[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 88 (Monday, May 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11102]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 9, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Federal Trade Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



16 CFR Part 309




Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled 
Vehicles; Proposed Rule
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 309

RIN 3084-AA57

 
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative 
Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directs the 
Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') to establish uniform labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles. 
This notice announces the substance of the Commission's proposed rule 
implementing that directive. The Commission invites interested persons 
to submit written comments addressing any issue they believe may bear 
upon the proposed rule. Following the period for written comments, 
Commission staff will conduct a Public Workshop-Conference to afford 
interested persons an opportunity to discuss issues raised during the 
comment period. The Public Workshop-Conference will be held on July 20-
21, 1994. After reviewing comments received in response to this notice, 
the transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference, and any other 
properly filed submissions, the Commission will publish a Supplemental 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it will propose the text of a 
labeling rule.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 1994. 
Notification of interest to participate in the Public Workshop-
Conference must be received on or before June 8, 1994. The Public 
Workshop-Conference is scheduled to be held at the Federal Trade 
Commission, Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on July 
20-21, 1994, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to participate in the Public 
Workshop-Conference should be sent to the Division of Enforcement, 
Federal Trade Commission, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20580, Attn: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Room S-4618. The Commission requests 
that original submissions be filed with six copies, if feasible. 
Submissions should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 309--Comment'' and 
``16 CFR Part 309--Request to Participate in Public Workshop-
Conference'' as appropriate. If submissions are made by facsimile 
transmission, please call 202/326-2372 to confirm receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'') 
directs the Commission to issue a rule establishing uniform labeling 
requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for alternative 
fuels1 and alternative fueled vehicles2 (``AFVs'').3 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'' cost and benefit information to enable 
the consumer to make reasonable purchasing choices and 
comparisons.4 In formulating the rule, the Commission must 
consider the problems associated with developing and publishing 
``useful and timely'' information, taking into account lead time, 
costs, frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and 
other relevant factors.5 The labels themselves must be simple and, 
where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing information 
to consumers.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``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.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993).
    \2\ An ``alternative fueled vehicle'' is ``a dedicated vehicle 
or a dual fueled vehicle.'' 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(3) (West Supp. 1993). 
Each term is further defined in 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(6) and (8) (West 
Supp. 1993).
    \3\ Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). Section 406(a) 
is codified at 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 further directs the Department of Energy (``DOE'') to 
coordinate its development of an information package with the 
Commission's promulgation of labeling requirements.7 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.8 DOE's information package must provide ``relevant 
and objective'' information addressing seven ``motor vehicle 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.''9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(b) (West Supp. 1993).
    \8\ 42 U.S.C.A. 13231 (West Supp. 1993).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to EPA 92, the DOE Secretary is to provide technical 
assistance to the Commission in developing its labeling 
requirements,10 and the Commission is to issue this notice of 
proposed rulemaking ``in consultation with'' the DOE Secretary, the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary 
of Transportation.11 EPA 92 requires the Commission to issue a 
final labeling rule within one year of this notice of proposed 
rulemaking and to update its rule ``periodically to reflect the most 
recent available information.''12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\0 Id.
    \1\1 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993). During its 
development of this notice, Commission staff discussed the proposed 
labeling requirements with staff from DOE, EPA, and DOT's National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
    \1\2 Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the Commission's second rulemaking concerning labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels. In a separate proceeding also 
required by EPA 92,13 the Commission recently extended the 
requirements of its former Octane Rule14 (renamed the ``Fuel 
Rating Rule'') beyond gasoline to include liquid alternative 
fuels.15 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.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\3 15 U.S.C.A. 2821-2823 (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\4 Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part 306.
    \1\5 58 FR 41356, 41373, Aug. 3, 1993 (to be codified at 16 CFR 
306.0(i)(2)). In that proceeding, the Commission had no authority to 
extend its requirements beyond liquid alternative fuels. 15 U.S.C.A. 
2821 (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\6 58 FR at 41373 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2)). The 
Fuel Rating Rule became effective October 25, 1993. Id. at 41356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 requires the Commission, in formulating its rule, to obtain 
the views of affected industries, consumer organizations, Federal and 
State agencies, and all other interested parties.17 The Commission 
has concluded that EPA 92 authorizes use of the notice and comment 
rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') to 
obtain the views of these entities.18 Pursuant to section 
553(b)(3) of the APA, the Commission has elected to publish the 
substance, instead of the specific language, of its proposed 
rule.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\7 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\8 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (c).
    \1\9 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comment (written comment in response to this 
notice and oral testimony during the Public Workshop-Conference) on 
whether the proposed rule will accomplish the purposes of section 
406(a). The Commission also seeks comment on whether some variation of 
this proposal, or other options or variations not proposed here, would 
be more appropriate.

II. The Commission's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    To assist in the development of its proposed labeling requirements 
and this notice, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``ANPR'') in the Federal Register on December 10, 
1993,20 seeking comment until January 26, 1994, on basic issues 
raised by this proceeding. In its ANPR, the Commission 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). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\0 58 FR 64914, Dec. 10, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the ANPR, the Commission received a total of 28 
comments. These comments were from vehicle manufacturers,21 fuel 
producers,22 governmental entities,23 and organizations 
representing affected interests.24 All the comments were placed on 
the public record pertaining to this proceeding.25 Comments 
addressing issues raised in the ANPR are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\1 The Flxible Corporation (Flxible), D-4; Ford Motor Company 
(Ford), D-10; General Motors (GM), D-12; Honda North America, Inc., 
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda of America, Mfg., Inc., and 
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (Honda), D-15; Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation 
(Volvo/GM), D-1.
    \2\2 Boston Edison Company (Boston Edison), D-11; Mobil Oil 
Corporation (Mobil), D-16; Sun Company, Inc. (Sun), D-13.
    \2\3 City of Chicago (Chicago), E-4; Minnesota Department of 
Agriculture (Minnesota), E-8; Nebraska Energy Office, Alternative 
Fuels Advisory Committee, Suppliers Subcommittee (Nebraska AFAC), E-
6; U.S Department of Energy (DOE), E-10; U.S. Department of Energy, 
Energy Information Administration, Energy Demand and Integration 
Division (EIA/EDID), E-1; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 
Information Administration, Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics 
Division (EIA/EEU-ISD), E-9; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 
Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and 
Forecasting (EIA/OIAF), E-3; U.S. Department of Transportation, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT/NHTSA), E-2; 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), E-5; Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), E-7.
    \2\4 American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), D-3; 
American Gas Association (AGA) and Natural Gas Vehicles Coalition 
(NGVC), D-8; American Methanol Institute (AMI), D-7; American 
Petroleum Institute (API), D-17; Electric Transportation Coalition 
(ETC), D-14; Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), D-18; National 
Corn Growers Association (NCGA), D-9; National Propane Gas 
Association (NPGA), D-5; Propane Consumers Coalition (PCC), D-6; 
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), D-2.
    \2\5 Commission's Rulemaking Record No. R311002. Comments from 
nongovernmental sources were coded ``D''; comments from governmental 
agencies were coded ``E.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Scope

