[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28278]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 309

RIN 3084-AA57

 

Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative 
Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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 May 9, 1994, the 
Commission published a 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 modifications to that initial labeling proposal and the 
specific language of a proposed labeling rule. The Commission invites 
interested persons to submit written comments addressing any issue they 
believe may bear upon the proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 19, 
1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments 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--
SNPR Comment.'' 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

    EPA 921 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 U.S. dependence on oil imports; promote energy efficiency; 
reduce the use of petroleum-based fuels in motor vehicles; and provide 
new energy options. Key programs in titles III, IV, V, and VI of EPA 92 
promote the development of alternative fuels3 and alternative 
fueled vehicles (``AFVs'').4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Two provisions in title IV of EPA 92 require that information on 
alternative fuels and AFVs be made available to ``consumers'' (a term 
not defined in EPA 92). 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A second and complementary provision directs the Secretary of the 
Department 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 
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.''10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 42 U.S.C. 13231. DOE is also required to provide technical 
assistance to the Commission in developing labeling requirements, 
and coordinate such technical assistance with its development of a 
consumer information package. 42 U.S.C. 13232(b).
    \9\ Id. 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.
    \1\0 42 U.S.C. 13232(b). EPA 92 also directs the DOE Secretary 
to create an additional public education program targeted 
specifically to the Federal government. Under that mandate, the DOE 
Secretary, ``in cooperation with the Administrator of General 
Services,'' must ``promote programs and educate officials and 
employees of Federal agencies on the merits of AFVs.'' 42 U.S.C. 
13214(a). That section further requires that the DOE Secretary 
``shall provide and disseminate information to Federal agencies 
on,'' inter alia, ``the range and performance capabilities of 
[AFVs].'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the Commission's second rulemaking concerning labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels. In a separate proceeding also 
required by EPA 92,11 the Commission recently extended the 
requirements of its former Octane Rule12 (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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\1 15 U.S.C. 2821-2823.
    \1\2 Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part 306.
    \1\3 16 CFR 306.0(i)(2) (1994). In that proceeding, the 
Commission had no authority to extend its requirements beyond liquid 
alternative fuels. 15 U.S.C. 2821 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \1\4 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2) (1994). The Fuel Rating Rule became 
effective October 25, 1993. 58 FR 41356, 41356, Aug. 3, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks written comment on whether the proposed rule, 
as described in this supplemental notice, 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. Public Participation

    EPA 92 requires the Commission, in formulating its labeling 
requirements, to obtain the views of affected industries, consumer 
organizations, Federal and State agencies, and all other interested 
parties.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 the Department of Transportation (``DOT'') within eighteen 
months of the statute's enactment date (i.e., October 24, 1992).16 
To comply with those requirements, the Commission received information 
from the public relating to this proceeding from four 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 Workshop-Conference (``Workshop'') held on July 20, 
1994, and supplemental comments filed after the Workshop. All such 
information (i.e., the comments and Workshop transcript) was placed on 
the public record of this proceeding. The discussion below includes 
information from all four sources, as well as documents placed on the 
public record by the Commission's staff.19 The Commission 
considered all these materials in developing this revised labeling 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\542 U.S.C. 13232(a).
    \1\6Id. During its development of this supplemental notice, 
Commission staff discussed the proposed labeling requirements with 
staff from DOE, EPA, and DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.
    \1\758 FR 64914.
    \1\859 FR 24014.
    \1\9Commission's Rulemaking Record No. R311002. Comments are 
coded either ``G'' (indicating that they were filed by 
nongovernmental parties) or ``H'' (indicating that they were filed 
by governmental agencies). The Workshop transcript is filed in 
category ``L.'' Information placed on the public record by 
Commission staff is coded ``B.'' In this SNPR, comments are cited by 
identifying the commenter, by name, the comment number, and the 
relevant page number(s), e.g., ``ETC, G-24, 1-3.'' Supplemental 
comments are designated as (Supp.), e.g., ``RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1.'' 
Discussion in the Workshop is cited by identifying the party, a 
reference to the transcript, and the relevant page number(s), e.g., 
``EPA (Tr.), 184.'' Staff submissions are cited by identifying the 
document number, relevant page number(s), and document date, e.g., 
``B-13, 3, Jan. 25, 1994.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Commission's ANPR

    In its ANPR, the Commission sought written comment on basic issues 
raised by section 406(a)'s mandate. Accordingly, it requested comment 
on issues relating to which fuels and vehicles should be covered by the 
labeling requirements (i.e., the proposed rule's scope), and what 
information should be required to be displayed on labels (i.e., the 
proposed rule's disclosures).20 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.21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\058 FR 64914, 64915.
    \2\159 FR 24015-24017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Commission's NPR

    The Commission considered written comments responding to the ANPR 
in developing its initial labeling proposal, which was published in the 
Federal Register as the Commission's NPR. The NPR announced the 
substance of proposed labeling requirements and a proposed rule 
implementing section 406(a)'s mandate. In that NPR, the Commission 
invited interested persons to submit written comments until June 23, 
1994, on any issue of fact, law or policy that might have bearing upon 
the proposed labeling requirements. As described below, 37 commenters 
(representing vehicle manufacturers,22 fuel producers,23 
governmental entities,24 consumer organizations,25 and other 
interested organizations26) responded to the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\2Chrysler Corporation, (``Chrysler''), G-13; The Flxible 
Corporation (``Flxible''), G-12; Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), G-
14; General Motors (``GM''), G-8; Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (``Thomas 
BB''), G-10.
    \2\3Boston Edison Company, (``Boston Edison''), G-26; Mobil Oil 
Corporation (``Mobil''), G-2; Phillips 66 Company, (``Phillips 
66''), G-15; Sun Company, Inc. (``Sun''), G-1; Unocal Corporation 
(``Unocal''), G-9.
    \2\4California Energy Commission, (``CEC''), H-8; Montgomery 
County, Maryland, Office of Consumer Affairs (``MC-MD''), H-7; 
Nebraska Alternative Fuels Advisory Committee (``Nebraska EO''), H-
9; Tennessee Valley Corporation (``TVA''), H-5; Texas Railroad 
Commission (``Texas RRC''), H-3; U.S. Department of Energy 
(``DOE''); H-10; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration, Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division 
(``EIA/EEU-ISD''), H-2; U.S. Department of Transportation, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``DOT/NHTSA''), H-1; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), H-4.
    \2\5Center for Auto Safety (``CAS''), G-17; Greenpeace, Inc. 
(``Greenpeace''), G-27; Union of Concerned Scientists (``UCS''), G-
16.
    \2\6American Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA''), G-
7; American Gas Association and Natural Gas Vehicles Coalition 
(``AGA/NGVC''), G-6; American Methanol Institute (``AMI''), G-4; 
American Petroleum Institute (``API''), G-25; Bill of Rights 
Association (``BOR''), G-4; Electric Transportation Coalition 
(``ETC''), G-24; Engine Manufacturers Association (``EMA''), G-21; 
National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (``NACAA''), 
H-6; National Association of Fleet Administrators (``NAFA''), G-20; 
National Automobile Dealers Association (``NADA''), G-19; National 
Propane Gas Association (``NPGA''), G-18; Propane Consumers 
Coalition (``PCC''), G-22; Renewable Fuels Association (``RFA''), G-
5; Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (``SIGMA''), 
G-23; Texas Automobile Dealers Association (``Texas ADA''), G-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.27 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. Persons interested in participating in the Workshop were 
required to notify Commission staff by June 8, 1994, and file a written 
comment by the comment due date (i.e., June 23, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\759 FR 24014, 24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-one interested parties submitted written requests to 
participate in the Workshop.28 Twenty of those parties filed 
written comments as required,29 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.30 The Workshop 
was held on July 20, 1994, at the Commission's headquarters and was 
conducted as announced in the NPR.31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\8AAMA, 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.
    \2\9The law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott did not file a 
written comment.
    \3\0Lois 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.
    \3\1The NPR announced that the Workshop would take place over 
two days, but the participants concluded discussing the agenda staff 
had prepared in one day. As a result, the Workshop's second day was 
cancelled. (Tr.), 238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Post-Workshop Comments and SNPR

    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.32 Eight 
participants elected to file such comments.33 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\259 FR 24014, 24023.
    \3\3AAMA, AGA/NGVC, Boston Edison, CAS, EMA, Flxible, NPGA, and 
RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Supplemental Proposed Labeling Rule

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. Several NPR commenters, 
however, suggested regulatory options that involve matters other than 
labeling requirements, alternative fuels or AFVs, and cost and benefit 
information (i.e., they involve matters beyond section 406(a)'s 
statutory language). To the extent that these commenters suggested 
labeling requirements beyond that authorized by section 406(a), the 
Commission has tentatively concluded that it has no authority to 
propose them.
    For example, several commenters suggested that the Commission 
require AFV dealers to have copies of the DOE brochure available for 
consumer inspection and use.34 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).35 The Commission believes, however, that 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.36 In the absence of a similar 
congressional directive, the Commission believes that such a 
requirement may be beyond its authority under EPA 92.37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\4ETC, 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. 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.
    \3\540 CFR 600.401-77 to 600.407-77 (1993).
    \3\6 See 15 U.S.C. 2006(b)(2) (``The EPA Administrator * * * 
shall prescribe rules requiring dealers to make available to 
prospective purchasers [fuel economy information] compiled by the 
EPA Administrator under paragraph (1).'').
    \3\7The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the Commission has also tentatively concluded 
that requiring any of the following may exceed its authority under EPA 
92: (1) Labeling for conventional fueled vehicles;38 (2) that 
information on AFV labels be provided to consumers at the time an AFV 
is offered for sale;39 and (3) that ``all pertinent information'' 
(e.g., fuel hazards, tank capacity, refueling or recharging time, and 
cruising range) be disclosed in vehicle owners' manuals.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\8AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11 (requiring disclosures only for AFVs could 
unnecessarily raise consumer concerns about these products).
    \3\9NAFA, 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.
    \4\0NACAA, 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. Traditionally, however, the 
Commission issues consumer education materials after new rules are 
issued, and that will be considered when this proceeding is 
completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels

1. Scope of the Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels
    a. Proposed scope of the rule. As noted previously, section 406(a) 
of EPA 92, in part, requires the Commission to establish uniform 
labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for 
alternative fuels. The NPR proposed fuel labeling requirements for 
three non-liquid fuels, compressed natural gas (``CNG''), gaseous 
hydrogen gas (``hydrogen'') and electricity.41 Section 406(a) also 
directs the Commission to consider labeling requirements for liquid 
``alternative fuels.'' The Commission's Fuel Rating Rule, however, 
contains labeling requirements for liquid alternative fuels that are 
similar to the labeling requirements proposed in the SNPR for non-
liquid alternative fuels. The Fuel Rating Rule's labeling requirements 
cover only liquid alternative fuels. Although that rule serves a 
somewhat different purpose,42 the Commission stated in the NPR 
that harmonizing labeling requirements, when practicable, is 
appropriate. The Commission's NPR proposal has the effect of imposing 
the same labeling requirements on both liquid and non-liquid 
alternative fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\1These are the only non-liquid fuels defined as ``alternative 
fuels'' in EPA 92. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \4\2The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nine commenters addressed the scope of the Commission's proposals 
in the NPR. All of the commenters supported limiting the scope of this 
proceeding to non-liquid alternative fuels because the Commission's 
proposal, if adopted, would impose equal, fuel-neutral labeling 
requirements on all alternative fuels.43 No commenters 
specifically recommended that the Commission include in this proceeding 
alternative fuels other than the three the Commission identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\3API, G-25, 1-3 (supports expanding the Fuel Rating Rule's 
requirements to non-liquid alternative fuels to encourage a fuel-
neutral regulatory scheme); CEC, H-8, 1-6 (supports proposal because 
it would result in consistent labeling of all alternative fuels); 
Mobil, G-2, 1-3 (supports proposal because it is consistent with 
Fuel Rating Rule); NAFA, G-20, 1 (endorses proposal because it would 
result in uniform labeling requirements for all alternative fuels); 
NPGA, G-18, 2-3 (extremely important all alternative fuels be 
subject to essentially identical requirements); Phillips 66, G-15, 1 
(recommends Fuel Rating Rule's labeling requirements be extended to 
non-liquid alternative fuels); RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1 (supports 
extension of current labeling requirements for liquid alternative 
fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule to gaseous alternative fuels); 
SIGMA, G-23, 1 (generally supports the Commission's entire proposal 
with respect to fuel labeling, including its scope); Sun, G-1, 1 
(favors proposal because it places equal labeling requirements on 
all competing fuels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments received, and the existing similar 
requirements imposed by the Commission's Fuel Rating Rule for liquid 
alternative fuels, the Commission proposes limiting this proposed rule 
to the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG, hydrogen and electricity. The 
Commission's proposal, if adopted, would result in equal, uniform, 
fuel-neutral labeling requirements for all alternative fuels.44 In 
accordance with section 406(a)'s directive to review the rule 
``periodically to reflect the most recent available 
information,''45 the Commission will supplement the list of 
covered fuels as DOE designates new non-liquid fuels as alternative 
fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\4See 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.
    \4\542 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Description of alternative fuels proposed to be covered in the 
final rule--(1) Compressed natural gas
    Natural gas is used as a vehicle fuel mainly in the form of CNG, 
although it also may be used as liquefied natural gas (``LNG''). CNG is 
used as an automotive fuel in spark ignition engines, and is stored at 
a pressure up to 220 atmospheres in heavy, rather bulky cylinders, 
which limits its storage capacity in a vehicle.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\6``Automotive Fuels Handbook'' (1990), by Keith Owen and 
Trevor Coley, published by Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 
(``SAE''), B-34, 454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Natural gas consists mainly of methane, and is widely available in 
many parts of the world. Methane-rich gas also is made by the anaerobic 
decomposition of animal waste and vegetable matter (biogas). Gas 
composition is important to natural gas vehicle users because large 
amounts of non-methane hydrocarbons will enrich the fuel mixture, 
reduce the octane number, lead to increased hydrocarbon emissions, and 
increase the potential for engine knock. These variables require that 
engine parameters, such as air to fuel mixture and ignition timing, be 
adjusted on the basis of the composition of the local natural gas 
supply.47 Natural gas composition varies throughout the country, 
depending on original composition and processing. Pipeline quality 
natural gas is composed of several different gases, with methane 
typically accounting for 85 percent to 99 percent, with other 
hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, some butanes, and nitrogen, 
helium, carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide, water, 
and odorants making up the remainder.48
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\7``Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles,'' prepared by 
Science Applications International Corporation for Office of 
Alternative Fuels, Office of Transportation Technologies, 
Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (March 
2, 1992), NREL Contract No.: XF-1-11107-1, B-35, 17.
    \4\8Id., at 16. See also Standards for Emissions for Emissions 
From Natural Gas-Fueled, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor 
Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, and Certification Procedures for 
Aftermarket Conversions (``Gaseous Fuels Rule''), 59 FR 48472, 48484 
(1994) (given wide range of natural gas compositions currently 
available, EPA proposed very broad specifications for natural gas 
certification fuel, which included a range for methane content of 74 
to 98.5 percent, as well as broad ranges for several other 
parameters); Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Recommended Practice 
for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel,'' SAE J1616 (1994), B-40, 1 
(natural gas is comprised chiefly of methane, generally 88 to 96 
molecular (``mole'') percent); Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 454 
(composition of natural gas somewhat variable, depending on gas 
field or biological feedstocks from which it is produced; impurities 
include higher hydrocarbons, the heavier of which usually are 
removed as condensate, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and 
particularly in biogas, hydrogen sulfide); Compressed Natural Gas 
Measurement Issues, by C.F. Blazek, J.A. Kinast and P. Freeman, 
Institute of Gas Technology (1993), B-50, 5 (natural gas varies in 
composition by location and seasonally); Natural Gas as a Stationary 
Engine and Vehicular Fuel, by William E. Liss and William H. 
Thrasher, SAE Technical Paper 912364 (1991), B-51, 44 (natural gas 
exhibits widely varying composition which is controlled through 
processing and separation steps); Alternatives to Traditional 
Transportation Fuels An Overview, Energy Information Administration, 
DOE/EIA-0585/O (1994), B-52, 52 (the variability in the composition 
of natural gas can affect its performance as a transportation fuel); 
Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan 
Areas of the United States, by W.E. Liss, W.H. Thrasher, G.F. 
Steinmetz, P. Chowdiah, and A. Attari, Gas Research Institute Report 
No. GRI-92/0123 (1992), B-53, 14 (indicating that the methane 
content of natural gas can vary from 74.5 percent to 98.1 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The heating value of CNG (i.e., its energy content) is 
significantly lower than that of gasoline.\49\ But, CNG has excellent 
octane properties so that vehicles can use high compression ratios when 
CNG is the sole fuel. This gives improved combustion efficiency.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 454-55.
    \50\Id., at 455 (both research octane number and motor octane 
number about 120). See also Introduction to Alternative Fuel 
Vehicles, B-35, 19 (research octane rating is about 130). The fairly 
high research octane rating of natural gas makes it relatively 
resistant to engine knock. The anti-knock property is a result of 
the high ignition temperature, resistance to ``autoignition,'' and 
the relatively low flame speed of natural gas. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CNG refueling transfers natural gas under pressure and may be set 
up as either slow-fill or fast-fill. Slow-fill generally uses over-
night refueling and requires less costly refueling station equipment 
than fast-fill. Fast-fill refueling time is only slightly longer than 
gasoline refueling time.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, B-35, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas can be produced by electrolysis of 
water or from natural gas or coal.\52\ Hydrogen may be used in an 
internal combustion engine (``ICE'') as a gaseous fuel similar to 
natural gas, or in a fuel cell to power an electric motor.\53\ Because 
it has a very high flame speed and a wide ignitability range, it can be 
used at extremely lean air-fuel ratios in ICEs.\54\ The advantages of 
using hydrogen in a fuel cell rather than an ICE, on the other hand, 
are high efficiency and a vehicle that has zero emissions.\55\ By using 
either hydrogen or electricity in vehicles, the emissions occur at the 
generating facility and are thereby centralized and easier to control, 
maintain, and monitor.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458.
    \53\``Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles Technology Assessment Report,'' 
for California Energy Commission, by Technology Transition 
Corporation, and Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hydrogen 
Research, Texas A&M University (by principal investigators Dr. David 
Swan, Assistant Director, Center for Electrochemical Systems and 
Hydrogen Research, and Debbi L. Smith, Manager, Resource Development 
and Special Projects, Technology Transition Corporation), B-36, 1.
    \54\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458.
    \55\Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles Technology Assessment Report, B-36, 
1.
    \56\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of hydrogen gas as a fuel for commercial and private vehicles, 
however, remains largely a matter of research and development. Hydrogen 
has been used in the energy sector to enhance gasoline refining and to 
fuel rockets for space travel. The historic difficulty in using 
hydrogen as a vehicle fuel has been how to store it and the lack of a 
sufficient infrastructure to supply the hydrogen in relatively small 
volumes.
    At the present time, it is not clear what power system technology 
is most suitable for the use of hydrogen and how much the power system 
and fuel storage will add to the cost of vehicles.\57\ First, the 
weight of the storage tank on the vehicle would be very high if the 
fuel was used either in the liquid or compressed gaseous form. Second, 
hydrogen gas is highly explosive when mixed with air. The use of 
hydrides, such as iron-titanium, however, is a possible way of 
overcoming these drawbacks. Hydrogen is adsorbed by the hydride and can 
be released by the application of heat obtained from the vehicle's 
exhaust. Although this system would overcome many of the safety 
problems, the range of the vehicle would be restricted, filling would 
be slow, and the cost could be high.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\Id.
    \58\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Electricity. Electric vehicles (``EVs'') are powered by 
electricity stored in a rechargeable battery pack. Current EVs use 
lead-acid batteries. Battery technology is an area of primary research 
for EVs, with the goal of improving vehicle power and range. Nickel-
iron and sodium-sulfur batteries, for example, are expected to have 
commercial EV applications within the next decade.\59\ Use of electric 
vehicles currently is limited. Expansion of the use of EVs will depend 
to a large extent on the development of an infrastructure to supply the 
electricity to recharge the vehicle's batteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, B-35, 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EVs may be produced with or without an on-board charging system. 
EVs with on-board charging systems may be able to recharge their 
batteries by connecting to a standard electrical dispensing outlet, or 
may be able to utilize separate charging equipment, depending on the 
on-board charging system. The voltage required for recharging EV 
batteries depends on the battery type. For G-vans, a 200/250-volt, 
single phase, 60 amperes (``amp''), power source is needed. This 
voltage range is compatible with the U.S. standard voltage: 208/240-
volt, single phase, 60 amp.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\Id., at 36. The G-van is a limited production, one-ton van 
produced by Conceptior Industries, which became available December 
1, 1990. According to Introduction to Alternative Fuels at 34, the 
G-Van is the only EV certified to meet all U.S. Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standards (``FMVSS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Battery charging currently involves connecting the battery pack to 
an off-board charger by plugging a cable into a socket in the front of 
the vehicle.\61\ After fully charging the batteries, periodic refresher 
charges are made to maintain the batteries in a fully charged state. 
Fully discharged batteries can be recharged in approximately 8 to 10 
hours, depending on ambient temperature. Batteries that are not fully 
discharged require less charging time. Because batteries may be damaged 
from leaving them in a discharged state, a regular charging routine is 
recommended. Vehicle range may be extended throughout the day by 
recharging the batteries at a site other than a regular recharging 
station. These ``opportunity charges'' require an on-board charger, 
which is not currently included on most EVs.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\Standard equipment for a charging station include an off-
board charger and circuit breaker. An AC kwh meter is recommended to 
monitor power consumption. Id., at 36.
    \62\Id., at 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Electric Power Research Institute (``EPRI'') has identified 
three methods of EV charging for development, depending on the range of 
power levels anticipated for charging EVs. Level 1 would allow 
recharging by plugging into the most common grounded electrical outlet. 
Level 2 would require special equipment dedicated to EV charging and 
connection to the electric power supply. Level 2 is expected to be the 
primary method for charging at both private and public facilities. 
Level 3 would allow recharge at commercial fast charge stations in 
about the same time it takes to refuel an internal combustion 
vehicle.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\``Electric Vehicle Charging Systems: Executive Summary'' 
(undated draft), Electric Power Research Institute (``EPRI''), 
submitted to Neil Blickman, FTC, on August 30, 1994, by W.I. Whiddon 
& Associates, Inc., B-49, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two methods of connecting an EV or recharging are under 
development, conductive and inductive. Conductive connections are the 
most widely used method of connecting electrical sources and loads. A 
conductive connection consists of contacts that join the electrical 
conductors at the interface, such as plugging a lamp cord into a 
standard electrical outlet. In an inductively coupled system, 
alternating current power is transferred magnetically or ``induced'' 
between a primary winding on the supply side to a secondary winding on 
the vehicle side of the interface. Thus, there is no direct contact 
through which electrical power flows.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\Id., at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments on Disclosures Proposed in NPR
    The Commission proposed in the NPR that retailers of non-liquid 
alternative fuels post standard labels identifying the commonly used 
names of those fuels on public fuel dispensers (including electrical 
dispensing units and recharging stations used to recharge EV 
batteries).\65\ The Commission also proposed requiring disclosure of 
the gaseous fuel's principal component and permitting disclosure of 
other components, expressed as minimum percentages.\66\ The 
Commission's proposal recognized that electricity used for recharging 
EV batteries might need to be subject to different labeling 
disclosures, and solicited comment on whether a different measure of 
content (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for electricity) would 
be more appropriate.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\59 FR 24014, 24018.
    \66\Id. CNG vehicle fuel is composed primarily of methane with 
small percentages of ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, helium, 
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen vehicle fuel is 
composed primarily of hydrogen, with very small percentages of 
water, oxygen, and nitrogen. See sections III.B.1.b (1) and (2) 
supra.
    \67\Unlike the other alternative fuels, the electricity used to 
recharge the batteries that power electric vehicles is not dispensed 
from a conventional fuel pump. It is dispensed from an electrical 
dispenser or recharging station and produces different physical 
effects depending on the type of dispenser or charging equipment 
through which it is dispensed. See section III.B.1.b(3) supra. 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, 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. These 
proposals are analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule 
pertaining to liquid alternative fuels.\68\ The Commission proposed 
this simple labeling requirement for fuel dispensers after considering 
how it might best balance consumers' needs for useful and timely cost 
and benefit information with the problems associated with displaying 
such information in a simple label format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\16 CFR 306.10(b)(1), 306.10(f) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-three commenters addressed the issues raised in the NPR. 
None opposed the Commission's proposals as a whole. Nine commenters 
generally supported the Commission's proposals in their entirety 
because, if adopted, they would be consistent with the Fuel Rating 
Rule's requirements for liquid alternative fuels, and they would assist 
consumers in identifying the proper fuel for their vehicles.\69\ Three 
commenters also supported the Commission's proposals by stating 
specifically that the fuel dispenser label should identify the fuel in 
a standardized format to direct consumers to the correct fuel 
dispensers.\70\ These and other suggested labeling disclosures are 
discussed in more detail in sections III.B.3 and 4 infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\API, G-25, 1-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Mobil, G-2, 1-3; NAFA, 
G-20, 1; NPGA, G-18, 2-3; Phillips 66, G-15, 1; RFA, G-5, 2-3, 
(Supp.), G-5, 1; SIGMA, G-23, 1; Sun, G-1, 1-2.
    \70\DOE, H-10, 2-4; RFA, G-5, 2-3, (Tr.), 28, 38; Thomas BB, G-
10, 1. See also AAMA (Tr.), 37, 62 (fuel dispenser label should 
identify the fuel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Label Disclosures Proposed for Final Rule
    Based on the comments received and the requirements of section 
406(a) of EPA 92, for the fuel labeling requirement the Commission 
proposes that retailers of the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG, 
hydrogen and electricity 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).\71\ The 
labels would be placed conspicuously in full view of consumers and as 
near as reasonably practical to the fuel's unit price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\See  Secs. 309.1(q) and 309.15 of the text of the proposed 
rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to CNG and hydrogen, the Commission also proposes 
requiring disclosure of the fuel's principal component and permitting 
disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum molecular 
percentages (``minimum mole percent'').\72\ These proposals are 
analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquid 
alternative fuels.\73\ Most of the commenters addressing these issues 
stated they supported such proposals because, if adopted, they would be 
consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for liquid 
alternative fuels, and they would assist consumers in identifying the 
proper fuel for their vehicles. Therefore, all alternative fuels 
marketed to consumers would be subject to consistent requirements.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\Id. See also section III.B.5.b(1) infra. The unit of the 
amount of a substance is defined under the international system of 
units to be the amount of substance of a system that 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 cited as ``NIST 
Publication 330''), B-43, 4-5.
    \73\16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and 306.10(f) (1994).
    \74\API, G-25, 1-3 (until a private voluntary, consensus 
standards organization develops specifications for alternative 
fuels, additional disclosure requirements are inappropriate; expand 
Fuel Rating Rule to cover non-liquid alternative fuels to encourage 
fuel-neutral regulatory scheme; and labeling of principal component 
may provide useful information to consumers); EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1 
(expressed general support for the proposed rule); Mobil, G-2, 1-3 
(the proposed label is consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule, and no 
other disclosures should be required, but allowing disclosure of 
components other than the fuel's principal component, without 
restrictions, could result in consumer misinformation); 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned, the principal component of the vehicle fuel CNG is 
methane, and the principal component of hydrogen is hydrogen. Several 
commenters specifically concurred with the Commission's proposal to 
require disclosure of the minimum methane content of CNG to assist 
consumers in purchasing CNG that satisfies requirements specified by 
engine manufacturers to meet performance and emissions certification 
levels.75 The Commission also notes that commenters and other 
technical sources indicate that because natural gas composition varies 
throughout the country, its methane content can vary from 85 percent to 
99 percent.76 Methane content is important because CNG with too 
low a methane content will not meet manufacturers' requirements for CNG 
vehicle engines. Because CNG exists with too low a methane content to 
be used as a vehicular fuel,77 requiring disclosure of the minimum 
methane content will help ensure that non-vehicular CNG is not 
inadvertently sold for vehicular purposes. Although CNG sold as a 
vehicle fuel should always meet minimum vehicle needs, information 
about minimum methane content can help assure consumers that the CNG 
they are purchasing will meet their engines' needs. 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.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\5AAMA (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.
    \7\6See note supra.
    \7\7See Flxible (Tr.), 74-77.
    \7\8Although 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. If so, producers and marketers will have 
the flexibility to develop and blend fuels appropriate for those 
specifications as well as perhaps location and climate, and 
retailers will have the flexibility to adjust fuel dispenser labels 
accordingly, if they chose to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to public electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, 
the commenters recommended that the Commission require disclosure of 
the minimum operating parameters that are necessary to protect the 
consumer operating the equipment, the vehicle whose batteries are being 
charged, as well as the charging equipment. Several commenters 
suggested these parameters include disclosure of the voltage at which 
electrical power is supplied by electric charging equipment.79 Two 
commenters suggested that the electric recharging station label include 
the maximum current in amperes that can be delivered,80 and two 
recommended that the label indicate whether the charging equipment 
supplies alternating or direct current.81 Another commenter stated 
that because there are two distinct charging technologies, the label 
should indicate whether the unit is a conductive charger (a plug on a 
cord) or an inductive charger (a paddle in a port system).82 Two 
commenters indicated that the label should disclose the kilowatt 
capacity of the charging equipment to tell consumers how quickly their 
vehicles could recharge.83
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\9AAMA (Tr.), 91-92; Boston Edison, G-26, 5-6, (Tr.), 88-91, 
93-95, 100; CEC, H-8, 1-6; DOE, H-10, 2-4; Mobile, G-2, 3.
    \8\0Mobil, G-2, 3; CEC, H-8, 1-6.
    \8\1Boston Edison (Tr.), 90; CEC, H-8, 1-6.
    \8\2Boston Edison (Tr.), 88.
    \8\3Boston Edison (Tr.), 90; RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters indicated that the proposed disclosures would be 
useful in assisting consumers to locate electric fuel dispensers that 
are compatible with the consumers' vehicles, and to determine how 
quickly their vehicles' batteries would recharge. Accordingly, the 
Commission proposes requiring several brief disclosures on labels on 
public electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems (i.e, electric charging 
system equipment and electrical energy dispensing systems).84 The 
proposed rule would require that labels on public electric vehicle fuel 
dispenser systems include, in addition to the commonly used name of the 
fuel (e.g., electricity), kilowatt capacity, voltage, current (either 
AC or DC), amperes and type of charger (either conductive or 
inductive).85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\4See  Sec. 309.1(j), (l), and (m) of the text of the proposed 
labeling rule in section XI infra.
    \8\5See Secs. 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15 of the text of the proposed 
rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirements for CNG, hydrogen and electricity thus 
would 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 
whether they would provide information regarding the precise 
composition of the fuels, or relevant parameters of the EV fuel 
dispenser.
    In addition, the Commission has concluded that other comparative 
information on the fuel dispenser, as discussed in section III.B.4 
infra, 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 other information 
