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

1Pub. L. 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).

2H. 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).

4An ‘‘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).

5Section 406(a) is codified at 42 U.S.C. 13232(a)

(Supp. IV 1993).

6 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).

7 Id.

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.

11 15 U.S.C. 2821–2823.

12Octane 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.

15 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).

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 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.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 3 and

alternative fueled vehicles (‘‘AFVs’’).4

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.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.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.’’ 7

A second and complementary

provision directs the Secretary of Energy

(‘‘DOE’’) to develop an information

package for consumers.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.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.’’ 10

This is the Commission’s second

rulemaking concerning labeling

requirements for alternative fuels. In a

separate proceeding also required by

EPA 92,11 the Commission extended the

requirements of its former Octane

Rule 12 (renamed the ‘‘Fuel Rating

Rule’’) beyond gasoline to include liquid

alternative fuels.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.14

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.’’ 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’’)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26927

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.

20Commission’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.’’

21 58 FR 64914, 64915.

22 59 FR 24015–24017.

23 59 FR 24014, 24020.

24AAMA, 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.

25The law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott

did not file a written comment.

26Lois 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.

27The 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.

28 59 FR 24014, 24023.

29AAMA, AGA/NGVC, Boston Edison, CAS,

EMA, Flxible, NPGA, and RFA.

30Two 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.’’).

within eighteen months after October

24, 1992 (the statute’s enactment date).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, 1993,17

written comments filed in response to

an NPR published on May 9, 1994,18

testimony during a Public WorkshopConference (‘‘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, 1994.19 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.20 The

Commission considered all these

materials in developing this final

labeling rule.

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).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.22

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.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.

Twenty-one interested parties timely

submitted written requests to participate

in the Workshop.24 Twenty of those

parties filed written comments as

required,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.26 The

Workshop was held on July 20, 1994, at

the Commission’s headquarters and was

conducted as announced in the NPR.27

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.28 Eight participants elected

to file such comments.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.

E. Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

The Commission considered written

comments on the public record, the

Workshop transcript,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
26928 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

31Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), I–4; Electro

Automotive (‘‘Electro Auto’’), I–7; Toyota Motor

Corporation (‘‘Toyota’’), I–11; Chrysler Corporation

(‘‘Chrysler’’), I–13.

32Mobil 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.

33U.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.

34Center for Auto Safety (‘‘CAS’’), I–12.

35Renewable 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.

36E. A. Mechtly, Ph.D., Engineering Educator,

University of Illinois (‘‘Mechtly’’), I–1; Louis F.

Sokol, CAMS, Metrification Consultant (‘‘Sokol’’),

I–17.

37ETC, 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).

39See 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).’’).

40The 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.

41AGA/NGVC, G–6, 11 (requiring disclosures

only for AFVs could unnecessarily raise consumer

concerns about these products).

42NAFA, 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.

43NACAA, 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.

44AAMA, I–16, 6.

45These are the only non-liquid fuels defined as

‘‘alternative fuels’’ in EPA 92. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)

(Supp. IV 1993).

46Five 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.

47Chicago, J–2, 2–3.

48 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).

49U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Taking An Alternative

Route, B–33.

50The 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.

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,31 fuel producers,32

governmental entities,33 a consumer

organization,34 organizations

representing affected interests,35 and

other interested individuals.36

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.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).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.39 In the absence of a similar

Congressional directive, the

Commission believes that such a

requirement may be beyond its

authority under EPA 92.40

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; 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; 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; 43

and (4) that a ‘‘simple card’’ describing

factors consumers should consider

before acquiring an AFV be placed

within new and used vehicles.44

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.45 One comment

addressed this aspect of the

Commission’s proposal.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.47 The Commission notes that EPA

92 specifically defines the term

‘‘alternative fuel’’ to include the three

fuels at issue; 48 and because they are

readily available, DOE identifies them

and encourages their use in its

literature.49 Furthermore, other than

emission certification procedures, EPA

has no procedures for certifying fuels as

being safe for use.

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,50 the Commission believes that

harmonizing labeling requirements,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26929

51See 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).

53The 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).

54See proposed rule §§ 309.1(q) and 309.15, 59

FR 59666, 59704, 59706.

55 59 FR 59666, 59671–59672.

56CNG 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.

57Under 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 fuelneutral 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).

61See Flxible (Tr.), 74–77.

62 59 FR 59666, 59671.

63Unlike 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.

64See proposed rule §§ 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15, 59

FR 59666, 59704, 59706.

65The specific bases for the Commission’s SNPR

proposal are discussed in more detail at 59 FR

59666, 59671–59672.

66Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4; Chicago, J–2, 2–3;

DOE, J–1, 2; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1; RFA, I–3, 2.

67API, I–15, 2; Mobil, I–2, 3.