1. Alternative Fuels
    To help determine which fuels should be addressed by the proposed 
rule, the Commission requested comment on which alternative fuels are 
presently available for consumer use.26 The comments stated that 
compressed and liquefied natural gas (``CNG'' and ``LNG,'' 
respectively),27 ethanol,28 methanol,29 liquefied 
petroleum gas (``LPG''),30 electricity,31 coal-derived liquid 
fuels,32 reformulated petroleum,33 and soy diesel34 are 
all alternative fuels presently available for consumer use. In response 
to a separate question, several comments also addressed the 
composition, means of production, and the costs and benefits involved 
in utilizing alternative fuels for transportation.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\6 58 FR at 64915. In the Fuel Rating Rule proceeding, the 
Commission had identified six commercially-available liquid 
alternative fuels: methanol; denatured ethanol; M85 (85% methanol, 
15% gasoline); E85 (85% denatured ethanol, 15% gasoline); liquefied 
natural gas (LNG); and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 58 FR 16464, 
16464, Mar. 26, 1993.
    \2\7 AAMA, D-3, 1; AGA/NGVC, D-8, 4-5 (CNG and LNG); API, D-17, 
2-3 (LNG); Boston Edison, D-11, 9 (CNG and LNG); Chicago, E-4, 1 
(CNG); DOE, E-10, 2 (CNG); DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1 (CNG); EIA/OIAF, E-3, 
1; Ford, D-10, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (CNG); NCGA, D-9, 1 (CNG); RFA, D-
2, 2 (CNG); Sun, D-13, 1 (CNG and LNG).
    \2\8 AAMA, D-3, 1 (E85); API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9; 
Chicago, E-4, 1; DOE, E-10, 2 (E85); EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford, D-10, 1 
(E85); Minnesota, E-8, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (E85 through E100); NCGA, 
D-9, 1; RFA, D-2, 2 (E85); Sun, D-13, 1 (E85).
    \2\9 AAMA, D-3, 1 (M85 and M100); AMI, D-7, 1 (M85, M100G for 
gasoline engines, and M100D for diesel engines); API, D-17, 2-3; 
DOE, E-10, 2 (M85); Boston Edison, D-11, 9; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford, 
D-10, 1 (M85 and M100); Minnesota, E-8, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (M85 
through M100); NCGA, D-9, 1; RFA, D-2, 2 (M85); Sun, D-13, 1 (M85).
    \3\0 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9 
(propane); DOE, E-10, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford, D-10, 1; Mobil, D-
16, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1; NPGA, D-5, 1; RFA, D-2, 2; Sun, D-13, 1.
    \3\1 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9; 
Chicago, E-4, 1; DOE, E-10, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14, 1; Ford, 
D-10, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1; Sun, D-13, 1.
    \3\2 API, D-17, 2-3.
    \3\3 Boston Edison, D-11, 9. Reformulated gasoline, however, may 
not constitute an alternative fuel for purposes of the statute 
because it is merely a reformulation of conventional gasoline. See 
42 U.S.C.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993) (alternative fuels are 
``substantially not petroleum'').
    \3\4 Chicago, E-4, 1.
    \3\5 AAMA, D-3, Att. 2; AGA/NGVC, D-8, 4-5; Boston Edison, D-11, 
7; ETC, D-14, 1-3; Mobil, D-16, 1; NPGA, D-5, 1-3; RFA, D-2, 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also asked whether the scope of its labeling 
requirement should be limited to presently available alternative 
fuels.36 Sixteen comments addressed this issue: Seven recommended 
that coverage be limited to presently available alternative 
fuels,37 three recommended that coverage not be limited to such 
fuels,38 and six recommended that the Commission adopt an approach 
flexible enough to cover new alternative fuels as they become 
commercially available.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\6 58 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
    \3\7 Boston Edison, D-11, 9; Chicago, E-4, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 
2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; EMA, D-18, 2; Mobil, D-16, 2; RFA, D-2, 3.
    \3\8 DOE, E-10, 3 (coverage should also extend to M100 and 
E100); NPGA, D-5, 3 (coverage should extend to presently 
``recognized'' alternative fuels); PCC, D-6, 1 (coverage should 
extend to all alternative fuels specified in EPA 92, including any 
that the DOE Secretary designates).
    \3\9 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 3; EIA/EDID, E-1, 1; ETC, D-14, 3; 
Ford, D-10, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because not every alternative fuel is dispensed from a conventional 
fuel pump (e.g., electricity is dispensed from a recharging unit), the 
Commission requested comment regarding how such alternative fuels 
should be labeled.40 No comments provided specific suggestions on 
this point. ETC and Ford stated that only public recharging stations 
should be labeled.41 Six other commenters stated that all such 
refueling stations should be labeled to help consumers choose the 
correct fuel for their engines.42 Mobil stated that ``it is moot 
as to where the data should be labeled'' because ``labeling of 
information that is not technically proven is not recommended at this 
time.''43 NPGA suggested that no comparative information be 
disclosed for alternative fuels because comparative information is not 
needed when refueling.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\058 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
    \4\1ETC, D-14, 4 (requiring private electrical outlets to be 
labeled would be ``impractical''; however, new, EV-only outlets and 
public recharging facilities should be labeled); Ford, D-10, 1 
(``[o]nly public alternative fueling (or recharging) stations should 
be covered''). Ford stated that ``[t]he types of labels should be 
consistent for all types of fuel dispensers,'' but did not indicate 
why the labeling requirement should be limited to public stations.
    \4\2AAMA, D-3, 2; API, D-17, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9; Chicago, 
E-4, 2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EMA, D-18, 2.
    \4\3Mobil, D-16, 3.
    \4\4NPGA, D-5, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alternative Fueled Vehicles
    To address the Commission's responsibility to issue labeling 
requirements for AFVs (to the extent practicable), the Commission 
sought comment on whether it should require labeling for all or only 
some AFVs.45 Fifteen of the twenty-one responsive comments stated 
that all dedicated and dual fueled vehicles should be covered.46 
Three comments recommended that medium and heavy-duty, commercial 
vehicles be excluded from coverage because these vehicles are custom 
ordered by purchasers well informed about the operating costs and 
performance of their planned purchase.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\558 FR at 64915.
    \4\6AGA/NGVC, D-8, 7; API, D-17, 4; Boston Edison, D-11, 10; 
Chicago, E-4, 2; DOE, E-10, 3; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 
2; ETC, D-14, 4; Flxible, D-4, 2; Ford, D-10, 1; Honda, D-15, 5; 
PCC, D-6, 2; RFA, D-2, 3; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1. EIA/OIAF 
suggested that AFV's available for purchase by ``the public'' (i.e., 
individual purchasers or fleet owners) should be labeled. That 
comment did not explain the reason for this formulation. EIA/OIAF, 
E-3, 1.
    \4\7EMA, D-18, 1-2; GM, D-12, 1; Volvo/GM, D-1, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA, Honda and Mobil, without explaining how the Commission could 
otherwise satisfy the statutory directive, recommended that no vehicles 
be subjected to a labeling requirement.48 AAMA stated that all the 
relevant information necessary for making comparisons among AFVs is 
already available on existing vehicle labels.49 Honda stated that 
labeling should be postponed until the market and infrastructure are 
more developed.50 Mobil stated that until such time as 
scientifically sound data can be published, made available for public 
comment, and accepted by the appropriate governmental agencies, 
labeling of fuels or vehicles with benefit and cost claims appears to 
be an inappropriate action.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\8AAMA, D-3, 2; Mobil, D-16, 3. Ford and GM indicated that 
they supported AAMA's comments. Ford, D-10, 1; GM, D-12, 1.
    \4\9AAMA, D-3, 2.
    \5\0Honda, D-15, 7.
    \5\1Mobil, D-16, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also requested comment regarding whether its 
labeling requirements should extend to vehicles converted to use 
alternative fuels ``after market'' (i.e., after sale of the vehicles by 
original equipment manufacturers).52 Eighteen comments addressed 
this issue. Twelve said that coverage should extend to all aftermarket 
conversions because all AFVs should be subjected to the same labeling 
requirements.53 Five comments stated that labeling requirements 
would be difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, for vehicles already owned 
and operated.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\258 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
    \5\3AAMA, D-3, 2; Boston Edison, D-11, 10; Chicago, E-4, 3; EIA/
EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; Flxible, D-4, 2; Honda, D-15, 4-
5; NCGA, D-9, 2; NPGA, D-5, 4; PCC, D-6, 2; RFA, D-2, 3 (but only a 
portion of the information required of new vehicles should appear on 
the label); Sun, D-13, 2. DOT/NHTSA stated that it is considering 
labeling information for CNG-powered vehicles, and that this 
information ``would be equally applicable if the container is fitted 
to a new vehicle or a converted vehicle.'' DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1.
    \5\4AGA/NGVC, D-8, 8; DOE, E-10, 3-4; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-
14, 4; Ford, D-10, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Labeling Disclosures

