the octane ratings of 
a given type of alternative fuel would not vary significantly.<SUP>81 
Further, there might be practical problems in implementing a reliable 
octane certification and posting program for alternative liquid 
automotive fuels, because of the lack of a standardized test method, 
such as an ASTM-approved test method for determining octane ratings of 
such fuels.<SUP>82

    \80\59 FR 59666, 59673. See AGA/NGVC, I-18, Attachment at 8 (The 
antiknock performance of natural gas is best for pure methane or 
methane/inert gas mixtures, and declines somewhat with increasing 
concentrations of non-methane hydrocarbons. This effect is not 
usually significant for the typical range of pipeline gas 
composition, but may become important [in the future] in high-
compression engines burning unprocessed gas or propane-air 
mixtures).
    \81\AGA/NGVC, G-6, 5-6 (octane levels for natural gas are not 
likely to vary at different retailers); and Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 
49-50.
    \82\AGA/NGVC, I-18, Attachment at 8 (no standard octane testing 
methods exist for natural gas); Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49-50 (there 
are no standards for determining the octane ratings of CNG or 
hydrogen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There also are significant disadvantages to requiring octane 
posting and certification for alternative fuels. In particular, the 
Commission is reluctant to require a disclosure that might mislead 
consumers about the benefits of alternative fuels, the octane ratings 
of which exceed those of gasoline. Further, it might foster consumer 
misperceptions that higher octane necessarily signifies higher quality 
and better performance. Such a disclosure also might cause consumers to 
believe that gasoline and alternative fuels are interchangeable, or 
that different alternative fuels are interchangeable with one another.
    b. Comparative information based upon BTUs or gasoline-gallon-
equivalents. In the SNPR, the Commission considered but rejected 
proposals that the Commission require the use of alternative fuel 
labels that either: (1) advise consumers of the price of an alternative 
fuel and the quantity of the alternative fuel dispensed in terms of 
gasoline-gallon-equivalent (``GGE'') units based on the energy contents 
of the alternative fuels, or (2) identify the heating value or energy 
content of a fuel expressed in British thermal units (``BTUs''). In 
response to the SNPR, the two comments addressing this issue supported 
the Commission's position, recommending that the Commission not adopt a 
labeling approach that would require disclosure of comparative 
information based upon BTUs or gasoline-gallon-equivalents.<SUP>83 
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the SNPR, the Commission is not 
requiring such disclosures on fuel dispenser labels.<SUP>84

    \83\API, I-15, 1; Mobil, I-2, 2 (In summary, comparative type 
cost data are not conducive to fuel labeling. Labels that provide 
consumer information already exist today in the form of pricing 
information that enables consumers to make choices and comparisons 
as required by section 406 of EPA 92. The National Conference on 
Weights and Measures is currently in the process of setting the 
measurement standard for alternative fuels. A uniform unit of 
measure, such as the gasoline equivalent gallon, will provide 
consumers additional economic information helpful in making informed 
purchasing decisions).
    \84\59 FR 59666, 59673-59674 (e.g., GGE disclosures are not 
conducive to keeping the fuel label simple, as required by EPA 92; 
this information is more an equipment metering issue that is more 
properly addressed by weights and measures organizations; the energy 
content of a fuel, as measured by its BTU rating, does not always 
accurately reflect actual fuel economy).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Performance effects (cruising range). In the SNPR, the 
Commission considered and rejected a proposal that the Commission 
require fuel dispenser labels to advise consumers that the cruising 
range of a vehicle when running on an alternative fuel will be less 
than when the vehicle is running on gasoline, due to the alternative 
fuel's lower energy content. In response to the SNPR, the one comment 
addressing this issue supported the Commission's position, opposing a 
requirement that dispenser labels include performance effects of the 
non-liquid alternative fuel.<SUP>85 Accordingly, for the reasons stated 
in the SNPR, the Commission is not requiring disclosure of performance 
effects as an element of fuel dispenser labels.<SUP>86

    \85\API, I-15, 1.
    \86\59 FR 59666, 59674 (e.g., cruising range is not necessarily 
less when operating on an alternative fuel; a general statement on a 
fuel dispenser label relating to cruising range would not provide 
sufficient comparative information to consumers to enable them to 
make reasonable purchasing choices and comparisons between fuels of 
the same type).
    However, the Commission recognizes that information relating to 
cruising range would be useful to consumers when choosing a vehicle or 
deciding whether to convert an existing vehicle to an alternative fuel. 
Therefore, the Commission has determined that information relating to 
cruising range would be appropriate on labels it is requiring for 
covered AFVs, as discussed in section III(C) infra.
    d. Compliance with material specifications. In the SNPR, the 
Commission rejected a proposal that it require that dispenser labels 
indicate whether the fuel meets the alternative fuel specifications 
defined by the California Air Resources Board in 
[[Page 26932]] 1993.<SUP>87 In rejecting the proposal, the Commission 
stated, in part, that California's specifications were not developed by 
a consensus process, were developed for California's particular needs 
and, therefore, may not be practical for the rest of the 
country.<SUP>88 In the SNPR, the Commission also rejected a proposal 
that CNG dispenser labels indicate whether the fuel meets the Society 
of Automotive Engineers' (``SAE'') ``recommended practice'' for CNG 
called J1616. In rejecting that proposal, the Commission stated that 
recommended practice SAE J1616 was issued as a guide to address the 
composition of natural gas used as an automotive fuel, not as a 
standard for CNG. The guide states it anticipates that a CNG standard 
will evolve, but emphasizes that experience and more technical 
knowledge are needed.<SUP>89

    \87\See Specifications for Compressed Natural Gas, Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations, section 2292.5 (1993), B-41; 
Specifications for Hydrogen, Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations, section 2292.7 (1993), B-42.
    \88\59 FR 59666, 59674.
    \89\Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Recommended Practice for 
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel,'' SAE J1616, B-40, 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments responded to those determinations in the SNPR. These 
comments stated that inasmuch as consistent fuel quality is required to 
ensure proper vehicle operation, including emissions control, the 
Commission should require that dispenser labels indicate compliance or 
non-compliance with fuel quality specifications and refueling equipment 
standards, with specific references to each, when they are developed 
for CNG and hydrogen.<SUP>90 A disclosure based on accepted and 
approved fuel specifications and standards could provide meaningful 
comparative information to consumers relating to the quality of the 
fuel they are purchasing. However, the aforementioned comments appear 
to confirm that adequate, generally accepted standards and 
specifications suitable for nationwide use do not presently exist for 
most alternative fuels, and specifically do not exist for CNG or 
hydrogen. Therefore, the Commission has determined not to require that 
fuel dispenser labels guarantee the delivery of fuels meeting certain 
specifications.

    \90\AAMA, I-16, 7-8; EMA, I-6, 2-4; NGVPA, I-19, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission, however, continues to favor the development of 
specifications and standards that define alternative fuels by a 
consensus standards-setting organization, such as ASTM, or by a 
government agency with appropriate engineering and technical expertise 
to set such specifications and standards for nationwide use. This type 
of standards development would include participation by affected 
parties such as alternative fuel producers and providers, engine 
manufacturers, regulators, consumers, and organizations or government 
agencies with pertinent technical expertise. It also would provide a 
mechanism for evaluating proposed test methods and procedures necessary 
to determine compliance with the standards. The Commission will monitor 
the development of alternative fuel standards and consider including 
them as an element of the dispenser labels when more information 
becomes available.
    e. Environmental benefits (emissions). In the SNPR, the Commission 
considered and rejected a proposal that the Commission require fuel 
dispenser labels to generally advise consumers of the environmental 
benefits of alternative fuels.<SUP>91 In response to the SNPR, the one 
comment addressing this issue supported the Commission's 
position.<SUP>92 Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the SNPR, the 
Commission is not requiring that fuel dispenser labels indicate the 
environmental benefits of alternative fuels.<SUP>93

    \91\AMI, G-3, 2; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51.
    \92\API, I-15, 1.
    \93\59 FR 59666, 59675 (e.g., a statement on a fuel dispenser 
label advising consumers of the environmental benefits of 
alternative fuels would not provide sufficient information to assist 
consumers in making choices and comparisons between fuels of the 
same type).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission recognizes that information relating to 
emissions and the environmental benefits of alternative fuels would be 
useful to consumers when choosing an alternatively fueled vehicle or 
deciding whether to convert an existing vehicle to an alternative fuel. 
Therefore, the Commission has determined that information relating to 
emissions would be appropriate on the labels it is requiring for 
covered AFVs, as discussed in section III(C) infra.
    f. Pressure. In the SNPR, the Commission considered and rejected a 
proposal that the Commission require CNG dispenser labels to display 
the fueling pressure, either 2,400, 3,000 or 3,600 P.S.I. (pounds per 
square inch), and the nozzle type to indicate whether dispenser fueling 
pressure is compatible with CNG vehicle tank storage pressure.<SUP>94 
The two comments on the Commission's SNPR proposal addressing this 
issue recommended that the Commission require that CNG dispenser labels 
indicate the nozzle type and corresponding fill pressure of the CNG 
dispenser, to avoid consumer inconvenience at the CNG fueling 
site.<SUP>95

    \94\59 FR 59666, 59675. See Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 2; Thomas BB, 
G-10, 1; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51; AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 103-104.
    \95\AAMA, I-16, 8; NGVPA, I-19, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that fueling pressure is useful information. 
The industry, however, already has taken independent steps to address 
this issue. Specifically, the industry has developed standards for 
pressure coding dispenser/vehicle CNG connectors so that consumers will 
not be able to overfuel a low pressure vehicle from a high pressure 
dispenser.<SUP>96 Further, the use of standard CNG vehicle fueling 
connectors complying with the ANSI/AGA NGV1 specification is required 
at public dispensing points by National Fire Protection Association 
safety standard 52 (``NFPA 52''), which is a fire code adopted by most, 
if not all, states.<SUP>97 Accordingly, the Commission has determined 
that requiring the disclosure of fueling pressure and nozzle type on 
CNG dispenser labels is unnecessary at this time.

    \96\See ANSI/AGA NGV1-1994 American National Standard For 
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, 
attached to AGA/NGVC's comment, G-6.
    \97\ANSI/NFPA 52 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel 
Systems, 1992, B-39. See also Stookey, An Analysis of the 1994 
Uniform Fire Code Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. Gas 
Fuels, June 1994, B-48, 27-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Safety warnings. In the SNPR, the Commission considered but 
rejected proposing safety warnings as an element of the alternative 
fuel labels.<SUP>98 The one comment on the Commission's SNPR proposal 
addressing this issue recommended that the Commission require that non-
liquid alternative fuel dispenser labels include information about the 
fuel's potential hazards and limitations on use.<SUP>99

    \98\59 FR 59666, 59675.
    \99\EMA, I-6, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that safety standards for operation of motor 
vehicle fuel-dispensing stations are covered by the Uniform Fire 
Code.<SUP>100 Further, to [[Page 26933]] some extent, the fuel labeling 
requirements, particularly those for electric vehicle (``EV'') public 
dispenser systems, implicitly consider safety issues for refueling by 
directing consumers to the proper fuel dispenser. Beyond this (and fire 
code requirements that are already in place), consumers may find safety 
information about various fuels more pertinent when purchasing an AFV 
than when refueling. Thus, the Commission is not persuaded that 
including a safety warning statement on a fuel dispenser label would 
help consumers make reasonable fuel choices and comparisons. The 
Commission has determined that rather than require that safety 
disclosures appear on fuel dispenser labels, it will require a 
reference to DOE's consumer information brochure and DOT/NHTSA's 
Vehicle Safety Hotline on labels for covered AFVs, as discussed in 
section III(C) infra. The DOT/NHTSA Hotline acts as a clearinghouse and 
can refer consumers to other sources where, for example, information 
can be obtained about how to safely refuel CNG vehicles. Further, the 
Commission anticipates that a marketer's refueling instructions, 
whether appearing in an AFV owner's manual or on the fuel dispenser, 
will discuss or incorporate relevant safety measures. However, if in 
the future information demonstrates a need for the Commission to 
require safety-related disclosures on the dispenser labels, the 
Commission can revisit this issue.

    \100\For example, in July 1993, the voting membership of the 
Uniform Fire Code (``UFC'') and Uniform Fire Code Standards adopted 
new regulations for the design, construction and operation of CNG 
motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations. The UFC voting membership is 
a democratic code development organization that includes fire and 
building officials, design professionals, equipment manufacturers 
and trade organizations. The UFC's minimum requirements are 
primarily based on the requirements of NFPA 52, ``Standard for CNG 
Vehicular Fueling Systems,'' 1992 edition. The Uniform Fire Code 
Standards are a model code that establishes requirements for 
building and site fire protection, the safe storage and use of 
hazardous materials, and the fire safety and fire protection designs 
of the Uniform Building Code. Article 52 of the 1994 UFC addresses 
the design, construction, commissioning and operation of all motor 
vehicle fuel-dispensing stations. See Stookey, An Analysis of the 
1994 Uniform Fire Code Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. Gas 
Fuels, June 1994, B-48, 27.
    h. Refueling instructions. In the SNPR, the Commission considered 
but rejected proposing refueling instructions as an element of the fuel 
dispenser labels. No comments were submitted regarding this tentative 
determination. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the SNPR, the 
Commission has determined not to require such disclosures.<SUP>101

    \101\59 FR 59666, 59675 (e.g., this information can be expected 
to be provided voluntarily).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Wobbe number. In the SNPR, the Commission considered but 
rejected proposing the Wobbe number as an element of the CNG dispenser 
label. The one comment addressing this issue recommended that the 
Commission require that CNG fuel dispenser labels include the fuel's 
Wobbe number, a measure of its air-fuel metering properties.<SUP>102 
Although AGA/NGVC recommended that the Commission require disclosure of 
the Wobbe number, it also pointed out that all gas pipelines and 
utilities monitor and control closely the Wobbe number of natural gas. 
For gas distributed in most of the United States, AGA/NGVC stated that 
the Wobbe number typically is maintained between 1320 and 1360, well 
within the range recommended for natural gas vehicle fuel by SAE J1616 
(1300-1420).<SUP>103

    \102\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 8-11.
    \103\Id. AGA/NGVC had previously opposed a Wobbe number 
disclosure, stating it would be so difficult to explain that 
consumers would not find it useful (AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering AGA/NGVC's comment, the Commission is not 
persuaded that the purported benefits to consumers of including the 
Wobbe number on CNG labels are sufficiently significant to justify 
requiring its disclosure. Depending on the fuel metering technology, 
variations in the Wobbe number may slightly affect engine performance 
and emissions. The effect of variations in the Wobbe number for 
gaseous-fueled vehicles is similar to the effect of variations in the 
fuel energy content of gasoline in conventional vehicles. Further, 
modern spark-ignition engines are able to compensate for reasonable 
variations in the Wobbe number, just as they compensate for variations 
in gasoline energy content due to refining differences or use of 
alcohol blends.<SUP>104 Wobbe numbers for natural gas vehicle fuels 
also appear to be high enough to avoid engine problems in vehicles 
presently designed to use CNG. While the Wobbe number may be important 
to engine manufacturers and fuel producers as an important element of a 
fuel specification, it would not appear to provide consumers with 
significant additional information relevant to vehicle performance. 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to require disclosure of 
the Wobbe number on CNG dispenser labels.

    \104\AGA/NGVC, I-18, Attachment at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Additional Requirements of Final Rule
    a. Label size and format. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that 
labels for non-liquid alternative fuels follow the same standardized 
size and format requirements as those for liquid alternative fuels 
under the Fuel Rating Rule.<SUP>105 Labels required by the Fuel Rating 
Rule are 3 inches wide by 2\1/2\ inches long, with process black type 
on an orange background.<SUP>106 Although section 406(a) does not 
specify size and format standards for alternative fuel labels, it 
directs the Commission ``to establish uniform labeling requirements, to 
the greatest extent practicable.'' It also specifies that ``[r]equired 
labeling under the rule shall be simple and, where appropriate, 
consolidated with other labels providing information to the 
consumer.''<SUP>107

    \105\See proposed rule Sec. 309.17, 59 FR 59666, 59706-59707. 
Several comments received during this proceeding had recommended 
that labels for non-liquid alternative fuels follow the same size 
and format requirements as those for liquid alternative fuels under 
the Fuel Rating Rule. The reasons given for keeping the requirements 
the same were: to promote consistency, fairness and equity, and to 
keep information simple so that consumers can easily understand the 
labels (AGA/NGVC, G-6, 8; API, G-25, 4; Mobil, G-2, 4; NPGA, G-18, 
4; RFA, G-5, 4; SIGMA, G-23, 1; Sun, G-1, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 2).
    \106\16 CFR 306.12 (1994).
    \107\In the NPR, the Commission proposed and rejected the idea 
of consolidating the non-liquid alternative fuel labels with other 
mandatory labels (59 FR 24014, 24018). The one comment addressing 
this issue agreed that consolidation would appear to provide no 
benefit and would only lead to public confusion (TVA, H-5, 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two comments addressed this proposal. Both supported the 
Commission's proposal because it promoted consistency in the labeling 
of all alternative fuels.<SUP>108 Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined to require that labels for non-liquid alternative fuels 
follow the same standardized size and format requirements as those for 
liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.<SUP>109 Further, 
to keep the labels uniform and simple, the Commission is not requiring 
any label consolidation.

    \108\API, I-15, 4; Mobil, I-2, 5.
    \109\See 59 FR 59666, 59676. See also final rule Sec. 309.17 
infra.
    b. Substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements. 
In the SNPR, to ensure the accuracy of the required dispenser labels, 
the Commission proposed substantiation, certification, and 
recordkeeping requirements for importers, producers, refiners and 
distributors of gaseous alternative fuels, and manufacturers and 
distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. The 
Commission also proposed substantiation and recordkeeping requirements 
for retail sellers of the three non-liquid alternative vehicle 
fuels.<SUP>110 The Commission based its SNPR proposal on its conclusion 
that the requirements are justified because they are rationally related 
to the establishment of ``uniform labeling requirements'' that provide 
important information to consumers.<SUP>111 As described below, several 
comments addressed two aspects of the Commission's proposal. The 
comments related to who should bear the burden for substantiating the 
fuel rating for CNG, and whether a particular ASTM [[Page 26934]] test 
method for determining the minimum molecular percent of CNG should be 
required. Because there were no comments on the other facets of the 
substantiation, certification and recordkeeping provisions proposed in 
the SNPR, the Commission has determined to issue them as proposed. 
These requirements are explained below.

    \110\See proposed rule Secs. 309.10-309.16, 59 FR 59666, 59704-
59706.
    \111\See 59 FR 59666, 59676-59679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPR the Commission proposed, in part, that importers, 
producers and refiners of natural gas comply with the proposed rule's 
CNG fuel rating determination, certification and recordkeeping 
requirements, which includes determining and certifying the minimum 
percentage of methane in natural gas.<SUP>112 The Commission based its 
proposal on its conclusion that it would be impractical, and probably 
more expensive to the consumer, to require retail sellers to test each 
delivery of a gaseous fuel. In making disclosures to consumers, retail 
sellers of alternative fuels, therefore, could rely on the accuracy of 
the information provided to them from gaseous fuel importers, 
producers, refiners and distributors.

    \112\See proposed rule Secs. 309.10, 309.11, 309.12, 59 FR 
59666, 59704-59705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments recommended that the Commission not impose such 
requirements on importers and producers of natural gas because the 
requirements would be overly burdensome, and do not reflect current 
industry practice in the distribution of natural gas.<SUP>113 According 
to the comments, producers of natural gas currently adhere to a heating 
value specification as required by their customers (i.e., local natural 
gas distribution companies and/or natural gas utilities). Most 
producers currently do not test for or certify the methane content of 
the natural gas they sell. Furthermore, the comments state that this 
information would be of little value at the retail level because 
natural gas distributors (i.e., utilities) purchase natural gas from a 
multitude of producers, blend it together, test it, and distribute it 
for home and industry use, as well as for retail sale.<SUP>114

    \113\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 3-6; API, I-15, 1-5; Unocal, I-5, 2.
    \114\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two of the comments recommended that the Commission require natural 
gas distributors/utilities to comply with the fuel rating 
determination, certification and recordkeeping requirements that the 
Commission proposed for natural gas importers and producers.<SUP>115 On 
the other hand, AGA/NGVC recommended that the fuel rating determination 
and recordkeeping requirements be imposed only on CNG retailers since 
they market the fuel to consumers. AGA/NGVC contended that if a 
retailer cannot verify the fuel rating, it can insist in contracts with 
its suppliers that they determine the fuel rating. Thus, companies 
interested in profiting from selling natural gas to retailers will view 
the testing as the cost of doing business and will decide whether to 
perform the test. AGA/NGVC also stated, though, that in some cases 
local utilities will be heavily involved in the marketing and selling 
of natural gas transportation fuel. In those instances, AGA/NGVC 
recommends that the Commission require such distributors to determine 
and certify the fuel rating of the natural gas they supply.<SUP>116 
Unocal commented that the Commission should permit natural gas 
retailers to rely on their suppliers (distributors/utilities) for fuel 
rating certifications to substantiate the information displayed on the 
CNG dispenser labels.<SUP>117

    \115\API, I-15, 4; Unocal, I-5, 2.
    \116\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 4-6.
    \117\Unocal, I-5, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Commission notes that information about the 
methane content of natural gas would be useful to distributors who 
blend natural gas and transfer it as natural gas vehicle fuel, because 
they could use such information in determining and thereafter 
certifying its fuel rating.<SUP>118 The Commission notes further that, 
in most cases, it is necessary to upgrade natural gas to pipeline 
specifications in a gas processing plant before injecting it into the 
transportation and distribution network. In order to assure consistent 
combustion behavior, major natural gas pipelines generally impose 
specifications on the composition of the gas they will accept for 
transport. These specifications typically limit the percentage of 
propane, butane, and higher hydrocarbons, and stipulate acceptable 
ranges for the heating value, and the Wobbe number.<SUP>119 For 
example, water and hydrogen sulfide must be removed to prevent 
corrosion damage to the pipeline network, and excess amounts of higher 
hydrocarbons must be removed to prevent them from condensing under the 
high pressures in the gas transmission network. Thus, although natural 
gas producers may not have to adhere to a specific minimum methane 
pipeline specification, the methane content of the gas likely would 
fall within a fairly narrow range.