comparing various types of alternative fuels is best done prior to the 
time the vehicle is acquired.
    Further, excluding other, less important information avoids 
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.86 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.''87 Simplicity therefore is 
an even greater consideration in the labeling of fuels than in the 
labeling of AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\6Federal Trade Commission, Study Of A Uniform National Label 
For Devices That Dispense Automotive Fuels to Consumers (1993), at 
29.
    \8\7Id., at 29 n.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Label Disclosures Considered But Not Proposed for Final Rule
    In formulating its labeling proposals in this notice, the 
Commission, as required, 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, it must 
consider the problems associated with developing and publishing such 
information on simple labels. Given this context, and after considering 
the comments, the Commission has considered and rejected several 
alternative disclosures for dispenser labels suggested by the 
commenters.
    a. Octane rating. Four commenters addressed whether the Commission 
should require, or allow, posting of octane ratings for non-liquid 
alternative fuels. Nebraska EO recommended that the Commission require 
disclosure of an octane number for spark ignition or a cetane number 
for compression ignition fuels.88 NACAA supported requiring 
disclosure of octane rating if alternative fuels are available in 
different grades.89 AGA/NGVC did not recommend that the Commission 
require disclosure of octane rating, but suggested that the Commission 
clarify that fuel retailers have the option of disclosing a fuel's 
minimum octane rating as an ``other component.''90 AGA/NGVC stated 
that, although octane levels for natural gas are not likely to vary at 
different retailers, the octane rating of natural gas is a valuable 
component that allows manufacturers to optimize dedicated vehicles to 
run more efficiently. AGA/NGVC asserted, therefore, that providing 
consumers with octane information highlights the advantages of natural 
gas and gives them a basis for comparing its qualities with other 
fuels. NPGA, however, suggested that it would not be appropriate for 
the Commission to require the posting of octane ratings for CNG, 
hydrogen or electricity. NPGA commented that there are no standards for 
determining the octane ratings of these fuels, and presently these 
fuels are not being developed to be available in different grades at a 
station.91
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\8Nebraska EO, H-9, 1.
    \8\9NACAA, H-6, 1-2.
    \9\0AGA/NGVC, G-6, 5-6.
    \9\1Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's Fuel Rating Rule requires disclosure on fuel pumps 
of gasoline's octane rating, which is a measure of how well the 
gasoline resists engine knocking. The octane rating needed to prevent 
knocking varies with the engine's compression ratio, and different 
engines may require gasoline with different octane ratings. The Fuel 
Rating Rule is designed to enable consumers to buy gasoline with an 
octane rating high enough to prevent engine knock, and to help 
consumers avoid ``octane overbuying'' or buying gasoline with an octane 
higher than needed to prevent engine knock.
    When it conducted the rulemaking proceeding to add pump posting 
requirements for liquid alternative fuels to the Fuel Rating Rule, the 
Commission noted that, unlike gasoline, the physical and chemical 
properties of each liquid alternative fuel may not vary 
substantially.92 The Commission also observed that it expected 
that engines designed for alternative fueled vehicles would be designed 
to use fixed-octane alternative fuels without engine knock. The 
Commission further stated that 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, such as an ASTM-approved, test method for determining 
octane ratings of such fuels.93 Finally, the Commission expressed 
concern that the posting of high octane ratings associated with 
alternative liquid automotive fuels may contribute to the misperception 
that high-octane gasoline always is best for vehicles, and thereby 
aggravate existing gasoline octane overbuying.94
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\258 FR 16464, 16469.
    \9\3Id.
    \9\4Id. at 16470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments submitted in this proceeding, as 
well as the comments submitted in the liquid alternative fuel amendment 
proceeding (which the Commission finds are relevant to this 
proceeding),95 the Commission has determined not to propose 
requiring the posting of octane ratings for CNG and hydrogen. The 
Commission has concluded that, unlike octane ratings for gasoline, 
there appears to be little or no benefit to disclosing octane ratings 
for alternative fuels at this time. Octane ratings for alternative 
fuels are high enough to avoid engine knock problems in vehicles 
designed to use alternative fuels, and, such ratings do not provide 
information relevant to vehicle performance of alternative fueled 
vehicles. In addition, the octane ratings of a given type of 
alternative fuel would not vary significantly.96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\5See 58 FR 41356, 41361.
    \9\6Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, there 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 significance of the high octane ratings of 
alternative fuels, which exceed the octane ratings of gasoline. 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. Further, it also might 
foster consumer misperceptions that higher octane necessarily signifies 
higher quality and better performance.97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\7Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Comparative information based upon BTUs or gasoline-gallon-
equivalents. As an alternative to the Commission's proposal, three 
commenters, Unocal, PCC and DOE, suggested that the Commission require 
the use of alternative fuel labels that 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.98 According to 
the commenters, such a disclosure would allow consumers to compare the 
cost of an alternative fuel to that of gasoline using a common energy 
unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\8DOE, H-10, 2-4; PCC, G-22, 1, 3; Unocal, G-9, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, seven commenters suggested that such comparative cost data 
is not conducive to fuel labeling and is more a dispenser equipment 
metering and fuel marketing issue.99 The commenters also indicated 
that Commission requirements to disclose comparative cost data in terms 
of the energy contents of alternative fuels may not be necessary if the 
weights and measures organizations accept, as a method of sale, 
measurement of alternative fuels in terms of gasoline-gallon-
equivalents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\9AGA/NGVC, G-6, 3, 5-6, (Tr.), 44, 59; API, G-25, 1-3 
(commercial information that enables the consumer to evaluate the 
costs of an alternative fuel purchase will be displayed on the 
dispenser); DOE (Tr.), 53 (GGE is more a metering issue); ETC (Tr.), 
41; Mobil, G-2, 1-2; NACAA (Tr.), 39 (information relating to the 
sale of fuels by gasoline-gallon-equivalents is more a metering and 
marketing issue); RFA (Tr.), 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, the Commission notes that the National Conference on 
Weights and Measures (``NCWM''), a consensus standards-writing 
organization for state and local regulatory agencies, at its recent 
annual meeting, adopted for national use the GGE as a method of sale 
for CNG sold as an engine fuel.100 According to the NCWM, the GGE 
is defined as 5.660 pounds of CNG. (Consumers would not purchase one 
gallon of CNG, but would receive 5.660 pounds of CNG with the 
approximate equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\00See Program and Committee Reports for the National 
Conference on Weights and Measures 79th Annual Meeting, July 17-21, 
1994, B-37; and Brickencamp, Method of Sale for CNG Paves Way to 
Greater Public Acceptance, Nat. Gas Fuels, Sept. 1994, B-47, 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CNG dispensers, therefore, will likely display three items of 
information: (1) Total sale price for the CNG in dollars, e.g., $3.75, 
(2) amount of CNG in GGE in this sale, e.g., 5.00, and (3) unit price 
per GGE in dollars/GGE, e.g., $0.749. A NCWM approved dispenser label 
also would state, ``1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent is Equal to 5.66 lbs. 
of Natural Gas. This quantity of Natural Gas delivers approximately the 
same amount of energy to your vehicle as a typical gallon of 
gasoline.''
    After considering the comments received, and the NCWM's recent 
action, the Commission has determined not to propose GGE disclosures. 
Such information is not conducive to keeping the fuel label simple as 
required by EPA 92. Further, NCWM's action indicates this information 
is more an equipment metering issue that is more properly addressed by 
weights and measures organizations. Commission required disclosures 
would be unnecessary and duplicative, especially in connection with the 
sale of CNG. Moreover, if national conversion factors for the GGE of 
other alternative fuels are defined in the future, then it is likely 
that weights and measures authorities will issue requirements to enable 
the sale of those fuels in energy equivalencies. Further, there is no 
evidence on the record to suggest that the Commission could define the 
GGE of fuels other than CNG at this time.
    On a related point, Boston Edison stated that comparisons based 
upon GGEs are less accurate than those based upon fuel neutral British 
thermal units (``Btus'').\101\ However, two commenters specifically 
opposed a requirement that fuel dispenser labels identify the heating 
value or energy content of a fuel expressed in Btus. AGA stated that a 
Btu disclosure would be practically meaningless to consumers,\102\ and 
NPGA stated that a Btu rating might be useful to consumers only when 
choosing a new vehicle or deciding whether to convert an existing 
vehicle to an alternative fuel, but not when refueling.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\Boston Edison, G-26, 5-6.
    \102\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 24.
    \103\Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has decided not to 
propose requiring that fuel dispenser labels identify the fuels' 
heating values. Instead of helping consumers make informed purchasing 
decisions, this option might instead confuse or mislead consumers. The 
energy content of a fuel, as measured by its Btu rating, is an 
imprecise gauge of that fuel's actual fuel economy. Driving range and 
fuel economy are the function of many variables (e.g., engine design, 
engine efficiency, driving habits), and not simply the energy content 
of a fuel. As a result, Btu ratings do not always accurately reflect 
actual fuel economy. In addition, because the heating values of the 
alternative fuels are less than the heating value of gasoline, labels 
based on heating values might encourage consumers to purchase gasoline, 
because such labels might suggest alternative fuels are less efficient 
than gasoline.
    Finally, the Commission notes that the BTU content of alternative 
fuels is largely determined by their chemical content. Thus, disclosure 
of the percentage content of the principal component provides the 
energy content information that consumers need to make fuel cost 
comparisons. For example, if a consumer knows the price per gallon of 
M-85 and the miles-per-gallon a vehicle can achieve on M-85, then he 
can calculate the fuel cost per mile. Similarly, if a consumer knows 
the price per cubic foot of CNG consisting of 90 percent methane and 
the miles-per-cubic foot achievable with that fuel, he can calculate 
the fuel cost per mile.
    c. Performance effects (cruising range). One commenter suggested 
that fuel dispenser labels advise consumers that the cruising range of 
the 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.\104\ However, two commenters stated that information 
relating to the vehicle's cruising range is not appropriate for a 
dispenser label.\105\ Phillips 66/NPGA further commented that cruising 
range is not necessarily less when operating on an alternative fuel, 
such as propane.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\PCC, G-22, 1, 3.
    \105\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 37; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50-51.
    \106\Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission has determined that 
a general statement on a fuel dispenser label relating to cruising 
range would not provide sufficient comparative information to consumers 
to enable them to make reasonable purchasing choices and comparisons 
between fuels of the same type. However, the Commission recognizes that 
information relating to cruising range would be useful to consumers 
when choosing a vehicle or deciding whether to convert an existing 
vehicle to an alternative fuel. Therefore, the Commission has 
tentatively determined that information relating to cruising range 
would be appropriate on labels it is proposing for covered AFVs, as 
discussed in section III.C infra.
    d. Meets material specifications. Several commenters pointed out 
the need for fuel specifications for all alternative fuels.\107\ To 
expedite the establishment of such national specifications, AMI 
recommended that the fuel dispenser labels guarantee delivery of 
alternative fuels meeting specifications defined by the California Air 
Resources Board in 1993,\108\ until national standards are in place. 
AMI stated that without specifications, neither emission benefits nor 
engine performance can be reliably determined, to the ultimate 
detriment of the consumer.\109\ Another commenter, however, 
specifically stated that California's fuel specifications may not be 
practical for the rest of the country.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\AAMA (Tr.), 29; AMI, G-3, 1; API, G-25, 1-3, (Tr.), 28, 77; 
EMA, G-21, 8-9, (Supp.), 1-2; Flxible (Tr.), 76; NAFA (Tr.), 74; RFA 
(Tr.), 38; Thomas BB, G-10, 1.
    \108\See Specifications for Compressed Natural Gas, Title 13, 
California Code of Regulations, Sec. 2292.5 (1993), B-41; 
Specifications for Hydrogen, Title 13, California Code of 
Regulations, section 2292.7 (1993), B-42.
    \109\AMI, G-3, 1.
    \110\AAMA (Tr.), 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During its rulemaking proceeding to establish automotive fuel 
ratings for the liquid alternative fuels, the Commission also 
considered this type of labeling approach, and whether it would be 
feasible to assist consumers in making choices and comparisons between 
alternative fuels.\111\ Most commenters in that proceeding supported a 
fuel labeling approach based on specifications, but only if it was 
based on consensus fuel standards or specifications. Under this 
approach, disclosure of a particular fuel descriptor would indicate 
that the fuel meets technical material specifications established by a 
recognized standards-setting organization. Standards established under 
a consensus process would have the advantage of being developed with 
input from and approval of engine manufacturers, fuel suppliers, users, 
and regulators. The use of label descriptors based on standard 
specifications would benefit consumers because they could determine 
easily whether alternative fuels marketed under the descriptors were 
compatible with the original vehicle equipment manufacturer's 
requirements. In addition, this approach would allow an alternative 
liquid automotive fuel supplier to improve the fuel beyond the minimum 
specifications and promote the improved fuel over those of its 
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\58 FR 41356, 41364, 41365. In the Alternative Fuel Rule 
proceeding, several commenters also opposed Commission adoption of 
alternative fuel specifications developed by the California Air 
Resources Board, because they were not developed by a consensus 
process, were technically flawed, and were developed for 
California's particular needs and, therefore, could be overly 
restrictive for other parts of the country. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As anticipated by the Commission, however, the primary objection in 
the liquid alternative fuels proceeding to this option was that neither 
the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') nor any other 
consensus standards-setting organization had developed and adopted 
specifications and standards for most of the alternative automotive 
fuels (the exception being liquefied petroleum gas for which ASTM has 
developed a standard). One commenter in the current proceeding 
specifically noted that ASTM has not developed a standard for CNG.\112\ 
But, another commenter stated that the Society of Automotive Engineers 
has established a ``recommended practice'' for CNG called J1616.\113\ 
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.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\API (Tr.), 77.
    \113\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 24.
    \114\Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Recommended Practice for 
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel,'' SAE J1616, B-40, 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclosure of a fuel descriptor 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. After considering the comments in this proceeding, however, 
and in light of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the liquid 
alternative fuel proceeding, the Commission finds 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. Further, the Commission has an 
insufficient record and basis on which to adopt California's standards 
for alternative vehicle fuels. Therefore, the Commission has determined 
not to propose that fuel dispenser labels guarantee the delivery of 
fuels meeting California's specifications.
    The Commission 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 would permit 
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.
    e. Environmental benefits (emissions). AMI suggested that the fuel 
dispenser label indicate the environmental benefits of alternative 
fuels.115 Specifically, AMI suggested that the Commission require 
disclosure of a generic statement on alternative fuel labels such as: 
``Use of this fuel can result in significant reductions in exhaust 
pollutants compared with an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle.'' 
Phillips 66/NPGA commented, however, that such a statement would not 
particularly assist consumers in making a fuel purchasing decision at 
the dispenser.116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\15 AMI, G-3, 2.
    \1\16Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission has determined that 
including such a generic statement on the fuel dispenser label would 
not provide sufficient information to assist consumers in making 
choices and comparisons. 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 
tentatively determined that information relating to emissions would be 
appropriate on the labels it is proposing for covered AFVs, as 
discussed in section III.C infra.
    f. Pressure. For safety reasons, two commenters recommended that 
CNG fuel dispensers display the fueling pressure, either 2,400, 3,000 
or 3,600 P.S.I. (pounds per square inch) so that dispenser fueling 
pressure is compatible with CNG vehicle tank storage pressure.117 
For example, fueling a 2,400 P.S.I. vehicle tank from a 3,600 P.S.I. 
fueling dispenser could result in severe damage to a fueling system, as 
well as personal injury if an explosion occurred. Two commenters, 
however, indicated that fueling pressure is a safety issue that has 
been addressed by the industry in designing dispensers. Therefore, this 
information is unnecessary on a CNG dispenser label.118
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\17Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 1.
    \1\18Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51; AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 103-104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing this proposal, the Commission considered whether 
including fueling pressure on CNG dispenser labels would provide timely 
comparative information to consumers in light of the independent steps 
the industry has taken to address this issue. The commenters indicated 
that the industry has developed pressure coded standard dispenser/
vehicle CNG connectors so that consumers will not be able to overfuel a 
low pressure vehicle from a high pressure dispenser.119 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.120 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a proposal requiring 
the disclosure of fueling pressure on CNG dispenser labels is 
unnecessary at this time. Further, the proposed rule would require that 
labels for new and used covered AFVs include standard statements 
informing consumers that they can obtain vehicle safety information by 
calling the toll-free telephone number for DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety 
Hotline, as discussed in section III.C infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\19See ANSI/AGA NGV1-1994 American National Standard For 
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, 
attached to AGA/NGVC's comment, G-6.
    \1\20ANSI/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, at 27-30, B-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Safety warnings. Several commenters focused on safety 
issues.121 NACAA stated, for example, that the labels should note 
any hazards or cautions to prevent damage to automotive 
engines.122 Nebraska EO commented that labels should include a 
cautionary note that this and all fuels are hazardous.123
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\21E.g., Thomas BB, G-10, 1.
    \1\22NACAA, H-6, 1-2.
    \1\23Nebraska EO, H-9, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has considered whether including a safety warning 
statement on a fuel dispenser label would help consumers make 
reasonable fuel choices and comparisons. The Commission notes, however, 
that safety standards for operation of motor vehicle fuel-dispensing 
stations are covered by the Uniform Fire Code.124 Further, to some 
extent, the proposed fuel labeling requirements, particularly those for 
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 
considering the purchase of AFVs may find safety information more 
pertinent when purchasing an AFV. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined that rather than propose that safety disclosures appear on 
fuel dispenser labels, it will propose requiring a reference to DOE's 
consumer information brochure and NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Hotline on 
labels for covered AFVs, as discussed in section III.C infra. 
Consequently, the Commission anticipates that a marketer's refueling 
instructions, whether appearing in an AFV owner's manual or on the fuel 
dispenser, would discuss or incorporate relevant safety measures. 
However, if in the future information becomes available demonstrating a 
need for the Commission to require safety-related disclosures on the 
dispenser labels, the Commission can consider it during its periodic 
review of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\24For 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 minimum requirements are 
primarily based on the requirements of NFPA 52, ``Standard for CNG 
Vehicular Fueling Systems,'' 1992 edition. The Uniform Fire Code 
(which is a democratic code development organization whose 
membership includes fire and building officials, design 
professionals, equipment manufacturers and trade organizations) and 
the Uniform Fire Code Standards are a model code that provides 
minimum design requirements for building and site fire protection, 
the safe storage and use of hazardous materials, general fire and 
life safety requirements and maintenance requirements for the fire 
safety and fire protection designs of the Uniform Building Code. 
Article 52 of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code addresses the design, 
construction, commissioning and operation of all motor vehicle fuel-
dispensing stations. See Stookey, An Analysis of the 1994 Uniform 
Fire Code Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. Gas Fuels, June 
1994, B-48, 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    h. Refueling instructions. One commenter recommended that fuel 
dispenser labels include appropriate refueling instructions.125 As 
a marketing issue, however, alternative fuel marketers will want to 
display refueling instructions for consumers on alternative fuel 
dispensers prominently, as is done now on gasoline dispensers. Thus, 
the Commission believes that it is unnecessary to include refueling 
instructions on fuel dispenser labels. Such instructions may vary by 
fuel and may exceed the constraints of a simple label format. 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to propose requiring 
that refueling instructions appear on fuel dispenser labels for the 
non-liquid alternative fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\25Thomas BB, G-10, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Wobbe number. Two commenters stated that for CNG, two primary 
factors that describe the general characteristics of natural gas are 
the methane content and the Wobbe number.126 According to RFA, the 
Wobbe number is a measure of the fuel energy flow rate through a fixed 
orifice under given inlet conditions. RFA states that a change in Wobbe 
number of the gas will have a direct correlation to changes in engine 
performance due to variations in the air/fuel ratio of orifice based 
metering systems of vehicles.127 In addition, EMA stated that the 
Wobbe number is an indicator of the fuel's heating value.128 
Although neither commenter recommended that the Commission require 
disclosure of the Wobbe number on CNG dispenser labels, their comments 
suggested that the Commission should at least consider it as an option. 
One commenter specifically opposed a Wobbe number disclosure, stating 
it would be so difficult to explain that consumers would not find it 
useful.129
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\26EMA (Supp.), G-21, 1-2; RFA, G-5, 3.
    \1\27RFA, G-5, 3.
    \1\28EMA (Supp.), G-21, 1-2.
    \1\29AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission believes that the 
purported benefits to consumers of including the Wobbe number on CNG 
labels are speculative and do not exceed the costs to industry. If, as 
has been suggested, the Wobbe number is an indicator of heating value, 
then it should be correlated with methane content and thus indicated 
indirectly by disclosure of the percentage content of methane. Further, 
while the Wobbe index may be important to engine manufacturers and fuel 
producers as an important element of a fuel specification, CNG labels 
based on a Wobbe number could be confusing or misleading to consumers 
attempting to determine the relationship between the Wobbe number and 
actual engine performance. Accordingly, the Commission has determined 
not to propose requiring disclosure of the Wobbe number on CNG 
dispenser labels.
5. Additional Proposals for Final Rule
    a. Label size and format. In the NPR, 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,130 and sought comment on this 