    As noted previously, the cost and benefit information required by 
the Commission's labeling rule must be ``appropriate,'' ``useful,'' and 
``timely.''55 None of those terms, however, is defined in EPA 92. 
In its ANPR, the Commission thus sought comment addressing three issues 
concerning the information to be disclosed in its labeling 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\542 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission sought comment on whether it should target 
required labeling to a particular audience of consumers (e.g., 
individual purchasers or fleet owners).56 In response, eight 
comments indicated that the Commission should not target particular 
market segments.57 RFA stated that the information required on 
vehicle labels should be easily understandable by all consumers.58 
AAMA, however, stated that the information should be targeted to 
individual consumers (presumably as opposed to fleet owners) ``so that 
consumers can make reasonable choices.''59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\658 FR at 64915.
    \5\7AGA/NGVC, D-8, 8; Boston Edison, D-11, 11; Chicago, E-4, 4; 
EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; ETC, D-14, 5; Mobil, D-16, 3; NPGA, D-5, 4; PCC, 
D-6, 2.
    \5\8RFA, D-2, 3.
    \5\9AAMA, D-3, 2. This comment did not further explain why the 
Commission's labeling requirements should target this audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission sought comment on what information consumers 
would need to compare different alternative fuels and AFVs.60 To 
compare conventional fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel) with alternative 
fuels, the comments stated that information regarding the following 
would be important: price,61 emissions,62 mileage,63 
energy content,64 domestic content (i.e., the percentage of the 
fuel derived from domestic natural resources),65 and hazards, if 
any.66 The comments further stated that information about similar 
factors would help consumers choose among different alternative 
fuels.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\058 FR 64915.
    \6\1AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10, 12; ETC, D-14, 5; Mobil, D-16, 4; NPGA, 
D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 2-3.
    \6\2Boston Edison, D-11, 6, 12-14; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-14, 
5; NPGA, D-5, 5.
    \6\3Chicago, E-4, 4; NPGA, D-5, 5.
    \6\4AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10, 12; ETC, D-14, 5.
    \6\5Boston Edison, D-11, 6, 12-14; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-14, 
5.
    \6\6Boston Edison, D-11, 12; Chicago, E-4, 4.
    \6\7Fuel cost: AMI, D-7, 3; DOE, E-10, 3; ETC, D-14, 6; EIA/EEU-
ISD, E-9, 1; Mobil, D-16, 4; emissions: NPGA, D-5, 5; AMI, D-7, 3; 
and ETC, D-14, 6; composition: AMI, D-7, 3; octane or cetane rating: 
AMI, D-7, 3; EMA, D-18, 2; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 2; domestic content: 
NCGA, D-9, 2; health and safety: NCGA, D-9, 2; EMA, D-18, 2; 
Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; refueling access and ease: ETC, 
D-14, 6; usage limitations: ETC, D-14, 6; EMA, D-18, 2; usage 
requirements: ETC, D-14, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To compare conventional vehicles with AFVs, the comments stated 
that consumers will need cost information relating to the fuel, initial 
vehicle price, and vehicle operation and maintenance.68 In 
addition to cost, the comments stated that information on the following 
additional factors would be useful: emissions;69 fuel type;70 
mileage;71 average tank, fuel or storage unit capacity;72 
refueling time;73 cruising range;74 availability and access 
to refueling stations and facilities;75 safety;76 resale 
value;77 and tax consequences.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\8AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; API, D-17, 5; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-
14, 5-6; PCC, D-6, 4.
    \6\9AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; API, D-17, 5; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-
14, 5-6; NPGA, D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 4; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
    \7\0API, D-17, 5; ETC, D-14, 5-6.
    \7\1Chicago, E-4, 4; NPGA, D-5, 5; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
    \7\2RFA, D-2, 3-4.
    \7\3API, D-17, 5.
    \7\4API, D-17, 5; PCC, D-6, 4; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
    \7\5API, D-17, 5; NPGA, D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 4.
    \7\6Chicago, E-4, 4; PCC, D-6, 4.
    \7\7ETC, D-14, 5-6; PCC, D-6, 4.
    \7\8API, D-17, 5. API did not specify what those consequences 
would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments stated that comparing different AFVs would require an 
evaluation of the same factors.79 For those comparisons, the 
comments also indicated that consumers will need to know the AFV's 
price,80 maintenance costs,81 passenger and cargo 
space,82 vehicle performance,83 and fuel composition.84 
Three comments also stated that consumers will need telephone numbers 
for additional sources of information about alternative fuels and 
AFVs.85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\9Fuel type: AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 2; 
EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; Flxible, D-4, 2; Honda, D-15, 3-4; NCGA, D-9, 
2; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel economy: AAMA, D-3, 1-
2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; DOE, E-10, 4; Honda, D-15, 3-4; NPGA, D-5, 5; Sun, 
D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel cost: AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; 
DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Honda, D-15, 3-4; Nebraska 
AFAC, E-6, 1; Sun, D-13, 2; emissions certification: AAMA, D-3, 1-2; 
AMI, D-7, 4-5; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; ETC, D-14, 
6; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1; NPGA, D-5, 5; WDNR, E-7, 1; cruising 
range: DOE, E-10, 4; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14, 6; Honda, D-15, 3-
4; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel tank capacity: EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 
1; Sun, D-13, 2; safety: EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; NCGA, D-9, 2; Nebraska 
AFAC, E-6, 1; refueling ease and access: ETC, D-14, 6; Nebraska 
AFAC, E-6, 1; NPGA, D-5, 5; refueling time: DOE, E-10, 4; EIA/OIAF, 
E-3, 1.
    \8\0AAMA, D-3, 1-2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; ETC, D-14, 6.
    \8\1AMI, D-7, 4-5; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1.
    \8\2EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; ETC, D-14, 6.
    \8\3EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; ETC, D-14, 6; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1.
    \8\4Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1. The comments further indicated that 
consumers will need to know whether the vehicle has been converted 
to alternative fuel operation and, if so, the identity of the 
manufacturer of the conversion kit and the installer of the system. 
AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; NCGA, D-9, 2. One comment stated that 
consumers will need to know the expected battery life for electric 
vehicles. EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1.
    \8\5EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; Minnesota, E-8, 2-3; NCGA, D-9, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Commission sought comment on the information that should 
be disclosed (as opposed to merely what is relevant) to consumers to 
help them make reasonable purchasing choices and comparisons.86 
The most frequently mentioned factor to be disclosed on fuel dispensers 
was unit pricing information comparing the cost of the fuel to a 
standard unit (e.g., a gallon of gasoline).87 Other factors 
included health and safety information,88 and fuel type (or 
name),89 rating (octane or cetane, as appropriate),90 
emissions,91 energy content,92 principal ingredient,93 
and quantity purchased.94 Boston Edison stated that the labels 
should identify the percentage of fuel that comes from domestic 
sources.95 The Minnesota Department of Agriculture said there is 
no need to mandate labels on the fuel dispenser itself because ``[w]hen 
the fuel is being sold by private marketers, they will provide the most 
appropriate labeling for any individual marketplace.''96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\658 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
    \8\7AAMA, D-3, 2; AMI, D-7, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 12; DOE, E-
10, 3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; ETC, D-14, 7; Mobil, D-16, 5; PCC, D-6, 
3.
    \8\8EMA, D-18, 3; EMA, D-18, 3; ETC, D-14, 7; Nebraska, E-6, 2; 
NHTSA, E-2, 2; WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \8\9AAMA, D-3, 2; AMI, D-7, 3; API, D-17, 4-5; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 
2; Nebraska, E-6, 2; NHTSA, E-2, 2; Sun, D-13, 1.
    \9\0AMI, D-7, 3; EMA, D-18, 3; Nebraska, E-6, 2.
    \9\1AMI, D-7, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 12.
    \9\2AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10 (labels should compare ``the amount of 
energy in different fuels by indicating the quantity * * * of 
different fuels needed to equal the energy content in gasoline''); 
Boston Edison, D-11, 11 (the British Thermal Unit ``provides the 
most accurate unit of measure that can be used to evaluate the 
relative merits of each type of fuel'').
    \9\3AMI, D-7, 3.
    \9\4EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2.
    \9\5Boston Edison, D-11, 12.
    \9\6Minnesota, E-8, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to vehicle labeling, the comments recommended that information 
regarding cost,97 emissions,98 fuel economy,99 
safety,100 fuel type,101 and performance (e.g., cruising 
range)102 be disclosed on a label on the vehicle. Other suggested 
disclosures included domestic content of the fuel,103 ownership 
type (individual or fleet),104 tank capacity,105 and fuel 
availability.106 Two comments recommended certain disclosures for 
AFVs, but did not specify where the required information should be 
disclosed (i.e., on a label, in a fact sheet, or elsewhere).107 
API suggested that the Commission develop a brochure for consumers 
disclosing pertinent information.108
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\7AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10; AMI, D-7, 5; Boston Edison, D-11, 12; 
EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14, 
7; RFA, D-2, 4.
    \9\8AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; Boston Edison, D-11, 12; EIA/EEU-ISD, 
E-9, 2; ETC, D-14, 7; RFA, D-2, 4; WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \9\9AMI, D-7, 5; DOE, E-10, 4; RFA, D-2, 4; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR, 
E-7, 2.
    \1\00EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; NHTSA, E-2, 2; 
WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \1\01AMI, D-7, 4; API, D-17, 6; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; Flxible, D-
4, 2; Minnesota, E-8, 3; NHTSA, E-2, 2; WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \1\02Boston Edison, D-11, 12; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-
9, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; RFA, D-2, 4; WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \1\03Boston Edison, D-11, 12; RFA, D-2, 4.
    \1\04WDNR, E-7, 2.
    \1\05EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; RFA, D-2, 4. DOE recommended refueling 
time and refueling frequency. DOE, E-10, 4.
    \1\06EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2.
    \1\07Chicago, E-4, 4 (alternative fuel mix ratio, economic 
advantages, energy efficiency, environmental performance, miles/
alternative fuel gallon); NCGA, D-9, 2 (domestic content, renewable 
content, Global Warming Index rating, health/safety information).
    \1\08API, D-17, 5. The suggested brochure would disclose 
``relative fuel costs, maintenance costs, operational costs, 
emissions reductions, possible tax consequences, and the type of 
fuel needed to power an AFV.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Updating Labeling Disclosures