    \118\See proposed rule Sec. 309.13, 59 FR 59666, 59705.
    \119\AGA/NGVC, I-18, Attachment at 3-4.
    After considering the comments on its SNPR proposal, the Commission 
concludes that substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping 
requirements for importers, producers, refiners and distributors of 
gaseous alternative vehicle fuels, and manufacturers and distributors 
of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, and substantiation and 
recordkeeping requirements for retail sellers of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuels (including electricity) are necessary to ensure that the 
information posted on labels on retail fuel dispensers is accurate. The 
Commission is not persuaded that retail sellers of CNG are in a 
position to be held exclusively responsible for determining the 
accuracy of the fuel rating to be disclosed on the CNG dispenser 
labels. The Commission believes that the rule's requirements are 
consistent with current industry practice of conforming natural gas to 
minimum specifications for transport. But, the Commission believes that 
the comments from Unocal, API and AGA/NGVC could be addressed by 
further clarifying that the Commission's rule does not apply to 
producers of natural gas for residential, commercial and industrial 
purposes. Thus, the rule's fuel rating determination, certification and 
recordkeeping requirements apply to producers of natural gas only when 
transferred for use as a vehicle fuel. In this regard, the Commission 
expects that natural gas producers may wish to take reasonably prudent 
precautions to ensure that their customers understand the limited use 
for which the gas is being transferred, if they determine that the rule 
does not apply to them.
    (1) Substantiation. The Commission's rule requires labeling 
disclosures of the type of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(including electricity), and of the minimum molecular percent (a more 
accurate description than volume of the content of a gas) of the 
principal component of each gaseous alternative vehicle fuel and of 
specific, limited information about the output of the electric vehicle 
fuel dispenser system. In accordance with the Commission's advertising 
substantiation doctrine, which requires sellers to have a reasonable 
basis to support material, objective claims,<SUP>120 the Commission is 
requiring that importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) have a reasonable 
basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, that 
substantiates the minimum molecular percent of the principal component 
that retailers must disclose on fuel dispenser [[Page 26935]] labels. 
The rule further states that importers and producers may use private 
facilities for fuel rating determinations. This would be important to 
producers who do not have testing equipment of their own.<SUP>121 These 
requirements are consistent with the substantiation requirements of the 
Fuel Rating Rule,<SUP>122 which were mandated by the Petroleum 
Marketing Practices Act.<SUP>123

    \120\See Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984) 
(Appendix), aff'd, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 
U.S. 1086 (1987).
    \121\See final rule Sec. 309.10 infra.
    \122\16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994).
    \123\15 U.S.C. 2822.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the minimum molecular percent content of hydrogen (the 
principal component) in hydrogen gas, the Commission proposed requiring 
that the reasonable basis be tests conducted according to ASTM D 1946-
90. For the minimum molecular percent content of methane (the principal 
component) in CNG, the Commission proposed requiring that the 
reasonable basis be tests conducted according to ASTM D 1945-91. Three 
comments addressed the CNG testing issue. One comment supported 
requiring the use of ASTM D 1945-91.<SUP>124 AGA/NGVC opposed requiring 
the use of a specific test method. Instead, that comment suggested that 
the Commission afford sellers of CNG the flexibility to demonstrate 
that they possessed a reasonable basis consisting of competent and 
reliable evidence for their determination of the minimum methane 
content of CNG.<SUP>125 Commercial Electronics commented that other 
test methods are being developed to measure CNG fuel quality.<SUP>126

    \124\API, I-15, 4.
    \125\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 7 (affording such flexibility would avoid 
unnecessary future actions by the Commission to amend its rule each 
time a new test procedure is developed).
    \126\Comm Elec, I-8, 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission concludes that it is 
important that sellers base objective disclosures on uniform 
measurements when recognized and accepted test methods are available. 
The aforementioned ASTM documents include test procedures, developed 
through the ASTM consensus process, to determine the chemical 
composition of hydrogen and CNG, respectively, including the molecular 
percent of hydrogen in hydrogen gas and methane in CNG. Because ASTM 
has issued test procedures to measure the minimum molecular percent of 
the principal components of hydrogen and CNG, the Commission is 
requiring use of the ASTM test procedures to substantiate those 
disclosures.<SUP>127

    \127\The Fuel Rating Rule did not require that specific ASTM 
test methods be used to satisfy the Rule's reasonable basis standard 
for liquid alternative fuels because existing ASTM test methods were 
undergoing verification review to determine whether they would be 
appropriate for use in establishing standards for the liquid 
alternative fuels. Further, the Commission was informed that other 
test methods were being developed that might serve equally well as 
part of a liquid alternative fuel standard. On the other hand, the 
Commission understands that the ASTM test methods it is requiring as 
a reasonable basis for determining the minimum molecular percentages 
of the principal components of CNG and hydrogen have been ASTM test 
methods for many years and have been recognized as competent and 
reliable procedures. Further, the Commission understands that no 
other test methods that could be used to make these determinations 
have been proposed to the California Air Resources Board or are 
under development by any standards-setting organizations. If 
additional test methods are developed in the future, the Commission 
will consider whether to include them among the required test 
methods.
    For the minimum molecular percent content of any other component 
that importers, producers, or refiners wish to certify, the rule does 
not specify the test procedure that must be used, but only that they 
have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, 
to substantiate the claim. The Commission's approach to requiring 
substantiation without specifying a particular test method for 
components other than the principal component, allows sellers to rely 
on existing industry test procedures if they are reasonable and yield 
accurate results. For example, the California specifications list 
specific ASTM procedures to be used to determine the molecular percent 
of various components of CNG and hydrogen, in addition to the methane 
content of CNG and the hydrogen content of hydrogen gas. Because the 
Commission has not specified additional components that might be 
disclosed, it has no basis on the record to specify test procedures 
that must be used to measure them. The Commission, therefore, will 
accept, but not require, use of the ASTM test procedures cited in the 
California specifications as the required reasonable basis for 
voluntary disclosure of additional components of CNG and hydrogen that 
are included in those specifications.<SUP>128

    \128\See further references to California's specifications in 
section III(B)(3)(d) supra. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule also does not require that importers, producers, or 
refiners meet particular material specifications or standards for the 
common name they use to describe the non-liquid alternative vehicle 
fuel (other than electricity) they distribute, but that they have a 
reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, to 
substantiate the fuel rating they determine and certify to others.
    Although the Commission has decided not to require that non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuels conform to any specific material 
specification, the Commission's requirement that marketers disclose the 
principal component of each fuel should encourage the industry to 
develop uniform material specifications or standards for these fuels in 
consensus organizations to ensure the uniform quality of the fuels in 
the marketplace. The development of material specifications or 
standards for non-liquid (gaseous) alternative vehicle fuels should 
help facilitate acceptance of these fuels.
    Similarly, manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems 
are required to have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and 
reliable evidence, to substantiate the information retail sellers must 
post on labels on the electric vehicle fuel dispensers. For public 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, the information the 
Commission requires to be disclosed can be determined using standard 
measuring devices or procedures. Therefore, accurate measurements made 
using standard electric industry procedures that are recognized as 
competent and reliable are sufficient to serve as the required 
reasonable basis.
    Distributors and retail sellers may be able to rely on the fuel 
rating certifications they receive, as discussed infra, so their 
substantiation burden will be minimal. Distributors and retailers need 
not make the actual determinations unless they alter the fuel before 
selling it.<SUP>129

    \129\See final rule Secs. 309.13(c), 309.15(c) infra. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Certification. The Commission is requiring that importers, 
producers, refiners, and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels 
(other than electricity), and that manufacturers and distributors of 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems certify to others to whom they 
distribute the information that retailers must post on fuel 
dispensers.<SUP>130 Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid 
alternative fuels (other than electricity) are required to certify to 
distributors their determination of the minimum molecular percent of 
the fuel's major component, and of any additional component they wish 
to disclose. Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems 
are required to certify to distributors and/or retailers the 
information retailers are required to disclose on labels on fuel 
dispensers. Distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than 
electricity) and of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
[[Page 26936]] systems are required to certify to retailers consistent 
with the certification they received.<SUP>131

    \130\See final rule Secs. 309.11, 309.13 infra.
    \131\See final rule Sec. 309.13 infra. If distributors blend 
fuels, Sec. 309.13(c) of the rule requires them to substantiate the 
minimum percentage of the principal component according to the 
requirements of Sec. 309.10, and certify that information to their 
non-consumer customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel (other than electricity) may make the certification in 
either of two ways:
    (a) By including with each transfer a delivery ticket or other 
paper (such as an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal 
ticket, delivery ticket or any other written proof of transfer). The 
delivery ticket or other paper must contain at least the importer's, 
producer's, or refiner's name, the name of the person to whom the non-
liquid alternative fuel is transferred, the date of the transfer, the 
common name of the fuel and the minimum molecular percent of the fuel's 
major component, and of any additional component the importer, producer 
or refiner wishes to disclose.
    (b) By giving the person to whom the fuel is transferred a letter 
or written statement, including the date, the importer's, producer's or 
refiner's name, the name of the person to whom the fuel is transferred, 
the common name of the fuel, and the minimum molecular percent of the 
fuel's major component, and of any additional component the importer, 
producer or refiner wishes to disclose. The letter or written statement 
is effective until the importer, producer, or refiner transfers non-
liquid alternative vehicle fuel with a lower percentage of the major 
component, or of any other component claimed. At that time, the 
importer, producer, or refiner will have to certify the new information 
about the fuel with a new notice.<SUP>132

    \132\See final rule Sec. 309.11 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distributors of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) are required to make the certification in each transfer to 
anyone who is not a consumer. Distributors may make the required 
certification in either of two ways:
    (a) By using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, 
as outlined for importers, producers and refiners in item (a), above.
    (b) By using a letter of certification, as outlined for importers, 
producers, and refiners in item (b), above.<SUP>133

    \133\See final rule Sec. 309.13 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems are 
required to make the certification in each transfer of such systems to 
anyone who is not a consumer. Manufacturers may do so in either of two 
ways:
    (a) By including a delivery ticket or other paper with each 
transfer of an EV fuel dispensing system. It may be an invoice, bill of 
lading, bill of sale, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of 
transfer. It is required to contain at least the manufacturer's name, 
the name of the person to whom the EV fuel dispensing system is 
transferred, the date of the transfer, the model number or other 
identifier of the EV fuel dispensing system, and the information 
required to be disclosed on the retail fuel dispenser label.
    (b) By placing clearly and conspicuously on the EV fuel dispensing 
system a permanent legible marking or permanently attached label that 
discloses the manufacturer's name, the model number or other identifier 
of the EV fuel dispensing system, and the information required to be 
disclosed on the retail fuel dispenser label. Such marking or label is 
required to be located where it can be seen after installation of the 
EV fuel dispensing system. The marking or label is deemed ``legible,'' 
in terms of placement, if it is located in close proximity to the 
manufacturer's identification marking. This marking or label is 
required to be in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the label 
required to be posted on the public EV fuel dispenser at the point of 
retail sale.<SUP>134

    \134\See final rule Sec. 309.11 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems are 
required to make the certification in each transfer to anyone who is 
not a consumer. Distributors may do so in either of two ways:
    (a) By using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, 
as outlined for manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
systems in item (a) above.
    (b) By using the permanent marking or label permanently attached to 
the system by the manufacturer, as outlined for manufacturers of 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems in item (b) above.<SUP>135

    \135\See final rule Sec. 309.13 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These requirements are consistent with the certification 
requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel 
Rating Rule.<SUP>136

    \136\16 CFR 306.6, 306.8 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Recordkeeping. The Commission is requiring that importers, 
producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than 
electricity) maintain records of the tests performed by or for them, or 
other data, that they rely upon as their required reasonable basis for 
their certifications.<SUP>137 The Commission likewise is requiring that 
manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems maintain 
records of the tests or measurements performed by or for them, or of 
other data or records, that they rely upon as their required reasonable 
basis for their certifications.<SUP>138 The Commission also requires 
that distributors and retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (other 
than electricity) maintain records consisting of the certifications 
they receive from importers, producers, refiners, or distributors of 
non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), and that 
distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems and retailers 
of electricity maintain records consisting of the certifications they 
receive from manufacturers or distributors of the systems.<SUP>139 The 
rule requires that these records be kept for one year. These 
requirements are consistent with those for sellers of liquid 
alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.<SUP>140

    \137\See final rule Sec. 309.12 infra.
    \138\Id.
    \139\See final rule Secs. 309.14, 309.16 infra.
    \140\16 CFR 306.7, 306.9, 306.11 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Effective date. Section 406(a) of EPA 92 requires the Commission 
to issue its final labeling rules within one year of the NPR's 
publication, but does not specify when the rules shall become 
effective. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed making the non-liquid 
alternative fuels labeling requirements effective 90 days after 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.<SUP>141 In 
developing its SNPR proposal, the Commission considered how best to 
balance consumers' needs for comparative information with industry's 
need for a reasonable period of time to come into compliance.<SUP>142 
The one comment on this issue supported the proposed effective 
date.<SUP>143 The Commission, therefore, has determined to make the 
non-liquid alternative fuels labeling requirements effective 90 days 
after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.<SUP>144

    \141\The effective date of the final amendments adding liquid 
alternative fuels to the Fuel Rating Rule was less than 90 days 
after publication of the final rules in the Federal Register. The 
final rules were published on August 3, 1993. They became effective 
on October 25, 1993, as required by EPA 92. 58 FR 41356.
    \142\The Commission based the SNPR proposal on an analysis of 
several comments stating that the proposed 90-day time period gave 
sufficient time for covered parties to comply with the proposed 
requirements. One comment contended, however, that at least six 
months was necessary. 59 FR 59666, 59679.
    \143\Mobil, I-2, 6.
    \144\See 59 FR 59666, 59679. In contrast, the effective date for 
the AFV labeling requirements is 180 days after publication in the 
Federal Register. See discussion in section III(C)(5) infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Periodic updating of labels. In the SNPR, the Commission 
proposed no [[Page 26937]] specific timetable for future reviews of the 
final labeling rules, although it recognized that section 406(a) of EPA 
92 requires the Commission to update its labeling requirements 
``periodically.'' The Commission determined not to specify a timetable 
after analyzing comments encouraging it to review the rule as consensus 
specifications are developed for alternative fuels, as new alternative 
fuels enter the marketplace and as technology develops.<SUP>145 The 
Commission received no comments addressing this aspect of its SNPR 
proposal.

    \145\See discussion of comments of API, CEC, and TVA in the 
SNPR, 59 FR 59666, 59679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on other comments in this proceeding, and recognizing that it 
cannot predict when new relevant developments may occur, the Commission 
has determined not to establish a specific timetable for future reviews 
of the final rule. As required by section 406(a) of EPA 92, the 
Commission intends to conduct reviews to update the rule periodically, 
as needed, to take into consideration relevant developments, such as 
when DOE designates new non-liquid alternative fuels. The rule, 
however, will be reviewed at least once every ten years pursuant to the 
Commission's ongoing regulatory review project.

C. Labeling Requirements for AFVs

    Twenty-one of the 24 comments received in response to the SNPR 
addressed some aspect of the Commission's proposed labeling 
requirements for AFVs. These comments addressed either the scope of the 
proposed labeling requirements (i.e., which vehicles would be covered 
by the labeling requirements) or the proposed rule's disclosures (i.e., 
what information would be required to be displayed on labels and how 
that information would be displayed).<SUP>146 Those comments, and the 
Commission's modifications to the proposed rule in response to those 
comments, are discussed below.

    \146\Two of the three other comments were limited to encouraging 
metric disclosures on AFV labels. See Mechtly, I-1, Sokol, I-17, 
discussed infra section VI. The third comment was limited to the 
SNPR's proposal as it related to alternative fuels. Unocal, I-5.
1. Scope of the AFV Labeling Requirement
    In its SNPR, the Commission proposed that the scope of its AFV 
labeling requirements be based upon, or derived from, existing 
pertinent federal regulations. Eleven comments addressed this aspect of 
the AFV labeling requirements. Six other comments indicated general 
support for the Commission's labeling proposal, but did not address 
this specific issue.<SUP>147 The remaining five addressed one or more 
issues pertaining to the scope of the AFV labeling requirements, as 
discussed below.

    \147\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 3; Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 4; Comm 
Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; NAFA, I-10, 1, 2; RFA, I-3, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Covered AFVs. In the SNPR, the Commission considered whether its 
labeling requirements should apply to all AFVs, as that term is defined 
in EPA 92, or whether they should apply to only certain vehicles. As 
defined by that statute, an AFV is either ``a dedicated vehicle or a 
dual fueled vehicle.''<SUP>148 As further defined, a ``dedicated 
vehicle'' means an automobile (or other self-propelled vehicle), 
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway, 
that operates solely on alternative fuel.<SUP>149 Similarly, a ``dual 
fueled vehicle'' is an automobile (or other self-propelled vehicle), 
designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway, 
that is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or 
diesel fuel.<SUP>150 As such, the statutory scope of an ``AFV'' is 
quite wide and includes tour buses, transit buses, heavy-duty 
commercial trucks, and large motor homes.

    \148\42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \149\See 42 U.S.C. 13211(6) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dedicated 
vehicle'' is either a ``dedicated automobile,'' as defined in 15 
U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(C) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that 
operates solely on alternative fuel).
    \150\See 42 U.S.C. 13211(8) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dual fueled 
vehicle'' is either a ``dual fueled automobile,'' as defined in 15 
U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(D) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that is 
capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel 
fuel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the practicality and appropriateness of including 
all AFVs within the scope of its labeling requirements, the Commission 
proposed in the SNPR to exclude AFVs with gross vehicle weight ratings 
(``GVWR''<SUP>151) over 8,500 lbs. The SNPR included a definition of 
``covered vehicles'' (i.e., in substance, AFVs under 8,500 lbs. GVWR), 
in the proposed rule.<SUP>152 The Commission derived that definition 
from EPA 92's definition of the term ``light duty motor vehicles,'' a 
term given special significance by that statute.<SUP>153 EPA 92's 
definition of that term references two vehicle classifications used by 
the Clean Air Act (light duty trucks or light duty vehicles) ``of less 
than or equal to 8,500 pounds [GVWR].''<SUP>154 The Clean Air 
Act<SUP>155 in turn refers to existing EPA definitions of both vehicle 
classifications.<SUP>156 Thus, the proposed definition of ``covered 
vehicle'' basically encompassed the same category of vehicle referenced 
in EPA 92's fleet acquisition requirements.

    \151\EPA defines GVWR as a vehicle's actual weight (including 
all standard and optional equipment and fuel) plus 300 pounds. See 
40 CFR 86.082-2 (1993) (defining ``GVWR,'' ``loaded vehicle 
weight,'' and ``vehicle curb weight'').
    \152\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(f) (defining ``covered 
vehicle''), 59 FR 59666, 59703. The term ``covered vehicle'' was 
derived from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's (``EPCA'') use 
of the term ``covered product.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2), 6292(a) 
(statute's scope defined in terms of enumerated consumer products); 
16 CFR 305.2, 305.3 (1994) (same for Commission's Appliance Labeling 
Rule implementing EPCA).
    \153\Three of EPA 92's five ``major'' alternative-fuel 
provisions impose minimum vehicle-acquisition requirements on 
designated entities (i.e., the Federal government; alternative fuel 
providers; and other non-Federal fleets). H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 
102d Cong., 2d Sess. 137, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1960. 
For alternative fuel providers and other non-Federal fleets, the 
vehicles covered by those mandates are ``light duty motor 
vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory 
acquisition requirement for alternative fuel providers); 42 U.S.C. 
13257 (Supp. IV 1993) (contingent acquisition requirement for other 
non-Federal fleet operators).
    The Federal fleet is required to acquire ``light duty [AFVs],'' 
a term not defined in EPA 92, instead of ``light duty motor 
vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory 
acquisition requirement for Federal government). Neither the statute 
nor its legislative history suggests that those terms have different 
meanings and the discrepancy may have been inadvertent. In any 
event, it appears that the intent was to tailor the Federal fleet's 
acquisition requirement to certain AFVs.
    \154\42 U.S.C. 13211(11) (Supp. IV 1993) (``The term `light duty 
motor vehicle' means a light duty truck or light duty vehicle, as 
such terms are defined under section 216(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 
U.S.C. 7550(7)), of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds [GVWR].'').
    \155\42 U.S.C. 7550(7) (the terms ``light duty truck'' and 
``light duty vehicle'' ``have the meaning provided in regulations 
promulgated by the [EPA] Administrator and in effect as of the 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'').
    \156\A light duty truck is defined as ``[a]ny motor vehicle 
rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as (sic) a vehicle curb 
weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal 
area of 45 square feet or less, which is (1) Designed primarily for 
purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a 
vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and 
has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with 
special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and 
use.'' 40 CFR 86.082-2 (1993). A light duty vehicle is defined as 
``a passenger car or passenger car derivative capable of seating 12 
passengers or less.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments specifically addressed this issue. AAMA<SUP>157 and 
EMA supported excluding AFVs over 8,500 lbs. GVWR from the scope of the 
AFV labeling requirements.<SUP>158 However, these comments also 
suggested that one element of the SNPR's definition of ``covered 
vehicle'' be modified to exclude vehicles configured ``with special 
features enabling off-street or [[Page 26938]] off-highway operation 
and use.''<SUP>159 It appears that this suggestion may have been based 
upon their belief that consumers considering such vehicles would not 
likely make choices and comparisons based upon simple labels. The City 
of Chicago, however, generally supported including all AFVs within the 
scope of the AFV labeling requirements without specifically addressing 
the Commission's proposal.<SUP>160

    \157\Three comments fully supported AAMA's comment. Chrysler, I-
13, 1; Ford, I-4, 2; NGVPA, I-19, 1.
    \158\AAMA, I-16, cover letter at 1; EMA, I-6, 1-2.
    \159\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(f)(2)(iii), 59 FR 59666, 
59703; AAMA, I-16, cover letter at 1; EMA, I-6, 2.
    \160\Chicago, J-2, 2. AAMA and Mobil also made the general 
observation that definitions in the AFV labeling requirements should 
be consistent with other regulatory plans. AAMA, I-16, 7 (``The 
definitions used in the regulation must be consistent with those 
used by other regulatory agencies.''); Mobil, I-2, 8 (``As long as 
the definition in this rule is coordinated with DOE, then this 
rulemaking will be consistent with forthcoming EPAct rules from 
DOE.''). AAMA further commented that ``common definitions would also 
be useful.'' AAMA, I-16, 7. It did not specify, however, how the FTC 
should determine where ``common definitions,'' as opposed to 
definitions used by other agencies, would be more appropriate.
    After considering the record, the Commission has determined to 
issue its SNPR proposal as to this subject with one modification. As 
noted previously, the Commission must issue uniform labeling 
requirements for AFVs only ``to the greatest extent 
practicable.''<SUP>161 Labeling requirements for all such vehicles 
might help educate consumers about the general availability of AFVs of 
all sizes. However, the Commission has concluded that consumers 
considering vehicles over 8,500 lbs. GVWR would not likely make choices 
and comparisons based on the cost-benefit information contained in a 
simple label.<SUP>162 The Commission also considered including all AFVs 
(regardless of weight) and developing different label formats tailored 
to the apparently different needs of light and heavy-duty AFV 
consumers. This did not appear to be practical because heavier vehicles 
are typically custom ordered. While these evaluations may change in the 
future, for now at least it seems likely that for consumers considering 
such vehicles, disclosures in a labeling format may not be appropriate, 
useful, or timely. The Commission also notes that EPA's fuel economy 
requirements (disclosing fuel economy information in window stickers) 
do not apply to vehicles over 8,500 lbs. GVWR.<SUP>163 As a result, the 
Commission has determined that, at the present time, AFVs over 8,500 
lbs. GVWR will not be included within the scope of its AFV labeling 
requirements.

    \161\42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \162\EMA, G-21, 2, 3-4, 7, (Tr.), 123. EMA cited examples where 
the considerations relevant to ordering a heavy-duty AFV were 
summarized in an OEM's 25-page sales brochure and a 400-page truck 
data book. EMA (Supp.), G-21, 2-3. See also AAMA, G-7, 3-4, (Tr.), 
124 (purchasing decision ``will already have been made long before 
[purchaser] walks into the showroom and sees the label''); Flxible 
(Supp.), G-12, 1-3 (window stickers should be for vehicles purchased 
for personal use and from dealer lots, i.e., under 8,500 lbs. GVWR), 
(Tr.), 134 (rule should be limited to passenger-type vehicles). 
Chrysler and Ford supported AAMA's position that these vehicles 
should be excluded from the scope of the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements. Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1.
    \163\EPA (Tr.), 122; 40 CFR 600.002-85(4)(iii) (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the Commission has also determined that it 
should modify its definition of ``covered vehicle'' by excluding from 
its scope ``off-street'' or ``off-highway'' vehicles. Such vehicles 
would more likely be acquired for specialized commercial uses, instead 
of general commercial or individual use. The Commission also notes that 
EPA's fuel economy requirements (disclosing fuel economy information in 
window stickers) do not apply to such vehicles.<SUP>164 As such, the 
Commission believes that consumers considering such vehicles would not 
likely make choices and comparisons based on the cost-benefit 
information contained in a simple label. Accordingly, such vehicles are 
excluded from the AFV labeling requirements.

    \164\See 40 CFR 600.002-85(4) (defining ``automobile'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. AFV Manufacturers and Conversion Companies. Another facet of the 
proposal regarding covered AFVs involved conversions (i.e., existing 
conventional-fuel vehicles reconfigured to permit operation on 
alternative fuel) and what entity would be responsible for compliance. 
In developing the proposed rule, the Commission took particular note of 
recently-issued EPA regulations addressing this subject. Those 
regulations implemented a provision of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments (``CAAA'') deeming that ``person[s] who convert conventional 
vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles'' are ``manufacturers,'' and thus 
responsible for complying with some or all of EPA's certification, 
production, line testing, in-use testing, warranty, and recall 
requirements.<SUP>165 In the preamble announcing those regulations, EPA 
noted that two entities could be considered the ``person who 
converts'': the person who installs the conversion kit (i.e., the 
hardware converting the vehicle to alternative fuel), or the person who 
manufactures the conversion kit.<SUP>166 After considering the 
advantages and disadvantages of assigning liability to either entity, 
EPA concluded that assigning liability strictly to either entity was 
not appropriate. Instead, it determined it should assign liability 
based on which party was in the best position to be familiar with 
pertinent vehicle-performance characteristics.