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.

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.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,’’ 52 the

Commission will supplement the list of

covered fuels if and when DOE

designates new non-liquid fuels as

alternative fuels.53

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).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.55

With respect to CNG and hydrogen,

the Commission also proposed requiring

disclosure of the fuel’s principal

component and permitting disclosure of

other components,56 expressed as

minimum molecular percentages

(‘‘minimum mole percent’’).57 These

proposals are analogous to provisions in

the Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquid

alternative fuels.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.59 The Commission

also concluded that its proposal would

be consistent with the Fuel Rating

Rule’s requirements for liquid

alternative fuels,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,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.62

The Commission also recognized that

electricity used for recharging electric

vehicle (‘‘EV’’) batteries might need to

be subject to different labeling

disclosures.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).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.65

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.66 The remaining eleven

comments are discussed in the

following section and in section III(B)(3)

infra.

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.67 The Commission believes
26930 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

68Although 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.

69See final rule §§ 309.1(q)(1) and 309.15 infra.

70Toyota, I–11, 2.

71See proposed rule § 309.15, 59 FR 59666,

59706, and final rule § 309.15 infra.

72Sokol, I–17, 1.

73CARB, J–3, 1.

74See final rule §§ 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15 infra.

75Federal 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.

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.68

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.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.

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.70

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.71

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.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.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.

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).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.

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.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.’’ 76

Simplicity therefore is an even greater
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26931

77EMA, I–6, 2–4.

78Comm Elec, I–8, 2–7.

79API, I–15, 1.

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 highcompression engines burning unprocessed gas or

propane-air mixtures).

81AGA/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.

82AGA/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).

83API, 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).

85API, 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).

consideration in the labeling of fuels

than in the labeling of AFVs.

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, heavyduty 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.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.78 API, however,

stated that the non-liquid alternative

fuel dispenser labels should not include

octane ratings.79

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.80 In

addition, the octane ratings of a given

type of alternative fuel would not vary

significantly.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.82

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-gallonequivalents. 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.83

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in

the SNPR, the Commission is not

requiring such disclosures on fuel

dispenser labels.84

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.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.86

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
26932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

87See 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.

89Society of Automotive Engineers,

‘‘Recommended Practice for Compressed Natural

Gas Vehicle Fuel,’’ SAE J1616, B–40, 16.

90AAMA, I–16, 7–8; EMA, I–6, 2–4; NGVPA, I–

19, 1.

91AMI, G–3, 2; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51.

92API, 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).

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.

95AAMA, I–16, 8; NGVPA, I–19, 1.

96See ANSI/AGA NGV1–1994 American National

Standard For Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle

(NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, attached to

AGA/NGVC’s comment, G–6.

97ANSI/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.

98 59 FR 59666, 59675.

99EMA, I–6, 3.

100For 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

1993.87 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.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.89

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.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.

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.91 In response to the SNPR, the one

comment addressing this issue

supported the Commission’s position.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.93

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.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.95

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.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.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.

g. Safety warnings. In the SNPR, the

Commission considered but rejected

proposing safety warnings as an element

of the alternative fuel labels.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.99

The Commission notes that safety

standards for operation of motor vehicle

fuel-dispensing stations are covered by

the Uniform Fire Code.100 Further, to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26933

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.

101 59 FR 59666, 59675 (e.g., this information can

be expected to be provided voluntarily).

102AGA/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).

104AGA/NGVC, I–18, Attachment at 5.

105See proposed rule § 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).

108API, I–15, 4; Mobil, I–2, 5.

109See 59 FR 59666, 59676. See also final rule

§ 309.17 infra.

110See proposed rule §§ 309.10–309.16, 59 FR

59666, 59704–59706.

111See 59 FR 59666, 59676–59679.

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.

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.101

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.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).103

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.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.

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.105 Labels required by the Fuel

Rating Rule are 3 inches wide by 21⁄2

inches long, with process black type on

an orange background.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.’’ 107

Two comments addressed this

proposal. Both supported the

Commission’s proposal because it

promoted consistency in the labeling of

all alternative fuels.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.109 Further, to keep the

labels uniform and simple, the

Commission is not requiring any label

consolidation.

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.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.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
26934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

112See proposed rule §§ 309.10, 309.11, 309.12,

59 FR 59666, 59704–59705.

113AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3–6; API, I–15, 1–5; Unocal,

I–5, 2.

114 Id.

115API, I–15, 4; Unocal, I–5, 2.

116AGA/NGVC, I–18, 4–6.

117Unocal, I–5, 2.

118See proposed rule § 309.13, 59 FR 59666,

59705.

119AGA/NGVC, I–18, Attachment at 3–4.

120See 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).

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.

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.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.

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.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.114

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.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.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.117

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.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.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.