    Because EPA 92 requires the Commission to update its labeling 
requirements ``periodically,'' the Commission sought comment on how 
frequently it should update its labeling requirements.109 Eight 
comments stated that the Commission should review its labeling 
requirements at regular intervals (i.e., either annually,110 or 
every two,111 three,112 or five to ten years).113 Other 
comments indicated that the Commission should update labels only when 
necessary to reflect practical developments in technology.114 
Mobil stated that label updating should reflect fuel cost 
changes.115
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\09 58 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
    \1\10 AGA/NGVC, D-8, 13; Boston Edison, D-11, 16; DOE, E-10, 4; 
EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1.
    \1\11 Chicago, E-4, 4-5; ETC, D-14, 8.
    \1\12 AMI, D-7, 5.
    \1\13 RFA, D-2, 5.
    \1\14 NCGA, D-9, 3; NPGA, D-5, 6.
    \1\15 Mobil, D-16, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Consolidation

    Finally, the Commission sought comment regarding section 406(a)'s 
direction that the Commission consolidate its labels with other labels 
providing information to consumers ``where appropriate.''116 Four 
comments suggested that the required information could be consolidated 
with existing fuel economy labels.117 Five other comments 
suggested that consolidation would be difficult or would provide no 
benefit to consumers.118 One comment stated that these labeling 
requirements should not duplicate existing labels.119
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\16 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\17 AGA/NGVC, D-8, 13; EPA, E-5, 5 (consolidation with EPA 
labels should be ``investigate[d]''); Ford, D-10, 1; NPGA, D-5, 6.
    \1\18 API, D-17, 7; DOE, E-10, 4; Mobil, D-16, 6; NCGA, D-9, 3; 
RFA, D-2, 5.
    \1\19 ETC, D-14, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Labeling Rule

    In developing its labeling proposal, the Commission is required to 
reconcile several competing concerns. As noted previously, EPA 92 
directs the Commission to develop uniform labels disclosing appropriate 
cost and benefit information.120 However, in determining what 
information is appropriate, it must consider the problems associated 
with developing and publishing such information.121 The 
information to be disclosed also must be displayed on simple 
labels.122 Given this context, and after considering the comments, 
the Commission proposes separate labeling requirements for alternative 
fuels and AFVs, to become effective 90 days after publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register. Because few consumers have 
extensive experience with either alternative fuels or AFVs, the 
Commission's proposal is designed to be of use to a general consumer 
audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\20 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\21Id.
    \1\22Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Alternative Fuel Labeling