    \165\42 U.S.C. 7587(c); Emission Standards for Clean-Fuel 
Vehicles and Engines, Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle 
Conversions, and California Pilot Test Program (``Fleet Standards 
Rule''), 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062, Sept. 30, 1994.
    \166\Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interpreting its own regulations, EPA determined that the entity 
best suited to comply with these requirements was the entity (kit 
installer, manufacturer, or other) who had applied for and received a 
certificate of conformity that the vehicle meets appropriate EPA 
emission standards.<SUP>167 Based on public comment received during 
that proceeding, EPA anticipated that in most cases the kit 
manufacturer would be the certifying party because this entity would be 
in the best position to perform the required certification 
testing.<SUP>168 Accordingly, EPA further expected that its regulations 
would encourage certifiers to develop oversight programs and enter into 
indemnification agreements with installers to insure that installations 
were performed properly.<SUP>169

    \167\Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062.
    \168\Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062.
    \169\Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062, 50064. 
Given the nature of their liability, EPA noted that ``[k]it 
manufacturers would be wholly within their rights to require such 
indemnification agreements before allowing installers to install 
their kit.'' Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the issue of AFV conversions, the Commission noted 
that section 406 does not address the issue of AFV conversions. The 
Commission's intent in considering this topic was to address what the 
Commission understood was a significant segment of the AFV industry. 
DOE has noted that: ``Because of the limited availability and selection 
of [OEM] vehicles, conversions are providing a transition to the time 
when automakers produce more [AFVs] for public sale.''<SUP>170

    \170\B-3, inside front cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The demand for AFVs is being driven, at least in part, by the 
acquisition requirements for centrally fueled fleets contained in the 
1990 CAAA.<SUP>171 Those requirements ``may be met through the 
conversion of existing or new gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles to 
clean-fuel vehicles.''<SUP>172 Parties affected by those mandates, as 
well as others interested in achieving the clean-air benefits of 
driving AFVs, may have an incentive to [[Page 26939]] convert existing 
vehicles to alternative fuel. The Commission therefore believed that it 
should address this issue in this proceeding to the greatest extent 
practicable, and thereby help consumers compare different alternative 
fuels and conversion systems.

    \171\The CAAA's acquisition requirements are in addition to 
similar requirements, described infra section III(C)(1)(c), imposed 
by EPA 92.
    \172\42 U.S.C. 7587(a).
    Accordingly, in the SNPR, the Commission proposed that the entity 
responsible for complying with the labeling requirements for new 
covered vehicles<SUP>173 would be the vehicle's ``manufacturer.'' The 
proposed rule defined ``manufacturer'' as ``the person who obtains a 
certificate of conformity that the vehicle complies with the standards 
and requirements of [EPA's emission and clean-fuel vehicle 
regulations].''<SUP>174 Under the proposed rule, manufacturers of new 
covered vehicles would be required to affix (or cause to be affixed) 
new vehicle labels on each such vehicle prior to its being offered for 
acquisition by consumers.<SUP>175 If, however, an ``aftermarket 
conversion system'' (i.e., a conversion kit)<SUP>176 is installed on a 
vehicle by a person other than the manufacturer prior to being acquired 
by a consumer, the manufacturer would be responsible for providing that 
person with the objective information regarding that vehicle required 
by the proposed rule.<SUP>177

    \173\AFV labeling requirements for used covered vehicles are 
discussed infra section III(C)(1)(d).
    \174\Proposed rule Sec. 309.1(r), 59 FR 59666, 59704.
    \175\Proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(1), 59 FR 59666, 59707.
    \176\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(b) (defining ``aftermarket 
conversion system''), 59 FR 59666, 59707. This definition was 
derived from a recently-issued EPA definition of the same term. See 
59 FR 48472, 48490, to be codified at 40 CFR 85.502(c).
    \177\See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2), 59 FR 59666, 59707. 
Specific data proposed to be disclosed on labels for new covered 
AFVs is discussed infra section III(C)(2)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's intent in formulating these definitions was to 
distinguish between two different categories of conversions based on 
whether a vehicle was converted to alternative fuel before or after it 
is delivered to the first consumer. Conversions performed before a 
vehicle is delivered to a first consumer bear similarities to OEM AFVs 
because in both circumstances the vehicles are configured to 
alternative fuel before delivery to the first consumer. In the SNPR, 
the Commission tentatively determined that consumers considering these 
converted AFVs would thus have equal need for comparative information 
as consumers considering other ``new'' vehicles.<SUP>178 It therefore 
proposed to include such conversions within the scope of its AFV 
labeling requirements.

    \178\See AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6 (``We agree with the FTC and 
others that vehicles that are converted prior to being delivered to 
the first time buyer should be labeled in the same fashion as other 
'new' vehicles.''); ETC, G-24, 4 (``All vehicles that are considered 
`new' vehicles, regardless of whether they are sold by an original 
equipment manufacturer or a converter or upfitter, should be subject 
to the labeling requirement.''). Commenters responding to the 
Commission's ANPR were in similar agreement. See 59 FR 24014, 24016 
nn. 53, 54 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the second category, the Commission proposed that companies 
performing conversions after the vehicle is delivered to a consumer (so 
called ``aftermarket conversions'') should be excluded from the AFV 
labeling requirements because those consumers would have already been 
educated about the costs and benefits of alternative fuels.<SUP>179 The 
Commission based that proposal on its determination that consumers 
considering conversion of existing vehicles would not benefit from a 
``labeling'' requirement, and that the circumstances surrounding such 
conversions may make such a requirement impractical or 
unnecessary.<SUP>180 For example, the Commission understood that some 
consumers convert their vehicles themselves without utilizing the 
services of a conversion installation company. Further, companies 
performing conversions, at a consumer's request, would have nothing to 
label until the consumer had already decided to do a conversion, and 
labeling the vehicle post-conversion would not be helpful,<SUP>181 as 
consumers presumably already have evaluated alternative fuels in 
deciding to have their vehicle converted. Finally, requiring conversion 
companies to disclose objective information as to comparative factors 
will likely be problematic because such information can vary with the 
vehicle's condition.<SUP>182

    \179\AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6, 3-4, (Tr.), 231-232; ETC, G-24, 4.
    \180\DOE, E-10, 3-4 (``It would be more difficult, and perhaps 
unnecessary, for in-use vehicles (already owned and operated) that 
are converted to use alternative fuels during their vehicle life to 
meet the AFV labeling requirements.'').
    \181\Further, as noted, requiring disclosure other than in a 
labeling format may be beyond the scope of the Commission's 
authority under EPA 92. See supra section III(A).
    \182\EPA (Tr.), 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, the Commission noted that DOE has addressed 
conversions of existing vehicles in its consumer information 
brochure.<SUP>183 Some of the information contained in that brochure is 
general (e.g., electric vehicle conversions ``are available in larger 
metropolitan areas. Contact OEM dealer for qualified converter and 
warranty information''),<SUP>184 while some is more specific and 
objective. For example, the brochure notes that converting an existing 
conventional-fueled vehicle to CNG ``costs about $2,700 to $5,000 per 
vehicle.''<SUP>185 Given the apparent impracticalities surrounding a 
requirement for aftermarket alternative-fuel conversions, and the 
availability of pertinent information in DOE's brochure, the Commission 
proposed excluding from its AFV labeling requirements situations where 
conventional fueled vehicles are converted to alternative fuel after 
being acquired by consumers.<SUP>186

    \183\EPA 92 requires that DOE's information package ``include 
information with respect to the conversion of conventional motor 
vehicles to [AFVs].'' 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \184\B-3, 16.
    \185\B-3, 23.
    \186\See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2) (limiting labeling 
requirements for new covered vehicles to conversion systems 
installed ``prior to such vehicle's being acquired by a consumer''), 
59 FR 59666, 59707.
    Four comments addressed this issue. AAMA and Mobil generally 
observed that definitions in the AFV labeling requirements should be 
consistent with other regulatory plans.<SUP>187 Regarding the substance 
of the Commission's proposal, Electro Auto generally supported 
exempting aftermarket conversions while the City of Chicago opposed 
such an exemption because it believed that future buyers of AFVs should 
have access to the same information as buyers of original 
equipment.<SUP>188 Comments previously filed agreed that all vehicles 
designed and assembled by OEMS to operate on alternative fuel should be 
included within the scope of the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements.<SUP>189

    \187\AAMA, I-16, 7; Mobil, I-2, 8.
    \188\Chicago, J-2, 1, 2, 3; Electro Auto, I-7, 1.
    \189\See, e.g., Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; ETC, G-24, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined to 
adopt the SNPR proposal regarding which conversions are covered without 
modification. Because harmonizing regulatory approaches, when 
practicable, is appropriate and desirable, the Commission has based its 
approach to determining which entities are responsible for complying 
with its AFV labeling requirements on EPA's regulations addressing the 
same issue. The Commission has determined to designate the certifier as 
being responsible for compliance with these requirements because that 
entity will be in the best position to know the vehicle's performance 
attributes. The Commission also expects that certifiers will take steps 
to insure compliance with this revised labeling proposal by installers, 
such as developing oversight programs and entering into 
[[Page 26940]] indemnification agreements with installers to insure 
that accurate labels are posted as required.
    c. Acquisitions by consumers. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed 
that its labeling requirements apply to covered vehicles offered for 
``acquisition'' to consumers.<SUP>190 The intent of this proposal was 
to include purchases and long-term leasing arrangements within the 
scope of the AFV labeling requirements. The Commission also proposed to 
define the term ``consumer'' to include individuals, corporations, 
partnerships, associations, States, municipalities, political 
subdivisions of States, and agencies, departments, or instrumentalities 
of the United States.<SUP>191 Responding to this aspect of the 
Commission's proposal, AAMA and Mobil generally observed that 
definitions in the AFV labeling requirements should be consistent with 
other regulatory plans.<SUP>192

    \190\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(a)(1) (new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(a) (used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.
    \191\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(d) (defining ``consumer''), 59 
FR 59666, 59703.
    \192\AAMA, I-16, 7; Mobil, I-2, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined to 
issue its SNPR proposal as to this subject without modification. As to 
the definition of ``consumer,'' the proposed definition of this term 
was derived from section 302(e) of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments<SUP>193 and EPA's regulation implementing that section, 40 
CFR Sec. 88.302-94 (1993). The Commission believes that this definition 
properly includes within its scope all affected interests.

    \193\42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining ``person'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to leasing arrangements, because Congressional mandates will 
require consumers to ``acquire'' AFVs,<SUP>194 the Commission has 
determined that its AFV labeling requirements should include such 
arrangements to the greatest extent practicable to further EPA 92's 
legislative purpose. In determining what is practicable, the Commission 
believes that consumers entering into leasing arrangements may have 
different information needs depending upon the length of the 
arrangement. For example, consumers entering into long-term leasing 
arrangements often do so for commercial purposes, and make leasing 
choices based on evaluating factors pertinent to a commercial 
acquisition. These persons likely would need the same vehicle 
information as purchasers and should be covered by the rule. Consumers 
entering into short-term arrangements (e.g., weekend rentals to the 
general public for non-commercial purposes) may or may not have similar 
or equal need for pertinent information, but it seems unlikely that 
consumers entering into short-term leasing arrangements would make 
decisions based upon information disclosed in a label. In any event, 
they may not view the vehicle until after it has been leased. As a 
result, the labels would not help consumers make choices and 
comparisons. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that including 
short-term leasing arrangements in the final rule is not necessary.

    \194\For example, EPA 92 requires that, ``The Federal Government 
shall acquire at least 5,000 light duty [AFVs] in fiscal year 
1993.'' 42 U.S.C. 13212(a)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule defines an acquisition as including either of the 
following: (1) acquiring the beneficial title to a covered vehicle; or 
(2) acquiring a covered vehicle for transportation purposes pursuant to 
a contract or similar arrangement for a period of 120 days or 
more.<SUP>195 This definition was derived from a recent EPA regulation 
implementing aspects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,<SUP>196 
which used the 120 day period as the dividing line between short and 
long-term leases. In the preamble announcing that regulation, EPA 
determined that the 120 day period is slightly longer than a calendar 
season and that leases of less than that period were therefore short-
term and temporary.<SUP>197 The Commission finds that the 120 day 
period reflects a reasonable demarcation between short- and long-term 
rentals, and therefore has adopted EPA's determination.

    \195\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(a) (defining ``acquisition''), 
59 FR 59666, 59703.
    \196\Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Definitions and General 
Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64689-64690, Dec. 9, 1993 (defining the 
phrase ``owned or operated, leased or otherwise controlled by such 
person'' as used in section 241(5) of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7581(5)).
    \197\58 FR 64679, 64689, 64690 (excluding leases under 120 days 
from Clean Fuel Fleet Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Used AFVs. In the SNPR, the Commission tentatively determined 
that both new and used AFVs should be included within the scope of its 
labeling requirements, but that they should be subject to different 
requirements. The proposed rule defined the terms ``new covered 
vehicle'' and ``used covered vehicle'' and established labeling 
requirements as to each classification.<SUP>198 Under the proposed 
rule, a new covered vehicle was defined as a covered vehicle which has 
not yet been acquired by a consumer,<SUP>199 while a used covered 
vehicle was defined (in substance) as a covered vehicle which 
previously has been acquired by a consumer.<SUP>200 The proposed rule 
also defined the terms ``new vehicle dealer''<SUP>201 and ``used 
vehicle dealer.''<SUP>202

    \198\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20 (``Labeling requirements for 
new covered vehicles''), 309.21 (``Labeling requirements for used 
covered vehicles''), 59 FR 59666, 59707.
    \199\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(t) (defining ``new covered 
vehicle''), 59 FR 59666, 59704.
    \200\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(dd) (defining ``used covered 
vehicle''), 59 FR 59666, 59704. This definition was derived from the 
Commission's definition of the term ``used vehicle'' in its Used Car 
Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2) (1994).
    \201\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(u), 59 FR 59666, 59704. This 
definition was derived from EPA's definition of the term ``dealer,'' 
the entity responsible for maintaining fuel economy labels on new 
automobiles. See 40 CFR 600.002-93(a)(18) (1993) (defining 
``dealer''). Under EPA's regulations, consumers selling used 
automobiles are not required to post or maintain fuel economy 
labels. In this final rule, the Commission similarly intends that 
individual consumers not be required to comply with the AFV labeling 
requirements.
    \202\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ee), 59 FR 59666, 59704. This 
definition was derived from the Commission's definition of 
``dealer'' in its Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3) (1994).
    Because requiring the disclosure of comparative information on used 
AFVs was deemed problematic,<SUP>203 the proposed rule established two 
labeling formats (i.e., new vehicle labels<SUP>204 and used vehicle 
labels<SUP>205) disclosing different types of information for new and 
used covered AFVs.<SUP>206 For example, because some cost-benefit 
information is included on temporary window stickers (e.g., EPA's fuel 
economy rating) or in vehicle owner's manuals, a used AFV dealer may 
not always possess such information. In any event, some comparative 
information (e.g., EPA's fuel economy rating) could vary significantly 
with the vehicle's condition.<SUP>207 Requiring disclosure of 
information based on the vehicle's condition when new could therefore 
create a risk of misleading consumers.<SUP>208 To address one problem 
inherent in such a disclosure (i.e., the unavailability of pertinent 
information), the Commission has considered requiring that disclosures 
be displayed on permanent vehicle labeling.<SUP>209 However, this 
option would not surmount the more basic problem that objective 
information may no longer accurately reflect the vehicle's present 
condition [[Page 26941]] (and thus would not form a valid basis upon 
which to make reasonable choices and comparisons).<SUP>210

    \203\ETC, G-24, 4; RFA (Tr.), 217.
    \204\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(v) (defining ``new vehicle 
labels''), 59 FR 59666, 59704.
    \205\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ff) (defining ``used vehicle 
labels''), 59 FR 59666, 59704.
    \206\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(e) (new covered vehicles) 
and 309.21(e) (used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.
    \207\EPA (Tr.), 220.
    \208\Id.
    \209\Chicago, J-2, 2 (permanent labeling on all AFVs would help 
state and local governments enforce regulations pertaining to 
preferential parking and other transportation control measures).
    \210\While consumers may expect that used vehicles will have 
different performance attributes than new cars, if the Commission 
required disclosure of specific data on standard labels (based on 
the vehicle's condition when new), it might create the impression 
with some consumers that these disclosures may still be valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments addressed this issue. AAMA supported including used 
vehicles within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements.<SUP>211 
Electro Auto stated that they should be excluded.<SUP>212 Mobil stated 
that definitions in the AFV labeling requirements should be consistent 
with other regulatory plans.<SUP>213

    \211\AAMA, I-16, 7. That comment, however, proposed a different 
format for used vehicle labels.
    \212\Electro Auto, I-7, 1. Electro Auto's objection may have 
been based on a misapprehension that labels for used AFVs would 
require disclosure of performance attributes specific to that 
vehicle. The SNPR did not propose such disclosures.
    \213\Mobil, I-2, 8 (``As long as the definition in this rule is 
coordinated with DOE, then this rulemaking will be consistent with 
forthcoming EPAct rules from DOE.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission determined to issue 
its SNPR proposal as to this subject without modification. The 
Commission notes that EPA 92's definition of AFV makes no distinction 
between new and used vehicles.<SUP>214 In addition, the record 
indicated that consumers would likely have the same need for 
information, and would consider the same factors, whether they were 
contemplating a new or used AFV acquisition.<SUP>215 At the Workshop, 
two participants also stated that used AFVs should be included in this 
proceeding at the present time because used AFVs are (or will soon be) 
offered for sale to consumers.<SUP>216 Thus, the Commission has 
concluded that including such vehicles within the scope of its AFV 
labeling requirements is appropriate. As described more fully below, 
labeling for used covered AFVs does not require, however, disclosure of 
objective performance data.

    \214\See 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993) (defining ``AFV'').
    \215\AMI (Tr.), 136, 218; Boston Edison, G-26, 10; ETC, G-24, 4; 
NAFA, G-20, 5, (Tr.), 222; PCC, G-22, 2; RFA, G-5, 5, (Tr.), 217.
    \216\See AMI (Tr.), 218 (``[T]his is a real problem now. There 
are nearly 10,000 [flexible] fuel vehicles in California alone, and 
* * * several hundred are being offered for sale now to private 
consumers.''). See also NAFA (Tr.), 222:
    I think one of the things you have to be concerned about looking 
down the road with alternative fuels is that if there is not a 
resale market for these vehicles, the program will wither and die * 
* * So we don't have a procedure to provide information to that 
second purchaser. And they have questions about alternative fuels. 
And they don't know how to go about getting a brochure like this * * 
* If you don't create the resale market, then the first market 
doesn't really develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Disclosures on AFV Labeling
    As discussed below, 21 of the 24 commenters addressed the substance 
of the Commission's proposed AFV labeling requirements (i.e., the 
information to be disclosed on AFV labels).<SUP>217 Pursuant to EPA 
92's mandate, the Commission developed this aspect of the final rule 
based on two sets of considerations. First, the Commission determined 
the type of information consumers would find most appropriate, useful, 
and timely in making AFV choices and comparisons. For example, the 
Commission stated in the SNPR that consumers would require disclosure 
of more comparative information when considering an AFV purchase than 
when refueling.<SUP>218 As a result, the Commission proposed that AFV 
labels disclose more comprehensive cost-benefit information to 
consumers than labels for alternative fuels. The Commission also stated 
that because few consumers have extensive experience with AFVs, its 
labeling proposal should be designed to be useful to a general consumer 
audience.<SUP>219 Finally, the Commission concluded that, because DOE 
was required to prepare and distribute an information package for 
consumers, there was less need to attempt to present complex 
information in the constrained format of an AFV label.

    \217\Unocal, I-5, addressed the proposal for labeling of 
alternative fuels. Two other comments (Mechtly, I-1, and Sokol, I-
17) addressed metric issues. See section VI infra.
    \218\59 FR 59666, 59684. All nine commenters addressing that 
issue supported the Commission's assessment. AAMA (Tr.), 37-38; AMI, 
G-3, 1; Boston Edison (Tr.), 84; CEC, H-8, 1; ETC (Tr.), 42; NAFA 
(Tr.), 53; NPGA (Tr.), 50, 51; RFA, G-5, 4; Sun, G-1, 2.
    \219\Chicago, J-2, 1 (AFV labeling requirement should target all 
consumers).
    After determining what would likely be appropriate, useful, and 
timely to consumers, the Commission analyzed the problems associated 
with developing and publishing such cost-benefit information. For 
example, the Commission considered the extent to which balanced, 
accurate information for pertinent comparative factors could be 
conveyed on the ``simple'' label envisioned by Congress. It also 
considered whether appropriate technical standards existed to compare 
some factors, and whether providing the same information required on 
labels by other government agencies (in different formats) could 
confuse consumers.
    After evaluating those issues, the Commission proposed in the SNPR 
an AFV label disclosing a combination of information in a three-part 
format,<SUP>220 concluding this would be most useful to consumers 
making choices and comparisons. The first part would disclose objective 
information pertaining to each particular AFV, while the second and 
third parts would disclose information pertaining to AFVs in general. 
This final rule is the result of the Commission's analysis of all 
pertinent considerations, the rulemaking record and recent 
developments. As described in more detail below, the Commission 
continues to find that a combination of objective and descriptive 
information will best meet consumers' needs for comparative cost-
benefit information. The Commission also concludes that this format 
will best address the problems associated with developing and 
publishing such information.

    \220\59 FR 24014, 24019-24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Specific data disclosures. In the SNPR the Commission proposed 
that labels for new covered AFVs disclose two types of objective 
information particular to each AFV: cruising range and EPA 
certification level.<SUP>221 Seven comments addressed the 
appropriateness of including objective information to consumers as to 
those factors. Boston Edison/EEI and DOE supported disclosures as to 
both factors.<SUP>222 API stated that a disclosure for cruising range 
would be a useful measure for consumer comparisons.<SUP>223 Mobil 
appeared to support requiring disclosure of cruising range, but stated 
that EPA certification levels were generally not relevant to EPA 
92.<SUP>224 Chrysler supported requiring disclosure of EPA 
certification levels, but appeared to oppose disclosure of vehicle 
cruising range.<SUP>225 Ford stated that ``most of the information 
meeting [EPA 92's mandate] is already included on existing motor 
vehicle labels.''<SUP>226 AAMA stated that it ``support[ed] the intent 
of the FTC proposal'' and that ``the specific information proposed is 
appropriate with respect to costs and benefits, so as to reasonably 
enable the consumer to make choices and comparisons.'''<SUP>227 
[[Page 26942]] The Commission's SNPR proposal as to both disclosures, 
and the comments addressing those issues, are described in more detail 
below.