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 nonliquid 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,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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26935

121See final rule § 309.10 infra.

122 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994).

123 15 U.S.C. 2822.

124API, I–15, 4.

125AGA/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).

126Comm Elec, I–8, 7.

127The 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.

128See further references to California’s

specifications in section III(B)(3)(d) supra.

129See final rule §§ 309.13(c), 309.15(c) infra.

130See final rule §§ 309.11, 309.13 infra.

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.121 These

requirements are consistent with the

substantiation requirements of the Fuel

Rating Rule,122 which were mandated by

the Petroleum Marketing Practices

Act.123

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

1945–91.124 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.125 Commercial

Electronics commented that other test

methods are being developed to

measure CNG fuel quality.126

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.127

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.128

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 nonliquid (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.129

(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.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
26936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

131See final rule § 309.13 infra. If distributors

blend fuels, § 309.13(c) of the rule requires them to

substantiate the minimum percentage of the

principal component according to the requirements

of § 309.10, and certify that information to their

non-consumer customers.

132See final rule § 309.11 infra.

133See final rule § 309.13 infra.

134See final rule § 309.11 infra.

135See final rule § 309.13 infra.

136 16 CFR 306.6, 306.8 (1994).

137See final rule § 309.12 infra.

138 Id.

139See final rule §§ 309.14, 309.16 infra.

140 16 CFR 306.7, 306.9, 306.11 (1994).

141The 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.

142The 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.

143Mobil, I–2, 6.

144See 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.

systems are required to certify to

retailers consistent with the certification

they received.131

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.132

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.133

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.134

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.135

These requirements are consistent

with the certification requirements for

sellers of liquid alternative fuels under

the Fuel Rating Rule.136

(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.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.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.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.140

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.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.142 The one

comment on this issue supported the

proposed effective date.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.144

d. Periodic updating of labels. In the

SNPR, the Commission proposed no
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26937

145See discussion of comments of API, CEC, and

TVA in the SNPR, 59 FR 59666, 59679.

146Two 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.

147AGA/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.

148 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993).

149See 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).

150See 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).

151EPA 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’’).

152See proposed rule § 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).

153Three 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 nonFederal 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’’).

156A 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 offhighway 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.

157Three comments fully supported AAMA’s

comment. Chrysler, I–13, 1; Ford, I–4, 2; NGVPA,

I–19, 1.

158AAMA, I–16, cover letter at 1; EMA, I–6, 1–

2.

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.145 The

Commission received no comments

addressing this aspect of its SNPR

proposal.

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).146 Those comments, and

the Commission’s modifications to the

proposed rule in response to those

comments, are discussed below.

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.147 The

remaining five addressed one or more

issues pertaining to the scope of the

AFV labeling requirements, as discussed

below.

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.’’ 148 As

further defined, a ‘‘dedicated vehicle’’

means an automobile (or other selfpropelled vehicle), designed for

transporting persons or property on a

street or highway, that operates solely

on alternative fuel.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.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.

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’’ 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.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.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].’’ 154 The Clean Air Act 155 in

turn refers to existing EPA definitions of

both vehicle classifications.156 Thus, the

proposed definition of ‘‘covered

vehicle’’ basically encompassed the

same category of vehicle referenced in

EPA 92’s fleet acquisition requirements.

Three comments specifically

addressed this issue. AAMA 157 and

EMA supported excluding AFVs over

8,500 lbs. GVWR from the scope of the

AFV labeling requirements.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
26938 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

159See proposed rule § 309.1(f)(2)(iii), 59 FR

59666, 59703; AAMA, I–16, cover letter at 1; EMA,

I–6, 2.

160Chicago, 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.

161 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).

162EMA, 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.

163EPA (Tr.), 122; 40 CFR 600.002–85(4)(iii)

(1993).

164See 40 CFR 600.002–85(4) (defining

‘‘automobile’’).

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.

166Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061.

167Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062.

168Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061–

50062.

169Fleet 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.

170B–3, inside front cover.

171The 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).

off-highway operation and use.’’ 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.160

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.’’ 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.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.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.

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.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.

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.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.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.

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.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.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.169

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.’’ 170

The demand for AFVs is being driven,

at least in part, by the acquisition

requirements for centrally fueled fleets

contained in the 1990 CAAA.171 Those

requirements ‘‘may be met through the

conversion of existing or new gasoline

or diesel-powered vehicles to clean-fuel

vehicles.’’ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26939

173AFV labeling requirements for used covered

vehicles are discussed infra section III(C)(1)(d).

174Proposed rule § 309.1(r), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

175Proposed rule § 309.20(a)(1), 59 FR 59666,

59707.