    For the fuel labeling requirement, the Commission proposes that 
retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels post standard labels 
identifying the commonly used names of those fuels on fuel dispensers 
and recharging stations servicing consumers. The labels would be placed 
conspicuously in full view of consumers and as near as reasonably 
practical to the fuel's unit price. The Commission also proposes 
requiring disclosure of the fuel's principal component and permitting 
disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum percentages. These 
proposals are analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule 
pertaining to liquid alternative fuels.123 The Commission requests 
comment on the feasibility of such disclosures and how they may best be 
accomplished. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a different 
measure of content (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for 
electricity) would be more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\23 58 FR at 41374 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and 
306.10(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CNG, electricity, and hydrogen are the only non-liquid fuels 
defined as ``alternative fuels'' in EPA 92.124 Although section 
406(a) directs the Commission to issue labeling requirements for 
``alternative fuels'' (presumably for all such fuels), the liquid 
alternative fuels currently are subject to similar requirements imposed 
by the Fuel Rating Rule. In accordance with section 406(a)'s directive 
to review the rule ``periodically to reflect the most recent available 
information,''125 the Commission will supplement the list of 
covered fuels as new non-liquid alternative fuels are designated as 
alternative fuels by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\24 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\25 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission developed this relatively simple labeling 
requirement for fuel dispensers after considering how it might best 
balance consumers' need for useful and timely cost and benefit 
information with the problems associated with displaying such 
information in a simple label format. The requirement provides 
consumers with the most important pieces of information needed when 
refueling: Fuel type and composition. Although in the absence of this 
requirement sellers could be expected to identify the fuel sold, they 
may not do so in a standardized format. The Commission believes that a 
standardized format assists consumers in identifying the proper 
fuel.126 Furthermore, it is uncertain whether they would provide 
information regarding the precise composition of the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\26 Comments stating that fuel type (or name) should be 
disclosed are cited at note 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, comparative information at the fuel pump is unlikely 
to be necessary 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 (one being gasoline, with which consumers are already 
familiar and which is already labeled with pertinent information). 
Thus, providing consumers with information comparing various types of 
alternative fuels is best done prior to the time the vehicle is 
acquired.
    There also are reasons to avoid requiring additional, less 
important information. One consideration is the avoidance of 
information overload. In contrast to vehicle purchases, consumers' 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.127 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.''128 Simplicity therefore 
is a greater consideration in labeling of fuels than in the labeling of 
AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\27Federal Trade Commission, Study Of A Uniform National Label 
For Devices That Dispense Automotive Fuels to Consumers (1993) 
(hereinafter FTC Study), at 29.
    \1\28Id. at 29 n.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid cluttering labels further, the Commission also believes 
that it should not consolidate these labels with other mandatory labels 
or require otherwise duplicative disclosures.129 For example, a 
labeling proposal that the National Conference on Weights and Measures 
(``NCWM''), a consensus standards-writing organization for state and 
local regulatory agencies, is considering would require that retail CNG 
dispensers display the quantity of CNG in gallons-of-gasoline 
equivalents to help consumers compare the price of CNG to 
gasoline.130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\29See ETC, D-14, 7-8 (AFV labels should not duplicate 
existing labels).
    \1\30U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Report of the 78th National Conference on 
Weights and Measures 229-33 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed labeling requirement also has the advantage of placing 
equal regulatory requirements on all competing fuels.131 The Fuel 
Rating Rule's labeling requirements cover only liquid alternative 
fuels. Although that Rule serves a different purpose,132 the 
Commission believes that harmonizing labeling requirements, when 
practicable, is appropriate.133 Fuel Rating Rule labels for liquid 
alternative fuels must identify the commonly used name of the fuel and 
the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by volume, of the fuel's 
principal component.134 That Rule also permits disclosure of other 
components, also expressed as a minimum percentage.135 The 
Commission is proposing disclosure of the same information for non-
liquid alternative fuels. The Commission further proposes that the 
alternative fuels labels follow the same size and format requirements 
of the Fuel Rating Rule.136 The Commission also seeks comment 
regarding how the components of those fuels can be calculated or 
expressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\31RFA, D-2, 5 (labeling should extend to all alternative 
fuels, as that term is defined in EPA 92, sold to consumers); Sun, 
D-13, 1 (same).
    \1\32The 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 at 41356.
    \1\33See API, D-17, 4, 8 (labels required by Fuel Rating Rule 
provide sufficient information); RFA, D-2, 5 (same); Sun, D-13, 1 
(fuel descriptor labels should apply to all available alternative 
fuels). Retailers of liquid alternative fuels have additional 
responsibilities under the Fuel Rating Rule, e.g., posting 
consistent with rating certified to retailer and maintaining 
required records. See 58 FR at 41374 (to be codified as 16 CFR 
306.10(d) and 306.11). The Commission believes that those 
requirements are beyond the scope of its mandate under Section 
406(a).
    \1\3458 FR at 41373 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.0(j)((2)).
    \1\35Id.
    \1\3658 FR at 41375 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.12). Labels 
required by the Fuel Rating Rule are 3 inches wide by 2\1/2\ inches 
long, with process black type on an orange background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. AFV Labeling