proposal.131 Nine commenters addressed questions concerning the 
size and format of alternative fuel labels, and none opposed the 
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\30 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. 16 CFR 306.12 (1994).
    \1\3159 FR 24014, 24021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven commenters stated that non-liquid alternative fuels should 
follow the same size and format requirements as liquid alternative 
fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.132 The reasons given for keeping 
the requirements the same were: promoting consistency,133 keeping 
information simple so that consumers can easily understand the 
labels,134 and fairness and equity.135 SIGMA stated simply 
that it supported the proposed requirements and urged the Commission to 
adopt the proposed rule without change.136
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\32AGA/NGVC, G-6, 8; API, G-25, 4 (provided that content 
requirements for non-liquid alternative fuels are similar to those 
for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel Rating Rule, similar size 
and format labels are appropriate, consistent, and should be 
recognizable to consumers); Mobil, G-2, 4; NPGA, G-18, 4; RFA, G-5, 
4; Sun, G-1, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 2 (does not understand why non-
liquid fuels should be treated differently than liquid fuels). AGA/
NGVC and API did not state reasons for their comments.
    \1\33Mobil, G-2, 4; RFA, G-5, 4.
    \1\34Sun, G-1, 2.
    \1\35NPGA, G-19, 4.
    \1\36SIGMA, G-23, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' In the NPR, the Commission proposed that 
the non-liquid alternative fuel labels not be consolidated with other 
mandatory labels or require otherwise duplicative disclosures.137 
Only one commenter addressed this issue, stating that consolidation 
would appear to provide no benefit and would only lead to public 
confusion.138 After considering the comments, the Commission 
proposes that non-liquid alternative fuels labels follow the same 
standardized size and format requirements of the Fuel Rating 
Rule.139 Further, to keep the labels uniform and simple, the 
Commission does not propose requiring any label consolidation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\3759 FR 24014, 24018.
    \1\38TVA, H-5.
    \1\39See section 309.17 of the text of the proposed labeling 
rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements. 
An objective product claim carries with it a representation that the 
seller possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis for that 
claim.140 When a seller does not expressly or impliedly state a 
certain level of support for a representation, the Commission assumes 
that consumers expect the seller to have a reasonable basis for the 
claim.141 Further, ``a firm's failure to possess and rely upon a 
reasonable basis for objective claims constitutes an unfair and 
deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act.''142 The fuel dispenser labeling rule the 
Commission proposes would require that sellers possess adequate 
substantiation to ensure that the information on the labels is accurate 
and reliable, and, as required by section 406(a) of EPA 92, that the 
information can ``reasonably enable the consumer to make choices and 
comparisons.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\40Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 813 (1984), aff'd, 
791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987).
    \1\41FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 
104 F.T.C. 839, 840. See Thompson Medical, 104 F.T.C. 786, 813.
    \1\42FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 
104 F.T.C. 839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When products are sold in units, packaged or unpackaged, 
``labeling'' normally is accomplished by disclosing information on the 
product packaging, on a label attached directly to the product, or 
marked directly on the product.143 Most often, though not always, 
such labeling disclosures are added to the product or product packaging 
by the party producing the product. Items sold in bulk (such as 
gasoline or alternative fuels), on the other hand, cannot be labeled on 
individual or multiple unit packaging to ensure that the ultimate 
consumer sees the labeled information. The only practical method of 
ensuring that labeling information for such products reaches the 
consumer is to label the bulk product dispenser at the point of retail 
sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\43See, e.g., Rule Concerning Disclosures of Information about 
Energy Consumption and Water Use for Certain Home Appliances and 
Other Products Required under the Energy Policy & Conservation Act 
(``Appliance Labeling Rule''), 16 CFR Part 305 (1994); Trade 
Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home 
Insulation (``R-value Rule''), 16 CFR Part 460 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From a practical standpoint, retail sellers of alternative fuels 
are not in a position to determine the accuracy of the information to 
be disclosed about the specific fuel. It would be impractical, and 
probably more expensive to the consumer, to require retail sellers to 
test each delivery of a gaseous fuel or to test the electric vehicle 
fuel dispenser systems they use to determine the accuracy of the 
information they must disclose on labels on fuel dispensers. In making 
disclosures to consumers, retail sellers of alternative fuels, 
therefore, must rely on the accuracy of the information provided to 
them from gaseous fuel importers, producers, refiners and distributors, 
or from manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel 
dispenser systems.
    The Commission believes that substantiation, certification, and 
recordkeeping requirements for importers, producers, refiners and 
distributors of gaseous alternative fuels, and manufacturers of 
electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems, and substantiation and 
recordkeeping requirements for retail sellers of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuels (including electricity) are necessary to ensure that the 
information posted on labels on retail fuel dispensers is 
accurate.144 The Commission, therefore, proposes to include 
substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements in the 
rule, similar to such requirements in the Fuel Rating Rule for sellers 
of liquid alternative fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\44The Commission stated in the NPR that it believed that 
harmonizing labeling requirements for non-liquid and liquid 
alternative fuels, when practicable, would be appropriate. However, 
the Commission stated that it believed that requiring retailers to 
post consistent with ratings certified to them and to maintain 
records, as is required for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel 
Rating Rule, would be beyond the scope of the Commission's mandate 
under section 406(a) of EPA 92 (59 FR 24014, 24018 n. 133). Upon 
further consideration, and in light of the discussion in the text 
supra, the Commission reconsidered that position and has determined 
to propose requiring substantiation, certification, and 
recordkeeping requirements for non-liquid alternative fuels like 
those for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel Rating Rule. The 
Commission believes that the proposed requirements are justified 
because they are rationally related to the establishment of 
``uniform labeling requirements'' that provide important information 
to consumers. Interested parties are invited to address the proposed 
requirements in their written comments in response to this SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Substantiation. The Commission's labeling proposals would 
require labeling disclosures only 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. Under the Commission's 
advertising substantiation doctrine, which requires sellers to have a 
reasonable basis to support material, objective claims, the Commission 
proposes 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 mole percent of the principal component that 
retailers must disclose on fuel dispenser labels. For the minimum mole 
percent content of methane (the principal component) in CNG, the 
Commission proposes requiring that the reasonable basis be tests 
conducted according to ASTM D 1945-81.145 For the minimum mole 
percent content of hydrogen (the principal component) in hydrogen gas, 
the Commission proposes requiring that the reasonable basis be tests 
conducted according to ASTM D 1946-90.146 These ASTM documents 
include test procedures, developed through the ASTM consensus process, 
to determine the chemical composition of CNG and hydrogen, 
respectively, including the mole percent of methane in CNG and of 
hydrogen in hydrogen gas.147
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\45See note infra.
    \1\46Id.
    \1\47The 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 proposes 
requiring as a reasonable basis for determining the minimum 
molecular percentages of the principal components of CNG and 
hydrogen have been ASTM test methods for many years and have been 
recognized as competent and reliable procedures. Further, the 
Commission understands that no other test methods that could be used 
to make these determinations have been proposed to the California 
Air Resources Board or are under development by any standards-
setting organizations. If additional test methods are developed in 
the future, the Commission will consider whether to include them 
among the required test methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the minimum mole percent content of any other component that 
importers, producers, or refiners wish to certify, the proposed rule 
would not specify the test procedure they must use, but only that they 
have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, 
to substantiate the claim. The proposed rule would 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 common name or 
identifier they use. Similarly, manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel 
dispenser systems would be 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.
    Distributors and retail sellers could rely on the certifications 
they receive, as discussed in section III.B.5.2 infra, so their burden 
would be minimal. Distributors and retailers would not need to make the 
actual determinations unless they alter the fuel they receive before 
reselling it.148
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\48See Secs. 309.13(c) and 309.15(c) of the text of the 
proposed rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For public electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems, the information 
the Commission proposes requiring to be disclosed can be measured using 
standard measuring devices or procedures. Therefore, accurate 
measurements made using standard electric industry procedures that are 
recognized as competent and reliable would be sufficient to serve as 
the required reasonable basis.
    Currently, there is not sufficient record evidence for imposing 
specific, nationwide, minimum material standards or specifications for 
the composition of CNG or hydrogen gas.149 Neither ASTM nor any 
other standards-setting entity has developed and adopted consensus 
material specifications for these non-liquid (gaseous) alternative 
fuels. Nor do federal specifications currently exist. As previously 
discussed, the state of California has issued minimum material 
specifications for both CNG and hydrogen gas sold in 
California.150 These specifications require determination of the 
minimum mole percent composition of the principal component of these 
gaseous alternative fuels according to the specific ASTM test 
procedures that the Commission proposes to require as substantiation 
for the proposed disclosures.151 Although the Commission could 
require that non-liquid alternative fuels meet the California minimum 
material specifications, there is insufficient evidence on the record 
for doing so. Further, in the absence of more extensive information, 
which may not yet exist, mandating that non-liquid (gaseous) 
alternative fuels meet any particular minimum material standards 
specifications could have unforeseen adverse anti-competitive, 
environmental, or vehicle performance effects.152 However, because 
it is important that sellers base objective disclosures on uniform 
measurements when recognized and accepted uniform measurement 
procedures are available, and because ASTM has issued test procedures 
to measure the minimum mole percent of the principle components of CNG 
and hydrogen, the Commission has determined to propose requiring use of 
the ASTM test procedures to substantiate those disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\49See AMI, G-3, 1; CEC, H-8, 6 (not aware of any existing, 
adequate and generally accepted standards for disclosures for 
alternative fuels).
    \1\50See note supra.
    \1\51The ASTM test procedures referenced in the California 
specifications are: (1) for measuring the mole percent of methane in 
CNG--ASTM D 1945-81; (2) for measuring the mole percent of hydrogen 
in hydrogen gas--ASTM D 2650-88. Id. According to ASTM 
representatives, ASTM D 1945-91 (placed on the record as document 
number B-54) has superseded ASTM D 1945-81 and ASTM D 1946-90 
(placed on the record as document number B-55) has superseded ASTM D 
2650-88. The California specifications also cite specific test 
procedures for measuring the mole percent of other components of CNG 
and hydrogen. The California specifications state that other test 
procedures may be used following a determination by the Executive 
Officer of the California Air Resources Board that they produce 
results equivalent to the results obtained with the referenced test 
procedures.
    \1\52An analysis of the California material specifications also 
indicates that, to ensure fuel quality and proper automobile 
performance, disclosing minimum percentage of the principal 
component of the fuel would be important and helpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's approach to requiring substantiation testing, 
without specifying a particular test method, for components other than 
the principle 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 mole percent of various components of CNG and 
hydrogen, in addition to the methane content of CNG and the hydrogen 
content of hydrogen gas. The Commission proposes to 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.
    Although the Commission has decided not to propose requiring that 
non-liquid alternative fuels conform to any specific material 
specification, the Commission's proposed requirement that marketers 
disclose the principal component of each fuel should encourage the 
industry to develop uniform material specifications or standards in 
consensus organizations for these fuels to ensure the uniform quality 
of the fuels in the marketplace. The development of material 
specifications or standards for non-liquid (gaseous) alternative fuels 
should help facilitate acceptance of these fuels.
    The proposed requirements are consistent with the substantiation 
requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel 
Rating Rule.153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\53 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Certification. The Commission proposes requiring that 
importers, producers, refiners, and distributors of non-liquid 
alternative fuels (other than electricity), and that manufacturers of 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems certify to others to whom they 
distribute the information that retailers must post on fuel 
dispensers.154 Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid 
alternative fuels (other than electricity) would be required to certify 
to distributors consistent with their determination of the minimum mole 
percent of the fuel's major component, and of any additional component 
they wish to disclose. Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing systems would be required to certify to distributors and/or 
retailers the information retailers would be required to disclose on 
labels on fuel dispensers. Distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels 
(other than electricity) and of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
systems would be required to certify to retailers consistent with the 
certification they received.155
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\54See sections 309.10 and 309.11 of the text of the proposed 
labeling rule in section XI infra.
    \1\55See section 309.13 of the text of the proposed labeling 
rule in section XI infra. If distributors blend fuels, 
Sec. 309.13(c) of the proposed rule would require them to 
substantiate the minimum percentage of the principal component 
according to the requirements of Sec. 309.10, and certify that 
information to their non-consumer customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuel 
(other than electricity) could make the certification in either of two 
ways:
    (a) Include 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 (other than electricity) is transferred, the date of 
the transfer, the common name of the fuel and the minimum mole percent 
of the fuel's major component, and of any additional component the 
producer or importer wishes to disclose.
    (b) Give the person to whom the fuel is transferred a letter or 
written statement, including the date, the producer's or importer's 
name, the name of the person to whom the fuel is transferred, the 
common name of the fuel, and the minimum mole percent of the fuel's 
major component, and of any additional component the producer or 
importer wishes to disclose. The letter or written statement would be 
effective until the importer, producer, or refiner transfers non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with a lower 
percentage of the major component, or of any other component claimed. 
At that time, the importer, producer, or refiner would have to certify 
the new information about the fuel with a new notice.
    Distributors of non-liquid alternative fuel (other than 
electricity) would be required to make the certification in each 
transfer to anyone who is not a consumer. Distributors could make the 
required certification by:
    (a) Using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as 
outlined for importers and producers in item (a), above, or by using a 
letter of certification, as outlined for importers, producers, and 
refiners in item (b), above.
    (b) Using either a letter or a delivery ticket or other paper when 
transferring to a common carrier. When distributors receive non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) from a common 
carrier, the distributors also must receive from the common carrier a 
certification of information required to be disclosed on the label on 
the retail fuel dispenser, either by letter or on a delivery ticket or 
other paper.
    Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be 
required to make the certification in each transfer of such systems. 
Manufacturers could do so in either of two ways:
    (a) Manufacturers could make the required certification by 
including a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of an EV 
fuel dispensing system. It could be an invoice, bill of lading, bill of 
sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of 
transfer. It would be 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) Manufacturers could make the required certification 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 would have to be 
located where it can be seen after installation of the EV fuel 
dispensing system. The marking or label would be deemed ``legible,'' in 
terms of placement, if it is located in close proximity to the 
manufacturer's identification marking. This marking or label would have 
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.
    Distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be 
required to make the certification in each transfer. Distributors could 
do so in either of two ways:
    (a) Using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as 
outlined for manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems 
in item (a) supra.
    (b) 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) supra.
    The proposed requirements are consistent with the certification 
requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel 
Rating Rule.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\16 CFR 306.6, 306.8 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Recordkeeping. The Commission proposes requiring that 
importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuels 
(other than electricity) maintain records of the tests performed by or 
for them that they rely upon as their required reasonable basis for 
their certifications.\157\ The Commission likewise proposes 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.\158\ The Commission also proposes 
requiring that distributors and retailers of non-liquid alternative 
fuels (including 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 
maintain records consisting of the certification they receive from 
manufacturers or distributors of the systems.\159\ Like the Fuel Rating 
Rule, the proposed rule would require that these records be kept for 
one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\See Sec. 309.12 of the text of the proposed labeling rule 
in section XI infra.
    \158\Id.
    \159\See Secs. 309.14 and 309.16 of the text of the proposed 
labeling rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping 
requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel 
Rating Rule.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\16 CFR 306.7, 306.9, 306.11 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Effective date. In the NPR, the Commission proposed requiring 
that the non-liquid alternative fuels labeling requirements become 
effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal 
Register, and sought comment on that proposal.\161\ Nine commenters 
addressed this issue either directly or by implication.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\59 FR 24014, 24017, 24021.
    \162\SIGMA, G-23, 1 (supported all the Commission's proposals 
and urged the Commission to adopt the proposed rule without change); 
AGA/NGVC, G-6, 8 (expressed no opinion on proposed time period, but 
stated it would check with members that own fuel stations to 
ascertain if the compliance period would be too short); Phillips 66, 
G-15, 2 (Phillips 66 did not respond directly to the time period for 
the rule to become effective, but referred to separate comments 
submitted by NPGA and API, which stated different opinions; Phillips 
66 did not specify which comment it supported on this issue.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four commenters stated that the proposed time period gave 
sufficient time for covered parties to comply with the proposed 
requirements.\163\ NPGA stated that the 90-day period was not 
sufficient. It suggested a period of at least six months after 
publication of the final rule would be necessary because information 
must be collected from various fuel suppliers or wholesalers, the 
information must be placed in a format that meets standards established 
by the regulations, and layouts must be prepared in label form and 
distributed for use.\164\ Thomas BB questioned the sufficiency of 90 
days, but stated that it would depend on the content of the final 
rule.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\API, G-25, 4 (90 days is sufficient, provided the effective 
date, size, and format requirements for them are similar to those 
contained in the Fuel Rating Rule for liquid fuels); Flxible, G-12, 
2 (90 days is sufficient if the requirements for commercial vehicles 
are made according to the proposals in the ANPR; if the requirements 
were different, they would have to be reviewed to determine how long 
it would take to comply); Mobil, G-2, 4 (provided effective date and 
labeling requirements are consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule for 
liquid alternative fuels, there should not be a problem with 
implementation); RFA, G-5, 4 (90 days is sufficient because the 
number of outlets affected is small and labels would be printed in 
small quantities on a local basis or provided to retailers and their 
fuel suppliers).
    \164\NPGA, G-18, (comment) 4.
    \165\Thomas BB, G-10, 2 (will take considerably longer to 
establish national standards for some fuels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 406(a) of EPA 92 requires the Commission to issue the final 
labeling rules within one year of publication of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, but does not specify when the rules shall become effective. 
In developing this proposal, the Commission has considered how best to 
balance consumers' needs for comparative information with industry's 
need for a reasonable period of time to come into compliance. After 
considering the comments, the Commission believes that the proposed 
effective date (i.e., 90 days after publication in the Federal 
Register) is reasonable.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\The effective date of the final amendments adding liquid 
alternative fuels to the Fuel Rating Rule was less than 90 days 
after publication of the final rules in the Federal Register. The 
final rules were published on August 3, 1993. They became effective 
on October 25, 1993, as required by EPA 92. 58 FR 41356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Periodic updating of labels. In the NPR, the Commission did not 
propose a specific timetable for future reviews of the final labeling 
rules. The Commission, however, explained that section 406(a) of EPA 92 
requires the Commission to update its labeling requirements 
``periodically.'' Three commenters addressed the need to update the 
final rules periodically.
    API encouraged the Commission to review the rule, particularly 
after private, voluntary consensus standards organizations develop fuel 
specifications for alternative fuels. API also encouraged the 
Commission to consider reviewing the rule as new alternative fuels 
enter the marketplace. API did not suggest a specific timetable for 
periodic reviews.\167\ CEC suggested that the Commission may have to 
update its labeling requirements as electric vehicle technology 
advances, but likewise did not recommend a specific timetable.\168\ TVA 
commented that the Commission should update labeling disclosures only 
when necessary to reflect practical developments in technology. It also 
stated that a new label should indicate that it supersedes the previous 
label.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\API, G-25, 9.
    \168\CEC, H-8, 5-6.
    \169\TVA, H-5, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by section 406(a) of EPA 92, the Commission intends to 
conduct reviews to update the rule periodically to take into 
consideration relevant developments, such as when DOE designates new 
non-liquid alternative fuels. In addition, the Commission's ongoing 
regulatory review process schedules all rules and guides for review at 
least once during every ten-year period. Because the Commission cannot 
predict when new relevant developments may occur, the Commission is not 
otherwise proposing a specific timetable for future reviews in the 
final rule.