176See proposed rule § 309.1(b) (defining

‘‘aftermarket conversion system’’), 59 FR 59666,

59707. This definition was derived from a recentlyissued EPA definition of the same term. See 59 FR

48472, 48490, to be codified at 40 CFR 85.502(c).

177See proposed rule § 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).

178See 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.

179AGA/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.’’).

181Further, 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).

182EPA (Tr.), 220.

183EPA 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).

184B–3, 16.

185B–3, 23.

186See proposed rule § 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.

187AAMA, I–16, 7; Mobil, I–2, 8.

188Chicago, J–2, 1, 2, 3; Electro Auto, I–7, 1.

189See, e.g., Boston Edison (Supp.), G–26, 13;

ETC, G–24, 4.

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.

Accordingly, in the SNPR, the

Commission proposed that the entity

responsible for complying with the

labeling requirements for new covered

vehicles 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].’’ 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.175

If, however, an ‘‘aftermarket conversion

system’’ (i.e., a conversion kit) 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.177

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.178 It therefore proposed to

include such conversions within the

scope of its AFV labeling requirements.

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.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.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,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.182

In any event, the Commission noted

that DOE has addressed conversions of

existing vehicles in its consumer

information brochure.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’’),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.’’ 185 Given the apparent

impracticalities surrounding a

requirement for aftermarket alternativefuel 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.186

Four comments addressed this issue.

AAMA and Mobil generally observed

that definitions in the AFV labeling

requirements should be consistent with

other regulatory plans.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.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.189

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
26940 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

190See proposed rule §§ 309.20(a)(1) (new

covered vehicles), 309.21(a) (used covered

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

191See proposed rule § 309.1(d) (defining

‘‘consumer’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

192AAMA, I–16, 7; Mobil, I–2, 8.

193 42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining ‘‘person’’).

194For 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).

195See proposed rule § 309.1(a) (defining

‘‘acquisition’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

196Clean 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).

198See proposed rule §§ 309.20 (‘‘Labeling

requirements for new covered vehicles’’), 309.21

(‘‘Labeling requirements for used covered

vehicles’’), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

199See proposed rule § 309.1(t) (defining ‘‘new

covered vehicle’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

200See proposed rule § 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).

201See proposed rule § 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.

202See proposed rule § 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).

203ETC, G–24, 4; RFA (Tr.), 217.

204See proposed rule § 309.1(v) (defining ‘‘new

vehicle labels’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

205See proposed rule § 309.1(ff) (defining ‘‘used

vehicle labels’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

206See proposed rule §§ 309.20(e) (new covered

vehicles) and 309.21(e) (used covered vehicles), 59

FR 59666, 59707.

207EPA (Tr.), 220.

208 Id.

209Chicago, 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).

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.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.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.192

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 193 and EPA’s regulation

implementing that section, 40 CFR

§ 88.302–94 (1993). The Commission

believes that this definition properly

includes within its scope all affected

interests.

As to leasing arrangements, because

Congressional mandates will require

consumers to ‘‘acquire’’ AFVs,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.

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.195 This definition was

derived from a recent EPA regulation

implementing aspects of the 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments,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 shortterm and temporary.197 The Commission

finds that the 120 day period reflects a

reasonable demarcation between shortand long-term rentals, and therefore has

adopted EPA’s determination.

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.198

Under the proposed rule, a new covered

vehicle was defined as a covered vehicle

which has not yet been acquired by a

consumer,199 while a used covered

vehicle was defined (in substance) as a

covered vehicle which previously has

been acquired by a consumer.200 The

proposed rule also defined the terms

‘‘new vehicle dealer’’ 201 and ‘‘used

vehicle dealer.’’ 202

Because requiring the disclosure of

comparative information on used AFVs

was deemed problematic,203 the

proposed rule established two labeling

formats (i.e., new vehicle labels 204 and

used vehicle labels 205) disclosing

different types of information for new

and used covered AFVs.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.207 Requiring disclosure of

information based on the vehicle’s

condition when new could therefore

create a risk of misleading consumers.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.209 However,

this option would not surmount the

more basic problem that objective

information may no longer accurately

reflect the vehicle’s present condition
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26941

210While 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.

211AAMA, I–16, 7. That comment, however,

proposed a different format for used vehicle labels.

212Electro 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.

213Mobil, 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.’’).

214See 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993)

(defining ‘‘AFV’’).

215AMI (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.

216See 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.

217Unocal, 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.

219Chicago, J–2, 1 (AFV labeling requirement

should target all consumers).

220 59 FR 24014, 24019–24020.

221Labels for used covered AFVs would not

disclose objective information particular to each

vehicle. See 59 FR 59666, 59688 n.312, 59690

n.358.

222Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4, 5–6 (both are

useful to consumers); DOE, J–1, 2.