    For the AFV labeling requirement, the Commission proposes that 
original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') and AFV conversion 
companies affix, and AFV dealers maintain,137 standard labels on 
new AFVs sold or offered for sale to consumers.138 The labels 
would consist of three parts. The first part would disclose fuel tank 
capacity of the labeled AFV; the second part would contain a list of 
comparative factors relevant to AFVs in general; and the third part 
would direct consumers to other sources of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\37EPA's fuel economy label is required to be affixed and 
maintained in a similar fashion. 46 U.S.C. 2006.
    \1\38The term ``consumer'' is not defined in EPA 92. The 
Commission proposes that ``consumer'' be defined as a person (i.e., 
an individual, corporation, or any other business organization) 
purchasing a new AFV from a dealer or AFV conversion company (i.e., 
not directly from the manufacturer as a special order). See GM, D-
12, 1 (medium and heavy-duty trucks should be excluded from proposed 
rule's scope because most are custom ordered); Volvo/GM, D-1, 1 
(heavy duty trucks, because they are custom ordered, should be 
excluded). The Commission seeks comment on this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the Commission believes that comparative 
information would be most useful to consumers prior to the time the 
vehicle is purchased. In developing its proposal for AFV labeling, the 
Commission considered requiring disclosure of information pertaining to 
all the factors cited in the comments, including fuel and/or operating 
costs and environmental impact (i.e., emissions). Information about 
those factors would clearly help consumers make purchasing choices, 
assuming the information was accurate, understandable and comparable.
    For most of those factors, however, the Commission has tentatively 
decided that the level of detail necessary to convey balanced, accurate 
information to consumers cannot be contained on the ``simple'' label 
envisioned by Congress. For example, an accurate assessment of the 
life-cycle environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle 
requires a review of numerous factors, including emissions resulting 
from fuel production, distribution, handling, storage, dispensing, and 
combustion.139 Measuring each of those factors itself requires an 
analysis of numerous chemical compounds, including carbon monoxide, 
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, volatile organic 
carbons, radioactive particles, particulate matter, and aerosols. 
Similarly, evaluating the true costs associated with driving a 
particular AFV would require information about the vehicle's 
acquisition (i.e., capital costs in acquiring or converting an AFV) and 
operation (e.g., fuel costs, repair and maintenance costs, and any tax 
consequences).140 All of this information cannot be presented 
accurately on a simple label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\39Assessing only tail-pipe emissions could be easier, but 
potentially misleading because of the significance of the 
environmental impact involved in, for example, fuel production.
    \1\40See, e.g., 26 U.S.C.A. 30, 179A (West Supp. 1993) (creating 
tax credits for qualified electric vehicles and deductions for 
clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling property).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other cost-benefit information (e.g., comparing reliability by 
measuring each alternative fuel's ability to start a cold engine) is 
also difficult to disclose on a simple label because no technical 
standards exist for measuring some factors.141 The Commission 
often relies on consensus standards-setting organizations, such as the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM''), or governmental 
agencies with engineering and technical expertise to develop such 
standards.142 Here, the comments did not identify any such 
standards, and the Commission is not otherwise aware that standards 
exist for all the factors. Without standards upon which to base 
required disclosures, the information manufacturers would provide would 
not necessarily be comparable, and this could be confusing to 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\41Some comments stated that the supporting data on 
alternative fuels in general are ``controversial, ambiguous or 
misleading,'' Minnesota, E-8, 3, or ``still unproven,'' Mobil, D-16, 
2-3, 5.
    \1\42See, e.g., 16 CFR 306.0(a), (b) (octane rating based on 
ASTM specifications); 16 CFR 305.5 (appliance labeling based on DOE 
test procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 also requires DOE to produce a brochure that provides 
consumers with ``relevant and objective'' comparative information about 
AFVs and alternative fuels, including environmental performance, energy 
efficiency, domestic content, cost, maintenance requirements, 
reliability, and safety.143 DOE's information package also must 
include information regarding conversion of conventional vehicles to 
run on alternative fuels.144 The brochure format will allow DOE 
latitude to present valuable information in fuller measure. 
Accordingly, there is less need for the Commission to attempt to 
present complex information in the constrained format of an AFV label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\4342 U.S.C.A. 13231 (West Supp. 1993). DOE's information 
package must be completed within 18 months after EPA 92's enactment 
date (April 1994) and updated annually ``to reflect the most recent 
available information.'' Id.
    \1\44Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with labeling for alternative fuels, the Commission also 
believes that it should not consolidate these labels with other 
mandatory labels or require otherwise duplicative disclosures. For AFV 
labeling, EPA has proposed that its fuel economy labels (which display 
estimated miles per gallon and annual fuel cost information) be affixed 
on AFVs powered by CNG, ethanol, and methanol.145 For dual fueled 
vehicles operating on these or conventional fuels, the proposed 
regulations would require that fuel economy data be provided only for 
the conventional fuels; manufacturers would be given the option of 
posting such data for the alternative fuels.146 EPA also has been 
directed to promulgate rules that require fuel economy labeling for 
vehicles powered by LPG, hydrogen, electricity, and other alternative 
fuels.147 Rules requiring disclosure of information about 
emissions certification148 and safety149 are also in effect 
or under active consideration by other governmental bodies. Because 
consumers will have immediate access to this information in other 
required labels, the Commission believes that providing the same 
information on its AFV labels (in a different format) could confuse 
consumers, and is not thus appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\4556 FR 8856, 8860, 8869-71, Mar. 1, 1991; EPA, E-5, 2-4.
    \1\4656 FR at 8861; EPA, E-5, 3-4. EPA expects that these 
regulations will be issued ``in the near future.'' EPA, E-5, 5.
    \1\4715 U.S.C.A. 2006 (West Supp. 1993).
    \1\48EPA currently requires emissions certification labels 
(which state that the vehicle conforms to applicable EPA 
regulations) for certain 1994 model year AFV's powered by methanol. 
See 40 CFR 86.094-35(c)(1)(ii)(A) (light duty vehicles); 40 CFR 
86.094-35(c)(1)(ii)(B)(1) (light duty trucks). In California, state 
regulations require that AFV's powered by CNG, ethanol, methanol, 
and LPG, and conventional vehicles converted to run on any of these 
fuels, also carry such labels. Section 1965, Title 13, California 
Code of Regulations (CCR); California Air Resources Board Mail-Out 
No. 93-34.
    \1\49The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
has proposed requiring a permanent label on CNG storage tanks 
disclosing the name and address of the tank manufacturer, the month 
and year of manufacture, and the maximum service pressure. 58 FR 
5323, Jan. 21, 1993. NHTSA is also considering whether it should 
require labeling as to the need for periodic reinspection of the CNG 
container, the need to remove the container from service after its 
useful life, and the proper fill pressure for refueling the 
container. DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to update its 
labeling requirements ``periodically to reflect the most recent 
available information.''150 The Commission therefore intends to 
monitor the industry as standards for evaluating other relevant 
objective factors are developed. As those standards are issued by 
recognized organizations and agencies, the Commission expects to update 
this part of the AFV labeling requirements accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\5042 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes a 
labeling requirement containing three parts: (1) Disclosure of fuel 
tank capacity, (2) a list of factors consumers should consider in 
purchasing AFVs, and (3) a notice directing consumers to other sources 
of information.
1. Disclosure of Fuel Tank Capacity
    Section 406(a) mandates that the labels disclose cost and benefit 
information. One principal piece of cost-benefit information is 
cruising range.151 To help consumers estimate this from available 
data,152 the Commission proposes that fuel tank capacity be 
calculated and displayed for each AFV sold or offered for sale to 
consumers. Fuel tank capacity would be expressed in gallons for AFVs 
powered by liquid alternative fuels, and the Commission seeks comment 
on how it should be disclosed for gaseous and electric powered 
AFVs.153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\51See notes 74 and 102, and accompanying text. Several 
comments stated that related considerations (e.g., fuel tank 
capacity and refueling time) are important in their own right. See 
notes 72, 73, 79, and 105 and accompanying text.
    \1\52For AFVs with EPA fuel economy labels, cruising range can 
be estimated by multiplying fuel tank capacity by the posted miles-
per-gallon rating for that vehicle.
    \1\53For AFVs capable of operating on both alternative and 
conventional fuels, the labels would disclose the capacity of the 
tank or battery storing the alternative fuel. For AFVs capable of 
operating on multiple alternative fuels, the labels would disclose 
the capacity of the tank or battery storing each alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. List of Comparative Factors
    The second part of the proposed label would provide consumers with 
a standard framework for evaluating issues relevant to AFVs in general. 
Information contained on this part could help consumers evaluate 
information disclosed on other labels, in advertising, and from other 
sources. The Commission has tentatively determined that requiring 
disclosure of a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general will help 
consumers make choices and comparisons. The Commission also expects 
that this aspect of its labeling requirement will encourage AFV 
manufacturers, converters, and dealers to provide additional 
information to meet consumers' expectations and needs.154
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\54See Boston Edison, D-11, 13 (``market forces will create 
incentives for sellers to identify and respond to consumer demands 
for information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AFV label would contain a form notice stating, in substance, 
that vehicles powered by different fuels have different costs and 
benefits, and that consumers should consider those differences when 
considering an AFV purchase. The label would then list factors 
consumers should consider before purchasing an AFV.155 Based on 
the comments received, the Commission proposes that the second part of 
the AFV label identify the following six factors: fuel type (i.e., the 
fuel or fuels that power the vehicle); operating costs; environmental 
impact; health and safety; on-road performance (i.e., cruising range, 
cold start capability and refueling time); and fuel availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\55In an unrelated context, the Commission has previously 
concluded that a list of purchasing considerations 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 AFVs are designed to be powered by 
a certain fuel or fuels, and that consumers should be aware of which 
fuel(s) powers that particular AFV. For operating costs, the label 
would state that the total cost of operating an AFV includes, among 
other things, fuel and maintenance costs, and that those costs for AFVs 
are different than for gasoline-fueled vehicles and can vary 
considerably. The label would also advise consumers that if the vehicle 
posts an EPA alternative fuel-economy rating (``AFER''),156 they 
can estimate their fuel costs per mile by dividing their fuel cost 
(obtained from alternative fuel retailers) by the AFER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\56As noted previously, for dual fueled vehicles, EPA's 
proposed regulations would give manufacturers the option of posting 
fuel economy data for the alternative fuel. See note 149 and 
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For environmental impact, the labels would state that all vehicles 
(conventional and AFVs) affect the environment in ways both direct 
(e.g., how the vehicle processes the fuel) and indirect (e.g., how the 
fuel is produced and brought to market). Accordingly, in evaluating the 
environmental impact of a particular AFV, consumers should consider all 
environmental costs associated with driving a vehicle powered by that 
alternative fuel, as well as any benefits as compared to gasoline.
    The other factors would follow a similar format. For health and 
safety, the labels would notify consumers that different fuels raise 
different health and safety concerns. As a result, consumers should 
consider any health and safety issues associated with normal driving 
and refueling, and in the event of an accident. For on-road 
performance, the labels would advise consumers that vehicles powered by 
different fuels will differ in terms of their cruising range (i.e., how 
many miles the vehicle will go on a full supply of fuel), cold start 
capabilities (i.e., ability to start a cold engine) and refueling and/
or recharging time (i.e., how long it will take to refill the vehicle's 
fuel tank to full capacity). For fuel availability, the labels would 
advise consumers to determine whether a refueling and/or recharging 
infrastructure has been developed for the AFV under consideration which 
meets their driving needs.
3. Direction to Other Sources of Information
    The third part of the proposed label would direct consumers to 
additional sources of objective information regarding AFVs. Several 
comments stated that information not required to be disclosed by the 
Commission would be available to consumers in DOE's information 
package.157 However, EPA 92 does not require AFV dealers or 
conversion companies to provide consumers with copies of the DOE 
information package or to notify them of its availability. Accordingly, 
the third part of the proposed label would contain a statement 
informing consumers that further information about alternative fuels 
and AFVs is available from DOE.158
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\57See AAMA, D-3, 2; Ford, D-10, 2; GM, D-12, 1.
    \1\58See ETC, D-14, 8 (labels could include cross-references to 
availability of DOE brochures); Minnesota, E-8, 3 (brochures with 
general consumer information, including phone numbers of additional 
information resources, could be made available at the point of 
purchase).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Label Size
    With respect to label size, the Commission has tentatively 
determined that a label larger than the fuel pump label is needed to 
accommodate the greater number of required disclosures. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposes requiring that AFV labels be 7\1/2\ inches wide 
by 11 inches high. This is the same size as the labels required by the 
Commission's Used Car Rule, which have adequate room to display 
effectively a large amount of information.159
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\59Labels required by the Used Car Rule are no smaller than 11 
inches high by 7\1/4\ inches wide in black type on a white 
background. 16 CFR 455.2(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Invitation to Comment