C. Labeling Requirements for AFVs

1. Scope of the AFV Labeling Requirement
    In its NPR, the Commission proposed that original equipment 
manufacturers (``OEMs'') and AFV conversion companies affix, and AFV 
dealers maintain, standard labels on new AFVs sold or offered for sale 
to consumers.170 The Commission further proposed that the term 
``consumer,'' which is not defined in EPA 92, 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.171 
These proposed requirements were derived in part from existing 
regulations regarding posting of EPA fuel-economy labels172 and 
were intended to exclude two sales categories (i.e., used AFV sales and 
special orders directly from manufacturers) from the scope of the 
Commission's AFV labeling requirement.173
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\7059 FR 24014, 24018.
    \1\71Id. at 24018 n.138.
    \1\72 Id. at 24018 n.136. See 40 CFR 600.306-86(a) (1993).
    \1\73 59 FR 24014, 24018 n.138.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nineteen commenters addressed the proposed scope of the AFV 
labeling requirements. Two of the nineteen indicated general support 
for the Commission's labeling proposal but did not address this 
specific issue.174 One other commenter supported the Commission's 
definition of the term ``consumer'' as proposed.175 The remaining 
sixteen addressed one or more issues pertaining to this aspect of the 
Commission's proposal, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\74EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1.
    \1\75AGA/NGVC stated that the Commission's proposed definition 
was ``a reasonable interpretation of the statute'' because industry 
``can target and educate specialty markets and their consumers.'' 
AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11-12. In its supplemental written comment, AGA/NGVC 
addressed the issue of aftermarket conversions. See infra note 196 
and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Covered AFVs. Several commenters addressed whether the 
Commission's labeling requirements should apply to all AFVs, as that 
term is defined in EPA 92. As defined by that statute, an AFV is either 
``a dedicated vehicle or a dual fueled vehicle.''176 As further 
defined, a ``dedicated vehicle'' means an automobile (or other self-
propelled vehicle), designed for transporting persons or property on a 
street or highway, that operates solely on alternative fuel.177 
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.178 As such, the statutory definition 
of an ``AFV'' includes tour buses, transit buses, heavy-duty commercial 
trucks, and large motor homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\76 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \1\77 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(6) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dedicated 
vehicle'' is either a ``dedicated automobile,'' as defined in 15 
U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(C) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that 
operates solely on alternative fuel).
    \1\78 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(8) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dual fueled 
vehicle'' is either a ``dual fueled automobile,'' as defined in 15 
U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(D) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as 
defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that is 
capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel 
fuel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the AFVs covered by the Commission's labeling 
requirements, four commenters indicated that the labeling requirements 
should apply to all AFVs, so that consumers of those vehicles have 
access to the same information.179 Nine commenters, however, 
suggested that the Rule's scope could reasonably be limited in a manner 
consistent with EPA 92's mandate and purpose. For example, several 
commenters supported the Commission's proposal to limit the Rule's 
scope to AFVs obtained from dealers or AFV conversion companies (i.e., 
not directly from the manufacturer as a special order). Those 
commenters stated that consumers making special orders would likely 
have sufficient knowledge of available fuel alternatives and would need 
more detailed and vehicle-specific information than could be provided 
on a standardized label.180 They also stated that specially 
ordered AFVs were typically manufactured after the order had been 
placed, so that the consumer would not actually see the vehicle until 
delivery.181 Requiring the posting of cost-benefit labels on such 
vehicles thus would not help consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\79Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; NACAA (Tr.), 132; NAFA 
(Tr.), 123, 134; TVA, H-5, 1.
    \1\80CEC, H-8, 11; ETC, G-24, 5; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1. Flxible 
stated that the Rule's scope should be limited to vehicles operated 
by the general public. Flxible, G-12, 2.
    \1\81GM (Tr.), 127-128 (``[P]utting a label on a vehicle after 
it's been built is already a done deal because all those decisions 
had to be made at the ordering.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters suggested a different approach. Those commenters 
stated that the Commission's AFV labeling requirements should exclude 
from its scope AFVs with gross vehicle weight ratings 
(``GVWR'')182 over 8,500 lbs. (i.e., medium and heavy duty AFVs). 
EMA stated that AFVs over 8,500 lbs. GVWR should be excluded because 
consumers considering such vehicles make decisions based on extensive 
evaluations of more factors and information than a simple label could 
provide.183 Flxible stated that consumers considering heavier 
commercial vehicles have usually reviewed published data on features, 
compared specific vehicle types, and studied life-cycle cost studies 
before placing orders. They thus have no need for ``consumer'' 
labeling.184 AAMA stated that those vehicles are typically 
manufactured after their purchase by commercial vehicle buyers who are 
well informed about pertinent costs and benefits.185 EPA also 
noted that its fuel economy requirements (disclosing fuel economy 
information in window stickers) do not apply to vehicles over 8,500 
lbs. GVWR.186
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\82EPA 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.'').
    \1\83EMA, 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.
    \1\84Flxible (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).
    \1\85AAMA, G-7, 3-4, (Tr.), 124 (purchasing decision ``will 
already have been made long before [purchaser] walks into the 
showroom and sees the label.''). 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.
    \1\86EPA (Tr.), 122; 40 CFR 600.002-85(4)(iii) (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the Commission must issue uniform labeling 
requirements only ``to the greatest extent practicable.''187 In 
developing this revised proposal the Commission has considered the 
practicality and appropriateness of including all AFVs within the scope 
of its labeling requirements. Including all such vehicles might help 
educate consumers about the general availability of AFVs of all sizes. 
However, the record appears to indicate 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. 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 
also 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. As a result, the Commission has tentatively 
determined that, at the present time, AFVs over 8,500 lbs. GVWR will 
not be included within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\8742 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement this tentative determination, the Commission proposes 
to include a definition of ``covered vehicles'' (i.e., in substance, 
AFVs under 8,500 lbs. GVWR), in the proposed rule.188 The 
Commission derived this definition from EPA 92's definition of the term 
``light duty motor vehicles,'' a term given special significance by 
that statute.189 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].''190 The Clean Air Act191 in turn refers to existing 
EPA definitions of both vehicle classifications.192 Thus, the 
proposed definition of ``covered vehicle'' basically encompasses the 
same category of vehicle referenced in EPA 92's fleet acquisition 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\88See proposed rule section 309.1(f) (defining ``covered 
vehicle''). 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).
    \1\89 Three of EPA 92's five ``major'' alternative-fuel 
provisions impose minimum vehicle-acquisition requirements on 
designated entities (i.e., the Federal government; alternative fuel 
providers; and other non-Federal fleets). H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 
102d Cong., 2d Sess. 137, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1960. 
For alternative fuel providers and other non-Federal fleets, the 
vehicles covered by those mandates are ``light duty motor 
vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory 
acquisition requirement for alternative fuel providers); 42 U.S.C. 
13257 (Supp. IV 1993) (contingent acquisition requirement for other 
non-Federal fleet operators).
    The Federal fleet is required to acquire ``light duty [AFVs],'' 
a term not defined in EPA 92, instead of ``light duty motor 
vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory 
acquisition requirement for Federal government). Neither the statute 
nor its legislative history suggests that those terms have different 
meanings and the discrepancy may have been inadvertent. The 
Commission need not resolve the matter, however, because it seems 
clear that the intent was to tailor the Federal fleet's acquisition 
requirement to a certain category of AFVs.
    \1\9042 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].'').
    \1\91 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.'').
    \1\92 A light duty truck is defined as ``[a]ny motor vehicle 
rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as (sic) a vehicle curb 
weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal 
area of 45 square feet or less, which is (1) Designed primarily for 
purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a 
vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and 
has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with 
special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and 
use.'' 40 CFR 86.082-2 (1993). A light duty vehicle is defined as 
``a passenger car or passenger car derivative capable of seating 12 
passengers or less.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. AFV manufacturers and conversion companies. As noted previously, 
in its NPR the Commission proposed that its AFV labeling requirements 
apply to AFV manufacturers and conversion companies.193 The 
Commission did not further specify, however, the extent to which such 
entities would be required to comply with its labeling proposal. In 
response, several commenters addressed the circumstances under which 
either entity should be included within the scope of the AFV labeling 
requirements. As to AFV manufacturers, the commenters 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.194
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\9359 FR 24014, 24018. A conversion company reconfigures the 
fuel system of an existing vehicle to permit operation on 
alternative fuel.
    \1\94See, e.g., Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; ETC, G-24, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to conversion companies, however, some commenters suggested that 
the labeling requirements distinguish between two different categories 
of conversions: whether the vehicle is converted to alternative fuel 
before or after it is delivered to the first consumer. For example, 
AGA/NGVC and ETC stated that conversions performed before the vehicle 
is delivered to a first consumer should be included within the scope of 
the AFV labeling requirement.195 These conversions bear 
similarities to OEM AFVs because in both circumstances the vehicles are 
configured to alternative fuel before delivery to the first consumer. 
Consumers considering these converted AFVs would thus have equal need 
for comparative information as consumers considering other ``new'' 
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\95AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6 (``We agree with the FTC and others 
that vehicles that are converted prior to being delivered to the 
first time buyer should be labeled in the same fashion as other 
`new' vehicles.''); ETC, G-24, 4 (``All vehicles that are considered 
`new' vehicles, regardless of whether they are sold by an original 
equipment manufacturer or a converter or upfitter, should be subject 
to the labeling requirement.''). Commenters responding to the 
Commission's ANPR were in similar agreement. See 59 FR 24014, 24016 
nn. 53, 54 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the second category, those commenters stated 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 consumers would have already been 
educated about the costs and benefits of alternative fuels.196 
Four other commenters addressed this category. Three stated that 
aftermarket conversions should be covered because the labeling 
requirements should apply to all AFVs.197 NPGA stated that 
aftermarket conversions should be treated in a separate rulemaking 
proceeding because ``circumstances surrounding the majority of 
aftermarket conversions * * * are so different from the vehicles 
equipped by [OEMs] to operate on an alternative fuel.''198
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\96 AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6, 3-4, (Tr.), 231-232; ETC, G-24, 4.
    \1\97 Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; NAFA (Tr.), 130 (the same 
information available from manufacturers should be available from 
conversion companies); TVA, H-5, 1.
    \1\98 NPGA, G-18 (Supp.), 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the Commission's proposal (as it applied to AFV 
conversion companies) 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.''199 As a result, ``[t]he 
demand for vehicles meeting the [clean-fuel] standards will presumably 
grow, thus increasing the conversion market share for companies capable 
of producing large numbers of high-quality converted 
vehicles.''200 Among the factors creating such a demand are 
acquisition requirements for centrally fueled fleets contained in the 
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (``CAAA'').201 Those requirements 
``may be met through the conversion of existing or new gasoline or 
diesel-powered vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles * * * ''202 
Interests affected by those mandates, as well as others interested in 
achieving the clean-air benefits of driving AFVs, may therefore find an 
incentive to convert existing vehicles to alternative fuel. The 
Commission therefore believes that it should address this issue in this 
proceeding to the greatest extent practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\99 B-3, inside front cover.
    \2\00 58 FR 32474, 32494, June 10, 1993.
    \2\01 The CAAA's acquisition requirements are in addition to 
similar requirements, described infra section III(C)(1)(c), imposed 
by EPA 92.
    \2\02 42 U.S.C. 7587(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, AGA/NGVC and ETC suggested that vehicles converted to 
alternative fuel after being acquired by consumers should be excluded 
from the AFV labeling requirements because consumers considering 
conversion of existing vehicles would not benefit from a ``labeling'' 
requirement. Accordingly, in developing this revised proposal the 
Commission has considered the practicality and appropriateness of 
including this category within the scope of its AFV labeling 
requirements. The Commission notes that section 406 does not address 
the issue of AFV conversions, and that including such vehicles could 
help consumers compare different alternative fuels and conversion 
systems.
    However, the Commission believes that the circumstances surrounding 
such conversions may make such a requirement impractical or 
unnecessary.203 For example, the Commission understands that some 
consumers convert their vehicles themselves without utilizing the 
services of a conversion installation company. Further, consumers 
relying on conversion companies to perform the necessary 
reconfiguration will presumably be evaluating which alternative fuel to 
which their vehicle should be converted. In those circumstances, 
consumers would not likely make such decisions based on information 
contained in a simple label. 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. Further, as noted, requiring 
disclosure other than in a labeling format may be beyond the scope of 
the Commission's authority under EPA 92.204 The Commission also 
finds that 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.205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\03 In comments responding to the Commission's ANPR, DOE noted 
that: ``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.'' DOE, E-10, 3-4.
    \2\04 See supra section III(A).
    \2\05 See infra text accompanying notes 235 and 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In any event, the Commission notes that DOE has addressed 
conversions of existing vehicles in its consumer information 
brochure.206 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''),207 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.''208 Given the apparent impracticalities surrounding a 
requirement for aftermarket alternative-fuel conversions, and the 
availability of pertinent information in DOE's brochure, the Commission 
intends to exclude from its AFV labeling requirements situations where 
conventional fueled vehicles are converted to alternative fuel after 
being acquired by consumers. The proposed rule thus imposes no 
requirements on conversion companies to label such vehicles.209
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\06EPA 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).
    \2\07B-3, 16.
    \2\08B-3, 23.
    \2\09 See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2) (limiting labeling 
requirements for new covered vehicles to conversion systems 
installed ``prior to such vehicle's being acquired by a consumer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has considered whether vehicles converted to 
alternative fuel prior to their acquisition by consumers (e.g., after a 
gasoline powered vehicle has been fully assembled) should be included 
within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements. As noted, section 
406(a) does not expressly exclude such vehicles from its scope and the 
Commission is aware of no reason why such vehicles should be so 
excluded. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to include such vehicles 
within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements.
    The Commission has determined, however, that its treatment of the 
entity responsible for such a labeling requirement (i.e., the AFV 
conversion company) needs further refinement. In developing this 
revised labeling proposal, the Commission took particular note of EPA 
regulations addressing this subject issued after publication of the 
Commission's NPR. Those regulations implemented a provision of the 1990 
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.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.211 After considering the advantages and 
disadvantages of assigning liability to either entity, however, 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.212 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.213 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.214
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\11 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061.
    \2\12Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062. Implementing that 
determination will provide that:

    ``The clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier shall 
be considered a manufacturer for purposes of Clean Air Act sections 
206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions, and must accept 
liability for in-use performance of the (sic) all vehicles produced 
under the certificate of conformity as outlined in 40 CFR part 85.''

    Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50081, to be codified at 40 
CFR 88.306-94(d).
    \2\13Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062.
    \2\14Fleet 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because harmonizing regulatory approaches, when practicable, is 
appropriate and desirable, the Commission is basing 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 that it is appropriate 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 
would take similar steps to insure compliance with this revised 
labeling proposal, such as developing oversight programs and entering 
into indemnification agreements with installers to insure that accurate 
labels were posted as required.
    Under the Commission's revised AFV labeling proposal, the entity 
responsible for complying with its labeling requirements for new 
covered vehicles\215\ is the ``manufacturer.'' The proposed rule 
defines ``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].''\216\ Under the proposed rule, manufacturers of new 
covered vehicles are required to affix (or cause to be affixed) new 
vehicle labels on each such vehicle prior to its being offered for 
acquisition by consumers.\217\ If, however, an ``aftermarket conversion 
system'' (i.e., a conversion kit)\218\ is installed on a vehicle by a 
person other than the manufacturer prior to being acquired by a 
consumer, the manufacturer is responsible for providing that person 
with the objective information regarding that vehicle required by the 
proposed rule.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\The Commission's revised proposal as to used covered 
vehicles is discussed infra section III(C)(1)(d).
    \216\Proposed rule Sec. 309.1(r).
    \217\Proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(1).
    \218\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(b) (defining ``aftermarket 
conversion system''). This definition was derived from a recently-
issued EPA definition of the same term. See Gaseous Fuels Rule, 59 
FR 48472, 48490, to be codified at 40 CFR 85.502(c).
    \219\See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2). Specific data proposed 
to be disclosed on labels for new covered AFVs is discussed infra 
section III(C)(2)(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Acquisitions by consumers. As noted previously, the Commission's 
AFV labeling requirements are to assist ``consumers,'' and one aspect 
of the Commission's NPR proposal defined that term as a purchase by an 
individual, corporation, or other business organization.\220\ Several 
commenters stated that the proposed definition incorrectly limited the 
Rule's scope. For example, the Commission's proposal had the effect of 
excluding leasing arrangements from its scope. NAFA noted that EPA 92 
and the Clean Air Act both impose AFV ``acquisition'' mandates on 
certain designated entities and suggested that the Commission's AFV 
labeling requirements track those requirements.\221\ Other commenters 
addressing this issue agreed that the Commission should broaden the 
Rule's scope to encompass purchases and leases.\222\ The proposed 
definition also had the effect of excluding purchases by government 
agencies. API stated that this definition should be modified to include 
federal, state, and local governments as consumers.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\59 FR 24014, 24018.
    \221\NAFA (Tr.), 133. For example, EPA 92 requires that, ``The 
Federal Government shall acquire at least 5,000 light duty [AFVs] in 
fiscal year 1993.'' 42 U.S.C. 13212(a)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \222\DOE (Tr.), 135; ETC (Tr.), 135; NACAA (Tr.), 135; RFA, G-5, 
5.
    \223\API, G-25, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to leasing arrangements, the commenters indicated that interest 
in AFVs could be motivated in large part by congressional mandates. 
Because consumers will be required to ``acquire'' AFVs, the Commission 
has determined that its AFV labeling requirements should include such 
arrangements to the greatest extent practicable, and to modify its 
definition of consumer to further EPA 92's legislative purpose.
    In determining what is practicable, the Commission notes that 
consumers entering into leasing arrangements have different information 
needs. 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 proposed 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. 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. Based on 
its belief that consumers entering into short-term leasing arrangements 
will not make decisions based upon information disclosed in a label, 
the Commission thus has tentatively determined that including short-
term leasing arrangements in the proposed rule is not necessary.
    As to including governmental entities within the scope of the term 
``consumer,'' the Commission notes that EPA 92 imposes mandatory 
acquisition requirements on the Federal fleet.\224\ As such, Federal 
fleet operators will likely have equal need for comparative information 
as other entities required to acquire AFVs. The Commission has 
tentatively determined, therefore, that neither the Federal government 
nor other governmental agencies should be excluded from the scope of 
its AFV labeling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\See 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement these tentative determinations, the proposed rule's 
labeling requirements apply to covered vehicles ``offered for 
acquisition by consumers.''\225\ The intent of one aspect of this 
proposal is to include purchases and long-term leasing arrangements 
within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements. Accordingly, an 
acquisition is defined in the proposed rule 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.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(a)(1) (new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(a) (used covered vehicles).
    \226\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(a) (defining ``acquisition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This definition was derived from a recent EPA regulation 
implementing aspects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,\227\ which 
used the 120 day period as the dividing line between short and long-
term leases. In the preamble announcing that regulation, EPA announced 
its determination that the 120 day period is slightly longer than a 
calendar season and that leases of less than that period were therefore 
short-term and temporary.\228\ The Commission agrees that the 120 day 
period reflects a reasonable demarcation between short and long term 
rentals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \227\Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Definitions and General 
Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64689-64690, Dec. 9, 1993 (defining the 
phrase ``owned or operated, leased or otherwise controlled by such 
person'' as used in section 241(5) of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7581(5)).
    \228\58 FR 64679, 64689, 64690 (excluding leases under 120 days 
from Clean Fuel Fleet Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposes 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.\229\ The 
proposed definition of this term was derived from section 302(e) of the 
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments\230\ and EPA's regulation implementing 
that section, 40 CFR 88.302-94 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(d) (defining ``consumer'').
    \230\42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining ``person'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. Used AFVs. One commenter suggested that used AFVs should be 
excluded from the Commission's labeling requirements because section 
406(a) was primarily concerned with new AFVs.\231\ The remaining six 
commenters addressing this issue agreed that a consumer contemplating 
the acquisition of a used AFV would have the same need for comparative 
information as a consumer considering a new AFV, and thus used AFVs 
should be covered within the AFV labeling requirements.\232\ At the 
Workshop, representatives for AMI and NAFA 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.\233\ Two of 
these commenters recognized, however, that requiring used vehicle 
dealers to make objective disclosures regarding a used AFV's 
performance could be problematic.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\NACAA (Tr.), 221.
    \232\AMI (Tr.), 136, 218; Boston Edison, G-26, 10; ETC, G-24, 4; 
NAFA, G-20, 5, (Tr.), 222; PCC, G-22, 2; RFA, G-5, 5, (Tr.), 217.
    \233\See AMI (Tr.), 218 (``[T]his is a real problem now. There 
are nearly 10,000 [flexible] fuel vehicles in California alone, and 
* * * several hundred are being offered for sale now to private 
consumers.''). See also NAFA (Tr.), 222:
    ``I think one of the things you have to be concerned about 
looking down the road with alternative fuels is that if there is not 
a resale market for these vehicles, the program will whither 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.''