    \221\Labels for used covered AFVs would not disclose objective 
information particular to each vehicle. See 59 FR 59666, 59688 
n.312, 59690 n.358.
    \222\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 4, 5-6 (both are useful to 
consumers); DOE, J-1, 2.
    \223\API, I-15, 2. API's comment did not address the 
Commission's proposal to require disclosure of EPA certification 
level.
    \224\Mobil, I-2, cover letter at 3, 9-11.
    \225\Chrysler, I-13, 1.
    \226\Ford, I-4, 1.
    \227\AAMA, I-16, 1. AAMA did not, however, support the ``manner 
by which this information is [displayed].'' Id. For used covered 
vehicles, AAMA stated that labels should ``contain only the 
information necessary to indicate that the vehicle operates on 
alternative fuels and to list the fuels that can be used in the 
vehicle.'' AAMA, I-16, 1. As noted previously, three comments fully 
supported AAMA's comment. Chrysler, I-13, 1; Ford, I-4, 2; NGVPA, I-
19, 1.
    (1) Cruising range. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that 
cruising range should be disclosed on labels for new covered 
AFVs.<SUP>228 Under the Commission's revised proposal, cruising range 
would be displayed on AFV labels in two formats. The first labeling 
format would be for dedicated covered AFVs (i.e., covered AFVs designed 
to operate solely on alternative fuel).<SUP>229 Labels for these 
vehicles would disclose the manufacturer's ``estimated cruising range'' 
for that vehicle (i.e., the manufacturer's reasonable estimate of the 
number of miles a covered vehicle will travel between refueling or 
recharging), expressed as a lower estimate and an upper 
estimate.<SUP>230

    \228\The Commission did not propose requiring disclosure of this 
information on labels for used covered AFVs because that information 
could vary significantly with a vehicle's condition. Requiring 
disclosure of cruising range information on used vehicles could 
therefore mislead consumers.
    \229\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(g) (defining ``dedicated''), 
59 FR 59666, 59703.
    \230\See proposed rules Secs. 309.1(o) (defining ``estimated 
cruising range''), 309.20(e)(2)(i) (requiring disclosure of 
estimated cruising range for dedicated vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
59704, 59707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second labeling format would be for dual-fueled covered AFVs 
(i.e., vehicles capable of being powered both by an alternative fuel 
and a conventional fuel).<SUP>231 Labels for these vehicles would 
disclose two sets of values: the manufacturer's reasonable estimate of 
(a) the minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel 
between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on 
alternative fuel, and (b) the minimum and maximum number of miles the 
vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated 
exclusively on conventional fuel.<SUP>232 Because the disclosure would 
relate solely to the manufacturer's estimated (and not actual) cruising 
range, both label formats would include a statement advising consumers 
that their actual cruising range will vary with options, driving 
conditions, driving habits and the AFV's condition.<SUP>233

    \231\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(i) (defining ``dual fueled''), 
59 FR 59666, 59704.
    \232\See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(e)(2)(ii) (requiring 
disclosure of estimated cruising range for dual-fueled vehicles), 59 
FR 59666, 59707.
    \233\EPA's fuel economy labels contain a similar statement. See 
40 CFR 600.307-86(a)(3)(ii)(A) (1993) (``Actual mileage will vary 
with options, driving conditions, driving habits, and [vehicle's/
truck's] condition.''). See SNPR Figures 4 and 5, 59 FR 59666, 
59710-59711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cruising range values would be expressed in whole numbers and 
calculated in one of three ways. For vehicles required to comply with 
EPA's fuel economy labeling provisions,<SUP>234 cruising range values 
would be calculated by reference to the vehicle's estimated fuel 
economy rating.<SUP>235 For example, the lower range value would be 
determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by 
its fuel tank or battery capacity, then rounding to the next lower 
integer value.<SUP>236 Conversely, the upper range value would be 
determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy 
by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer 
value.<SUP>237

    \234\See 40 CFR part 600 (1993) (``Fuel economy of motor 
vehicles'').
    \235\Numerous commenters suggested that cruising range values 
could be so calculated. See, e.g., AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3 (``Combining 
MPG with tank capacity can give the customer a reasonable estimation 
of driving range.''); AMI (Tr.), 141; CAS (Supp.), G-17, 1-2; EPA 
(Tr.), 144; RFA (Tr.), 148.
    \236\See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(i), 59 FR 59666, 59708.
    \237\See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(ii), 59 FR 59666, 
59708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, EPA is required to include AFVs powered by all 
alternative fuels within its fuel-economy labeling program, but has not 
yet announced a timetable for doing so.<SUP>238 During the transition 
to that next phase, the Commission therefore proposed a different 
approach for vehicles not yet required to comply with EPA's fuel-
economy labeling provisions. For EVs, the Commission noted that the 
Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE''), a consensus standard-setting 
organization, has issued a ``Recommended Practice'' establishing 
uniform procedures to calculate cruising range for EVs (``SAE 
J1634'').<SUP>239 The Commission believed that reliance on uniform 
standards would facilitate comparability.<SUP>240 Accordingly, the 
proposed rule requires that cruising range values for EV's be 
calculated in accordance with that standard.<SUP>241

    \238\59 FR 39638, 39639 (announcing fuel-economy test labeling 
requirements for methanol and CNG vehicles). One comment suggested 
that the Commission encourage EPA to develop further fuel economy 
regulations. ETC, I-9, 1. The Commission does not believe that is 
necessary because EPA is under a legal obligation to issue such 
regulations.
    \239\SAE's ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test 
Procedure,'' J1634, was issued in May 1993. B-33. This procedure is 
based in part on EPA's pertinent test procedures. B-33, 1, 9-10. 
Boston Edison stated that fuel economy ``can be [calculated] in a 
manner that is procedurally identical to gasoline vehicles'' by 
relying on SAE J1634. Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 5.
    \240\59 FR 59666, 59688.
    \241\See proposed rules Secs. 309.22(a)(2) (for dedicated 
vehicles), 309.22(b)(2) (for dual-fueled vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
59708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA's fuel 
economy stickers, the Commission knew of no comparable consensus 
procedure that could yield cruising range values in the proposed 
``minimum-maximum'' format. As a result, the Commission did not propose 
that manufacturers use a specific standard to determine cruising range. 
In similar situations (i.e., where the Commission has required the 
disclosure of specific information, but no consensus standards exist to 
measure such information), the Commission has required that 
manufacturers have a ``reasonable basis'' for such disclosures.<SUP>242 
Accordingly, for those vehicles, the Commission proposed that 
manufacturers be required to possess a reasonable basis, consisting of 
competent and reliable evidence, of the minimum and maximum number of 
miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or 
rechargings.<SUP>243

    \242\See, e.g., Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994) (``To 
determine automotive fuel ratings for alternative liquid automotive 
fuels, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent 
and reliable evidence, for the percentage by volume of the principal 
component of the [fuel] that you must disclose.''); Care Labeling 
Rule, 16 CFR 423.6(c)(1)-(6) (1994) (``reasonable basis'' based on 
``reliable evidence''); R-value Rule, 16 CFR 460.19(a) (1994) (``If 
you say or imply in your ads, labels, or other promotional materials 
that insulation can cut fuel bills or fuel use, you must have a 
reasonable basis for the claim.'').
    \243\See proposed rules Secs. 309.22(a)(3) (for dedicated 
vehicles), 309.22(b)(3) (for dual-fueled vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
50708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SNPR also stated that during this transition (i.e., while EPA 
is developing fuel-economy labeling requirements), the Commission would 
consider whether any new consensus test methods for determining 
cruising range constitute a reasonable basis.<SUP>244 The Commission 
expected that industry compliance with this AFV labeling rule, in 
conjunction with the need to avoid uncertainty about whether particular 
test methods or calculations constitute a reasonable basis, will 
encourage development of standardized test methods and specifications. 
This, in turn, could facilitate widespread acceptance of AFVs.

    \244\The Commission encourages DOE, as part of its ``technical 
assistance,'' to direct the development of such transition 
specifications. See 42 U.S.C. 13232(b) (Supp. IV 1993) (DOE ``shall 
provide technical assistance'' to the Commission and coordinate that 
assistance with its development of a consumer information brochure).
    Fourteen comments addressed requiring disclosure of cruising range 
as proposed in the SNPR. Five of the fourteen comments supported the 
Commission's proposal because of its usefulness to consumers in making 
[[Page 26943]] choices and comparisons.<SUP>245 For example, survey 
data cited by Boston Edison/EEI ``indicated that the distance that an 
electric car can travel is the highest ranking concern of 
consumers.''<SUP>246 Similarly, CAS supported requiring disclosure of 
this ``extremely useful'' information and NAFA stated that fleet 
managers ``have identified cruising range as one of the most important 
factors when making a decision to purchase AFVs.''<SUP>247

    \245\Five other comments generally supported the Commission's 
AFV labeling requirements without addressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, 
I-18, 2, 3; Chicago, J-2, 1; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; 
RFA, I-3, 1-2.
    \246\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 4.
    \247\CAS, I-12, 1; NAFA, I-10, 2. DOE and Mobil also supported a 
disclosure of this information. DOE, J-1, 2; Mobil, I-2, 9-10, cover 
letter at 1.
    NAFA further suggested that the Commission specify that no 
information ``be presented at the time an AFV is offered for sale 
that conflicts with information provided on the AFV label, such as 
cruising range.'' NAFA, I-10, 2. The Commission expects that 
requiring disclosure of cruising range information could encourage 
affected manufacturers and dealers generally to provide additional 
information to meet consumers' expectations and needs. See AGA/NGVC, 
G-6, 12 (``[F]uel retailers, vehicle manufacturers and trade 
associations can target and educate specialty markets and their 
consumers.''); Boston Edison, D-11, 13 (``[O]ver time, market forces 
will create incentives for sellers to identify and respond to 
consumer demands for information, much as gasoline sellers 
supplement the information that they are required to provide under 
the Commission's Octane Rule.''). The Commission concludes that it 
is not necessary to address this issue here, because section 5 of 
the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) authorizes the Commission to seek 
corrective action if, after investigation, it has reason to believe 
that advertising or marketing falls within the scope of conduct 
declared unlawful by the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three of the fourteen comments made suggestions directed at 
specific issues without specifically supporting or opposing the 
Commission's SNPR proposal.<SUP>248 For example, API noted that 
cruising range was ``a useful measure for consumer comparison'' but 
suggested that the information be expressed in terms of fuel tank 
capacity ``and miles per gallon or gallon equivalent.''<SUP>249 The 
final two of those three comments were directed at the Commission's 
proposal regarding how cruising range would be calculated for EVs. 
Toyota supported the Commission's proposal to base calculation of 
cruising range values for EVs on SAE J1634, but stated that procedure 
did not yield an upper and lower limit of the vehicle's range.<SUP>250 
CARB stated that it ``has a number of concerns'' with SAE J1634, 
including that it may allow for inflated range estimates and that its 
treatment of EVs equipped with air conditioning was not sufficiently 
precise.<SUP>251

    \248\A fourth comment, from DOT/NHTSA, noted that NHTSA recently 
proposed gallon equivalent measurements for five gaseous fuels: CNG, 
LNG, LPG, Hydrogen, and Hythane. DOT/NHTSA, J-5, 1.
    \249\API, I-15, 5.
    \250\Toyota, I-11, 2. As a result, Toyota recommended that the 
Commission require that ``The range shall be actual driving range 
determined in accordance with test methods set forth in the latest 
SAE J1634 ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and [R]ange 
Procedure.'' Id. at 3.
    \251\CARB, J-3, 2.
    Comments from domestic automakers supported the Commission's 
determination that cruising range would be ``useful''<SUP>252 and 
``important''<SUP>253 information for consumers. However, those 
commenters strongly opposed requiring a disclosure as to that factor 
because cruising range ``cannot, at this time, be provided in a manner 
which would be useful to the consumer.''<SUP>254 The automakers based 
their opposition on their belief that sufficient ``standards and 
adjustment factors'' had not yet been developed to account for 
differences in AFV technology.<SUP>255

    \252\AAMA, I-16, 2.
    \253\Electro Auto, I-7, 2.
    \254\Ford, I-4, 2. See also AAMA, I-16, 2 (``[W]e have been 
unable to adequately develop a value which would be consistent 
across fuels and manufacturers or useful to customers at this 
time.''); Electro Auto, I-7, 2 (range is ``a difficult number to pin 
down with any consistency''); ETC, I-9, 2 (Commission should defer 
requiring disclosure ``until industry-wide accepted methodologies 
for range measurement are available'').
    \255\AAMA, I-16, 6 (``The disclosure of vehicle range should not 
be provided until the standards and adjustment factors, as described 
above, can be developed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, according to AAMA, without standard fuel 
specifications,<SUP>256 EPA test procedures, and a definition of fuel 
tank capacity for all AFVs, a range of estimates would result based on 
varying assumptions which would in turn generate inconsistent and 
unhelpful estimates of vehicle range.<SUP>257 The expected use of AFVs 
by fleet operators, with different in-use driving cycles and vehicle 
maintenance practices than those used in EPA's fuel economy 
determinations, ``can [also] significantly affect range.''<SUP>258 And 
``inconsistencies and confusion'' exist between range estimates for 
flexible fuel vehicles (i.e., AFVs capable of operating on an 
alternative and conventional fuel in a single fuel tank) and bi-fuel 
vehicles (i.e., AFVs equipped with separate fuel tanks for alternative 
and conventional fuels).<SUP>259

    \256\The lack of commercial fuel specifications ``results in 
highly variable fuel energy content which could greatly affect in-
use driving range.'' AAMA, Att. II at 1.
    \257\AAMA, I-16, 2, 3, Att. II at 1, 2. Chrysler, however, 
supported disclosure of fuel tank capacity and noted that that 
information was ``currently provided.'' Chrysler, I-13, 1, 2.
    \258\AAMA, I-16, 3.
    \259\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA suggested that additional problems exist regarding calculating 
fuel economy values for EVs. For example, the SAE J1634 procedure for 
calculating EV fuel-economy values currently measures only a combined 
metro-highway fuel economy and is thus ``inadequate for these 
calculations.''<SUP>260 That Recommended Procedure also does not apply 
to hybrid EVs (i.e., vehicles capable of operating on electricity and 
conventional fuels at the same time).<SUP>261 Battery capacity for EVs 
also ``may vary with usage, age, temperature * * * and other 
factors.''<SUP>262 Accordingly, ``[f]urther experience with these 
vehicles is necessary to provide an adequate prediction of the range 
that a consumer may achieve in-use.''<SUP>263 More generally, AAMA 
concluded that

    \260\AAMA, I-16, Att. II at 1. AAMA notes, however, that the SAE 
procedure is ``currently being modified to measure city and highway 
energy consumption,'' and that the new procedure will be approved 
``some time in 1995.'' Id.
    \261\AAMA, I-16, Att. II at 2.
    \262\Id.
    \263\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [A]ny requirement that manufacturers calculate and label vehicles 
with range estimates must resolve the above issues, or least be 
deferred until these issues can be resolved * * * These estimates not 
only fail to provide valuable information to customers, but may also 
result in failure to meet customer expectations leading to customer 
dissatisfaction with [AFVs].<SUP>264

    \264\AAMA, I-16, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record relating to the threshold issue (i.e., 
whether cruising range should be disclosed on AFV labels), the 
Commission has concluded that such information is appropriate and will 
help consumers make reasonable choices and comparisons.<SUP>265 It is 
also one of the most important facts consumers need regarding whether 
and which AFV to acquire; as AAMA noted: ``This information (i.e., 
range) is vital for the consumer when deciding between various 
alternative fuels * * * .''<SUP>266 Because cruising ranges for AFVs 
can differ significantly from cruising ranges for conventional fuel 
vehicles, with which consumers are most familiar, consumers also have a 
practical need for cruising range disclosures on AFV labels. As a 
Workshop participant stated,

    \265\See, e.g., CAS (Tr.), 156 (range gives consumers ``the 
ability to compare in the showroom a very visible number that you 
can go from car to car to car and compare.''); (Supp.), G-17, 1.
    \266\AAMA, G-7, 2. See also AMI (Tr.), 141 (range is one of the 
most important factors); NAFA (Tr.), 147 (same); Boston Edison 
(Supp.), G-26, 9; (Tr.), 142 (range is most important concern of 
people considering an EV purchase).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [I]f I was leaving on a 50 or 60-mile trip and my cruising range 
could be as low as 30, I'd like to know that. So I [[Page 26944]] think 
I would like to know the low end of it even if there is a broad, you 
know, number that's not very well defined. I think it's still 
beneficial to know what the minimum, certainly the minimums are, 
because you have to be able to make it to the next fueling 
point.<SUP>267

    \267\RFA (Tr.), 149. See also RFA (Tr.), 153, (Supp.), G-5, 2 
(``[G]iven the sparsity and distance between alternative fuel 
refueling stations, vehicle owners need to be aware of approximate 
range.'').
    Displaying cruising-range values in a meaningful way to consumers 
also is feasible. Statements accompanying the cruising range values 
identify the disclosure as being a ``manufacturer's estimate,'' and 
advise consumers that actual cruising range ``will vary with options, 
driving conditions, driving habits and the vehicle's condition.'' 
Consumers are further cautioned that the labels are for comparison 
purposes and ``may not reflect actual driving range.'' A disclosure 
displayed in this format is not likely to pose problems to consumers 
accustomed to estimates.<SUP>268

    \268\AMI (Tr.), 155 (consumers understand that ``basic 
information'' on the label is not going to be precise).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has also determined that calculating cruising range 
values is feasible, as shown by the prominence with which this factor 
appears in marketing and advertising claims promoting AFV use.<SUP>269 
For example, Chrysler, GM and Ford have all made cruising range claims 
regarding their EVs in congressional testimony,<SUP>270 promotional 
material<SUP>271 and product specification sheets.<SUP>272 Chrysler and 
GM also address cruising range in owner's manuals for the 1994 Dodge 
Spirit<SUP>273 and 1993 Chevrolet Lumina.<SUP>274 Peugeot has made 
similar claims in its promotional material.<SUP>275 Companies 
converting cars to run on electricity<SUP>276 and electricity 
utilities<SUP>277 are also making cruising range claims for EVs. 
Similar claims are also being made for AFVs powered in whole or in part 
by CNG,<SUP>278 hydrogen,<SUP>279 LPG,<SUP>280 and methanol.<SUP>281 
Accordingly the Commission has determined to issue its SNPR proposal 
regarding methods for calculating cruising range values (but with four 
modifications described below) because those methods generate 
comparable cruising-range estimates.

    \269\The Commission described these claims and their prevalence 
in detail in the SNPR. 59 FR 59666, 59687-59688. Automakers 
responding to the SNPR did not address this issue.
    \270\For example, at a May 11, 1993, congressional hearing, 
representatives from Chrysler, Ford, and GM all made cruising range 
claims for their EVs. See Status of Domestic Electric Vehicle 
Development, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (statement of Doran K. 
Samples, Program Management Executive of the Electric Minivan 
Project, Chrysler, at 52, 56; Roberta J. Nichols, Electric Vehicle 
External Strategy Manager, Ford, at 60, 64, 66; and Kenneth R. 
Baker, Vice President, GM, at 76).
    \271\See GM, Progress Report, B-5, front, Spring/Summer 1993 
(GM's Impact 4 EV has ``a driving range of 70 miles in the city and 
90 miles in normal highway driving.''); GM, GM's ``Impact'' Show Car 
and New Pre-Production Electric Vehicle Lead the 104th Tournament of 
Roses, B-6, at 2, Dec. 29, 1992 (``The Impact and the pre-production 
car . . . have a useful range of 100 miles . . .''); GM, General 
Motors Electric Vehicles Fit Most Drivers' Lifestyles, B-7, at 1, 
Oct. 20, 1992 (``GM's `Impact' prototype has a highway range of 100 
miles.'').
    \272\Chrysler 1994 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, B-8, back, 
May 7, 1993; Chrysler 1994 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, B-9, 
back, Aug. 31, 1992; Ford Ecostar, B-10, back panel, undated; GM 
Impact 3, B-11, back, undated; GM Impact, B-12, back, undated (``It 
has a practical range of 80 miles per charge.'').
    \273\AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1994 Dodge Spirit Owner's Manual at 105 
(``Cruising Range: M-85 produces less energy when burned than 
gasoline. Therefore, cruising ranges and miles per gallon (MPG) will 
be considerably less when using M-85. Cruising ranges will increase 
as the content of gasoline in the fuel tank increases.'').
    \274\AAMA (Supp.), G-17, 1993 Chevrolet Lumina Owner's Manual--
Ethanol Supplement, at 4 (``When using an E-85 mixture of fuel, your 
Lumina has a range of 250-300 miles (400-480 km).''); 1992 Chevrolet 
Lumina Owner's Manual--Methanol Supplement, at 5 (``When using an M-
85 mixture of fuel, your Lumina has a range of 200-250 miles (320-
400 km).'').
    \275\PSA Peugeot Citroen, Electric Vehicles, B-13, at 3-5, 1992 
(Peugeot 106 has range of 90-160 km; Citela has range of 210 km @ 40 
kph and 110 km city, and car continuously displays remaining range; 
Peugeot 405 Station Wagon has battery range of 72 km at 40 kph and 
highway range of 750 km at 100 kph).
    \276\Dreisbach ElectroMotive, Inc., API Demi Motorola Saturn, B-
14, front, undated (range from 140 to 518 miles depending on battery 
configuration); Electro Automotive, Electro Automotive Makes 
Electric Cars Easy With The Voltsrabbit(tm) Kit, B-15, front, 
undated (range: 60-80 miles); Solar Car Corporation, Specifications 
for Chevy S-10 and GMC S-15 Pickup Truck (converted to run on 
electricity), B-16, front, Aug. 1, 1992 (``Normal Daily Range--50 to 
80 miles, depending on terrain, speed and driving conditions.'').
    \277\Arizona Public Service Company, Electric Vehicle Program, 
B-17, at first upper panel, undated (``Today's batteries give Evs a 
range of 30 to 100 miles on a single charge.''); Electric Power 
Research Institute, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: How Far Will My 
Electric Vehicle Take Me?, B-18, front, 1992 (``[T]oday's EV models 
. . . offer a driving range of 60 to 100 miles. . . .''); Virginia 
Power, The Electric Vehicle: Clean, Quiet and Efficient (CO 923-VA/
EE 93084), B-19, front, undated (Solectria Force has range of 70-90 
miles); Potomac Electric Power Company, Questions and Answers About 
the Solectria Force, B-20, front, Dec. 1992 (Solectria Force has 
driving range of ``60 miles if the batteries are fully charged . . . 
The effective range of the Force using current off-the-shelf battery 
technology is approximately 35 to 40 miles on a charge.'').
    \278\Blue Bird Body Company, Product Specifications for NGV 
School Buses (models TC/2000 FE and TC/2000 RE), B-21, at 3, 1992 
(``Vehicle range--300 miles with 6 tanks, 150 miles with 3 tanks''); 
Ford, Crown Victoria dedicated CNG, B-22, front, March 3, 1993 
(``The driving range for these demonstration units is approximately 
200 miles.'').
    \279\Mazda, Mazda Takes Action To Address Global Environmental 
Concerns, B-23, at 3, July 27, 1993 (``With a full tank of hydrogen, 
the Mazda HR-X has a range of up to 125 miles.'').
    \280\Clean Fuels Task Force of Western Liquid Gas Association, 
LPG: An Alternate Clean Air Motor Fuel With Significant 
Environmental and Economic Advantages, B-24, 7, May 1992 (``LPG 
offers the best range per gallon of the four non-gasoline clean 
fuels.''); NPGA, LP-Gas Is Moving America's Fleets, B-25, 6, 1991 
(chart comparing driving ranges for ``identical vehicles, optimized 
for their specific fuel.'').
    \281\Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV (using gasoline or M85), B-
26, front, March 4, 1993 (``Highway driving range is approximately 
350 miles when using M85.''); Ford, Ford Announces Production of 
1993 Taurus FFV, B-27, at 1, Dec. 16, 1992 (``By increasing the size 
of the fuel tank to 20.7 gallons, the driving range of the Taurus 
FFV when fueled with M85 is similar to a non-FFV Taurus.''); Ford, 
Econoline van and Club Wagon FFV (using gasoline and M85), B-28, 
front, March 4, 1993 (``The highway driving range is approximately 
400 miles when using M85.'').
    For example, calculating such estimates for vehicles required to 
comply with EPA's fuel-economy regulations should not be a problem, 
because the data yielding the estimates (the vehicle's fuel economy 
estimate and fuel tank capacity) are readily determinable.<SUP>282 For 
those vehicles, the estimates would simply be derived by multiplying 
two known values.<SUP>283 Similarly, the Commission has concluded that 
relying on SAE's J1634 Recommended Practice is appropriate for 
calculating cruising range values for EVs. The J1634 test establishes 
``uniform procedures for testing electric battery-powered vehicles * * 
* [using] standard tests which will allow for determination of * * * 
[cruising] range.''<SUP>284 The Commission also notes that DOE has 
proposed requiring the use of SAE J1634 to determine equivalent 
petroleum-based fuel economies of EVs.<SUP>285 Thus, for those 
vehicles, the final rule requires that cruising range be calculated 
using SAE J1634.

    \282\Chrysler, I-13, 1, 2 (fuel tank capacity and fuel economy 
values are ``currently provided'').
    \283\See, e.g., Ford, G-14, 1-2, (Tr.), 145 (consumers could use 
fuel tank capacity and EPA's fuel economy estimates to determine 
approximate cruising range).
    \284\B-33, 1 (emphasis added). See also B-33, 10 (``The purpose 
of this test is to determine the overall range of an electric 
vehicle when operated on a dynamometer over repeated driving 
cycles.'').
    \285\59 FR 5336, Feb. 4, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, however, the Commission has modified the proposed rule in 
four ways in response to the comments. First, the proposed rule is 
modified by including a definition of fuel tank capacity for vehicles 
powered by gaseous and liquid fuels.<SUP>286 This modification will 
promote consistency of cruising range estimates where the calculations 
are based on fuel economy and tank capacity data. The final rule thus 
includes a definition for ``vehicle [[Page 26945]] fuel tank capacity'' 
derived from a DOT definition of the same term.<SUP>287 Second, the 
final rule requires that cruising range values for EVs be disclosed in 
the format generated by the SAE Recommended Practice (i.e., in a single 
``combined'' city-highway range). As a result, cruising ranges for 
these vehicles will be displayed as a single figure (e.g., ``450 
miles'') instead of in a minimum-maximum format (e.g., ``400-500 
miles'').<SUP>288

    \286\Standard procedures regarding battery capacity for EVs are 
contained in SAE J1634.
    \287\See Final Rule Sec. 309.1(gg).
    \288\The Commission understands that a revision to SAE J1634 
under consideration by SAE would yield cruising range values in a 
minimum-maximum format. The Commission will monitor SAE's review of 
this revision and consider changes to this Final Rule as 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, because the SAE J1634 test procedures do not apply to hybrid 
EVs, that Recommended Practice will not generate cruising range values 
for those vehicles. Accordingly, the Commission has modified the 
definition of ``electric vehicle'' to clarify that only vehicles 
powered exclusively by electricity are required to calculate cruising 
range values by reference to SAE J1634.<SUP>289 For hybrid EVs, then, 
cruising range values would be calculated by reference to the 
``reasonable basis'' test.