    The Commission invites interested persons to address any questions 
of fact, law, or policy that they believe may bear upon the proposed 
rule. The Commission particularly desires comment, however, on the 
questions listed below.
    All comments should reference the aspect of the proposed rule or 
question being discussed. Comments opposing the proposed rule or 
specific provisions should, if possible, suggest a specific 
alternative. Proposals for alternative regulations should include 
reasons and data explaining why the alternative would better serve the 
purposes of EPA 92 and section 406(a).
    Before adopting a final rule, consideration will be given to any 
written comments timely submitted to the Commission. Comments submitted 
will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom 
of Information Act160 and the Commission's Rule of 
Practice,161 during normal business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
at the Public Reference Room, room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th 
and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\605 U.S.C. 552.
    \1\6116 CFR 4.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Labeling Rule

1. Alternative Fuel Labeling
    The Commission is proposing that retailers of non-liquid 
alternative fuels post standard labels identifying the commonly used 
names of those fuels on fuel dispensers and on recharging stations 
selling to consumers.
    (a) Should the Commission issue its proposal for labeling of non-
liquid alternative fuels as a final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not?
    (b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal?
    (c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's 
proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any 
such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
    (d) Would any disclosures specified by law (either federal, state, 
or local) affect the Commission's alternative-fuels labeling proposal?
    (e) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative 
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there 
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those 
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems 
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify 
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining 
the benefits?
    (2) If no, why not?
    The Fuel Rating Rule requires that the standard labels for liquid 
alternative fuels identify the amount of the fuel's principal 
component, and permits disclosure of other components, expressed as 
minimum percentages by volume. The Commission is proposing this 
requirement for non-liquid alternative fuels.
    (f) Should the Commission require disclosure of the principal 
component of the non-liquid alternative fuels, and permit disclosure of 
other components, expressed as minimum percentages?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a 
requirement? (c) What are the principal components of each of the non-
liquid alternative fuels? (d) Do the compositions of the non-liquid 
alternative fuels vary from supplier to supplier? (e) How should 
information about those components be calculated and displayed? (f) 
What costs or problems are associated with requiring such a disclosure? 
(g) How might the Commission minimize any such costs or problems, while 
maintaining the benefits?
    (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) Is disclosure of a different measure of 
content more appropriate (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for 
electricity)? (c) What should that disclosure be, and why?
    (g) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative 
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there 
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those 
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems 
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify 
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining 
the benefits?
    (2) If no, why not?
    The Commission proposes that the labels for the non-liquid 
alternative fuels follow the same size and format required by the Fuel 
Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels.
    (h) Should the Commission require the same size and format in its 
labeling for non-liquid alternative fuels as required by the Fuel 
Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels?
    The Commission proposes that labeling requirements for alternative 
fuels become effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the 
Federal Register.
    (i) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests 
sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary 
to comply with the proposed labeling requirements for alternative 
fuels? Why is that extra time necessary?
2. AFV Labeling
    The Commission proposes that OEMs and AFV conversion companies 
selling or offering to sell AFVs to consumers affix, and that dealers 
maintain, standard labels on the vehicles disclosing that particular 
AFV's fuel tank capacity, a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general, 
and a statement informing consumers that further information about 
alternative fuels and AFVs is available from DOE.
    (a) Should the Commission issue its proposal for AFV labeling as a 
final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not?
    (b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal?
    (c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's 
proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any 
such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
    (d) Would any disclosures specified by law (either federal, state, 
or local) affect the Commission's AFV labeling proposal?
    (e) Is fuel tank capacity a useful measure for consumer 
comparisons?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Will this information be provided by OEMs 
and AFV conversion companies in the absence of a regulatory 
requirement? (c) Will disclosure of fuel tank capacity help consumers 
calculate or estimate cruising range or any other important purchasing 
criteria? If so, which purchasing criteria? (d) Is measuring fuel tank 
capacity in gallons appropriate for AFVs powered by liquid fuels? (e) 
How should fuel tank capacity be measured for AFVs powered by gaseous 
fuels or electricity?
    (2) If no, why not?
    (f) Is a list of six issues relevant to AFVs in general on the AFV 
label sufficient to alert consumers to issues they should consider 
before purchasing an AFV?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Should the factors include the types of 
statements the Commission outlined for each factor in Part III(B)(2)?
    (2) If no, why not?
    (g) Should the AFV label notify consumers of the availability of 
DOE's information package? Why or why not?
    (h) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative 
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there 
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those 
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems 
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify 
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining 
the benefits?
    (2) If no, why not?
    The Commission proposes that the term ``consumer'' be defined as a 
person (i.e., an individual, corporation, or any other business 
organization) purchasing a new AFV from a dealer or AFV conversion 
company (i.e., not directly from the manufacturer as a special order).
    (i) Is the Commission's proposed definition of ``consumer'' 
consistent with section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How should the definition be modified 
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (c) 
Should the Commission exclude used AFV purchases from the scope of the 
proposed rule? Why or why not?
    The Commission proposes that the labels for AFVs be of the same 
size and format as the labels required by the Commission's Used Car 
Rule.
    (j) Should the Commission require the same size label in its AFV 
labeling as required by the Commission's Used Car Rule?
    (k) Should the Commission specify other format issues, such as 
layout and type size?
    The Commission proposes that AFV labeling requirements become 
effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    (l) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests 
sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary 
to comply with the proposed requirements? Why is that extra time 
necessary?