223API, I–15, 2. API’s comment did not address

the Commission’s proposal to require disclosure of

EPA certification level.

224Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 3, 9–11.

225Chrysler, I–13, 1.

226Ford, I–4, 1.

227AAMA, 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.

Continued

(and thus would not form a valid basis

upon which to make reasonable choices

and comparisons).210

Three comments addressed this issue.

AAMA supported including used

vehicles within the scope of the AFV

labeling requirements.211 Electro Auto

stated that they should be excluded.212

Mobil stated that definitions in the AFV

labeling requirements should be

consistent with other regulatory

plans.213

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.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.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.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.

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).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.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.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.

After determining what would likely

be appropriate, useful, and timely to

consumers, the Commission analyzed

the problems associated with

developing and publishing such costbenefit 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,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.

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.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.222 API stated that a disclosure

for cruising range would be a useful

measure for consumer comparisons.223

Mobil appeared to support requiring

disclosure of cruising range, but stated

that EPA certification levels were

generally not relevant to EPA 92.224

Chrysler supported requiring disclosure

of EPA certification levels, but appeared

to oppose disclosure of vehicle cruising

range.225 Ford stated that ‘‘most of the

information meeting [EPA 92’s mandate]

is already included on existing motor

vehicle labels.’’ 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.’ ’’ 227
26942 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

As noted previously, three comments fully

supported AAMA’s comment. Chrysler, I–13, 1;

Ford, I–4, 2; NGVPA, I–19, 1.

228The 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.

229See proposed rule § 309.1(g) (defining

‘‘dedicated’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

230See proposed rules §§ 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.

231See proposed rule § 309.1(i) (defining ‘‘dual

fueled’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

232See proposed rule § 309.20(e)(2)(ii) (requiring

disclosure of estimated cruising range for dualfueled vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

233EPA’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.

234See 40 CFR part 600 (1993) (‘‘Fuel economy of

motor vehicles’’).

235Numerous 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.

236See proposed rule § 309.22(a)(1)(i), 59 FR

59666, 59708.

237See proposed rule § 309.22(a)(1)(ii), 59 FR

59666, 59708.

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.

239SAE’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.

241See proposed rules §§ 309.22(a)(2) (for

dedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(2) (for dual-fueled

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59708.

242See, 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.’’).

243See proposed rules §§ 309.22(a)(3) (for

dedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(3) (for dual-fueled

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 50708.

244The 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).

The Commission’s SNPR proposal as to

both disclosures, and the comments

addressing those issues, are described in

more detail below.

(1) Cruising range. In the SNPR, the

Commission proposed that cruising

range should be disclosed on labels for

new covered AFVs.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).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.230

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).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.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.233

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,234

cruising range values would be

calculated by reference to the vehicle’s

estimated fuel economy rating.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.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.237

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.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 fueleconomy 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’’).239 The Commission believed

that reliance on uniform standards

would facilitate comparability.240

Accordingly, the proposed rule requires

that cruising range values for EV’s be

calculated in accordance with that

standard.241

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.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.243

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.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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26943

245Five 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.

246Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4.

247CAS, 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.

248A 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.

249API, I–15, 5.

250Toyota, 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.

251CARB, J–3, 2.

252AAMA, I–16, 2.

253Electro Auto, I–7, 2.

254Ford, 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’’).

255AAMA, I–16, 6 (‘‘The disclosure of vehicle

range should not be provided until the standards

and adjustment factors, as described above, can be

developed.’’).

256The 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.

257AAMA, 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.

258AAMA, I–16, 3.

259 Id.

260AAMA, 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.

261AAMA, I–16, Att. II at 2.

262 Id.

263 Id.

264AAMA, I–16, 3.

265See, 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.

266AAMA, 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).

choices and comparisons.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.’’ 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.’’ 247

Three of the fourteen comments made

suggestions directed at specific issues

without specifically supporting or

opposing the Commission’s SNPR

proposal.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.’’ 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.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.251

Comments from domestic automakers

supported the Commission’s

determination that cruising range would

be ‘‘useful’’ 252 and ‘‘important’’ 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.’’ 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.255

For example, according to AAMA,

without standard fuel specifications,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.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.’’ 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).259

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.’’ 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).261 Battery capacity for

EVs also ‘‘may vary with usage, age,

temperature * * * and other

factors.’’ 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.’’ 263 More generally,

AAMA concluded that

[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].264

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.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 * * * .’’ 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,

[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
26944 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

267RFA (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.’’).

268AMI (Tr.), 155 (consumers understand that

‘‘basic information’’ on the label is not going to be

precise).

269The 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.

270For 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).

271See 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.’’).

272Chrysler 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.’’).

273AAMA (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.’’).

274AAMA (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).’’).

275PSA 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.’’).