    \234\ETC, G-24, 4; RFA (Tr.), 217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.235 Requiring disclosure of information based on the 
vehicle's condition when new could therefore be misleading to 
consumers.236 To remedy this problem, EPA and ETC suggested that 
used AFV labeling disclose general descriptive information and not 
address objective performance factors.237
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\35 EPA (Tr.), 220.
    \2\36 Id.
    \2\37 EPA (Tr.), 220; ETC, G-24, 4 (labels required by 
Commission's Used Car Rule, 16 CFR Part 455, could incorporate 
specific information about AFVs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92's definition of AFV makes no distinction between new and 
used vehicles.238 In developing the NPR the Commission believed 
that the market for such vehicles had not reached the volume where 
uniform labeling requirements were necessary. Accordingly, the 
Commission excluded such vehicles from the scope of its AFV labeling 
requirement and intended to review this issue as part of its periodic 
review of the labeling rule. The comments indicated, however, 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. Thus, after considering the record, the 
Commission has concluded that including such vehicles within the scope 
of its AFV labeling requirements is appropriate at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\38 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993) (defining ``AFV'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the comments also indicated that requiring disclosure of 
comparative information about used AFVs may not be practicable. 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. 
However, this option would not surmount the more basic problem that 
objective information may no longer accurately reflect the vehicle's 
present condition (and thus would not form a valid basis upon which to 
make reasonable choices and comparisons).239 Accordingly, the 
Commission believes that requiring disclosure of information that may 
be inaccurate or invalid creates a risk of misleading consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\39 While consumers may expect that used vehicles will have 
different performance attributes than new cars, if the Commission 
required disclosure of specific data on standard labels (based on 
the vehicle's condition when new), it might create the impression 
with some consumers that these disclosures may still be valid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has thus tentatively determined that both new and 
used AFVs should be included within the scope of its labeling 
requirements, but that they be given different treatment. The proposed 
rule defines the terms ``new covered vehicle'' and ``used covered 
vehicle'' and establishes labeling requirements as to each 
classification.240 Under the proposed rule, a new covered vehicle 
means a covered vehicle which has not yet been acquired by a 
consumer,241 while a used covered vehicle means (in substance) a 
covered vehicle which previously has been acquired by a 
consumer.242 The proposed rule also defines the terms ``new 
vehicle dealer''243 and ``used vehicle dealer.''244 As 
described more fully below, the proposed rule addresses the problem of 
requiring disclosure of comparative information on used AFVs by 
establishing different labeling formats (i.e., new vehicle 
labels245 and used vehicle labels246) disclosing different 
types of information for new and used covered AFVs.247
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\40 See proposed rule Secs. 309.20 (``Labeling requirements 
for new covered vehicles''), 309.21 (``Labeling requirements for 
used covered vehicles'').
    \2\41 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(t) (defining ``new covered 
vehicle'').
    \2\42 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(dd) (defining ``used covered 
vehicle''). 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).
    \2\43 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(u). 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 proposal, 
the Commission similarly intends that individual consumers not be 
required to comply with the AFV labeling requirements.
    \2\44 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ee). This definition was 
derived from the Commission's definition of ``dealer'' in its Used 
Car Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3) (1994).
    \2\45 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(v) (defining ``new vehicle 
labels'').
    \2\46 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ff) (defining ``used vehicle 
labels'').
    \2\47 See infra section III(C)(2) (a) and (c), and proposed rule 
Secs. 309.20(e) (new covered vehicles) and 309.21(e) (used covered 
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Disclosures on AFV Labeling
    As discussed below, 34 of the 37 commenters addressed the substance 
of the Commission's proposed AFV labeling requirements (i.e., the 
information to be disclosed on AFV labels).248 In developing the 
NPR's proposed requirements, the Commission was guided by two sets of 
considerations. The first concerned problems associated with developing 
and publishing cost-benefit information. For example, the Commission 
considered the extent to which balanced, accurate information for 
pertinent comparative factors could be conveyed on the ``simple'' label 
envisioned by Congress.249 It also considered whether appropriate 
technical standards existed to compare some factors, and whether 
providing the same information required in labels by other government 
agencies (in different formats) could confuse consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\48 Three commenters (BOR, Greenpeace, and SIGMA) did not 
address disclosures on AFV labels.
    \2\49 59 FR 24014, 24019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second set of considerations pertained to 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 NPR that consumers would require disclosure of far 
greater comparative information when considering an AFV purchase then 
when refueling.250 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. Finally, there was less need for the Commission to attempt to 
present complex information in the constrained format of an AFV label 
because DOE was required to prepare and distribute an information 
package for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\50Id. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After evaluating those considerations, the Commission tentatively 
determined that an AFV label disclosing a combination of information 
would be most useful to consumers making choices and comparisons. The 
specific label format proposed in the NPR disclosed a combination of 
information in a three-part format.251 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\51 59 FR 24014, 24019-24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission re-evaluated all those considerations while 
developing this revised AFV labeling proposal. Of great significance in 
the development of this proposal was DOE's issuance of the first annual 
edition of its required information package in July 1993. That 32-page 
brochure, titled ``Taking an Alternative Route: Alternative Fuels 
Fueling The Future,'' was expressly designed to meet the needs of a 
targeted consumer audience: fleet owners and managers.252 While 
the brochure includes information specifically of interest to that 
group, it also includes general information about the most readily 
available alternative fuels: Electricity, ethanol, methanol, CNG, and 
propane. For each featured fuel, the brochure offers information 
regarding the same ten categories: fuel description (i.e., how the fuel 
is produced and its general composition for transportation purposes), 
domestic content, fueling (i.e., how AFVs powered by the fuel are 
refueled or recharged), fuel availability, vehicle experience and 
availability, operational performance (e.g., range, acceleration, and 
cruising speed), maintenance and reliability, safety, costs (e.g., fuel 
and conversion costs), and resources for further information (e.g., 
trade associations and the DOE Alternative Fuels Hotline).253 The 
brochure also includes a glossary of relevant terms.254
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\52 Commission staff placed a copy of DOE's brochure on the 
public record of this proceeding. For example, the brochure 
describes mandates and incentives pertinent to fleet operators 
contained in EPA 92 and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. B-3, 1, 
3-15, 26-32.
    \2\53 B-3, 16-25. CAS notes that environmental and consumer 
organizations are not included as sources to contact for more 
information. CAS (Supp.), G-17, 6.
    \2\54 B-3, inside cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DOE brochure does not offer specific data regarding 
environmental performance. Instead, a standard statement (``Produces 
less air toxics and ozone-forming emissions than gasoline'') is 
included in a graphic for each of the five featured fuels. The brochure 
also advises consumers generally that manufacturers are responsible for 
certifying their vehicles to federal emission standards, that 
manufacturers seeking to produce and certify AFVs as clean-fuel 
vehicles must meet specified clean-fuel emission standards, and that 
AFV conversion companies face similar certification 
requirements.255
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\55 B-3, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of additional significance was EPA's promulgation of new 
regulations pertaining to alternative fuels and AFVs. For example, on 
May 27, 1994, EPA issued certification procedures for aftermarket 
conversion equipment (i.e., hardware allowing a vehicle to operate 
completely or in part on a fuel other than the fuel for which it was 
originally designed and manufactured) and emission standards and test 
procedures for the certification of certain CNG and LPG fueled 
vehicles.256 On June 14, 1994, EPA also issued emission standards 
for certain clean-fuel vehicles and other conversion 
regulations.257
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\56Gaseous Fuels Rule, 59 FR 48472, Sept. 21, 1994.
    \2\57Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This revised proposal is the result of the Commission's analysis of 
all pertinent considerations, the rulemaking record (including written 
comments and Workshop statements) and recent developments. As described 
in more detail below, the Commission continues to believe that a 
combination of objective and descriptive information will best meet 
consumers' needs for comparative cost-benefit information. The 
Commission also believes that this format will best address the 
problems associated with developing and publishing such information.
    a. Specific data disclosures--(1) Fuel tank capacity/cruising 
range. After considering disclosure of numerous objective factors, the 
Commission proposed in the NPR that one type of specific data--fuel 
tank capacity--be calculated and displayed on AFV labels.258 Fuel 
tank capacity would be expressed in gallons for AFVs powered by liquid 
alternative fuels, and the Commission sought comment on how it should 
be disclosed for gaseous and electric powered AFVs. The Commission 
suggested that consumers could use fuel tank capacity to estimate 
cruising range, a ``principal piece of cost-benefit 
information.''259
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\5859 FR 24014, 24020.
    \2\59Id. For AFV's with EPA fuel economy labels, consumers could 
estimate cruising range by multiplying fuel tank capacity by the 
posted miles-per-gallon rating for that vehicle. Id. at 24020 n.153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-seven commenters addressed one or more aspects of this 
proposal.260 Of those twenty-seven, three stated how fuel tank 
capacity should be expressed or displayed but did not otherwise support 
or oppose disclosure of this information.261 Fifteen other 
commenters supported the Commission's proposal in whole or in part. Ten 
of those fifteen indicated that fuel tank capacity could be useful if 
it was expressed in equivalent units (i.e., which accounted for the 
fact that alternative fuels have different energy contents).262 
Eight of those ten commenters noted that consumers could use that 
information to determine cruising range.263 Five other commenters 
stated that both fuel tank capacity and cruising range should be 
disclosed on AFV labels.264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\60Eight other commenters (BOR, G-4; Greenpeace, G-27; MC-MD, 
G-23; NACAA, H-6; NHTSA, H-1; SIGMA, G-23; Texas ADA, G-11; Thomas 
BB, G-10) did not address any aspect of this issue. Two others 
indicated general support for the Commission's labeling proposal 
without addressing this specific issue. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas 
RRC, H-3, 1.
    \2\61EPA, H-4, 2 (fuel tank capacity should be expressed in same 
units that will be used in retail sales ``if [the Commission] 
decides in the final rule to include'' that measure) (emphasis 
added); NADA, G-19, 2 (fuel tank capacity ``could easily be 
incorporated into'' EPA fuel economy labels). TVA stated that AFV 
labels for electric vehicles should disclose electrical capacity, 
recharging voltage, recharging architecture, and connection 
configuration. TVA, H-5, 1. TVA did not otherwise define or explain 
the significance of the third and fourth factors.
    \2\62AAMA, G-7, 2; AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10; API, G-26, 5-6; Chrysler, 
G-13, 1 (supporting AAMA); Ford, G-14, 1, 2 (supporting AAMA); GM, 
G-8, 1, 4, 5 (supporting AAMA generally, but suggesting that battery 
capacity for EVs be expressed in kilowatt-hours, ``the accepted 
standard unit of measurement for electricity.''); Mobil, G-2, 5; 
Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; Sun, G-1, 2; Unocal, G-9, 2.
    \2\63AAMA, G-7, 2; AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10; API, G-26, 5-6; Chrysler, 
G-13, 1 (supporting AAMA); Ford, G-14, 1, 2 (supporting AAMA); GM, 
G-8, 1 (supporting AAMA); Sun, G-1, 2; Unocal, G-9, 2. Two of those 
commenters also said that for electric vehicles, range, and not 
battery capacity, should be disclosed to consumers. Mobil, G-2, 5; 
Sun, G-1, 2.
    \2\64AMI, G-3, 1; CEC, H-8, 9; DOE, H-10, 4, (Tr.), 146; 
Phillips 66, G-15, 1; UCS (Tr.), 143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nine commenters opposed the proposal to require disclosure of fuel 
tank capacity. ETC stated that an electric vehicle's (EV) battery 
capacity is only one of a ``wide number of factors'' affecting cruising 
range and thus by itself is a poor indicator of that factor.265 
EMA and Flxible stated that disclosures as to either fuel tank capacity 
or range were not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles because such 
vehicles are often custom-ordered to meet a customer's 
specifications.266 NPGA supported disclosing fuel economy 
(expressed as miles/gallon) because ``most consumers will more readily 
understand'' that information.267 Five other commenters stated 
that cruising range should be disclosed instead of fuel tank 
capacity.268
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\65ETC, G-24, 1.
    \2\66EMA, G-21, 5-6, (Supp.), 4; Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 3.
    \2\67NPGA, G-18, 3. NPGA further stated that fuel tank capacity 
``might be valid useful information'' when a vehicle's fuel economy 
was ``relatively close in value'' when operating on either an 
alternative fuel or gasoline. Id. DOE's information brochure 
indicates that propane is the only alternative fuel with such 
properties. See B-3, 25 (``Range is almost equivalent to that of 
comparable gasoline vehicle.''). At the Workshop, NPGA's 
representative supported disclosing cruising range on AFV labels. 
NPGA (Tr.), 51.
    \2\68Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 8-9, 11-12; CAS, G-17, G-17, 
2, (Tr.), 138, (Supp.), 1; NAFA, G-20, 2-3; PCC, G-27, 2; RFA, G-5, 
4, (Supp.), 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the Commission must require disclosure of 
appropriate cost-benefit information to help consumers make choices and 
comparisons. Given that mandate, the Commission has considered whether 
the record supports its prior belief that information about fuel tank 
capacity (however expressed) would help consumers make meaningful 
choices and comparisons. As the Commission indicated in its NPR, it 
considered disclosure of fuel tank capacity important not for its own 
significance, but as a way of helping consumers calculate cruising 
range.269 Commenters responding to the NPR noted that cruising 
range is an objective piece of cost-benefit information upon which 
consumers can make choices and comparisons.270 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 * * 
*.''271 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 
this information.272
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\6959 FR 24014, 24020.
    \2\70CAS (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.
    \2\71AAMA, 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 EV purchase).
    \2\72RFA (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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the record, however, the Commission has decided not 
to propose disclosure of fuel tank capacity as a surrogate for cruising 
range. The Commission notes that while fuel tank capacity has the 
advantage of being able to be expressed with precision,273 its 
usefulness to consumers might be undermined by several factors. First, 
fuel tank capacity by itself is a poor indicator of cruising range 
because (1) alternative fuels have different energy contents per unit 
of measure and (2) engines are not equally efficient. Therefore, 
vehicles with equivalent-sized fuel tanks could achieve different 
cruising ranges.274
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\73GM (Tr.), 140; UCS (Tr.), 143.
    \2\74Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 11-12 (fuel tank capacity is 
not relevant, does not provide consumers with meaningful 
comparisons, and is misleading); ETC (Tr.), 150 (fuel tank capacity 
alone ``is not going to give you a good basis for being able to * * 
* figure out what you really need to know, which is how far you're 
going [to] go''); Mobil, G-2, 5; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, attempts to account for energy-content differences by 
expressing each tank's capacity in equivalent units (e.g., so-called 
``gasoline equivalent gallons'') could be similarly problematic because 
consensus methods for making such conversions or comparisons have not 
yet been developed or promulgated for all alternative fuels.275 
For example, DOE is required to determine a ``petroleum equivalency 
factor'' for various classes of electric vehicles.276 Such a 
factor would permit comparisons between the fuel economies of 
conventional and electric powered vehicles.277 Similarly, DOT has 
not yet established fuel equivalency factors for ``gaseous fuels other 
than natural gas'' (i.e., liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum 
gas, and hydrogen), as required by EPA 92.278
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\75At the Workshop, AAMA appeared to acknowledge the 
difficulties inherent in such an approach. Discussing a label format 
it suggested the Commission should consider, its representative 
stated that, ``We had originally put language referring to gasoline 
equivalent gallons, but recognizing the problems with some nonliquid 
fuels, we're leaving that open at present.'' AAMA (Tr.), 165-66.
    \2\7615 U.S.C. 2003(a)(3) (A), (C); 49 FR 5336, 5337, Feb. 4, 
1994.
    \2\77Id. DOE proposed to promulgate new equivalency factors in 
an NPR published Feb. 4, 1994, to update those last published in 
1987. 59 FR 5336.
    \2\7815 U.S.C. 2013(c) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also notes that while two consensus standards for 
comparing CNG and gasoline have been developed, they appear to be based 
on different measures. The National Conference on Weights and Measures, 
a consensus standards-writing organization for state and local 
regulatory agencies, recently adopted a proposal defining CNG in terms 
of mass (i.e., either kilograms or pounds).279 EPA's fuel economy 
calculations, however, are based on volumetric calculations which 
measure CNG in terms of cubic feet.280 At the Workshop, AGA/NGVC's 
representative stated that these two measures ``are largely apples and 
oranges.''281 That representative noted, however, that both 
measurements yielded results which were ``very, very close.''282
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\79National Conference on Weights and Measures, S.1.2.2, Units 
of Measure for Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine Fuel (adopted July 
1994).
    \2\80EPA (Tr.), 112; NPGA (Tr.), 158.
    \2\81AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 111; see also NPGA (Tr.), 158 (``And so 
they're not going to be equal no matter what you do.'').
    \2\82AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 112; see also NPGA (Tr.), 159 (``I don't 
think right now they're off far enough to upset the whole apple 
cart. In the future it may need some refinement.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, several commenters supporting disclosure of fuel tank 
capacity stated that consumers could use that information, along with 
EPA's fuel economy estimates, to determine approximate cruising 
range.283 However, AFVs powered by certain fuels are not yet 
required to post fuel economy labels. As a result, consumers 
considering AFVs not covered by EPA's labeling program will not be able 
to use fuel tank capacity to calculate cruising range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\83See, e.g., Ford, G-14, 1-2, (Tr.), 145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters expressed opposition to disclosing cruising ranges 
on AFV labels. In supplemental written comments filed after the 
Workshop, AAMA noted that although cruising range ``may be useful 
information for a consumer when purchasing an AFV,'' it preferred that 
such information not be disclosed on AFV labels.284 First, AAMA 
stated that disclosing cruising range for AFVs ``did not provide an 
adequate comparison for all vehicles'' because gasoline and diesel 
vehicles do not require disclosure of that information.285 Second, 
AAMA stated that disclosing this information could mislead consumers 
because no established test exists to measure it (making comparisons 
difficult)286 and it is difficult to estimate.287 For 
example, cruising range depends on vehicle options, driving conditions, 
personal driving habits, and vehicle conditions, all of which ``can 
dramatically affect the actual driving range.''288 As a result, 
disclosure of cruising range would be impractical because the 
information would be subject to too many caveats.289
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\84AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1, 3. See also GM (Tr.), 139-40 (``I 
think range is an important factor, but how do you actually show 
that number that's meaningful that's real.'').
    \2\85AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3.
    \2\86Ford (Tr.), 147; GM (Tr.), 139-40.
    \2\87For heavy duty vehicles, EMA and Flxible noted that 
cruising range was difficult to estimate because individual models 
could have different fuel tank capacities, customer usage, load, and 
other options. EMA (Supp.), G-21, 4; Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 3.
    \2\88AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3.
    \2\89Ford (Tr.), 144-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specific fuels also raise problems unique to those fuels (i.e., an 
electric vehicle's range ``may vary significantly'' according to air 
temperature,290 a CNG powered AFV's according to refueling 
pressure and fuel temperature,291 and a dual fueled AFV's cruising 
range ``will vary according to which fuel is in the tank.'').292 
GM added that other factors yet to be determined may also affect 
cruising range.293 As a result, disclosing cruising range could be 
misleading because consumers will not likely get that actual range 
while driving.294
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\90AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4; Ford (Tr.), 144.
    \2\91AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4.
    \2\92Id.
    \2\93GM (Tr.), 150-51 (``There are a lot of factors there that 
aren't clearly understood * * * And it just seems at this point in 
the juncture of the technology that * * * when you get into range 
with the emerging technology they're not really understanding all 
the factors that impact that yet.'').
    \2\94AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes, however, that the absence of cruising range 
information on conventional fueled vehicles will not preclude 
comparisons to AFVs as to that factor.295 For example, DOE's 
information package addresses cruising range for four of the five 
featured fuels (ethanol, methanol, CNG, and propane) in terms of a 
comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.296 The Commission also 
expects that requiring disclosure as to this factor could encourage 
affected manufacturers and dealers to provide additional information to 
meet consumers' expectations and needs.297
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\95As noted previously, the Commission believes that it has no 
authority to require labeling for vehicles powered by gasoline or 
diesel fuel. See supra text accompanying note 38.
    \2\96B-3, 19, 21, 23, 25.
    \2\97See AGA/NGVC, G-6, 12 (``[F]uel retailers, vehicle 
manufacturers and trade associations can target and educate 
specialty markets and their consumers.''). In response to the 
Commission's ANPR, Boston Edison also stated that ``over 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.'' Boston Edison, D-11, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the other identified problems do not preclude an accurate, 
understandable, and comparable disclosure as to cruising range. The 
proposed label format could specifically identify the cruising range 
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 
could be 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.298 As a Workshop participant stated, some consumers may 
also have a particular need for such information.