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'')162 requires agencies 
to prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when publishing proposed 
rules163 unless the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have 
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.''164 Here, the economic impact of both proposed 
requirements appears to be de minimis; the Commission proposes no 
recordkeeping requirements,165 and the proposed disclosures 
consist of information that is basic and easily ascertainable. The 
Commission tentatively concludes that the proposed rule also will not 
affect a substantial number of small entities because information the 
Commission currently possesses indicates that relatively few companies 
currently sell alternative fuels or manufacture, convert, or sell AFVs. 
Of those that manufacture or sell AFVs, most are not ``small 
entit[ies]'' as that term is defined either in section 601 of 
RFA166 or applicable regulations of the Small Business 
Administration.167
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\62 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \1\63 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    \1\64 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    \1\65 In 1993 the Commission certified that the Fuel Rating 
Rule's requirements that retailers post labels and keep required 
records would not have a significant impact. 58 FR 41356, 41371, 
Aug. 3, 1993.
    \1\66 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \1\67 13 CFR Part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the above, the Commission certifies that the proposed 
rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and, therefore, that a regulatory 
analysis is not necessary. The Commission requests comment on this 
certification, and whether the proposed rule will have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. After reviewing any 
comments received on this subject, the Commission will decide whether 
the preparation of a final regulatory-flexibility analysis is 
appropriate.

C. 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 solicits comments on the 
following questions:
    1. What changes, if any, should be made to the Proposed Rule to 
increase the benefits of the Rule to purchasers?
    a. How would these changes affect the costs the Proposed Rule would 
impose on firms subject to its requirements?
    2. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of 
compliance, will the Proposed Rule impose on firms subject to its 
requirements?
    a. Will the Proposed Rule provide benefits to such firms?
    3. What changes, if any, should be made to the Proposed Rule to 
reduce the burdens or costs that would be imposed on firms subject to 
its requirements?
    a. How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the 
Proposed Rule?

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    If promulgated, the Commission's labeling requirements would not 
involve the ``collection of information'' as defined by the regulations 
of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')168 implementing 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').169 Because the Commission's 
proposed rule contains disclosure requirements only, there is no 
``information collection'' in this proceeding to submit to OMB for 
clearance. However, to ensure the accuracy of its conclusion, the 
Commission solicits comment on any paperwork burden that the public 
believes the proposed requirements may impose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\685 CFR 1320.7(c).
    \1\6944 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Metric Usage

    The metric measurement system is the preferred system of weights 
and measures for United States trade and commerce.170 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 United 
States firms.171 The Commission has identified one section of the 
proposed rule with a potential for use of metric terms. Specifically, 
the Commission is proposing that AFV labels disclose fuel tank capacity 
in gallons. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require metric 
or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) units for this disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\7015 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No. 12,770, 56 FR 
35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing section 205b).
    \1\71Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Public Participation

1. Public Workshop-Conference
    The Commission's staff will conduct a Public Workshop-Conference to 
discuss written comments received in response to this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. The purpose of the conference is to afford 
Commission staff and interested parties an opportunity to discuss and 
explore issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding, and, in particular, 
to examine publicly areas of significant controversy or divergent 
opinions that are raised in the written comments. The conference is not 
intended to achieve a consensus of opinion among participants or 
between participants and Commission staff with respect to any issue 
raised in the rulemaking proceeding. Commission staff will consider the 
views and suggestions made during the conference, in conjunction with 
its consideration of the written comments, in formulating its final 
recommendation to the Commission concerning the proposed rule.
    Persons interested in participating in the Public Workshop-
Conference must notify Commission staff by June 8, 1994 (the ``Public 
Workshop notification date'') as directed under the heading ADDRESSES, 
above. Commission staff will select a limited number of parties from 
among those who submit both requests to participate and written 
comments to represent significant interests affected by the proposed 
rule. These parties will participate in an open discussion of the 
issues. The selected parties may ask and answer questions based on 
their respective comments. In addition, the conference will be open to 
the general public. Members of the general public who attend the 
conference may have an opportunity to make a brief oral statement 
presenting their views on issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding. 
Oral statements of views by members of the general public will be 
limited to a few minutes in length. The time allotted for these 
statements will be determined on the basis of the time allotted for 
discussion of the issues by the selected parties, as well as by the 
number of persons who wish to make statements.
    If the number of parties who request to participate in the Public 
Workshop-Conference is so large that it would inhibit effective 
discussion among the participants, then Commission staff will select as 
the participants a limited number of parties to represent the interests 
of those who submit written comments. The selections will be made on 
the basis of the following criteria:
    1. The party submits a written comment by the comment due date.
    2. The party notifies Commission staff of its interest and 
authorization to represent an affected interest by the Public Workshop 
notification date.
    3. The party's attendance would promote a balance of interests 
being represented at the conference.
    4. The party's attendance would promote the consideration and 
discussion of the issues presented in the rulemaking proceeding.
    5. The party has expertise in issues raised in the proposed rules.
    6. The party adequately reflects the views of the affected 
interest(s) which it purports to represent.
    7. The party has been designated by one or more interested parties 
(who timely file requests to participate and written comments) as a 
party who shares group interests with the designator(s).
    8. The number of parties selected will not be so large as to 
inhibit effective discussion among them.

If they wish, commenters may designate a specific party to represent 
their shared group interests in the Public Workshop-Conference.
    If it is necessary to limit the number of participants, those not 
selected to participate, but who submit both requests to participate 
and written comments, will be afforded an opportunity at the end of the 
session to present their views during a limited time period. The time 
allotted for these statements will be determined on the basis of the 
time necessary for discussion of the issues by the selected parties, as 
well as by the number of persons who wish to make statements. If any 
person cannot complete the presentation of his or her statements in the 
allotted time, that person will be allowed, within one week thereafter, 
to file a written statement covering those relevant matters that he or 
she did not present orally. Except for written statements submitted 
under these circumstances, written submissions will not be accepted 
after the comment due date.
    A neutral, third-party facilitator will be retained for the Public 
Workshop-Conference. The Public Workshop-Conference is currently 
scheduled to be held at the Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania 
Avenue at Sixth Street, NW., Washington, DC, on July 20-21, 1994. Prior 
to the conference, parties selected to participate in the Public 
Workshop-Conference will be provided with copies of written comments 
received in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. A 
transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference will be placed on the 
public record.
2. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    After reviewing comments received in response to this notice, the 
transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference, and any other properly 
filed submissions, the Commission will publish a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking in which it will propose the text of a labeling 
rule. The public will be given an additional opportunity to comment on 
that supplemental notice.
3. Motions or Petitions
    Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Such motions or petitions 
will be transmitted to a Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will 
be responsible for the orderly conduct of the proceeding and shall have 
all powers necessary to that end, including the authority to rule on 
all motions or petitions.
    Applications for review of rulings by a Presiding Officer will not 
be entertained by the Commission prior to its review of the entire 
record in the rulemaking proceeding, unless the Presiding Officer 
certifies in writing to the Commission that a ruling involves a 
controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial 
ground for difference of opinion, and that an intermediate review of 
the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the 
proceeding or that subsequent review will be an inadequate remedy.

V. Communications by Outside Parties or Their Advisors

    Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 1.26(b)(5),172 
communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor during the 
course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the following treatment: 
Written communications, including written communications from members 
of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to the Secretary for placement 
on the public record. Oral communications, not including oral 
communications from members of Congress, are permitted only when such 
oral communications are transcribed verbatim or summarized at the 
discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner advisor to whom such 
oral communications are made and are promptly placed on the public 
record, together with any written communications and summaries of any 
oral communications relating to such oral communications. Oral 
communications from members of Congress shall be transcribed or 
summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner 
advisor to whom such oral communications are made and promptly placed 
on the public record, together with any written communication and 
summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral 
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\7216 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309

    Alternative fuel, Alternative fueled vehicle, Labeling, Trade 
practices.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-11102 Filed 5-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P