    \289\See Final Rule Sec. 309.1(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the SNPR's treatment of bi-fuel vehicles is modified to 
reflect the fact that those vehicles have two tanks holding separate 
fuels, operating on one fuel or the other.<SUP>290 With two separate 
tanks, the effective cruising range for such vehicles could be the sum 
of the cruising range for either fuel. Accordingly, the statement 
accompanying that disclosure will advise consumers that, ``The total 
possible cruising range of this vehicle is the sum of the alternative 
fuel range and the conventional fuel range.''

    \290\Flexible fuel vehicles (i.e., vehicles with one tank 
capable of operating on either fuel, or any mixture of the two, at 
the same time) are not affected by this modification. As noted 
previously, the Commission proposed that labels for dual fueled 
vehicles dislose two sets of cruising range estimates: one 
representing the vehicle's cruising range when operating exclusively 
on alternative fuel and one representing cruising range when the 
vehicle operates exclusively on conventional fuel. As a result, the 
SNPR's proposal accurately conveys the effective cruising range for 
these single tank AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also included a provision requiring that 
manufacturers maintain records for three years demonstrating compliance 
with the proposed rule.<SUP>291 While EPA 92 does not expressly address 
this issue, the Commission believed that a reasonable recordkeeping 
requirement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of disclosures made 
pursuant to these labeling requirements. No comments addressed this 
issue. The Commission has concluded that the recordkeeping provision is 
simple, easy to comply with, and allows it to verify compliance. 
Accordingly, the Commission has not modified that requirement in the 
final rule.

    \291\See proposed rule Sec. 309.23, 59 FR 59666, 59708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Environmental impact. In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that 
labels for new covered AFVs disclose information regarding a vehicle's 
environmental performance, expressed in terms of the EPA emissions 
standard to which the vehicle had been certified.<SUP>292 For vehicles 
which had not been so certified, manufacturers would place a mark in 
the box indicating that fact.<SUP>293 For those vehicles which had been 
certified as meeting an emissions standard, manufacturers would place a 
mark in the appropriate box indicating that fact, and then indicate on 
a graphic the standard to which the vehicle had been certified. The 
graphic would depict seven EPA emissions standards. Prior to being 
offered for acquisition to consumers, manufacturers of such vehicles 
would identify the emissions certification standard on that graphic by 
placing a caret above the applicable standard. The label would also 
contain a statement advising consumers that, ``The overall 
environmental impact of driving this vehicle includes many factors not 
measured by these standards.''

    \292\59 FR 59666, 59690. See text accompanying notes 320-322.
    \293\EPA has not yet issued emission standards and certification 
test procedures for certain fuels (e.g., electricity and hydrogen).
    Ten comments addressed this aspect of the Commission's SNPR 
proposal.<SUP>294 Four comments supported including this information on 
new AFV labels because the information was ``an important 
factor''<SUP>295 for consumers and the proposed graphic conveys this 
``critical information to consumers in a highly effective 
manner.''<SUP>296 One advantage of this disclosure was that consumers 
would not ``be dependent on marketing claims and other assertions that 
a vehicle [was] `cleaner' or that the vehicle `meets all the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act.'''<SUP>297 The written disclosure 
accompanying the graphic also ``should provide consumers with 
sufficient information to understand the limits of the information 
conveyed by the graphic.''<SUP>298

    \294\Four other comments indicated general support for the 
Commission's labeling proposal but did not address this specific 
issue. Chicago, J-2, 1; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; RFA, 
I-3, 1-2.
    \295\NAFA, I-10, 3.
    \296\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 5. See also NAFA, I-10, 3 
(proposed format is ``simple,'' ``easy for manufacturers to 
provide,'' ``appropriate,'' and will help consumers), CAS, I-12, 1 
(graphic will provide consumers with at least a minimum of 
environmental information, but should also identify rating for 
comparable gasoline-fueled vehicle). DOE also specifically supported 
a disclosure as to this factor. DOE, J-1, 2.
    \297\NAFA, I-10, 3.
    \298\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 6. A similar disclosure on EPA's 
fuel economy labels ``appears to be effective in conveying to 
consumers that the rating provides a basis of comparison, not a 
guarantee of performance.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two comments supported the concept of disclosing a vehicle's 
emissions certification standard but suggested that the information be 
displayed in a different format. AGA/NGVC suggested that the statement 
accompanying the disclosure state that, ``The overall environmental 
impact of driving [any] vehicle includes many factors not [currently] 
measured by [existing vehicle emission] standards.''<SUP>299 (The 
modifications are shown in brackets.) That comment further suggested 
that the graphic for this factor identify the standard to which the 
conventionally-fueled version of that vehicle was certified.<SUP>300 
Chrysler specifically supported labeling AFVs with each vehicle's 
emissions certification standard, but generally opposed the 
Commission's proposed labeling format.<SUP>301

    \299\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 3, 4. The Commission had proposed that that 
statement read as follows: ``The overall environmental impact of 
driving this vehicle includes many factors not measured by these 
standards.''
    \300\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 3, 4.
    \301\Chrysler, I-13, 1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four other comments opposed requiring this disclosure on AFV 
labels. Mobil stated that emissions standards have no relevance in EPA 
92, that fleet operators (who are concerned about emissions 
certifications) do not rely on window stickers in making purchasing 
decisions, and that the ``vast majority'' of the general public ``are 
not aware of the differing classifications'' and are not required to 
acquire AFVs. ``Therefore, labeling of the vehicle emissions 
certification will not provide any meaningful information to the 
majority of consumers.''<SUP>302

    \302\Mobil, I-2, cover letter at 3, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments from automakers similarly opposed requiring this 
disclosure.<SUP>303 AAMA suggested that this disclosure be deferred 
until EPA had established certification standards for all alternative 
fuels and AFVs.<SUP>304 Electro [[Page 26946]] Auto stated that AFVs 
should not be required to meet more stringent labeling standards than 
conventional fueled vehicles and that ``complete environmental impact 
data'' is ``impractical for a simple consumer label'' and 
``misleading.''<SUP>305 Ford stated that the proposed disclosures 
``cannot, at this time, be provided in a manner which would be useful 
to the consumer.''<SUP>306

    \303\Two comments from automakers, however, raised no objection 
to this disclosure. ETC, I-9 (membership includes domestic 
automakers); Toyota, I-11.
    \304\AAMA, I-16, 3, 6. In the alternative, AAMA suggested that 
the Commission not require disclosure of this information under its 
labeling requirements, and instead defer to EPA. AAMA, I-16, 6.
    \305\Electro Auto, I-7, 2. This comment apparently 
misapprehended the Commission's proposal as requiring disclosure of 
``complete environmental impact data.''
    \306\Ford, I-4, 2. This comment did not further address or 
explain why this information should not be required to be disclosed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SNPR also proposed that manufacturers be required to maintain 
records for three years demonstrating compliance with the proposed 
rule.<SUP>307 The Commission tentatively had concluded that such a 
provision was a reasonable means to ensure compliance with this 
provision. No comments addressed this issue.

    \307\See proposed rule Sec. 309.23, 59 FR 59666, 59708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has now concluded that 
requiring disclosure of EPA certification standards is appropriate and 
would be useful to consumers. Incorporating environmental 
considerations into national energy policy was a key goal of EPA 92, 
and ``improv[ing] our environment'' was a ``principal purpose'' of that 
statute.<SUP>308 EPA 92 also gives special attention to the fact that 
the environmental performance of alternative fuels differs, and that 
those differences need to be explained to consumers.<SUP>309

    \308\H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 133, reprinted 
in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1956. The drafters also sought, inter 
alia, ``to promote cleaner alternative automotive fuels.'' Id.
    \309\For example, the drafters of EPA 92 noted that all 
alternative fuels ``have different strengths, weaknesses, prices, 
emissions, and regional niches * * * .'' H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 
102d Cong., 2d Sess. 136, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 1959 
(emphasis added). Environmental performance also is listed first in 
the list of factors to be addressed by DOE's information package. 42 
U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
    The record also indicates that comparative information regarding 
alternative fuels will be helpful for consumers considering AFV 
acquisitions. Numerous comments identified information about 
environmental performance as being important to consumers considering 
AFV acquisitions.<SUP>310 DOE's information brochure does not compare 
the environmental performance of different alternative fuels. Instead, 
the brochure states: ``Generally speaking, all alternative fuels 
produce lower amounts of air toxics and ozone-forming emissions than 
does gasoline.''<SUP>311 The Commission notes that environmental 
performance (as measured by emissions standards) is cited by AFV 
manufacturers and other interested parties in specification sheets and 
other promotional material in a manner not easily amenable to 
comparisons.<SUP>312

    \310\See 59 FR 24014, 24016-24017 n.62, 79, 91, 98 and 
accompanying text (responding to ANPR).
    \311\B-3, 15. That statement is repeated in the section devoted 
to each of the featured fuels.
    \312\See, e.g., Chrysler, Plymouth Acclaim and Dodge Spirit FFV 
(no model year listed), B-29, back, undated (``[R]educes smog-
forming emissions by at least 30 percent, and in many cases by as 
much as 50 percent, compared to gasoline run counterparts. In 
addition, toxic emissions can be reduced by as much as 50 
percent.''); Chrysler, Chrysler Corporation's [CNG] Vans & Wagons 
(no model year listed), B-30, inside front cover, undated (``Dodge 
[CNG] Vehicles will meet or beat all applicable emission standards 
up to and including California's requirements for Ultra Low Emission 
Vehicles (ULEV). CNG fueled Dodge vans and wagons produce 
significantly less emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon 
monoxide and oxides of nitrogen than similar gasoline powered 
vehicles.''); Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV, B-26, front, March 4, 
1993 (``Emission Levels: Compared to gasoline vehicles, an ozone 
benefit of 30% is projected for an FFV when operating on M85.'').
    See also Clean Fuels Task Force of Western Liquid Gas 
Association, LPG: An Alternate Clean Air Motor Fuel With Significant 
Environmental and Economic Advantages, B-24, 2, May 1992 (``Use of 
LPG as a motor fuel virtually ELIMINATES PARTICULATES, the gasoline 
and diesel carbon residue that makes up 25 percent of the `brown 
cloud.' * * * An [EPA] test of a LPG-fueled Ford V8 full size sedan 
showed hydrocarbon emissions 29 percent cleaner than the accepted 
standard. Nitrogen oxides were down 57 percent, and carbon monoxide 
emissions 93% better than the then Federal standard.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclosure of information regarding environmental impact in a 
simple label format is also feasible. 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 (``HC''),<SUP>313 
carbon monoxide (``CO''),<SUP>314 nitrogen oxides (``NOx''),<SUP>315 
and particulate matter (``PM'')).<SUP>316 The standards apply to new 
motor vehicles manufactured in specified model years. 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.<SUP>317

    \313\In sunlight, HC combines with nitrogen oxides to form ozone 
(a major component of smog). According to EPA, ``[o]zone irritates 
the eyes, damages the lungs, and aggravates respiratory problems. It 
is our most widespread and intractable urban air pollution problem. 
A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential 
to cause cancer.'' B-31, 2.
    \314\CO ``reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and is 
particularly dangerous to persons with heart disease.'' Id.
    \315\NO<INF>x are ``precursors to the formation of smog.'' Id.
    \316\PM is a general term for soot, dust, smoke, and other tiny 
bits of solid material released into the air. It can cause eye, 
nose, and throat irritation and other health problems. B-32, 22.
    \317\See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.091-30 (1993) (certification 
procedures for 1991 model year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to its authority under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments,<SUP>318 EPA began issuing stricter emissions standards for 
each model year as a way of reducing levels of the criteria air 
pollutants. One set establishes five new standards as part of a 
``clean-fuel vehicles'' program.<SUP>319 To qualify as a clean-fuel 
vehicle, a vehicle must meet one of five sets of increasingly stringent 
standards. These 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'').<SUP>320 Standards for ``clean-fuel vehicles'' are mandated 
for use, at present, in two EPA programs: the California Pilot Test 
program and Clean Fuel Fleet Program.<SUP>321 EPA staff has informed 
the Commission, however, that it expects that vehicles meeting these 
standards will not be restricted to these programs (e.g., some state 
programs require acquisition of clean fuel vehicles).

    \318\Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).
    \319\See 40 CFR Part 88 (1993) (``Clean-Fuel Vehicles'').
    \320\According to EPA, a vehicle certified as meeting the 
requirements of both the ULEV and ILEV standards have lower combined 
exhaust and evaporative emissions than an ILEV certified vehicle.
    \321\The California Pilot Test Program requires that vehicle 
manufacturers in California produce and sell specified minimum 
numbers of clean fuel vehicles. The Clean Fuel Fleet Program 
requires that a percentage of new vehicles acquired by certain fleet 
owners located in covered areas meet ``clean-fuel fleet vehicle 
emission standards.'' Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 
1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPR, the Commission noted that consumers could make 
comparisons among vehicles by reference to EPA's classification system. 
Specifically, because AFVs will be certified to a specific 
classification, certification levels provide a simple way of comparing 
different AFVs.<SUP>322 The information also could be useful and 
important to some consumers likely to consider AFV acquisitions (e.g., 
fleet operators and environmentally-concerned consumers).<SUP>323 
Requiring disclosure of objective data allows [[Page 26947]] consumers 
to evaluate competitive advertising and marketing claims regarding an 
AFV's environmental performance.<SUP>324 Finally, the recordkeeping 
provision is simple, easy to comply with, and allows the Commission to 
verify compliance with the Rule.

    \322\Boston Edison (Supp.), G-17, 8; CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA 
(Tr.), 186-87.
    \323\CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; DOE (Tr.), 172; NAFA (Tr.), 170-71.
    \324\CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA, G-20, 4-5. A disclosure as to 
this factor also will not subject AFVs to an unfair labeling 
standard (as compared to conventional fueled vehicles) because, as 
AAMA notes, ``[e]missions certification information is available for 
all vehicles.'' AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1. See also AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 2 
(same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described above, the Commission has determined to 
issue its SNPR proposal as to this subject, but with two modifications. 
First, the final rule specifies that if a vehicle has not been 
certified as meeting an EPA emissions standard, manufacturers must 
indicate that fact by placing a mark where appropriate on the label 
formats.<SUP>325 Second, the Commission agrees with AGA/NGVC's comment 
proposing a modification of the statement accompanying the graphic to 
more precisely reflect the limitations of the disclosure. Accordingly, 
the final rule requires that the disclosure state that, ``The overall 
environmental impact of driving any vehicle includes many factors not 
currently measured by existing vehicle emissions standards.''

    \325\The proposed label formats and SNPR text made this point 
clear, but the proposed rule language may have allowed for an 
erroneous interpretation. See, e.g., AAMA, I-16, 3 (opposing this 
disclosure in part based on belief that the Commission's proposal 
would require disclosures based on ``reasonable assessments'' in the 
absence of EPA standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has concluded that one other suggestion (i.e., 
requiring disclosure of the emissions standard to which the 
conventionally-fueled version of a vehicle was certified) may not be 
practicable. All vehicles (conventional and AFVs) are designed and 
configured to be powered by specific fuels.<SUP>326 As a result, the 
performance characteristics of vehicles configured to be powered by one 
fuel may differ from vehicles bearing the same model name but 
configured to be powered by a different fuel. Comparisons between such 
vehicles may therefore be misleading.

    \326\See, e.g., Mobil, D-16, 3 (``The fuel and vehicle are a 
system. Benefits that may be portrayed as being associated with a 
particular vehicle are really a function of the combination of the 
fuel and the vehicle.'').
    b. Specific data disclosures considered but not proposed. As noted 
previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to issue labeling 
requirements only ``to the greatest extent practicable,'' taking into 
account the problems associated with developing and publishing such 
information and the simple label format. Accordingly, in developing 
this final rule, the Commission assessed the practicality of requiring 
disclosure of information pertaining to all the factors cited in the 
comments. As to the following factors, the Commission has determined 
that the level of detail necessary to convey balanced, accurate, 
objective information to consumers (i.e., by reference to some rating 
or empirical value) cannot be contained on the ``simple'' label 
envisioned by Congress. Information overload considerations,<SUP>327 
the lack of standards upon which to base required disclosures, and the 
easy availability of such information through other sources, led the 
Commission to reject including additional factors on the label.

    \327\AAMA (Tr.), 164-65 (``[W]e feel there is an enormous amount 
of information that a consumer has to know about . . . [AFVs] 
including electric vehicles, and if any attempt is made to put every 
factor on the label it's going to end up information overload and do 
nothing but confuse the consumer.''); Ford (Tr.), 175-76 (sticker is 
not appropriate place to provide detailed information; consumers 
need information before they get to the dealership).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Operating costs. For example, earlier in the proceeding CAS 
proposed that the Commission require that operating costs be disclosed 
on AFV labels so that consumers will be aware ``if operating costs of 
an AFV will be significantly different than a comparable conventional 
vehicle.''<SUP>328 Under its proposal, the AFV labels would state, 
``Operating costs of this vehicle are expected to be at least 25% 
higher (or lower) than gasoline powered vehicles in its size 
class.''<SUP>329 Because expressing this information objectively (e.g., 
``operating this AFV costs 18 cents/mile'') or comparatively (e.g., 
``operating this AFV costs 10% more than a comparable conventional-
fueled vehicle'') could help consumers make reasonable choices and 
comparisons, in preparing its SNPR proposal the Commission considered 
whether balanced, accurate information about that factor could be 
contained on a simple label.

    \328\CAS, G-17, 3, (Tr.), 166, (Supp.), 3. EPA's fuel economy 
label discloses the vehicle's annual fuel costs, but that figure 
does not include other operating costs. EPA (Tr.), 166.
    \329\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, however, the Commission determined 
that requiring disclosure of specific data as to this factor is not 
practicable at this time.<SUP>330 The Commission received no additional 
comments supporting a disclosure as to this factor, and finds no basis 
to modify its prior determination. Accordingly, as described in section 
III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commission concludes that for purposes of 
this labeling rule, it is appropriate to advise consumers to consider 
costs when evaluating AFVs, without providing specific data on this 
factor.

    \330\59 FR 59666, 59691-59692.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Domestic content of the fuel. Because information on the 
domestic content of fuel might be of interest to some consumers 
interested in the societal benefit of promoting domestic industries, 
the Commission has considered the propriety of requiring disclosure of 
such information on AFV labels. Several commenters suggested that the 
AFV label indicate the extent to which the alternative fuel powering a 
particular AFV was produced domestically.<SUP>331 Such a disclosure 
would help promote energy independence and energy security, key goals 
underlying EPA 92.<SUP>332 Others opposed such a disclosure because it 
would not be practicable.<SUP>333

    \331\Boston Edison, I-14, 7; (Supp.), G-26, 9-11, 12; (Tr.), 
202; RFA, G-5, 5; UCS (Tr.), 201-2, 208.
    \332\H. Rep. No. 102-474(1), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 132.
    \333\AMI (Tr.), 206; API (Tr.), 201; NPGA (Tr.), 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined that it 
is not practicable to require disclosure of objective information as to 
this factor on the AFV label. The Commission is aware of no consensus 
standards for estimating the domestic content of transportation 
fuels<SUP>334 and government reports addressing this topic do not cover 
all alternative fuels.<SUP>335 In any event, the Commission concludes 
that a disclosure as to this factor, even if practicable, is not 
feasible because of the constraints of the label format.<SUP>336 The 
Commission notes, however, that DOE's information brochure includes a 
general discussion of domestic content for each of the featured fuels. 
For example, the brochure states that ethanol's domestic content is 
``[c]urrently as high as 100% for pure ethanol, depending on world 
market [[Page 26948]] price.''<SUP>337 Accordingly, as described in 
section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commission concludes that consumers 
should be advised to consider this factor when evaluating AFVs, but 
that labels should not include specific data on this factor.

    \334\NPGA (Tr.), 203.
    \335\Boston Edison stated DOE's Energy Information 
Administration (``EIA'') publishes the data necessary to determine 
the domestic content of motor vehicle fuel. Boston Edison (Supp.), 
G-26, 11. EIA's reports, however, do not cover all the alternative 
fuels. See Boston Edison (Supp.), Exhibit 4 (no data for ethanol, 
methanol, hydrogen, or LPG).
    \336\RFA generally supported a disclosure as to this factor but 
noted at the Workshop that:
    I question whether or not we want that to be [on] a label on the 
vehicle because I think we've added enough stuff now that it's 
really a scroll * * * But perhaps maybe the reference to the 
brochure and then maybe the DOE since they would have access to the 
EIA information readily available, maybe it should go into the 
information brochure. . . I think it would be too difficult to keep 
it up in the context of a label.
    RFA (Tr.), 207-08.
    \337\B-3, 18.
    (3) Fuel economy/energy efficiency. In developing this final rule 
the Commission has considered whether requiring disclosure of fuel 
economy or energy efficiency information would be useful to 
consumers.<SUP>338 However, EPA, which is responsible for compiling 
fuel economy information for the federal fuel-economy labeling program, 
has plans to establish labeling requirements for AFVs powered by all 
alternative fuels.<SUP>339 Therefore, the Commission concludes that 
requiring fuel economy information on its labels would be duplicative, 
and possibly confusing. It has thus determined that such information 
should not be disclosed on its AFV labels.

    \338\In its initial comment Boston Edison stated that energy 
efficiency could be expressed as ``efficiency per BTU'' or 
``efficiency per mile,'' but did not otherwise define a basis for 
these disclosures. Boston Edison, G-26, 3-4. See also Boston Edison 
(Supp.), G-26, 5-7. Although not stated, it appears that this 
suggestion was limited to labeling for electric vehicles. At the 
Workshop, CAS supported a disclosure for this factor, CAS (Tr.), 
194, but later indicated that it was satisfied that EPA fuel economy 
labels will give consumers sufficient information on the comparative 
energy efficiency of competing vehicles during driving. CAS (Supp.), 
G-17, 3.
    \339\EPA, H-4, 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Appropriate fuel, fuel availability, fuel grade, and refueling 
time. The Commission received comments suggesting that disclosure of 
other information (e.g., appropriate fuel for the vehicle,<SUP>340 fuel 
availability,<SUP>341 fuel grade,<SUP>342 and refueling time<SUP>343) 
should be required on AFV labels. The Commission notes that the fuel to 
be used in the vehicle will be easily ascertainable (either from EPA's 
fuel economy labels or information voluntarily supplied by AFV 
manufacturers). However, some consumers may not be familiar with the 
availability of AFVs powered by different alternative fuels. 
Accordingly, the Commission finds that while requiring disclosure of 
fuel type is not necessary for AFV labels, as described in section 
III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, consumers should be advised to consider this 
factor when evaluating AFVs. As to the remaining factors, the 
Commission believes that disclosures are impractical because all useful 
information simply cannot fit in a simple label. The Commission also is 
not aware of a standard methodology or established practice for 
calculating any of those factors, and no commenter addressed that 
subject.

    \340\API, G-25, 5.
    \341\CAS, G-17, 3. AGA/NGVC stated that the AGA's manual of 
available CNG fueling stations should be ``referenced,'' but did not 
indicate whether that should be on the AFV label or in the DOE 
brochure. AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 195. The Commission notes that the DOE 
brochure lists AGA and NGVC as sources for additional information 
about CNG-powered AFVs. See B-3, 23.
    \342\MC-MD, H-7, 2. See also NACAA (Tr.), 196 (to the extent 
there are different grades, ``we don't know all the fuels out 
there'').
    \343\DOE, H-10, 6; (Tr.), 172-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes, however, that fuel availability and refueling 
methods, two topics proposed by comments for the labels (including 
refueling time for electricity and CNG) are addressed in the DOE 
brochure.<SUP>344 Accordingly, as described in section III(C)(2)(c)(1), 
infra, the Commission concludes that consumers should be advised, as a 
general matter, to consider those factors when evaluating AFVs. In 
addition, because the Commission has determined that consumers need 
basic comparative information while refueling, the principal component 
of alternative fuels is required to be disclosed by the Commission's 
Fuel Rating Rule<SUP>345 and this final rule.