    \2\98AMI (Tr.), 155 (consumers understand that ``basic 
information'' on the label is not going to be precise).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [B]ut personally if 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 
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.299
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\99RFA (Tr.), 149. See also RFA (Supp.), G-5, 2 (``the fact 
that a number of variables affect range ``does not preclude posting 
an estimated minimum and maximum range'').

    The Commission also notes that cruising range appears to be a 
prominent component of marketing and advertising claims promoting the 
use of AFVs, as demonstrated by the frequency which that factor is 
cited in consumer announcements. For example, Chrysler, GM and Ford 
have all made cruising range claims regarding their EVs in 
congressional testimony,300 promotional material301 and 
product specification sheets.302 Chrysler and GM also address 
cruising range in owner's manuals for the 1994 Dodge Spirit303 and 
1993 Chevrolet Lumina.304 Peugeot has made similar claims in its 
promotional material.305 Companies converting cars to run on 
electricity306 and electricity utilities307 are also making 
cruising range claims for EVs. Similar claims are also being made for 
AFVs powered in whole or in part by CNG,308 hydrogen,309 
LPG,310 and methanol.311 As such, it appears that a 
disclosure about cruising range may be feasible even given certain 
constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\00For 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).
    \3\01See 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.'').
    \3\02Chrysler 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.'').
    \3\03AAMA (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.'').
    \3\04AAMA (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).'').
    \3\05PSA 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; 110 km city * * * 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).
    \3\06Dreisbach 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.'').
    \3\07Arizona Public Service Company, Electric Vehicle Program, 
B-17, at first upper panel, undated (``Today's batteries give Evs a 
range of 30 to 100 miles on a single charge.''); Electric Power 
Research Institute, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: How Far Will My 
Electric Vehicle Take Me?, B-18, front, 1992 (``[T]oday's EV models 
* * * offer a driving range of 60 to 100 miles* * *.''); Virginia 
Power, The Electric Vehicle: Clean, Quiet and Efficient (CO 923-VA/
EE 93084), B-19, front, undated (Solectria Force has range of 70-90 
miles); Potomac Electric Power Company, Questions and Answers About 
the Solectria Force, B-20, front, Dec. 1992 (Solectria Force has 
driving range of ``60 miles if the batteries are fully charged* * * 
The effective range of the Force using current off-the-shelf battery 
technology is approximately 35 to 40 miles on a charge.'').
    \3\08Blue 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.'').
    \3\09Mazda, Mazda Takes Action To Address Global Environmental 
Concerns, B-23, at 3, July 27, 1993 (``With a full tank of hydrogen, 
the Mazda HR-X has a range of up to 125 miles.'').
    \3\10Clean 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.'').
    \3\11Ford, 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering this information, the Commission has determined 
that no matter how displayed (e.g., with cruising range or other 
objective measure), fuel tank capacity does not appear to be the most 
useful way to help consumers make comparisons. Instead, because of its 
possibly paramount importance to consumers, the Commission has 
tentatively determined that cruising range itself should be disclosed 
on labels for new covered AFVs.312 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).313 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.314 Figure 4 at the end of 
this SNPR illustrates a sample disclosure for these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\12The Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of 
this information on labels for used covered AFVs. As noted 
previously, comparative information could vary significantly with a 
vehicle's condition. Requiring disclosure of such information on 
used vehicles could therefore be misleading to consumers. See supra 
section III(C)(1)(d).
    \3\13See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(g) (defining ``dedicated'').
    \3\14See proposed rule Secs. 309.1(o) (defining ``estimated 
cruising range''), 309.20(f)(2)(i) (requiring disclosure of 
estimated cruising range for dedicated vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second labeling format would be for dual-fueled covered AFVs 
(i.e., capable of operating on alternative fuel and capable of 
operating on gasoline or diesel fuel).315 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.316 Figure 5 at the end 
of this SNPR illustrates a sample disclosure for these vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\15See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(i) (defining ``dual fueled'').
    \3\16See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(f)(2)(ii) (requiring 
disclosure of estimated cruising range for dual-fueled vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cruising range values would be expressed in whole integers. Because 
the disclosure would relate solely to the manufacturer's estimated (and 
not actual) cruising range, the labels would include a statement 
advising consumers that their actual cruising range will vary with 
options, driving conditions, driving habits and the AFV's 
condition.317
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\17 EPA's fuel economy labels contain a similar statement. See 
40 CFR 600.307-86(a)(3)(ii)(A) (1993) (``Actual mileage will vary 
with options, driving conditions, driving habits, and [vehicle's/
truck's] condition.''). See Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's revised proposal, manufacturers would 
calculate cruising range values in one of three ways. For vehicles 
required to comply with EPA's fuel-economy labeling provisions,318 
cruising range values would be calculated by reference to the vehicle's 
estimated fuel-economy rating.319 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.320 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.321
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\18See 40 CFR part 600 (1993) (``Fuel economy of motor 
vehicles'').
    \3\19Numerous 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.
    \3\20See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(i).
    \3\21See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.322 During the transition 
to that next phase, the Commission therefore proposes a different 
approach for vehicles not yet required to comply with EPA's fuel-
economy labeling provisions. For electric vehicles, the Commission 
notes 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 
electric vehicles.323 The Commission believes that reliance on 
uniform standards will facilitate comparability.324 Accordingly, 
the proposed rule states that cruising range values for EVs be 
calculated in accordance with that standard.325
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\2259 FR 39638, 39639 (announcing fuel-economy test labeling 
requirements for methanol and CNG vehicles).
    \3\23SAE'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.
    \3\24B-33, 1.
    \3\25See proposed rule Secs. 309.22(a)(2) (for dedicated 
vehicles), 309.22(b)(2) (for dual-fueled vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA's fuel 
economy stickers, the Commission knows of no comparable consensus 
procedure that could yield cruising range values in the proposed 
``minimum-maximum'' format. As a result, the Commission is not 
requiring that manufacturers use a specific standard to determine 
cruising range. In similar situations (i.e., where the Commission has 
identified areas where consumers require 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.326 Accordingly, for 
those vehicles, the Commission proposes that manufacturers 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.327
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\26See, 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.'').
    \3\27See proposed rule Secs. 309.22(a)(3) (for dedicated 
vehicles), 309.22(b)(3) (for dual-fueled vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During this transition (i.e., while EPA is developing fuel-economy 
labeling requirements), if test methods for determining cruising range 
values for AFVs are developed by consensus, the Commission will 
consider whether they constitute a reasonable basis.328 The 
Commission expects 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, may facilitate widespread acceptance of 
AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\28The 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 proposed rule also includes a provision requiring that 
manufacturers maintain records for three years demonstrating compliance 
with the proposed rule.329 While section 406(a) does not expressly 
address this issue, the Commission believes that a reasonable 
recordkeeping requirement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of 
disclosures made pursuant to these labeling requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\29See proposed rule Sec. 309.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Environmental impact. 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.330 Consistent with EPA 92's legislative purpose, numerous 
commenters responding to the Commission's ANPR identified information 
about environmental performance as being important to consumers 
considering AFV acquisitions.331 The Commission therefore 
considered requiring disclosure of comparative information as to this 
factor in its NPR. More specifically, the Commission considered whether 
disclosure of accurate information regarding the complete environmental 
cost of driving a particular AFV was feasible on a simple label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\30H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 133, reprinted 
in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 1956. The drafters also sought, inter 
alia, ``to promote cleaner alternative automotive fuels.'' Id.
    \3\31See 59 FR 24014, 24016-24017 n.62, 79, 91, 98 and 
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering such a comprehensive disclosure, the Commission 
tentatively decided that it was not appropriate for AFV labeling. An 
accurate assessment of the complete environmental impact of driving a 
particular vehicle could require a comprehensive review of numerous 
chemical compounds,332 measured at each stage of the fuel's life-
cycle (i.e., during fuel production, distribution, handling, storage, 
dispensing, and combustion).333 Given that high standard, the 
Commission also concluded that assessing any one factor (e.g., tail-
pipe emissions) without accounting for the others could be 
misleading.334 Because disclosure on a ``simple'' label of the 
complete environmental costs of an AFV did not appear feasible, the 
Commission proposed to address this factor by including it in a 
standard list of issues consumers should consider when considering an 
AFV acquisition.335
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\32E.g., carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, 
chlorofluorocarbons, volatile organic compounds, radioactive 
particles, particulate matter, and aerosols. 59 FR 24014, 24019.
    \3\33Measuring each of those factors itself requires an analysis 
of numerous chemical compounds. 59 FR 24014, 24019.
    \3\3459 FR 24014, 24019 n.139.
    \3\3559 FR 24014, 24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twelve commenters addressed the Commission's decision to omit 
comparative environmental information from AFV labels. Comments from 
automobile manufacturers generally favored not including such 
information on AFV labels. Those commenters stated that such disclosure 
was not appropriate because existing regulations require labeling 
indicating that the vehicle complies with federal standards,336 
marketing considerations will encourage manufacturers to disclose this 
information,337 and existing standards assessing only tailpipe 
emissions present an incomplete and misleading picture of a vehicle's 
environmental performance.338 Eight other commenters, however, 
contended that a comparative disclosure as to environmental impact did 
not need to be based upon the full life-cycle impact of driving a 
particular vehicle.339 Instead, those commenters suggested that 
the Commission require disclosure of objective environmental 
information by reference to a specific existing standard: the emission 
classification to which the vehicle has been certified.340
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\36Ford (Tr.), 179.
    \3\37Chrysler (Tr.), 182; Ford (Tr.), 180.
    \3\38Ford (Tr.), 186.
    \3\39AGA/NGVC, G-6, 9, (Tr.), 180, 190; AMI (Tr.), 189; Boston 
Edison, G-26, 9-10, (Tr.), 176-77, (Supp.), 7-8; CAS, G-17, 4, 
(Tr.), 174-75, 178, (Supp.), 2-3; DOE (Tr.), 172; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 
1 (``concerned'' that list of factors omits reference to vehicle's 
emissions certification rating); NAFA, G-20, 3-5, (Tr.), 170-71, 
186-87; UCS, G-16, 2-3.
    \3\40Id. Another commenter expressed no opinion but appeared to 
support disclosing the emission level to which the vehicle had been 
certified. EPA (Tr.), 177. One commenter stated that AFV labels 
should identify whether the vehicle had been certified to 
California's more stringent emission standards. UCS, G-16, 2-3. 
While this information could be useful to some consumers, other 
consumers could be confused by information about state emission 
certification on a federal cost-benefit label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For several years, EPA has promulgated emission classification 
standards as part of its Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which 
establishes pollution limits for ``criteria air pollutants'' (i.e., 
hydrocarbons (``HC''),341 carbon monoxide (``CO''),342 
nitrogen oxides (``NOX''),343 and particulate matter 
(``PM'')).344 Each of these pollutants is released into the air 
from an automobile's tailpipe as exhaust (i.e., as a by-product of an 
automobile's incomplete combustion process). In addition, HCs in vapor 
form are also released due to the evaporation of fuel and during 
refueling. The standards apply to new motor vehicles manufactured in 
specified model years. For example, exhaust emissions for light duty 
vehicles manufactured prior to 1994 ``shall not exceed'' the following 
levels (later denominated the ``Tier O'' emission standards), as 
measured using designated tests:345 0.41 grams/mile (``gpm'') HC, 
1.0 gpm NOX, and 3.4 gpm CO.346 After submitting appropriate 
test reports and data, the EPA Administrator issues a ``certificate of 
conformity'' to those vehicle manufacturers demonstrating compliance 
with the applicable emission standards.347
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\41In 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.
    \3\42CO ``reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and is 
particularly dangerous to persons with heart disease.'' Id.
    \3\43NOX are ``precursors to the formation of smog.'' Id.
    \3\44PM 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.
    \3\45Exhaust emissions are measured on a ``chassis 
dynamometer,'' which simulates forces encountered on the road. 
Exhaust gases are sampled during the tests and analyzed afterward.
    \3\4640 CFR 86.085-8(a)(1)(i) to (iii) (1993). The PM standard 
(0.60 gpm) applies only to diesel engine. 40 CFR 86.085-8(a)(1)(iv) 
(1993).
    \3\47See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.091-30 (1993) (certification 
procedures for 1991 model year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to its authority under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments,348 EPA began issuing stricter emission standards for 
each model year as a way of reducing levels of the criteria air 
pollutants. One set of standards (denominated the ``Tier 1'' standards) 
is being phased in beginning with the 1994 model year.349 The 
second set establishes five stricter standards as part of a new 
``clean-fuel vehicles'' program.350 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'').351 As opposed to the Tier 1 standards, which apply to 
all applicable new motor vehicles, 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.352 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\48Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).
    \3\49The first Tier I standards (applicable to the 1994 and 1995 
model year) became effective July 5, 1991. 56 FR 25724, 25724, June 
5, 1991.
    \3\50See 40 CFR Part 88 (1993) (``Clean-Fuel Vehicles'').
    \3\51According 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.
    \3\52The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters supporting this option cited several reasons why 
this information should be included on AFV labels. First, because each 
AFV will be certified to a specific classification, certification 
levels provide a simple way of comparing different AFVs.353 
Second, the information could be useful and important to some consumers 
likely to consider AFV acquisitions (e.g., fleet operators and 
environmentally-concerned consumers).354 Third, requiring 
disclosure of objective data allows consumers to evaluate competitive 
advertising and marketing claims regarding an AFV's environmental 
performance.355
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\53Boston Edison (Supp.), G-17, 8; CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA 
(Tr.), 186-87.
    \3\54CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; DOE (Tr.), 172; NAFA (Tr.), 170-71.
    \3\55CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA, G-20, 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 also gives special attention to the fact that the 
environmental performance of alternative fuels differ, and that those 
differences need to be explained to consumers. For example, the 
drafters of EPA 92 noted that all alternative fuels ``have different 
strengths, weaknesses, prices, emissions, and regional niches * * 
*.''356 The record also indicates that comparative information 
regarding alternative fuels will be necessary for consumers considering 
AFV acquisitions. Several commenters noted that environmental 
performance will be a major factor motivating some consumers to 
consider AFV acquisitions, and that those consumers would need 
comparative information to evaluate advertising and marketing claims. 
Further, DOE's information brochure does not compare the environmental 
performance of different alternative fuels. Instead, the brochure 
contains a general statement that: ``Generally speaking, all 
alternative fuels produce lower amounts of air toxics and ozone-forming 
emissions than does gasoline.''357
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\56H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 136, reprinted 
in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 1959 (emphasis added). In addition, 
environmental performance is listed first in the list of factors to 
be addressed by DOE's information package. 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 
1993).
    \3\57B-3, 15. That statement is repeated in the section devoted 
to each of the featured fuels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing EPA 92's legislative history and the commenters' 
statements, the Commission believes that including certain 
environmental performance information is appropriate, feasible, and 
consistent with the statute's legislative purpose. As a result, the 
Commission has tentatively determined that information regarding a 
vehicle's environmental performance, expressed in terms of the emission 
standard to which the vehicle has been certified, should be disclosed 
on labels for new covered AFVs.358 Under the Commission's revised 
proposal, AFV labels for new covered vehicles would identify whether 
the vehicle had been certified as meeting an EPA emissions 
standard.359 For vehicles which had not been so certified, 
manufacturers would place a mark in the box indicating that 
fact.360 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 from Tier 1 to ZEV. Prior to being offered for 
acquisition to consumers, manufacturers of such vehicles would identify 