277Arizona 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-theshelf battery technology is approximately 35 to 40

miles on a charge.’’).

278Blue 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.’’).

279Mazda, Mazda Takes Action To Address

Global Environmental Concerns, B–23, at 3, July 27,

1993 (‘‘With a full tank of hydrogen, the Mazda HRX has a range of up to 125 miles.’’).

280Clean 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.’’).

281Ford, 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.’’).

282Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2 (fuel tank capacity and fuel

economy values are ‘‘currently provided’’).

283See, 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).

284B–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.

286Standard procedures regarding battery

capacity for EVs are contained in SAE J1634.

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.267

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.268

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.269 For example,

Chrysler, GM and Ford have all made

cruising range claims regarding their

EVs in congressional testimony,270

promotional material 271 and product

specification sheets.272 Chrysler and GM

also address cruising range in owner’s

manuals for the 1994 Dodge Spirit 273

and 1993 Chevrolet Lumina.274 Peugeot

has made similar claims in its

promotional material.275 Companies

converting cars to run on electricity 276

and electricity utilities 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,278 hydrogen,279 LPG,280 and

methanol.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.

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.282 For those vehicles, the

estimates would simply be derived by

multiplying two known values.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 batterypowered vehicles * * * [using]

standard tests which will allow for

determination of * * * [cruising]

range.’’ 284 The Commission also notes

that DOE has proposed requiring the use

of SAE J1634 to determine equivalent

petroleum-based fuel economies of

EVs.285 Thus, for those vehicles, the

final rule requires that cruising range be

calculated using SAE J1634.

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.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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26945

287See Final Rule § 309.1(gg).

288The Commission understands that a revision

to SAE J1634 under consideration by SAE would

yield cruising range values in a minimummaximum format. The Commission will monitor

SAE’s review of this revision and consider changes

to this Final Rule as appropriate.

289See Final Rule § 309.1(k).

290Flexible 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.

291See proposed rule § 309.23, 59 FR 59666,

59708.

292 59 FR 59666, 59690. See text accompanying

notes 320–322.

293EPA has not yet issued emission standards and

certification test procedures for certain fuels (e.g.,

electricity and hydrogen).

294Four 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.

295NAFA, I–10, 3.

296Boston 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.

297NAFA, I–10, 3.

298Boston 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.

299AGA/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.’’

300AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3, 4.

301Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.

302Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 3, 10.

303Two comments from automakers, however,

raised no objection to this disclosure. ETC, I–9

(membership includes domestic automakers);

Toyota, I–11.

304AAMA, I–16, 3, 6. In the alternative, AAMA

suggested that the Commission not require

disclosure of this information under its labeling

Continued

fuel tank capacity’’ derived from a DOT

definition of the same term.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 minimummaximum format (e.g., ‘‘400–500

miles’’).288

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 J1634.289 For

hybrid EVs, then, cruising range values

would be calculated by reference to the

‘‘reasonable basis’’ test.

Finally, the SNPR’s treatment of bifuel vehicles is modified to reflect the

fact that those vehicles have two tanks

holding separate fuels, operating on one

fuel or the other.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.’’

The proposed rule also included a

provision requiring that manufacturers

maintain records for three years

demonstrating compliance with the

proposed rule.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.

(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.292 For vehicles which had not

been so certified, manufacturers would

place a mark in the box indicating that

fact.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.’’

Ten comments addressed this aspect

of the Commission’s SNPR proposal.294

Four comments supported including

this information on new AFV labels

because the information was ‘‘an

important factor’’ 295 for consumers and

the proposed graphic conveys this

‘‘critical information to consumers in a

highly effective manner.’’ 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.’ ’’ 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.’’ 298

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.’’ 299 (The

modifications are shown in brackets.)

That comment further suggested that the

graphic for this factor identify the

standard to which the conventionallyfueled version of that vehicle was

certified.300 Chrysler specifically

supported labeling AFVs with each

vehicle’s emissions certification

standard, but generally opposed the

Commission’s proposed labeling

format.301

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.’’ 302

Three comments from automakers

similarly opposed requiring this

disclosure.303 AAMA suggested that this

disclosure be deferred until EPA had

established certification standards for

all alternative fuels and AFVs.304 Electro
26946 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

requirements, and instead defer to EPA. AAMA, I–

16, 6.

305Electro Auto, I–7, 2. This comment apparently

misapprehended the Commission’s proposal as

requiring disclosure of ‘‘complete environmental

impact data.’’

306Ford, I–4, 2. This comment did not further

address or explain why this information should not

be required to be disclosed.

307See proposed rule § 309.23, 59 FR 59666,

59708.

308H. 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.

309For 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).

310See 59 FR 24014, 24016–24017 n.62, 79, 91,

98 and accompanying text (responding to ANPR).