    \344\See B-3, 16 (electricity), 18 (ethanol), 20 (methanol), 22 
(CNG), 24 (propane).
    \345\See 16 CFR 306.10(a) (1994) (requiring retailers to post 
automotive fuel ratings).
    c. Descriptive Disclosures on AFV Labeling. In the SNPR, the 
Commission proposed that the specific data disclosures on labels for 
new covered vehicles (i.e., cruising range and EPA certification level) 
be supplemented with general, descriptive information pertinent to all 
consumers considering an AFV purchase.<SUP>346 These descriptive 
disclosures would comprise the second and third parts of the AFV 
label.<SUP>347 The second part of the AFV label would contain a list of 
factors consumers should consider before acquiring an AFV. The third 
part would advise consumers of toll-free telephone numbers they could 
call to obtain further pertinent information from the federal 
government. The Commission's proposals as to these two parts, and the 
comments addressing those proposals, are described below.

    \346\59 FR 59666, 59693-59695.
    \347\Labels for used covered vehicles, which would not require 
disclosure of specific data disclosures, would simply disclose the 
descriptive information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) List of comparative factors. The Commission believed that 
requiring a list of factors consumers could use to consider and compare 
AFVs would encourage AFV manufacturers, conversion companies, and 
dealers to provide additional information to meet consumers' 
expectations and needs.<SUP>348 The Commission also believed that a 
list of comparative factors could help consumers evaluate information 
disclosed on other labels, in advertising, and from other sources. 
Accordingly, the SNPR proposed that labels for new covered vehicles 
contain a section under a standard heading, stating, ``Before selecting 
an Alternative Fuel Vehicle (AFV) make sure you consider:.'' The labels 
would then list the following five factors consumers should consider 
before purchasing an AFV: fuel type (i.e., the fuel or fuels that power 
the vehicle); operating costs; performance/convenience (i.e., cold 
start capability, refueling/recharging time, acceleration rates, and 
refueling methods); fuel availability; and energy security/domestic 
content of fuel.<SUP>349

    \348\59 FR 59666, 59693.
    \349\59 FR 59666, 59694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each factor would be supplemented with a brief explanation of how 
it is relevant to an AFV purchase. For example, for fuel type, the 
label would contain a statement that consumers should be aware of which 
fuel(s) powers that particular AFV. For operating costs, the label 
would state that fuel and maintenance costs for AFVs differ from 
gasoline or diesel-fueled vehicles and can vary considerably. A similar 
format was proposed for the three other comparative purchasing factors 
(i.e., performance/convenience,<SUP>350 fuel availability,<SUP>351 
energy security/domestic content of fuel.<SUP>352

    \350\For performance/convenience, the labels would state that 
vehicles powered by different fuels differ in their cold-start 
capabilities (i.e., ability to start a cold engine), refueling and/
or recharging time (i.e., how long it takes to refill the vehicle's 
tank to full capacity), acceleration rates, and refueling methods.
    \351\For fuel availability, the labels would advise consumers to 
determine whether refueling and/or recharging facilities that meet 
their driving needs have been developed for this vehicle and will be 
readily available in their area.
    \352\For energy security/domestic content of fuel, the labels 
would state that alternative fuels can reduce U.S. reliance on 
imported oil, especially if all of the fuel's components are 
produced in this country. Consumers are then advised to consider 
whether the fuel powering this vehicle is typically produced 
domestically or is imported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission proposed a nearly identical format for used covered 
vehicles. For those labels, the SNPR proposed that the labels contain 
the same standard heading followed by a list of factors. Four of the 
factors on that list would be displayed identically to the list for new 
covered vehicles.<SUP>353 The description of one factor (performance/
convenience) would be modified slightly, by adding a reference to 
cruising range differences between [[Page 26949]] different 
fuels.<SUP>354 This reference was added to account for the fact that 
labels for used covered vehicles would not disclose the vehicle's 
cruising range. Finally, a new factor--environmental impact--was added 
to the list to account for the fact that labels for used covered 
vehicles would not disclose any objective information as to that 
factor. The description for this factor would advise consumers that all 
vehicles (conventional and AFVs) affect the environment directly (e.g., 
tailpipe emissions) and indirectly (e.g., how the fuel is produced and 
brought to market). Consumers would then be advised to compare the 
environmental costs of driving an AFV with a gasoline-powered vehicle.

    \353\Fuel type, operating costs, fuel availability, and energy 
security/domestic content of fuel.
    \354\On this label, consumers would be advised that vehicles 
powered by different fuels differ in terms of their cruising range 
(i.e., how many miles the vehicle will go on a full supply of fuel).
    Four comments offered general comments regarding this aspect of the 
Commission's proposal.<SUP>355 Three comments opposed including a 
standard list of factors on AFV labels. AAMA stated that requiring 
disclosure of the list exceeded the Commission's statutory mandate 
(because the information ``is neither cost nor benefit information''), 
is redundant with information required to be disclosed by DOE, and may 
discourage consumers interested in AFVs because of its ``cautionary 
tone.''<SUP>356 Two other comments characterized the list as 
``unnecessary, [and] uninformative''<SUP>357 and of ``minimal 
value.''<SUP>358 Mobil, however, supported including the ``fairly 
comprehensive'' list of factors because it provided a framework for 
evaluating issues relevant to AFVs in general.<SUP>359

    \355\Six other comments generally supported the entirety of the 
Commission's SNPR proposal. AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 3; Chicago, J-2, 1; 
Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; NAFA, I-10, 1, 2; RFA, I-3, 
1-2.
    \356\AAMA, I-16, 2, 6. As noted previously, three comments fully 
supported AAMA's comment. Chrysler, I-13, 1; Ford, I-4, 2; NGVPA, I-
19, 1.
    \357\Chrysler, I-13, 1, 2.
    \358\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 6-7.
    \359\Mobil, I-2, 11, cover letter at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other comments were directed to specific factors on the comparative 
list. For example, four comments addressed the factor concerning energy 
security/domestic content of fuel. API stated that the proposed 
language ``may be stronger than the FTC can continue to defend'' 
because future alternative-energy demands may not be met by domestic 
sources.<SUP>360 One comment suggested that this factor be replaced 
with a specific data disclosure on the subject, based on data supplied 
by EIA.<SUP>361 Mobil suggested that the factor's description be 
revised so that consumers were advised that information as to this 
subject was available from EIA.<SUP>362 DOE, however, supported the 
Commission's proposal regarding this topic.<SUP>363 In addition, CAS 
suggested that the explanation regarding two of the factors on the 
list--fuel availability and operating costs--should state specifically 
that further information as to those factors is available from 
DOE.<SUP>364

    \360\API, I-15, cover letter at 2. API also stated that 
references to domestic products should agree with the treatment 
given that topic under EPA 92 and the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, under which ``domestic products are defined much more 
broadly.'' Id. at 3.
    \361\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 7. This comment acknowledged, 
however, that EIA does not publish appropriate data for all 
alternative fuels. In those circumstances, Boston Edison/EEI 
suggested that the labels simply note that ``information is not yet 
available for those fuels.'' Id.
    \362\Mobil,I-2 (cover letter at 2-3, 7-8) (``Check with [EIA] or 
request a copy of their Annual Energy Outlook to determine what 
percentage of the fuel powering this vehicle is from domestic or 
foreign sources.'').
    \363\DOE, J-1, 2.
    \364\CAS, I-12, 2 (E.g., ``For information on operating costs, 
contact DOE at the number listed below.). Electro Auto also 
addressed the operating costs factor; this comment may have 
misapprehended the SNPR as proposing that actual operating costs be 
disclosed on AFV labels. Electro Auto, I-7, 2 (supports requiring 
disclosure of comprehensive operating costs for AFVs only if 
conventional vehicles are required to disclose comparable 
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined to 
issue its SNPR proposal as to this subject with one modification. As to 
the threshold issue of whether AFV labels should include a list of 
comparative factors, the Commission notes that the standard list of 
factors for comparisons proposed in the NPR (and again in the SNPR) 
does not, by itself, disclose comparative cost-benefit information. 
Thus, in developing this final rule the Commission has considered 
whether including such a list on AFV labels would constitute 
``appropriate information with respect to costs and benefits'' (as that 
phrase is used in section 406(a)), and would be useful to consumers in 
undertaking a cost-benefit analysis regarding whether to acquire an AFV 
or what type of AFV. As noted, numerous commenters indicated that this 
approach would provide consumers with useful information. In addition, 
the Commission cannot, as a practical matter, require disclosure of 
comparative information as to every relevant factor given the 
constraints of a simple label format. Accordingly, the Commission has 
concluded that the AFV labels should contain a standard list of factors 
consumers should consider before acquiring an AFV.<SUP>365

    \365\The Commission reached a similar conclusion when it issued 
warranty labeling requirements for used motor vehicles. Those 
requirements are designed to help consumers evaluate and compare 
warranty coverage and counteract dealer misrepresentations. In that 
proceeding, the Commission determined that requiring disclosure of a 
standard list of major defects that can occur in used motor vehicles 
could convey useful information to consumers. See Used Motor Vehicle 
Trade Regulation Rule, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 49 FR 45692, 
45706, Nov. 19, 1984 (list of major defects that can occur in used 
motor vehicles provides consumers with a framework for evaluating 
and comparing warranty coverage and counteracts dealer 
misrepresentations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has concluded, however, that one factor on the 
list--energy security/domestic content--should be modified to reflect 
concerns raised in the comments. As noted previously, the final rule 
does not require an objective disclosure as to domestic content because 
it cannot feasibly be displayed on a label.<SUP>366 The Commission 
further agrees that the effective meaning of the ``domestic'' content 
of fuels will likely change as a result of international free-trade 
agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. As a 
result, identifying the country of origin of a given fuel will not 
always be useful information to consumers.

    \366\See supra section III(C)(2)(b)(2).
    In its place, the final rule defines this factor in terms of 
consumers' interest in ensuring long-term fuel availability at a 
reasonable price from secure source countries. Accordingly, that factor 
is denominated ``energy security/renewability'' in the final rule, and 
the explanatory statement advises consumers, ``Consider where and how 
the fuel powering this vehicle is typically produced.'' Labeling for 
used covered vehicles will follow an identical format.
    The final rule retains the remaining factors because all will 
likely be important for consumers to consider before purchasing an 
AFV.\367\ Information about the AFV's fuel type will be available 
directly from the dealer; and the other factors are addressed in DOE's 
information brochure.\368\ The Commission has considered but decided 
against modifying the explanations for fuel availability and operating 
costs (to state explicitly that further information is 
[[Page 26950]] available from DOE) because it believes that the label's 
format already adequately conveys that information.

    \367\See 59 FR 24014, 24016 nn.68, 70, 75, 79 and 24017 nn.83, 
87, 89, 97, 101, 102, 106 and accompanying text (ANPR commenters 
identifying those factors as being important to consumers).
    \368\EPA fuel-economy labels also disclose information regarding 
fuel type and operating costs. But those labels are not yet required 
for AFVs powered by all alternative fuels. 59 FR 39638, 39639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Referral to other sources of information. In the SNPR, the 
Commission tentatively determined that a precise reference to DOE's 
consumer information brochure and NHTSA's vehicle safety hotline was 
appropriate on labeling for new and used covered AFVs. Accordingly, the 
Commission proposed that label formats for new and used covered 
vehicles include standard statements informing consumers that they can 
obtain (1) copies of a free consumer-information brochure and general 
information about AFVs by calling the toll-free telephone number for 
DOE's National Alternative Fuels Hotline, and (2) vehicle safety 
information by calling the toll-free telephone number for DOT/NHTSA's 
Auto Safety Hotline.\369\

    \369\See Figure 6 (new covered vehicles) and 8 (used covered 
vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59712, 59714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five comments addressed this issue.\370\ Chrysler opposed requiring 
disclosure of referral information based on its belief that the labels 
should disclose information pertinent to specific AFVs.\371\ The 
remaining four comments supported reference to one or both of the toll-
free hotlines.\372\

    \370\Two other comments made general reference to this issue. 
AAMA did not address the issue in its written comment but included 
the referral information in its proposed AFV label. AAMA, I-16, Att. 
III. In an earlier comment filed in this proceeding, AAMA indicated 
support for labels which disclosed ``instructions on where to obtain 
additional information (e.g., DOE's [information brochure]).'' AAMA, 
G-7, 1. RFA's comment was to ``encourage some formal review process 
of the DOE brochure'' by industry. RFA, I-3, 2.
    \371\Chrysler, I-13, 1. Chrysler also stated generally that the 
information proposed for the back side of the AFV labels was 
``unnecessary, uninformative, and due to its location, unreadable 
under many circumstances.'' Id. at 2.
    \372\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 7 (``provides consumers with 
valuable information directly pertinent to purchasing decisions''); 
DOE, J-1, 2 (supports reference to DOE's Hotline and information 
brochure); DOT/NHTSA, J-5, 2 (supports reference to NHTSA's vehicle 
safety hotline); Mobil, I-2, 11 (supports generally and wants DOE 
brochure to be ``peer and technically reviewed'' before publication 
of updates and revisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The referral statement proposed in the SNPR does not, by itself, 
disclose objective cost-benefit information. In developing this final 
rule, the Commission has thus considered whether including the proposed 
statement on AFV labels would help consumers make reasonable choices 
and comparisons. The Commission also considered whether including such 
a statement was feasible, given the constraints of a simple label 
format.
    After considering the record, the Commission concludes that 
including a standard statement referring consumers to pertinent sources 
of government information is consistent with section 406(a)'s 
legislative purpose. As noted, comments indicated that a referral to 
objective information sources would be useful to consumers. In 
addition, while EPA 92 directed DOE to ``produce and make available'' 
an information package, the statute does not require AFV manufacturers 
or dealers to provide consumers with copies of the information package 
or to notify them of its availability.\373\ To address that apparent 
omission, AFV labels would contain a statement informing consumers that 
further information about AFVs is available from DOE. The labels also 
would inform consumers that information about another pertinent 
factor--vehicle safety--is available from the federal agency 
responsible for regulating the safe performance of motor vehicles.\374\

    \373\42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \374\DOT/NHTSA, H-1, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the nature of the disclosure, the Commission believes that 
consumers considering either new or used AFVs would find it equally 
relevant. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that label formats 
for new and used covered vehicles will include references to DOE's 
National Alternative Fuels Hotline and DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline, 
as proposed in the SNPR.
3. Consolidation
    As noted previously, EPA 92 requires the Commission to consolidate 
its AFV labels with other labels providing information to consumers 
``where appropriate.'' In developing the SNPR, the Commission thus 
considered whether the information the Commission will require for AFVs 
could be incorporated into existing labels (e.g., EPA's fuel economy 
label or the Commission's used car Buyers Guide), or whether existing 
label information could be incorporated into its AFV labels. For both 
options, the Commission noted that consolidation could help consumers 
by collecting pertinent information in a central location. Industries 
affected by the labeling requirements could also benefit by possibly 
reducing their compliance costs. However, disturbing labeling formats 
with which consumers are familiar could create confusion. Attempting to 
fit additional disclosures into existing labels also raises the 
possibility that the label will overload consumers with excessive 
amounts of information. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that consolidating the information proposed to be disclosed 
with other labels providing information to consumers was not 
appropriate.
    Three comments addressed the Commission's SNPR proposal as to 
consolidation.\375\ Mobil stated that this issue could best be answered 
by vehicle manufacturers.\376\ Comments from AAMA and Chrysler opposed 
the Commission's proposal. Chrysler stated that manufacturers should 
have flexibility to determine how best to label vehicles to provide the 
required information, either by issuing a separate label or combining 
it with another label as appropriate for the vehicle being 
labeled.\377\ AAMA supported the Commission's proposal not to 
consolidate the new disclosures on EPA's fuel economy label, but stated 
that manufacturers ``must be given the flexibility to incorporate the 
additional information required by the FTC on existing labels.''\378\

    \375\Seven other comments indicated general support with the 
Commission's AFV labeling proposal without addressing this 
particular issue. AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 3; Boston Edison, I-14, 4; 
Chicago, J-2, 1; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; NAFA, I-10, 
1, 2; RFA, I-3, 1-2.
    \376\Mobil, I-2, 12.
    \377\Chrysler, I-13, 1, 2.
    \378\AAMA, I-16, 2, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined that 
consolidating new AFV disclosures with other labels providing 
information to the consumer is not appropriate. Consolidation as 
required by EPA 92 could be undertaken in one of two ways: 
incorporating existing disclosures into new AFV labels, or new AFV 
disclosures into existing labels. As to the first category, the 
Commission notes that no comment responding to the SNPR supported such 
incorporation. The Commission also believes that providing the 
information already displayed on other labels on its AFV labels (in a 
different format) could confuse consumers and is therefore unnecessary.
    As to the second category, consolidating information required by 
the Commission into existing labels would not be appropriate because 
those labels do not have sufficient extra space to accommodate new AFV 
disclosures. For example, EPA stated that new AFV information could not 
reasonably be incorporated into its fuel economy label because that 
label already is [[Page 26951]] ``crowded.''\379\ As discussed 
below,\380\ the Commission also believes that allowing manufacturers 
the option of determining where the required disclosures would be 
displayed is similarly not appropriate.

    \379\EPA (Tr.), 211 (``Everybody saw how crowded this (i.e., the 
EPA label) already was. I guess it depends on what type of 
information ultimately ends up whether we would have difficulties 
with consolidating the EPA's label. But we're looking at information 
overload right now.''). DOE, in a comment responding to the 
Commission's ANPR, stated further that, ``Survey work has indicated 
that the fuel economy label already contains too much information * 
* *''). DOE, E-10, 4.
    \380\See infra section III(C)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Label Size and Format
    In the SNPR, the Commission proposed that AFV labels be reduced 
from the size proposed in the NPR and measure 7 inches wide by 5\1/2\ 
inches high.\381\ The Commission further proposed that information 
required to be disclosed by its AFV labeling requirements be displayed 
on a visible window surface in three label formats. The first label 
format would be for new covered AFVs designed to operate solely on 
alternative fuel. Figures 4 and 6 in the SNPR illustrated samples of 
this format; figure 4 (containing objective information particular to 
that vehicle) would appear on the front of the label, and figure 6 
(containing general information) would appear on the back.

    \381\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
59707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second label format would be for new covered vehicles capable 
of operating on alternative fuel and on conventional fuel. Figures 5 
and 6 of the SNPR illustrated samples of this format; figure 5 
(containing objective information particular to that vehicle) would 
appear on the front, and figure 6 again would appear on the back. The 
third label format would be for used covered AFVs. Figures 7 and 8 of 
the SNPR illustrated samples of this format; figure 7 would appear on 
the front, and figure 8 would appear on the back.
    The proposed rule also addressed general format issues common to 
all three labeling formats. For example, headlines and text for all 
labels were standard as illustrated in the sample labels.\382\ In 
addition, no marks or information other than that specified in the 
proposed labeling requirements would appear on any of the labels.\383\

    \382\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(e) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(e) (for used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
59707.
    \383\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 
59707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six comments addressed the Commission's SNPR proposal regarding AFV 
label size and format.\384\ Comments from Boston Edison/EEI and CAS 
supported the proposed label's display of information concerning 
cruising range and EPA certification standard.\385\ Comments from the 
City of Chicago did not address the specifics of the Commission's 
proposal, but instead suggested that cost-benefit labels be permanently 
affixed to AFVs.\386\

    \384\Six additional comments indicated general support for the 
Commission's labeling proposal but did not address this specific 
issue. AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 3; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; 
Mobil, I-2, cover letter at 2; 6; NAFA, I-10, 1, 2; RFA, I-3, 1-2. 
Mobil also stated that this issue could best be answered by vehicle 
manufacturers, and Toyota misapprehended the Commission's SNPR 
proposal as requiring the posting of alternative fuels labeling on 
vehicles. Mobil, I-2, 12; Toyota, I-11, 1.
    \385\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 6 (``The graphic chosen by the 
Commission to display emission standard certifications conveys this 
critical information to consumers in a highly effective manner.''); 
CAS, I-12, 1 (``The proposed label format [for cruising range] will 
adequately convey this important information to consumers.'').
    \386\Chicago, J-2, 2, 3 (permanent labeling will promote AFVs 
and alternative fuels, provide public education and increase public 
awareness, and assist in implementing traffic control programs for 
AFVs such as preferential parking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remaining three comments from some domestic automakers, 
however, objected to the size and format of the proposed AFV labels. 
For example, AAMA opposed a standard label format and stated that 
manufacturers should have the option of placing new required 
information on existing labels.\387\ AAMA also stated that the proposed 
format was ``unintentionally misleading'' because it ``yielded the 
impression * * * that the characteristics described are the most 
important to consider when purchasing an AFV.''\388\ In addition, AAMA 
stated that the proposed label formats lacked sufficient extra 
space,\389\ were too large,\390\ and should be limited to one 
side.\391\

    \387\AAMA, I-16, cover letter at 1. See also Chrysler, I-13, 1, 
2 (manufacturers should have flexibility to determine whether to 
issue a separate label or combine it with another).
    \388\AAMA, I-16, 2. See also Ford, I-4, 2 (proposed format 
overemphasizes importance of the required information as decision 
criteria).
    \389\AAMA, I-16, 4 (``Due to the layout and large font, the 
label does not have extra space. If additional information were 
required in the future, the label would have to be reformatted to 
accommodate added text. This would be costly and require lead 
time.'').
    \390\AAMA, I-16, 4 (``[M]anufacturers are faced with several 
existing and forthcoming labeling requirements. On many vehicles, 
they are simply running out of room to place new labels, especially 
one of the size proposed by FTC.''). See also Ford, I-4, 2 (the 
proposed size promotes information overload, because ``it 
establishes yet another label on an already crowded vehicle which 
the consumer must read to gather pertinent information.'').
    \391\AAMA, I-16, 4, 5, 6 (two-sided label will be difficult to 
read, and consumers will quickly forget phone numbers on the back if 
they do not copy them down). See also Ford, I-4, 2 (opposes two-
sided label).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, required labeling under the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements must be ``simple.'' Accordingly, in developing this final 
rule the Commission has assessed how best to meet consumers' 
information needs, and the practical constraints of vehicle labeling. 
To that end, the Commission has considered whether allowing 
manufacturers the option of determining where the required disclosures 
would be displayed would promote simple labeling useful to consumers.
    The Commission notes that consumers generally have little 
familiarity with competing alternative-fuel options or AFV technology, 
or how those options and technology compare with conventional fuels or 
vehicles. The Commission also notes that consumers need pertinent 
information to help them make comparisons between the competing fuel 
options and technologies. The Commission therefore believes that 
consumers would best be served if the information to be disclosed is 
displayed on labels in a standard, uniform format. The Commission also 
believes that the proposed label formats disclose information in a fair 
and balanced manner.\392\

    \392\In fact, comments from the groups representing the natural 
gas and ethanol industries supported the proposed label formats. 
AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 3; RFA, I-3, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, however, the Commission has 
determined that it should modify two aspects of its SNPR proposal to 
address practical concerns raised by the domestic automakers. First, 
the final rule removes the SNPR requirement that AFV labels be posted 
on visible ``window'' surfaces. As a result, conspicuous posting of the 
label on any visible surface constitutes compliance with the final 
rule. Second, the final rule removes the requirement that AFV labels 
appear in a two-sided format. Under this revision, the labels can 
either be displayed immediately adjacent to each other (on two sheets), 
or in the two-sided format proposed in the SNPR, at the discretion of 
the manufacturer.
5. Effective Date
    In the SNPR the Commission proposed that its AFV labeling 
requirements be effective ninety days after publication of a final rule 
in the Federal Register, and sought comment on that proposed effective 
date.\393\ AAMA and Chrysler addressed this issue, and both contended 
that [[Page 26952]] manufacturers would require additional lead time to 
comply with the new labeling requirements.\394\ AAMA explained that the 
Commission's labeling requirements would require manufacturers to 
design, order, produce, deliver, and integrate new labels into the 
vehicle production process. For new covered vehicles, the system would 
also need to accommodate internal coding and tracking data, to account 
for the fact that the labels would disclose information specific to 
each vehicle. AAMA also stated that the two-sided format for those 
labels created even greater complications with printing and 
application.\395\ As a result, ninety days did not allow adequate time 
for compliance. AAMA suggested that the AFV labeling requirements be 
effective at least 180 days after publication ``if manufacturers are 
given the option to use existing labels. Otherwise, we recommend that 
the FTC allow at least 9 months lead time.''\396\ Chrysler stated that 
it would need 180 days to implement the introduction of a new 
label.\397\

    \393\59 FR 59666, 59697.
    \394\A third commenter stated that this issue could best be 
answered by vehicle manufacturers. Mobil, I-2, 12-13. Eight other 
comments indicated general support for the Commission's AFV labeling 
proposal without addressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2,3; Boston 
Edison, I-14, 1; Chicago, J-2, 1; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-
4, 1; Mobil, I-2, cover letter at 2; 6; NAFA, I-10, 1, 2; RFA, I-3, 
1-2.
    \395\AAMA, I-16, 3-4, 6.
    \396\AAMA, I-16, 6.
    \397\Chrysler, I-13, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 does not address when the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements must be effective. In developing this final rule the 
Commission has thus considered how best to balance consumers' needs for 
comparative information with industry's need for a reasonable period of 
time to come into compliance. For consumers considering those vehicles, 
the Commission notes that some consumers may need comparative 
information shortly after this notice's publication date, because EPA 
92's fleet acquisition mandates begin with fiscal year 1996 for the 
federal fleet\398\ and model year 1996 for alternative fuel 
providers.\399\ However, it is not clear that these consumers (i.e., 
the ones most likely to be affected by a longer effective date) would 
make purchasing decisions based on a vehicle label: the federal 
government, because of its purchasing power, and the fuel providers, 
because of their own experience and expertise.

    \398\42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \399\42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993). Acquisition requirements 
for private fleet operators begin in model year 1999. 42 U.S.C. 
13257 (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that for used covered AFVs, the final 
rule requires disclosure of standard information in a uniform 
format.\400\ Implementation of that requirement would thus simply 
require obtaining copies of the required label format and arranging for 
posting on affected vehicles. Because the market for used vehicles 
powered by alternative fuels is not extensive at this time, allowing 
sellers additional time to comply with the labeling requirements will 
not result in undue hardship to consumers.

    \400\See Final Rule Sec. 309.203(e) (content of labels for used 
covered vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission concludes that the 
proposed effective date (i.e., ninety days after publication in the 
Federal Register) will not provide AFV manufacturers and dealers with 
sufficient time to prepare to comply with the new labeling 
requirements. Instead, the final rule requires compliance within 180 
days after publication in the Federal Register, a period that is 
reasonable and consistent with EPA 92's legislative program. The final 
rule, however, does not preclude AFV manufacturers and dealers and used 
AFV sellers from posting the required labels before the rule's 
effective date. Further, consumers will be able to obtain information 
about AFVs from DOE before (as well as after) these labels are 
required.
6. Updating AFV Labeling Requirements
    As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to update its 
labeling requirements ``periodically'' (a duration not otherwise 
defined in the statute) ``to reflect the most recent available 
information.''\401\ This requirement contrasts with EPA 92's direction 
to DOE to update its consumer information package ``annually.''\402\ In 
the SNPR, the Commission proposed to keep apprised of pertinent 
technological advances, monitor the extent to which other governmental 
agencies impose labeling requirements, and then update its AFV labeling 
requirements as appropriate.\403\

    \401\42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \402\42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \403\59 FR 59666, 59697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments addressed this issue.\404\ Boston Edison/EEI 
``strongly support[ed]'' the Commission's proposal because regular 
updates on a fixed schedule ``might result in an arbitrary maintenance 
of problematic or outmoded rule provisions.''\405\ Mobil generally 
supported the Commission's proposal ``as long as the prerogative is not 
abused through excessive use.''\406\ AAMA suggested that the 
Commission's label formats were ``relatively inflexible'' and, as a 
result, ``the Administrator\407\ should have the discretional authority 
to be able to approve alternative labeling formats, upon the request of 
automotive manufacturers, without required additional 
rulemaking.''\408\

    \404\Six other comments generally supported the Commission's AFV 
labeling proposal without addressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, I-18, 2, 
3; Chicago, J-2, 1; Comm Elec, I-8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD, J-4, 1; NAFA, I-
10, 1, 2; RFA, I-3, 1-2.
    \405\Boston Edison/EEI, I-14, 8. They also suggested that the 
Commission monitor the standards upon which its disclosures are 
based, to ``avoid inadvertent reliance upon inappropriate or 
outmoded performance criteria.'' Id. at 3.
    \406\Mobil, I-2, 13. Mobil noted that frequent label changes 
during a single model year ``may cause confusion . . . and detract 
from the rule's intended purpose of informing the consumer. Truly 
pertinent and important information should be the only reason for a 
label change more frequently than one time per model year.'' Id.
    \407\This appears to be a reference to EPA's management 
structure. The Commission is an independent administrative agency 
composed of five members appointed by the President and confirmed by 
the Senate for terms of seven years. 16 CFR 0.1 (1994). It has no 
``Administrator.''
    \408\AAMA, I-16, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has determined that it 
should update its AFV labeling requirements as proposed in the SNPR. 
Given the irregular pace of technological development and regulatory 
activity, the Commission finds that a flexible approach will best meet 
consumers' needs. For example, although the Commission understands that 
EPA will promulgate rules that require fuel economy labeling for 
vehicles powered by LPG, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative 
fuels,\409\ the Commission cannot predict when those standards will be 
adopted. At a minimum, a review of the Rule will be conducted once 
every ten years, pursuant to the Commission's ongoing program to review 
all its rules and guides at least once every ten years. Accordingly, 
the final rule will be updated as appropriate based on the Commission's 
ongoing review of all pertinent developments.

    \409\59 FR 39638, 39639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires agencies to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis when publishing a proposed 
rule unless the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.''\410\ In the SNPR, to ensure the accuracy of the required 
dispenser labels, the Commission proposed substantiation, 
certification, and [[Page 26953]] recordkeeping requirements for 
importers, producers, refiners and distributors of gaseous alternative 
fuels, and manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing systems. The Commission also proposed substantiation, 
recordkeeping and disclosure requirements for retail sellers of the 
three non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels. In addition, the Commission 
proposed requiring that AFV manufacturers determine and disclose on 
labels certain product-specific information, and maintain records to 
substantiate the two product-specific disclosures that must be included 
on labels.

    \410\5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).
    The Commission preliminarily concluded that the proposed rule, if 
enacted, would have a minimal effect on all business entities within 
the affected industries, regardless of their size. Available 
information suggested that approximately 1,000 companies import, 
produce, refine, distribute, or retail CNG to consumers. Further, only 
approximately 50 companies manufacture or distribute electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing systems, and no more than 250 retail companies sell 
electricity to consumers through such systems for the purpose of 
recharging electric vehicle batteries. Information the Commission 
possessed also indicated that relatively few companies currently 
manufacture, convert, or sell AFVs. Except for those companies that 
sell non-liquid alternative fuel (including electricity) to consumers, 
the Commission stated that most of the aforementioned industry members, 
including those that manufacture or sell AFVs, are not ``small 
entities'' as that term is defined in section 601 of the RFA<SUP>411 
and in the regulations of the Small Business Administration.<SUP>412

    \411\5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \412\13 CFR Part 121 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also stated that although there may be some ``small 
entities'' among retail sellers of non-liquid alternative fuels 
(including electricity), the labeling rules proposed would likely have 
only a minimal impact on these small entities. Any such impact would 
likely consist of minimal additional recordkeeping and of retailers 
placing labels on fuel dispensers (to the extent this is not done by 
distributors for their retailer customers). The impact on small 
entities, therefore, appeared to be de minimis and not significant.
    In light of these factors, in the SNPR the Commission certified 
under the RFA that the rule proposed would not, if promulgated, have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, 
therefore, that a regulatory analysis was not necessary.<SUP>413 To 
ensure the accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission 
requested comments on whether the proposed rule would have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including 
specific information on the number of entities in each category that 
would be covered by the proposed rule, the number of these companies 
that are ``small entities,'' and the average annual burden for each 
entity.

    \413\This analysis and conclusion was consistent with 
Commission's analysis and conclusion in its Statement of Basis and 
Purpose (``SBP'') for the liquid alternative fuels amendments to the 
Fuel Rating Rule. In that SBP, the Commission certified that the 
Fuel Rating Rule's similar requirements would not have a significant 
impact. 58 FR 41356, 41369-41370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments specifically addressed this aspect of the Commission's 
SNPR proposal. The Commission, however, received three comments that 
tangentially addressed this issue. These comments stated that the 
requirements that producers and importers of natural gas comply with 
the proposed rule's CNG fuel rating determination, certification and 
recordkeeping requirements, which includes determining and certifying 
the minimum percentage of methane in natural gas, would be overly 
burdensome. These comments stated that most producers currently do not 
sell natural gas vehicle fuel, and, therefore, do not test for or 
certify the methane content of the natural gas they sell.<SUP>414

    \414\AGA/NGVC, I-18, 3-6; API, I-15, 1-5; Unocal, I-5, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The statements by Unocal, API and AGA/NGVC do not persuade the 
Commission that the requirements it has adopted will impose a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
First, none of the comments cited specific cost or burden estimates or 
submitted supporting data concerning the specific burden on any 
parties. Second, the burden of determining and certifying fuel ratings 
falls on producers of natural gas only if the fuel is transferred for 
use as a vehicle fuel. Further, no commenters submitted information to 
contradict the Commission's belief, which was stated in the SNPR, that 
most of these industry members are not ``small entities,'' as that term 
is defined either in section 601 of the RFA or applicable regulations 
of the Small Business Administration.<SUP>415 In addition, the rule 
adopted by the Commission does not require natural gas producers to 
conduct tests themselves to determine the fuel rating of natural gas. 
For example, they may use private facilities for fuel rating 
determinations, thus obviating the need to have testing equipment of 
their own. The rule also does not require producers to certify the fuel 
rating of CNG with each transfer of the fuel. The rule permits 
producers to give the person to whom the fuel is transferred a letter 
or written statement, including the fuel rating. The letter or written 
statement is effective until the producer transfers non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with a lower 
percentage of the major component, or of any other component claimed. 
Therefore, the Commission believes that the fuel rating determination 
and certification requirements it has adopted will minimize burdens on 
even small businesses.

    \415\59 FR 59666, 59698.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the basis of all the information now before it, the Commission 
has determined that the rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Consequently, the Commission 
concludes that a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. In 
light of the above, the Commission certifies, under section 605 of the 
RFA,<SUP>416 that the rule it has adopted will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    \416\5 U.S.C. 605(b).
IV. Regulatory Review

    The Commission has implemented a program to review all of its 
current and proposed rules and guides. One purpose of the review is to 
minimize the economic impact of new regulatory actions. As part of that 
overall regulatory review, the Commission solicited comments in the 
SNPR on questions concerning benefits and significant burdens and costs 
of the proposed rule and alternatives to the proposals that would 
increase benefits to purchasers and minimize the costs and other 
burdens to firms subject to the rule's requirements. Only one comment 
raised an issue not previously covered in other parts of this notice. 
Specifically, RFA urged the Commission to preclude localities from 
creating more stringent labeling requirements for alternative fuels so 
that alternative fuel labeling will be consistent nationwide and 
consumer confusion could be avoided.<SUP>417

    \417\RFA, I-3, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is not persuaded that any reduction in consumer 
confusion that could result from the narrow standard suggested by RFA 
would outweigh the benefits of the preemption standard proposed in the 
[[Page 26954]] SNPR. This proposed standard would allow state and local 
jurisdictions the latitude to establish and enforce regulations that 
best suit the needs of their particular regions, provided the 
regulations do not frustrate the purposes of the rule. The Commission, 
therefore, is adopting the proposed preemption standard, which is 
substantially the same standard it has used in other Commission rules. 
Under this standard, the rule supersedes only state and local laws and 
regulations that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the 
rule in a manner that would frustrate its purposes.<SUP>418

    \418\See final rule Sec. 309.104 infra. This preemption standard 
is different from the standard in the Fuel Rating Rule. Under 
Sec. 306.4 of the Fuel Rating Rule, ``no State or any political 
subdivision thereof may adopt or continue in effect, except as 
provided in subsection (b), any provision of law or regulation with 
respect to such act or omission, unless such provision of such law 
or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this 
title.'' 16 CFR 306.4 (1994). The preemption provision in the Fuel 
Rating Rule is specified by Sec. 204 of the Petroleum Marketing 
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2824. There is no similar provision that 
applies to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''),<SUP>419 and regulations of 
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')<SUP>420 implementing the 
PRA, require agencies to obtain clearance for regulations that involve 
the ``collection of information,'' which includes both reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. In the SNPR, consistent with the Fuel 
Rating Rule's requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels, the 
Commission proposed requiring that producers, importers, refiners, and 
distributors of CNG and hydrogen, retailers of CNG, hydrogen and 
electricity, and manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing systems maintain records to substantiate the product-
specific disclosures that would be required on fuel dispenser labels. 
In addition, the Commission proposed requiring that AFV manufacturers 
maintain records to substantiate two product-specific disclosures that 
would be required on AFV labels.

    \419\44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \420\5 CFR 1320.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed recordkeeping requirements are ``collections of 
information'' as defined by the OMB regulations implementing the PRA. 
The proposed requirements, therefore, were submitted to OMB for review 
under the PRA. In the SNPR, the Commission stated it believed that the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements, if enacted, would impose a minimal 
annual ``collection of information'' burden on each covered party 
within the affected industries.
    The Commission also stated that it expected certifications for non-
liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity) will be noted on 
documents (shipping receipts, etc.) already in use, or will be 
accomplished with a one-time letter of certification, consistent with 
current procedures for gasoline and liquid alternative fuel suppliers 
covered by the Fuel Rating Rule. Producers, importers, refiners, and 
distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), 
and retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity) 
need merely file and retain these certifications as the required 
recordkeeping.
    Further, the Commission stated it expected that manufacturers of 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems will permanently mark the 
required disclosures on the equipment or systems, or will note that 
information on documents (shipping receipts, etc.) already in use. 
Manufacturers need merely file and retain records demonstrating 
substantiation for the proposed labeling disclosures. Distributors and 
retailers need merely file the documents provided to them by the 
manufacturers or distributors. If the systems are permanently marked by 
the manufacturers, distributors and retailers may rely on the permanent 
markings as the required recordkeeping.
    In the SNPR, the Commission stated it believed that the burden per 
covered industry member that the Commission estimated for the Fuel 
Rating Rule also was appropriate in this proceeding. In the liquid 
alternative fuel amendments to the Fuel Rating Rule, the Commission 
estimated that the information collection burden associated with that 
rule's recordkeeping requirements was six minutes per year per industry 
member.<SUP>421 This estimate was small because the records at issue 
were likely to be retained by the industry during the normal course of 
business, and the ``burden,'' for OMB purposes, is defined to exclude 
effort that would be expended in any event.<SUP>422 Based on these 
figures, the Commission estimated that the total yearly information 
collection burden of the proposed rule on these industry members would 
be 130 hours (six minutes per year times 1,300 industry members).

    \421\58 FR 41356, 41370-41371.
    \422\Section 1320.7(b)(1) of the regulations implementing the 
PRA, 5 CFR 1320.7(b)(1) (1994), states:
    The time and financial resources necessary to comply with a 
collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the 
normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and 
maintaining business records) will be excluded from the ``burden'' 
if the agency demonstrates that the reporting or recordkeeping 
activities needed to comply are usual and customary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPR, the Commission also proposed requiring that AFV 
manufacturers maintain records to substantiate the tailpipe emission 
standard to which the vehicle has been certified pursuant to applicable 
EPA regulations,<SUP>423 and their estimates of each vehicle's cruising 
range. Pursuant to the proposed rule, manufacturers would calculate 
cruising range values in one of three ways. For vehicles required to 
comply with EPA's fuel-economy labeling provisions, cruising range 
would be calculated using the vehicle's estimated fuel-economy rating 
in conjunction with the fuel tank capacity of the vehicle.<SUP>424 For 
electric vehicles, cruising range would be calculated in accordance 
with the Society of Automotive Engineers' ``Recommended Practice,'' 
J1634. For other vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA's 
fuel economy stickers, the Commission proposed that manufacturers 
possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable 
evidence, for the cruising range values disclosed. The Commission 
estimated that the information collection burden associated with the 
proposed recordkeeping requirements for AFV manufacturers would be 
thirty minutes per year per manufacturer. This was an average burden 
estimate developed after considering that the overall burden associated 
with complying with the rule's recordkeeping requirements would be much 
greater, for example, for AFV manufacturers who must disclose cruising 
range figures on vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA fuel 
economy stickers.

    \423\40 CFR Parts 86 and 88 (1994).
    \424\40 CFR Part 600 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although under the proposed rule manufacturers would be required to 
determine cruising ranges and emission standards for different models 
of vehicles, the burden estimate (i.e., thirty minutes) also was small 
because the Commission believed the records at issue were likely to be 
developed and retained by the industry during the normal course of 
business. The Commission estimated that approximately 58 industry 
members would be covered by the proposed rule's cruising range and 
emission standard recordkeeping requirements. This estimate of the 
number of affected industry members was based on similar estimates EPA 
made in connection with its emission standards recordkeeping 
requirements contained in a final rule establishing two clean-fuel 
vehicle [[Page 26955]] programs.<SUP>425 Based on these figures, the 
Commission estimated that the current total yearly burden of the 
proposed rule on the 58 industry members would be 29 hours (thirty 
minutes per year times 58 industry members).

    \425\The information collection requirements in EPA's rule were 
submitted to OMB by EPA and discussed in ICR No. 1694. Fleet 
Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50072, Sept. 30, 1994. Under EPA's 
Clean Fuel Fleet Program, a percentage of new vehicles acquired by 
certain fleet owners located in covered areas will be required to 
meet clean-fuel fleet vehicle emission standards. The California 
Pilot Test Program requires manufacturers to sell light-duty clean-
fuel vehicles in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, the Commission estimated that the total burden 
associated with complying with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements 
for AFVs and non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity) would 
be a total of approximately 159 hours per year for all affected 
industry members. To ensure the accuracy of these burden estimates, 
however, the Commission solicited comment on the paperwork burden that 
the proposed requirements may impose to ensure that no additional 
burden had been overlooked.
    No comments addressed the paperwork burden projections the 
Commission made in the SNPR. Nevertheless, the Commission considered 
reducing slightly the overall regulatory burden of complying with the 
rule by eliminating AFV manufacturers' recordkeeping requirements 
associated with substantiating tailpipe emission standards based on 
verifiable EPA certifications, and cruising range values based, in 
part, on verifiable EPA estimated fuel-economy ratings. The information 
collection requirements the Commission is adopting for such AFV 
manufacturers, however, includes maintenance of records only, not 
reporting requirements. Further, AFV manufacturers must have the 
aforementioned information (the EPA certifications for emissions and 
the EPA estimated fuel economy ratings) to substantiate the disclosures 
they must make under the Commission's labeling rules. The Commission 
expects that manufacturers normally will maintain records showing this 
information in the normal course of prudent business practice. Minimal 
additional burden, therefore, is created by a requirement in the 
Commission's rule that these substantiating records be maintained, and 
eliminating these recordkeeping requirements would not significantly 
reduce the overall regulatory burden on AFV manufacturers. On balance, 
therefore, the Commission sees no reason to revise its projections of 
burden per year per covered industry member, or modify the 
recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule.
    Because the aforementioned requirements would involve the 
``collection of information'' as defined by the regulations of OMB, the 
Commission was required to submit the proposed requirements to OMB for 
clearance, 5 CFR 1320.13, and did so as part of this proceeding. OMB 
approved the request, and assigned control number 3084-0094 to the 
information collection requirements.<SUP>426 This approval will expire 
on November 30, 1997, unless it has been extended before that date.

    \426\Notice of OMB Action to the FTC (Dec. 30, 1994).
VI. Metric Usage

    The metric measurement system is the preferred system of weights 
and measures for United States trade and commerce.<SUP>427 Federal law 
requires federal agencies to use the metric measurement system in all 
procurements, grants and other business-related activities (including 
rulemakings), except to the extent that such use is impractical or 
likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. 
firms.<SUP>428 In the SNPR, the Commission identified the proposal that 
AFV labels disclose cruising range in miles<SUP>429 as having a 
potential for the use of metric terms. The Commission thus sought 
comment on whether to require metric or dual (i.e., metric and non-
metric) units for this disclosure.

    \427\15 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No. 12,770, 56 FR 
35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing section 205b).
    \428\Id.
    \429\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20, 309.22, 59 FR 59666, 59707-
59708.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two comments addressed this aspect of the Commission's SNPR 
proposal, and both urged the Commission to require metric and non-
metric units for the cruising range disclosure.<SUP>430 The Commission 
is not persuaded, however, that requiring metric equivalents on AFV 
labels would be appropriate at this time. The Commission's AFV labels 
were designed to be consistent with EPA's fuel economy labels, which do 
not utilize metric disclosures. Further, according to section 406(a) of 
EPA 92, the Commission's required labels must be simple. Given the 
amount of information the Commission's AFV labels will contain, the 
Commission does not believe that it would be practical to require 
metric equivalents at this time. The marginal increase in the public's 
understanding of the metric system that might result from disclosure of 
metric equivalents does not appear to offset the practicality problems 
and potential for confusion that the additional metric terms would 
create. The Commission, therefore, is not requiring disclosure of 
cruising range in metric (i.e., kilometers) as well as inch-pound 
measurements (i.e., miles).

    \430\Mechtly, I-1, 1; Sokol, I-17, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309

    Alternative fuel, Alternative fueled vehicle, Energy conservation, 
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping, 
Trade practices.

VII. Text of Rule

    Accordingly, the Commission amends 16 CFR Chapter I by adding a new 
part 309 to Subchapter C to read as follows:

PART 309--LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND 
ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES

Subpart A--General

Sec.
309.1  Definitions.
309.2  What this part does.
309.3  Stayed or invalid portions.
309.4  Preemption.

Subpart B--Requirements for Alternative Fuels

Duties of Importers, Producers, and Refiners of Non-Liquid Alternative 
Vehicle Fuels (other than electricity) and of Manufacturers of Electric 
Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems

309.10  Alternative vehicle fuel rating.
309.11  Certification.
309.12  Recordkeeping.

Duties of Distributors of Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels (other 
than electricity) and of Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems

309.13  Certification.
309.14  Recordkeeping.

Duties of Retailers

309.15  Posting of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel rating.
309.16  Recordkeeping.

Label Specifications

309.17  Labels.

Subpart C--Requirements for Alternative Fueled Vehicles

309.20  Labeling requirements for new covered vehicles.
309.21  Labeling requirements for used covered vehicles.
309.22  Determining estimated cruising range.
309.23  Recordkeeping.

Appendix A--Figures for Part 309

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).