311B–3, 15. That statement is repeated in the

section devoted to each of the featured fuels.

312See, 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.’’).

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.

314CO ‘‘reduces the flow of oxygen in the

bloodstream and is particularly dangerous to

persons with heart disease.’’ Id.

315NOx are ‘‘precursors to the formation of smog.’’

Id.

316PM 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.

317See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.091–30 (1993)

(certification procedures for 1991 model year).

318Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).

319See 40 CFR Part 88 (1993) (‘‘Clean-Fuel

Vehicles’’).

320According 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.

321The 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.

322Boston Edison (Supp.), G–17, 8; CAS (Supp.),

G–17, 2; NAFA (Tr.), 186–87.

323CAS (Supp.), G–17, 2; DOE (Tr.), 172; NAFA

(Tr.), 170–71.

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.’’ 305 Ford stated

that the proposed disclosures ‘‘cannot,

at this time, be provided in a manner

which would be useful to the

consumer.’’ 306

The SNPR also proposed that

manufacturers be required to maintain

records for three years demonstrating

compliance with the proposed rule.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.

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.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.309

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.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.’’ 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.312

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’’),313 carbon

monoxide (‘‘CO’’),314 nitrogen oxides

(‘‘NOx’’),315 and particulate matter

(‘‘PM’’)).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.317

Pursuant to its authority under the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,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.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’’).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.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).

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.322 The

information also could be useful and

important to some consumers likely to

consider AFV acquisitions (e.g., fleet

operators and environmentallyconcerned consumers).323 Requiring

disclosure of objective data allows
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26947

324CAS (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).

325The 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).

326See, 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.’’).

327AAMA (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).

328CAS, 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.

330 59 FR 59666, 59691–59692.

331Boston Edison, I–14, 7; (Supp.), G–26, 9–11,

12; (Tr.), 202; RFA, G–5, 5; UCS (Tr.), 201–2, 208.

332H. Rep. No. 102–474(1), 102d Cong., 2d Sess.

132.

333AMI (Tr.), 206; API (Tr.), 201; NPGA (Tr.), 203.

334NPGA (Tr.), 203.

335Boston 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).

336RFA 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.

consumers to evaluate competitive

advertising and marketing claims

regarding an AFV’s environmental

performance.324 Finally, the

recordkeeping provision is simple, easy

to comply with, and allows the

Commission to verify compliance with

the Rule.

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.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.’’

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.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.

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,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.

(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.’’ 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.’’ 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.

After considering the record,

however, the Commission determined

that requiring disclosure of specific data

as to this factor is not practicable at this

time.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.

(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.331 Such a disclosure

would help promote energy

independence and energy security, key

goals underlying EPA 92.332 Others

opposed such a disclosure because it

would not be practicable.333

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 334 and government

reports addressing this topic do not

cover all alternative fuels.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.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
26948 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

337B–3, 18.

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.

339EPA, H–4, 1, 3.

340API, G–25, 5.

341CAS, 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.

342MC-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.

344See B–3, 16 (electricity), 18 (ethanol), 20

(methanol), 22 (CNG), 24 (propane).

345See 16 CFR 306.10(a) (1994) (requiring

retailers to post automotive fuel ratings).

346 59 FR 59666, 59693–59695.

347Labels for used covered vehicles, which would

not require disclosure of specific data disclosures,

would simply disclose the descriptive information.

348 59 FR 59666, 59693.

349 59 FR 59666, 59694.

350For 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.

351For 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.

352For 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.

353Fuel type, operating costs, fuel availability,

and energy security/domestic content of fuel.

price.’’ 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.

(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.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.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.

(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,340 fuel availability,341 fuel

grade,342 and refueling time 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.

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.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 345 and this final rule.

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.346 These descriptive

disclosures would comprise the second

and third parts of the AFV label.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.

(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.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.349

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,350 fuel

availability,351 energy security/domestic

content of fuel.352

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.353 The

description of one factor (performance/

convenience) would be modified

slightly, by adding a reference to

cruising range differences between
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26949

354On 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).

355Six 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.

356AAMA, 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.

357Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.

358Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 6–7.

359Mobil, I–2, 11, cover letter at 1.

360API, 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.

361Boston 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.

362Mobil,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.

364CAS, 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).

365The 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).

366See supra section III(C)(2)(b)(2).

367See 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).

368EPA 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.

different fuels.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.

Four comments offered general

comments regarding this aspect of the

Commission’s proposal.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.’’356 Two other

comments characterized the list as

‘‘unnecessary, [and] uninformative’’ 357

and of ‘‘minimal value.’’358 Mobil,

however, supported including the

‘‘fairly comprehensive’’ list of factors

because it provided a framework for

evaluating issues relevant to AFVs in

general.359

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.360 One comment suggested that

this factor be replaced with a specific

data disclosure on the subject, based on

data supplied by EIA.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.362 DOE, however,

supported the Commission’s proposal

regarding this topic.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.364

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 costbenefit 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.365

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.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.