Subpart A--General


Sec. 309.1  Definitions.
    As used in subparts B and C of this part: [[Page 26956]] 
    (a) Acquisition includes either of the following:
    (1) Acquiring the beneficial title to a covered vehicle; or
    (2) Acquiring a covered vehicle for transportation purposes 
pursuant to a contract or similar arrangement for a period of 120 days 
or more.
    (b) Aftermarket conversion system means any combination of hardware 
which allows a vehicle or engine to operate on a fuel other than the 
fuel which the vehicle or engine was originally certified to use.
    (c) Alternative fuel means
    (1) Methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols;
    (2) Mixtures containing 85 percent or more by volume of methanol, 
denatured ethanol, and/or other alcohols (or such other percentage, but 
not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary, by rule, to 
provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle 
functions), with gasoline or other fuels;
    (3) Natural gas;
    (4) Liquefied petroleum gas;
    (5) Hydrogen;
    (6) Coal-derived liquid fuels;
    (7) Fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials;
    (8) Electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and
    (9) Any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is 
substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security 
benefits and substantial environmental benefits.
    (d)(1) Consumer in subpart C means an individual, corporation, 
partnership, association, State, municipality, political subdivision of 
a State, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United 
States.
    (2) Consumer or ultimate purchaser in subpart B means, with respect 
to any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity), the 
first person who purchases such fuel for purposes other than resale.
    (e) Conventional fuel means gasoline or diesel fuel.
    (f) Covered vehicle means either of the following:
    (1) A dedicated or dual fueled passenger car (or passenger car 
derivative) capable of seating 12 passengers or less; or
    (2) A dedicated or dual fueled motor vehicle (other than a 
passenger car or passenger car derivative) with a gross vehicle weight 
rating less than 8,500 pounds which has a vehicle curb weight of less 
than 6,000 pounds and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of less 
than 45 square feet, which is:
    (i) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property 
or is a derivation of such a vehicle; or
    (ii) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a 
capacity of more than 12 persons.
    (g) Dedicated means designed to operate solely on alternative fuel.
    (h) Distributor means any person, except a common carrier, who 
receives non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) 
and distributes such fuel to another person other than the consumer. It 
also means any person, except a common carrier, who receives an 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing system and distributes such system to 
a retailer.
    (i) Dual fueled means capable of operating on alternative fuel and 
capable of operating on conventional fuel.
    (j) Electric charging system equipment means equipment that 
includes an electric battery charger and is used for dispensing 
electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an 
electric vehicle.
    (k) Electric vehicle (``EV'') means a vehicle designed to operate 
exclusively on electricity stored in a rechargeable battery, multiple 
batteries, or battery pack.
    (l) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system means electric charging 
system equipment or an electrical energy dispensing system.
    (m) Electrical energy dispensing system means equipment that does 
not include an electric charger and is used for dispensing electricity 
to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric 
vehicle that contains an on-board electric battery charger.
    (n) Emission certification standard means the emission standard to 
which a covered vehicle has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR parts 86 
and 88.
    (o) Estimated cruising range for non-EVs means a manufacturer's 
reasonable estimate of the number of miles a new covered vehicle will 
travel between refueling, expressed as a lower estimate (i.e., minimum 
estimated cruising range) and an upper estimate (i.e., maximum 
estimated cruising range), as determined by Sec. 309.22. Estimated 
cruising range for EVs means a manufacturer's reasonable estimate of 
the number of miles a new covered EV will travel between recharging, 
expressed as a single estimate, as determined by Sec. 309.22.
    (p) Fuel dispenser means:
    (1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than 
electricity), the dispenser through which a retailer sells the fuel to 
consumers.
    (2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, the dispenser 
through which a retailer dispenses electricity to consumers for the 
purpose of recharging batteries in an electric vehicle.
    (q) Fuel rating means:
    (1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than 
electricity), including, but not limited to, compressed natural gas and 
hydrogen gas, the commonly used name of the fuel with a disclosure of 
the amount, expressed as a minimum molecular percentage, of the 
principal component of the fuel. A disclosure of other components, 
expressed as a minimum molecular percentage, may be included, if 
desired.
    (2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, a common 
identifier (such as, but not limited to, ``electricity,'' ``electric 
charging system,'' ``electric charging station'') with a disclosure of 
the system's kilowatt (``kW'') capacity, voltage, whether the voltage 
is alternating current (``ac'') or direct current (``dc''), amperage, 
and whether the system is conductive or inductive.
    (r) Manufacturer means the person who obtains a certificate of 
conformity that the vehicle complies with the standards and 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 86 and 88.
    (s) Manufacturer of an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system 
means any person who manufactures or assembles an electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing system that is distributed specifically for use by retailers 
in dispensing electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging 
batteries in an electric vehicle.
    (t) New covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has not been 
acquired by a consumer.
    (u) New vehicle dealer means a person who is engaged in the sale or 
leasing of new covered vehicles.
    (v) New vehicle label means a window sticker containing the 
information required by Sec. 309.20(e).
    (w) Non-liquid alternative fueled vehicle means a vehicle capable 
of operating on a non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel.
    (x) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel means alternative fuel used 
for the purpose of powering a non-liquid alternative fueled vehicle, 
including, but not limited to, compressed natural gas (``CNG''), 
hydrogen gas (``hydrogen''), electricity, and any other non-liquid 
vehicle fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not 
petroleum and would yield substantial energy benefits and substantial 
environmental benefits.
    (y) Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, or any 
other business organization.
    (z) Producer means any person who purchases component elements and 
combines them to produce and market non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity). [[Page 26957]] 
    (aa) Refiner means any person engaged in the production or 
importation of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity).
    (bb) Retailer means any person who offers for sale, sells, or 
distributes non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity) 
to consumers.
    (cc) Secretary means the Secretary of the United States Department 
of Energy.
    (dd) Used covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has been 
acquired by a consumer, but does not include any vehicle sold only for 
scrap or parts (title documents surrendered to the State and a salvage 
certificate issued).
    (ee) Used vehicle dealer means a person engaged in the sale or 
leasing of used covered vehicles who has sold or leased five or more 
used covered vehicles in the previous twelve months, but does not 
include a bank or financial institution, a business selling or leasing 
used covered vehicles to an employee of that business, or a lessor 
selling or leasing a leased vehicle by or to that vehicle's lessee or 
to an employee of the lessee.
    (ff) Used vehicle label means a window sticker containing the 
information required by Sec. 309.21(e).
    (gg) Vehicle fuel tank capacity means the tank's usable capacity 
(i.e., the volume of fuel that can be pumped into the tank through the 
filler pipe with the vehicle on a level surface and with the unusable 
capacity already in the tank). The term does not include unusable 
capacity (i.e., the volume of fuel left at the bottom of the tank when 
the vehicle's fuel pump can no longer draw fuel from the tank), the 
vapor volume of the tank (i.e., the space above the fuel tank filler 
neck), or the volume of the fuel tank filler neck.


Sec. 309.2  What this part does.

    This part establishes labeling requirements for non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuels, and for certain vehicles powered in whole or 
in part by alternative fuels.


Sec. 309.3  Stayed or invalid portions.

    If any portion of this part is stayed or held invalid, the rest of 
it will stay in force.


Sec. 309.4  Preemption.

    Inconsistent state and local regulations are preempted to the 
extent they would frustrate the purposes of this part.

Subpart B--Requirements for Alternative Fuels

Duties of Importers, Producers, and Refiners of Non-Liquid Alternative 
Vehicle Fuels (other than electricity) and of Manufacturers of Electric 
Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems


Sec. 309.10  Alternative vehicle fuel rating.

    (a) If you are an importer, producer, or refiner of non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must determine 
the fuel rating of all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) before you transfer it. You can do that yourself or 
through a testing lab. To determine fuel ratings, you must possess a 
reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for 
the minimum percentage of the principal component of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) that you must 
disclose, and for the minimum percentages of other components that you 
choose to disclose. For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for 
the minimum percentage of the principal component of compressed natural 
gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') D 1945-91, 
``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas 
Chromatography.'' For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for 
the minimum percentage of the principal component of hydrogen gas are 
to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in ASTM D 
1946-90, ``Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas 
Chromatography.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR Part 51. Copies of D 1945-91 and D 1946-90 may be obtained from 
the American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, 
Philadelphia, PA 19103, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade 
Commission, Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (b) If you are a manufacturer of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
systems, you must determine the fuel rating of the electric charge 
delivered by the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system before you 
transfer such systems. To determine the fuel rating of the electric 
vehicle fuel dispensing system, you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the following output 
information you must disclose: kilowatt (``kW'') capacity, voltage, 
whether the voltage is alternating current (``ac'') or direct current 
(``dc''), amperage, and whether the system is conductive or inductive.


Sec. 309.11  Certification.

    (a) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity), in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a 
consumer, you must certify the fuel rating of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) consistent with your 
determination. You can do this in either of two ways:
    (1) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of 
non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity). It may be 
an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery 
ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It must contain at 
least these four items:
    (i) Your name;
    (ii) The name of the person to whom the non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel (other than electricity) is transferred;
    (iii) The date of the transfer; and
    (iv) The fuel rating.
    (2) Give the person a letter or written statement. This letter must 
include the date, your name, the other person's name, and the fuel 
rating of any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) you will transfer to that person from the date of the 
letter onwards. This letter of certification will be good until you 
transfer non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) 
with a lower percentage of the principal component, or of any other 
component disclosed in the certification. When this happens, you must 
certify the fuel rating of the new non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity) either with a delivery ticket or by sending a 
new letter of certification.
    (b) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, in each transfer 
you make to anyone who is not a consumer, you must certify the fuel 
rating of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system consistent with 
your determination. You can do this in either of two ways:
    (1) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of 
an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system. It may be an invoice, bill 
of lading, bill of sale, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of 
transfer. It must contain at least these five items:
    (i) Your name;
    (ii) The name of the person to whom the electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing system is transferred;
    (iii) The date of the transfer;
    (iv) The model number, serial number, or other identifier of the 
[[Page 26958]] electric vehicle fuel dispensing system; and
    (v) The fuel rating.
    (2) Make the required certification by placing clearly and 
conspicuously on the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system a 
permanent legible marking or permanently attached label that discloses 
the manufacturer's name, the model number, serial number, or other 
identifier of the system, and the fuel rating. Such marking or label 
must be located where it can be seen after installation of the system. 
The marking or label will be deemed ``legible,'' in terms of placement, 
if it is located in close proximity to the manufacturer's 
identification marking. This marking or label must be in addition to, 
and not a substitute for, the label required to be posted on the 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the retailer.
    (c) When you transfer non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other 
than electricity), or an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, to a 
common carrier, you must certify the fuel rating of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) or electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing system to the common carrier, either by letter or on 
the delivery ticket or other paper, or by a permanent marking or label 
attached to the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the 
manufacturer.


Sec. 309.12  Recordkeeping.

    You must keep for one year records of how you determined fuel 
ratings. The records must be available for inspection by Federal Trade 
Commission staff members, or by people authorized by FTC.

Duties of Distributors of Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels (other 
than electricity) and of Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems


Sec. 309.13  Certification.

    (a) If you are a distributor of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity), you must certify the fuel rating of the fuel 
in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer. You may 
certify either by using a delivery ticket or other paper with each 
transfer of fuel, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(a)(1), or by using a 
letter of certification, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(a)(2).
    (b) If you are a distributor of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
systems, you must certify the fuel rating of the system in each 
transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer. You may certify by 
using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as outlined 
in Sec. 309.11(b)(1), or by using the permanent marking or permanent 
label attached to the system by the manufacturer, as outlined in 
Sec. 309.11(b)(2).
    (c) If you do not blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other 
than electricity), you must certify consistent with the fuel rating 
certified to you. If you blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity), you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, as required by 
Sec. 309.10(a), for the fuel rating that you certify for the blend.
    (d) When you transfer non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other 
than electricity), or an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, to a 
common carrier, you must certify the fuel rating of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) or electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing system to the common carrier, either by letter or on 
the delivery ticket or other paper, or by a permanent marking or label 
attached to the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the 
manufacturer. When you receive non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity), or an electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
system, from a common carrier, you also must receive from the common 
carrier a certification of the fuel rating of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) or electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing system, either by letter or on the delivery ticket or 
other paper, or by a permanent marking or label attached to the 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the manufacturer.


Sec. 309.14  Recordkeeping.

    You must keep for one year any delivery tickets, letters of 
certification, or other paper on which you based your fuel rating 
certifications for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than 
electricity) and for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. You also 
must keep for one year records of any fuel rating determinations you 
made according to Sec. 309.10. If you rely for your certification on a 
permanent marking or permanent label attached to the electric vehicle 
fuel dispensing system by the manufacturer, you must not remove or 
deface the permanent marking or label. The records must be available 
for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, or by persons 
authorized by FTC.

Duties of Retailers


Sec. 309.15  Posting of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel rating.

    (a) If you are a retailer who offers for sale or sells non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) to consumers, you 
must post the fuel rating of each non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel. 
If you are a retailer who offers for sale or sells electricity to 
consumers through an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, you must 
post the fuel rating of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system you 
use. You must do this by putting at least one label on the face of each 
fuel dispenser through which you sell non-liquid alternative vehicle 
fuel. If you are selling two or more kinds of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuels with different fuel ratings from a single fuel dispenser, 
you must put separate labels for each kind of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel on the face of the fuel dispenser.
    (b)(1) The label, or labels, must be placed conspicuously on the 
fuel dispenser so as to be in full view of consumers and as near as 
reasonably practical to the price per unit of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel.
    (2) You may petition for an exemption from the placement 
requirements by writing the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC 20580. You must state the reasons that you want the 
exemption.
    (c) If you do not blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other 
than electricity), you must post consistent with the fuel rating 
certified to you. If you blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity), you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, as required by 
Sec. 309.10(a), for the fuel rating that you post for the blend.
    (d)(1) You must maintain and replace labels as needed to make sure 
consumers can easily see and read them.
    (2) If the labels you have are destroyed or are unusable or 
unreadable for some unexpected reason, you may satisfy this part by 
posting a temporary label as much like the required label as possible. 
You must still get and post the required label without delay.
    (e) The following examples of fuel rating disclosures for CNG and 
hydrogen are meant to serve as illustrations of compliance with this 
part, but do not limit the rule's coverage to only the mentioned non-
liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity):

(1) ``CNG''
      ``Minimum''
      ``XXX%''
      ``Methane''
(2) ``Hydrogen''
      ``Minimum''
      ``XXX%''
      ``Hydrogen''

    (f) The following example of fuel rating disclosures for electric 
vehicle fuel dispensing systems is meant to [[Page 26959]] serve as an 
illustration of compliance with this part:

``Electricity''
``XX kW''
``XXX vac/XX amps''
``Inductive''

    (g) When you receive non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other 
than electricity), or an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, from 
a common carrier, you also must receive from the common carrier a 
certification of the fuel rating of the non-liquid alternative vehicle 
fuel (other than electricity) or electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
system, either by letter or on the delivery ticket or other paper, or 
by a permanent marking or label attached to the electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing system by the manufacturer.


Sec. 309.16  Recordkeeping.

    You must keep for one year any delivery tickets, letters of 
certification, or other paper on which you based your posting of fuel 
ratings for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels. You also must keep 
for one year records of any fuel rating determinations you made 
according to Sec. 309.10. If you rely for your posting on a permanent 
marking or permanent label attached to the electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing system by the manufacturer, you must not remove or deface 
the permanent marking or label. The required records, other than the 
permanent marking or label on the electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
system, may be kept at the retail outlet or at a reasonably close 
location. The records, including the permanent marking or label on each 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, must be available for 
inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members or by persons 
authorized by FTC.

Label Specifications


Sec. 309.17  Labels.

    All labels must meet the following specifications:
    (a) Layout:
    (1) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) 
labels with disclosure of principal component only. The label is 3'' 
(7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is 
used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label 
contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) 
deep. Spacing of the fuel name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the 
label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered 
horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the 
black band is \1/8\'' (.32 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All 
type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 
cm) between lines. The bottom line of type is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from 
the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than \3/16\'' 
(.48 cm) from the side edges of the label. If you wish to change the 
format of this single component label, you must petition the Federal 
Trade Commission. You can do this by writing to the Secretary of the 
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the size 
and contents of the label that you wish to use, and the reasons that 
you want to use it.
    (2) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) 
labels with disclosure of two components. The label is 3'' (7.62 cm) 
wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is used 
throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label 
contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) 
deep. Spacing of the fuel name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the 
label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered 
horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the 
black band is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All 
type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 
cm) between lines. The bottom line of type is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the 
bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than \3/16\'' (.48 
cm) from the side edges of the label. If you wish to change the format 
of this two component label, you must petition the Federal Trade 
Commission. You can do this by writing to the Secretary of the Federal 
Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the size and 
contents of the label that you wish to use, and the reasons that you 
want to use it.
    (3) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system labels. The label is 
3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type 
is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the 
label contains the common identifier of the fuel. This band should 
measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the common identifier is \1/4\'' 
(.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the 
bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. 
The first line of type beneath the black band is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from 
the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered 
horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between lines. The bottom line of 
type is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should 
fall no closer than \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label.
    (b) Type size and setting:
    (1) Labels for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than 
electricity) with disclosure of principal component only. All type 
should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. 
Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and 
photo-typesetting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform 
in style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between 
letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the fuel 
name is 50 point (\1/2\'' (1.27 cm) cap height) knocked out of a 1'' 
(2.54 cm) deep band. The type for the words ``MINIMUM'' and the 
principal component is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height). The type 
for percentage is 36 pt. (\3/8\'' (.96 cm) cap height).
    (2) Labels for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than 
electricity) with disclosure of two components. All type should be set 
in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. Helvetica 
Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and photo-
typesetting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform in 
style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between 
letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the fuel 
name is 50 point (\1/2\'' 1.27 cm) cap height) knocked out of a 1'' 
(2.54 cm) deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap 
height).
    (3) Labels for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. All type 
should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. 
Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and 
photo-typesetting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform 
in style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between 
letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the common 
identifier is 50 point (\1/2\'' 1.27 cm) cap height) knocked out of a 
1'' (2.54 cm) deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap 
height).
    (c) Colors: The background color on the labels for all non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuels (including electricity), and the color of the 
knock-out type within the black band, is Orange: PMS 1495. All other 
type is process black. All borders are process black. All colors must 
be non-fade.
    (d) Contents. Examples of the contents are shown in Figures 1 
through 3. The proper fuel rating for each non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel (including electricity) must be shown. No marks or 
information other than that called for by this part may appear on the 
labels.
    (e) Special label protection. All labels must be capable of 
withstanding extremes of weather conditions for a period of at least 
one year. They must be resistant to vehicle fuel, oil, grease, 
solvents, detergents, and water. [[Page 26960]] 
    (f) Illustrations of labels. Labels must meet the specifications in 
this section and look like Figures 1 through 3 of Appendix A, except 
the black print should be on the appropriately colored background.

Subpart C--Requirements for Alternative Fueled Vehicles


Sec. 309.20  Labeling requirements for new covered vehicles.

    (a) Affixing and maintaining labels
    (1) Before offering a new covered vehicle for acquisition to 
consumers, manufacturers shall affix or cause to be affixed, and new 
vehicle dealers shall maintain or cause to be maintained, a new vehicle 
label on a visible surface of each such vehicle.
    (2) If an aftermarket conversion system is installed on a vehicle 
by a person other than the manufacturer prior to such vehicle's being 
acquired by a consumer, the manufacturer shall provide that person with 
the vehicle's estimated cruising range (as determined by Sec. 309.22(a) 
for dedicated vehicles and Sec. 309.22(b) for dual fueled vehicles) and 
emission certification standard and ensure that new vehicle labels are 
affixed to such vehicles as required by paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Layout. Figures 4 through 6 of Appendix A are prototype labels 
that demonstrate the proper layout. All positioning, spacing, type 
size, and line widths shall be similar to and consistent with the 
prototype labels. Labels required by this section are two-sided and 
rectangular in shape measuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) wide and 5-1/2 inches 
(13.75 cm) long. Figure 4 of Appendix A represents the prototype for 
the front side of the labels for dedicated vehicles. Figures 5 and 5.1 
of Appendix A represent the prototype of the front side of the labels 
for dual-fueled vehicles; Figure 5 of Appendix A represents the 
prototype for vehicles with one fuel tank and Figure 5.1 of Appendix A 
represents the prototype for vehicles with two fuel tanks. Figure 6 of 
Appendix A represents the prototype of the back side of the labels for 
both dedicated and dual-fueled vehicles. Manufacturers may, at their 
discretion, display the appropriate front label format and back label 
format immediately adjacent to each other on the same visible surface. 
No marks or information other than that specified in this subpart shall 
appear on this label.
    (c) Type size and setting. The Helvetica Condensed and Helvetica 
family typefaces or equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. 
Specific type sizes and faces to be used are indicated on the prototype 
labels (Figures 4, 5, 5.1, and 6 of Appendix A). No hyphenation should 
be used in setting headline or text copy. Positioning and spacing 
should follow the prototypes closely.
    (d) Colors and Paper Stock. All labels shall be printed in process 
black ink on Hammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or 
equivalent) paper. Follow label prototypes for percentages of screen 
tints in Exhaust Emissions chart.
    (e) Content
    (1) Headlines and text, as illustrated in Figures 4, 5, 5.1, and 6 
of Appendix A, are standard for all labels.
    (2) Estimated cruising range. (i) For dedicated vehicles, 
determined in accordance with Sec. 309.22(a).
    (ii) For dual fueled vehicles, determined in accordance with 
Sec. 309.22(b).
    (3) Emission certification standard.
    (i) For vehicles not certified as meeting an EPA emissions 
standard, indicated by placing a mark in the appropriate box indicating 
that fact.
    (ii) For vehicles certified as meeting an EPA emissions standard, 
indicated by placing a mark in the appropriate box indicating that fact 
and by placing a caret above the standard to which that vehicle has 
been certified.


Sec. 309.21  Labeling requirements for used covered vehicles.

    (a) Affixing and maintaining labels. Before offering a used covered 
vehicle for acquisition to consumers, used vehicle dealers shall affix 
and maintain, or cause to be affixed and maintained, a used vehicle 
label on a visible surface of each such vehicle.
    (b) Layout. Figures 7 and 8 of Appendix A are prototype labels that 
demonstrate the proper layout. All positioning, spacing, type size, and 
line widths should be similar to and consistent with the prototype 
labels. Labels required by this section are two-sided and rectangular 
in shape measuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) in width and 5-1/2 inches (13.75 
cm) in height. Figure 7 represents the prototype of the front side of 
the labels for used covered vehicles. Figure 8 represents the back side 
of the labels for used covered vehicles. Manufacturers may, at their 
discretion, display the appropriate front label format and back label 
format immediately adjacent to each other on the same visible surface. 
No marks or information other than that specified in this subpart shall 
appear on this label.
    (c) Type size and setting. The Helvetica Condensed and Helvetica 
family typefaces or equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. 
Specific type sizes and faces to be used are indicated on the prototype 
labels (Figures 7 and 8 of Appendix A). No hyphenation should be used 
in setting headline or text copy. Positioning and spacing should follow 
the prototypes closely.
    (d) Colors and Paper Stock. All labels shall be printed in process 
black ink on Hammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or 
equivalent) paper.
    (e) Contents. Headlines and text, as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 
of Appendix A, are standard for all labels.
Sec. 309.22  Determining estimated cruising range.

    (a) Dedicated vehicles.
    (1) Estimated cruising range values for dedicated vehicles required 
to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 600 are to be calculated 
in accordance with the following:
    (i) The lower range value shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel-economy by its fuel tank capacity, then 
rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (ii) The upper range value shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel-economy by its fuel tank capacity, 
then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (2) Estimated cruising range for an EV is the actual vehicle range 
determined in accordance with test methods set forth in Society of 
Automotive Engineers (``SAE'') Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice SAE 
J1634-1993-05-20, ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test 
Procedure.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 
1 CFR Part 51. Copies of SAE J1634-1993-05-20 may be obtained from the 
Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, 
PA, 15096-0001, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, 
Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (3) To determine the estimated cruising range values for dedicated 
vehicles not required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 600 
(other than electric vehicles), you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the 
minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between 
refuelings or rechargings that is claimed.
    (b) Dual-fueled vehicles.
    (1) Estimated cruising range values for dual-fueled vehicles 
required to comply [[Page 26961]] with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 
600 are to be calculated in accordance with the following:
    (i) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel-economy by its alternative-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (ii) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel-economy by its alternative-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (iii) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel-economy by its conventional-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (iv) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel-economy by its conventional-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (3) To determine the estimated cruising range values for dual-
fueled vehicles not required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 600 (other than electric vehicles), you must possess a reasonable 
basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, of:
    (i) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel 
between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on 
alternative fuel, and
    (ii) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will 
travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on 
conventional fuel.
Sec. 309.23  Recordkeeping.

    Manufacturers required to comply this subpart shall establish, 
maintain, and retain copies of all data, reports, records, and 
procedures used to meet the requirements of this subpart for three 
years after the end of the model year to which they relate. They must 
be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, 
or by people authorized by the Federal Trade Commission.

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
Appendix A--Figures for Part 309
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.000



[[Page 26962]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.001



[[Page 26963]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.002



[[Page 26964]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.003



[[Page 26965]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.004



[[Page 26966]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.005



[[Page 26967]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR19MY95.006



BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
    By direction of the Commission, Chairman Pitofsky not 
participating, and Commissioner Azcuenaga concurring in part and 
dissenting in part.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Mary L. Azcuenaga Concurring in Part and 
Dissenting in Part

Label Requirements for Alternative Fuels, Matter No. R311002

    Today, the Commission issues a final rule pursuant to the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'') that imposes certification, 
substantiation, and recordkeeping requirements in connection with 
the labeling of non-liquid alternative fuels and alternative fueled 
vehicles. EPA 92, however, only directs the Commission to prescribe 
``labeling requirements,'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13232(a); it does not 
indicate that Congress also intended to give the Commission the 
authority to impose certification, substantiation, and recordkeeping 
requirements. The legislative history of EPA 92 also fails to show 
that Congress intended to give the Commission such authority. 
Although certification, substantiation, and recordkeeping 
requirements may all be beneficial, in the absence of any statutory 
language or legislative history indicating that Congress intended to 
give the Commission latitude to impose such requirements, I believe 
that the Commission has no authority to do so. I therefore dissent 
from the final rule to the extent that it imposes certification, 
substantiation, and recordkeeping requirements in connection with 
the labeling of non-liquid alternative fuels and alternative fueled 
vehicles.

[FR Doc. 95-12160 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P