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
26950 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

369See Figure 6 (new covered vehicles) and 8

(used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59712, 59714.

370Two 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.

371Chrysler, 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.

372Boston 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).

373 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).

374 DOT/NHTSA, H–1, 1.

375Seven 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.

376Mobil, I–2, 12.

377Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.

378AAMA, I–16, 2, 5.

available from DOE) because it believes

that the label’s format already

adequately conveys that information.

(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

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

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

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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26951

379EPA (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.

380See infra section III(C)(4).

381See proposed rule §§ 309.20(b) (for new

covered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

382See proposed rule §§ 309.20(e) (for new

covered vehicles), 309.21(e) (for used covered

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

383See proposed rule §§ 309.20(b) (for new

covered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered

vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

384Six 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.

385Boston 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.’’).

386Chicago, 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).

387AAMA, 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).

388AAMA, I–16, 2. See also Ford, I–4, 2

(proposed format overemphasizes importance of the

required information as decision criteria).

389AAMA, 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.’’).

390AAMA, 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.’’).

391AAMA, 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 twosided label).

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.

393 59 FR 59666, 59697.

‘‘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.

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 51⁄2 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.

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

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

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

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 alternativefuel 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

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
26952 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

394A 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.

395AAMA, I–16, 3–4, 6.

396AAMA, I–16, 6.

397Chrysler, I–13, 2.

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).

400See Final Rule § 309.203(e) (content of labels

for used covered vehicles).

401 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).

402 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).

403 59 FR 59666, 59697.

404Six 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.

405Boston 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.

406Mobil, 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.

407This 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.’’

408AAMA, I–16, 4.

409 59 FR 39638, 39639.

410 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26953

411 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

412 13 CFR Part 121 (1994).

413This 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.

414AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3–6; API, I–15, 1–5; Unocal,

I–5, 2.

415 59 FR 59666, 59698.

416 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

417RFA, I–3, 2.

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 productspecific information, and maintain

records to substantiate the two productspecific disclosures that must be

included on labels.

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 411 and in the regulations of the

Small Business Administration.412

The Commission also stated that

although there may be some ‘‘small

entities’’ among retail sellers of nonliquid 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.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.

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.414

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.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.

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,416 that the rule it has

adopted will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

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.417

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
26954 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

418See final rule § 309.104 infra. This preemption

standard is different from the standard in the Fuel

Rating Rule. Under § 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 § 204 of the Petroleum

Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2824. There is

no similar provision that applies to this rule.

419 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.

420 5 CFR 1320.7(c).

421 58 FR 41356, 41370–41371.

422Section 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.

423 40 CFR Parts 86 and 88 (1994).

424 40 CFR Part 600 (1994).

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.418

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act

(‘‘PRA’’),419 and regulations of the Office

of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 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.

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.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.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).

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,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.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.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26955

425The 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.

426Notice of OMB Action to the FTC (Dec. 30,

1994).

427 15 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No.

12,770, 56 FR 35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing

section 205b).

428 Id.

429See proposed rule §§ 309.20, 309.22, 59 FR

59666, 59707–59708.

430Mechtly, I–1, 1; Sokol, I–17, 1.

programs.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).

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.426 This

approval will expire on November 30,

1997, unless it has been extended before

that date.

VI. Metric Usage

The metric measurement system is the

preferred system of weights and

measures for United States trade and

commerce.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.428 In the SNPR,

the Commission identified the proposal

that AFV labels disclose cruising range

in miles 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.

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.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 inchpound measurements (i.e., miles).

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

§ 309.1 Definitions.

As used in subparts B and C of this

part:
26956 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(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 onboard 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 nonEVs 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 § 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 § 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 § 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).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonliquid 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 § 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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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 nonliquid 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
26958 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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.

§ 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

§ 309.13 Certification.

(a) If you are a distributor of nonliquid 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

§ 309.11(a)(1), or by using a letter of

certification, as outlined in

§ 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

§ 309.11(b)(1), or by using the

permanent marking or permanent label

attached to the system by the

manufacturer, as outlined in

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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 nonliquid 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 § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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.

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 21⁄2′′

(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 21⁄2′′ (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 21⁄2′′ (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 phototypesetting 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 desktop 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.
26960 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(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

§ 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 § 309.22(a) for dedicated vehicles

and § 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 § 309.22(a).

(ii) For dual fueled vehicles,

determined in accordance with

§ 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.

§ 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 twosided 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.

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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 conventionalfuel 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.

§ 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
26962 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26963
26964 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26965
26966 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26967

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. § 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