the emission certification standard361 on that graphic by placing 
a caret above the applicable standard.362 The label would also 
contain a statement advising consumers that the overall environmental 
impact of driving a particular vehicle includes factors not measured by 
the EPA standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\58The Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of 
this information on labels for used covered AFVs. As noted 
previously, comparative information could vary significantly with a 
vehicle's condition. Requiring disclosure of such information on 
used vehicles could therefore be misleading to consumers. See supra 
section III(C)(1)(d).
    \3\59EPA has not yet issued emission standards and certification 
test procedures for certain fuels (e.g., hydrogen and electricity).
    \3\60See Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR.
    \3\61See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(n) (defining ``emission 
certification standard'').
    \3\62Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR are sample labels 
indicating a vehicle certified as meeting EPA's LEV emission 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comments filed after the Workshop, AAMA offered six reasons 
opposing disclosure of emission certification levels on AFV labels 
(which was discussed extensively at the Workshop). The Commission 
considered each of these concerns while developing this revised 
proposal. Three of those reasons pertained to whether the information 
would be misleading to consumers: (1) Requiring such disclosure may 
create the inaccurate impression that only AFVs meet low emission 
standards, ``thus precluding a fair comparison and potentially putting 
low emitting gasoline vehicles at a sales disadvantage'';363 (2) 
emission certification values offer an incomplete picture of a 
vehicle's environmental performance;364 and (3) disclosing 
tailpipe emissions standards presupposes consumers are only concerned 
with urban smog, thus misleading consumers who believe the vehicle with 
the lowest standard is the most environmentally friendly.365
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\63AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1-2. AFV labels may mislead fleet 
consumers ``who, if relying on the alternative fuel label, fail to 
realize that low emitting gasoline vehicles may be available.'' Id. 
at 2.
    \3\64AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 2.
    \3\65Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to those reasons, however, the Commission notes that 
environmental performance (as measured by emission 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.366 Further, although consumers may be concerned 
about more than urban smog, tailpipe emission standards were 
established by Congress based on an explicit determination that 
regulating tailpipe emissions is an ``effective means'' of controlling 
vehicle emissions.367 For all these reasons, the Commission 
concludes that informing consumers of applicable standards is 
appropriate. The Commission also notes, however, that the full fuel-
cycle environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle includes an 
evaluation of other factors. The Commission believes that an effective 
way of addressing that fact is by accompanying the emissions 
information with a strong disclosure putting that information into 
perspective. As a result, the proposed label formats for new covered 
vehicles include the statement that ``The overall environmental impact 
of driving this vehicle includes many factors not measured by this 
standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\66See, 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.'').
    \3\67S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 89, reprinted in 1990 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3474. See also id. (``Control on emissions from 
mobile sources will be an important part of the efforts to attain 
healthy air * * * for a simple reason: mobile vehicles are the 
largest source of ozone and carbon monoxide pollution.''); and NAFA 
(Tr.), 187 (because Clean Air Act is based on exhaust standard, ``it 
makes sense to provide that information to the public and to the 
consumer.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA also raised three other problems with displaying this 
information on a label: (1) Displaying the certification levels 
themselves could be unclear to consumers;368 (2) displaying the 
information comparatively ``would be complicated and could lead to 
information overload and general confusion'';369 and (3) 
disclosure of certification levels is required by existing 
regulations.370 As to label design, the proposed label formats 
illustrated in Figures 4 (for dedicated vehicles) and 5 (for dual-
fueled vehicles) convey useful information in a clear, simple format. 
The Commission also notes that, unlike its revised labeling proposal, 
other Federal regulations do not require disclosure of information 
regarding environmental performance in a comparative fashion, and the 
disclosures which are required are located in the engine 
compartment.371
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\68Id.
    \3\69Id.
    \3\70Id.
    \3\71See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.094-35(a)(1)(i) (for 1994 model year 
light duty vehicles, ``[a] permanent, legible label shall be affixed 
in a readily visible position in the engine compartment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also has concluded that a reasonable recordkeeping 
requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with this provision. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule requires that manufacturers maintain 
records for three years demonstrating compliance with the proposed 
rule.372
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\72See proposed rule section 309.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 revised AFV labeling proposal, 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 tentatively 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. In all 
such cases, the Commission felt constrained by considerations of 
information overload,373 the lack of standards upon which to base 
required disclosures, and the easy availability of such information 
through other sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\73AAMA (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 info before they get to the dealership).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Operating costs. For example, 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.''374 CAS further suggested that a 1991 study published by 
DOT's Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') could form the basis 
for this disclosure.375 FHWA's report estimated the cost per mile 
of owning and operating eight categories of conventional fueled 
automobiles, vans, and light trucks.376 These estimates were based 
on aggregating five categories of ownership costs (e.g., depreciation, 
finance charges, and insurance) and seven operating costs (e.g., 
maintenance, fuel, and taxes).377 The cost estimates were from one 
metropolitan region (i.e., the Baltimore, Maryland, suburbs).378 
CAS stated that by using that report as a baseline and adjusting for 
inflation, ``a reasonable estimate can be made comparing the operating 
costs of AFVs and gasoline powered vehicles in each size 
class.''379 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.''380
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\74CAS, 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.
    \3\75CAS, G-17, 3, (Tr.), 167, 169. See Cost of Owning and 
Operating Automobiles, Vans & Light Trucks, Report No. FHWA-PL-92-
019, prepared by Jack Faucett Associates (April 1992). Commission 
staff placed a copy of this report on the public record of this 
proceeding. See Document B-4.
    \3\76The eight categories are: subcompact, compact, 
intermediate, and full-size automobiles; mini and full-size vans; 
and compact and full-size pickup trucks.
    \3\77B-4, 5-8.
    \3\78B-4, 3.
    \3\79CAS, G-17, 3.
    \3\80Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that 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. Accordingly, it has considered 
whether balanced, accurate information about that factor could be 
contained on a simple label. After considering the record, however, the 
Commission has tentatively determined that the problems associated with 
developing and publishing this information outweigh its usefulness to 
consumers at this time.
    Objective ways of reasonably estimating AFV operating costs have 
not yet been developed or technically proven, and the lack of general 
experience with these new technologies makes what information is 
available problematic and thus possibly misleading.381 For 
example, until economies of scale begin to take effect, potentially-
higher AFV operating costs may be mitigated by financial incentives or 
tax advantages382 offered to consumers acquiring AFVs. The 
variability of these financial incentives could vary, further 
complicating the analysis. As a result, the Commission believes that a 
disclosure as to this factor would involve too many intricate variables 
and is not appropriate for a label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\81Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 11; RFA (Tr.), 167.
    \3\82See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 30, 179A (Supp. IV 1993) (creating tax 
credits for qualified electric vehicles and deductions for clean-
fuel vehicles and certain refueling property).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For similar reasons, the Commission also notes that relying on 
information reported in the 1991 DOT/FHA report or other authority for 
such AFV disclosures could be problematic at this time.383 For 
example, findings in the 1991 DOT/FHA report are dated and thus will 
likely not be accurate for consumers considering AFV acquisitions many 
years later. The report also is not updated on regular intervals (the 
first and only prior report was published in 1984)384 and the 
Commission understands that DOT/FHA has no plans to update the report 
in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\83CAS suggested that other reports (``such as the one by the 
AAA'') could serve as the authority for this disclosure if the DOT/
FHA report is not updated. CAS, G-17, 3. Reliance on other reports 
could be similarly problematic.
    \3\84B-4, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes, however, that DOE has addressed the 
variability of operating costs in a general way in its consumer 
information brochure. For each of the featured fuels the brochure has a 
designated category discussing ``costs.'' That discussion offers cost 
information about fuel, conversions, vehicle, service, and diagnostic 
equipment.385 The Commission also expects that some general 
information regarding this factor will likely be disclosed voluntarily 
by AFV manufacturers, dealers, and conversion companies. Accordingly, 
after considering the record, the Commission has tentatively concluded 
that requiring disclosure of specific data as to this factor is not 
practicable. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\85B-4, 17-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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. Three commenters suggested that the AFV 
label indicate the extent to which the alternative fuel powering a 
particular AFV was produced domestically.386 Such a disclosure 
would help promote energy independence and energy security, key goals 
underlying EPA 92.387 Three other commenters opposed such a 
disclosure because it would not be practicable.388
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\86Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 9-11, 12, (Tr.), 202; RFA, G-
5, 5; UCS (Tr.), 201-2, 208.
    \3\87H. Rep. No. 102-474(1), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 132.
    \3\88AMI (Tr.), 206; API (Tr.), 201; NPGA (Tr.), 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the record, the Commission has tentatively 
determined that requiring disclosure of objective information as to 
this factor is not practicable on the AFV label. The Commission is 
aware of no consensus standards for estimating the domestic content of 
transportation fuels389 and government reports which appear to 
address this topic do not cover all alternative fuels.390 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.391 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 price.''392 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\89NPGA (Tr.), 203.
    \3\90Boston Edison stated that the data necessary to determine 
the domestic content of motor vehicle fuel is published by DOE's 
Energy Information Administration (``EIA''). Boston Edison (Supp.), 
G-26, 11. EIA's reports, though, do not appear to cover all the 
alternative fuels. See Boston Edison (Supp.), Exhibit 4 (no data for 
ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, or LPG).
    \3\91RFA 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.
    \3\92B-3, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Fuel economy/energy efficiency. Boston Edison suggested that 
the Commission require that ``fuel economy/energy efficiency'' 
information (expressed as miles per gallon) be disclosed on AFV 
labels.393 In developing this SNPR the Commission has considered 
whether requiring disclosure of such information would be useful to 
consumers. 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.394 Therefore, the Commission concludes that 
requiring fuel economy information on its labels would be duplicative, 
and possibly confusing. It has thus tentatively determined that such 
information should not be disclosed on its AFV labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\93In 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.
    \3\94EPA, H-4, 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Appropriate fuel, fuel availability, fuel grade, and refueling 
time. The Commission received comments suggesting that disclosure of 
other information (e.g., appropriate fuel for the vehicle,395 fuel 
availability,396 fuel grade,397 and refueling time398) 
should be required on AFV labels. The Commission notes that the fuel to 
be used in the vehicle will be prominently displayed on EPA's fuel 
economy labels. Although not yet required for all alternative fuels, as 
noted previously, EPA plans to issue them. In any event, fuel type is 
easily ascertainable. For example, AFV manufacturers will have a strong 
incentive to inform consumers of the correct fuel for particular 
vehicles. Thus it is not necessary to require such disclosures in this 
regulation or to duplicate disclosures contained in EPA required 
labels. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\95API, G-25, 5.
    \3\96CAS, 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.
    \3\97MC-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.'').
    \3\98DOE, H-10, 6; (Tr.), 172-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes, however, that fuel availability and refueling 
methods (including refueling time for electricity and CNG) are 
addressed in the DOE brochure.399 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 addressed in the 
Commission's Fuel Rating Rule400 and this SNPR.401
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\99See B-3, 16 (electricity), 18 (ethanol), 20 (methanol), 22 
(CNG), 24 (propane).
    \4\00See 16 CFR 306.10(a) (1994) (requiring retailers to post 
automotive fuel ratings).
    \4\01See proposed rule section 309.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Descriptive disclosures on AFV labeling--(1) List of comparative 
factors.--The Commission proposed that AFV labels disclose general, 
descriptive information pertinent to all consumers considering an AFV 
purchase.402 These descriptive disclosures would comprise the 
second and third parts of the AFV label. The second part of 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 Commission believed that this information could help 
consumers evaluate information disclosed on other labels, in 
advertising, and from other sources.403 The Commission also 
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.404
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\0259 FR 24014, 24020.
    \4\03Id. The Commission reached a similar conclusion when it 
issued labeling requirements for used motor vehicles. In that 
proceeding, the Commission concluded that requiring disclosure of a 
standard 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).
    \4\0459 FR 24014, 24020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the label would list the following six factors 
consumers should consider before purchasing an AFV: 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.405 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. A similar format was proposed for the four other 
comparative purchasing factors (i.e., environmental impact,406 
health and safety,407 on-road performance,408 and fuel 
availability409).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\0559 FR 24014, 24020.
    \4\06For 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. Id.
    \4\07For 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. Id.
    \4\08For 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). Id.
    \4\09For 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. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-two commenters addressed this aspect of the Commission's 
proposal. Five commenters supported the proposal without 
modification.410 AGA/NGVC stated that it ``d[id] not disagree with 
the list'' but was ``concerned'' that such a requirement could 
``unnecessarily raise consumers (sic) concerns'' about AFVs.411
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\10CAS, G-17, 3-4, (Supp.), 2, (Tr.), 166; Mobil, G-2, cover 
letter at 1 and 5-6; NAFA, G-20, 3; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; RFA, G-5, 
5. One other commenter indicated general support for all aspects of 
the Commission's proposal. Texas RRC, H-3, 1.
    \4\11AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six other commenters opposed or criticized the proposal. Of those, 
Boston Edison stated that alerting consumers to issues they should 
consider before purchasing an AFV without providing comparative 
information on those factors did not fulfill EPA 92's intent.412 
AAMA and ETC stated that the list format would not be useful to 
consumers, and AAMA and NPGA stated that the list contained too much 
information and would overwhelm consumers.413 NADA stated that the 
information should be contained in an information booklet.414 
Texas ADA opposed all new labeling generally and specifically opposed 
including the list on any AFV label.415
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\12Boston Edison, G-26, 6-7, 8-9.
    \4\13AAMA, G-7, 1-2; ETC, G-24, 6; NPGA, G-18, 7.
    \4\14NADA, G-19, 2.
    \4\15It appears that Texas ADA may have interpreted the 
Commission's proposal to require objective disclosures as to each of 
the six factors. Texas ADA, G-11, 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten comments supported the proposal in general but suggested 
modifications to certain aspects. Two of those comments suggested 
omissions from the list. TVA suggested that fuel availability be 
omitted because information regarding that factor could become outdated 
quickly.416 DOT/NHTSA stated that safety should be omitted 
(because all motor vehicles must be labeled to indicate that they 
conform to applicable Federal safety standards) and replaced with a 
notice that safety information is available from NHTSA's Auto Safety 
Hotline.417
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\16TVA, H-5, 2.
    \4\17DOT/NHTSA, H-1, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments suggested that certain factors be added to the list. 
PCC stated that the list should advise consumers to compare the AFV's 
purchase price to a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.418 EIA/
EEU-ISD suggested that the label include information about the AFV's 
emissions certification rating, where consumers can find the rating, 
and some reference to its significance in meeting clean-air 
goals.419 UCS stated that the list should include energy security, 
and that the label should explain that, ``in evaluating the energy 
security impacts of a particular AFV, consumers should consider its 
impact on the U.S.'s dependency on energy imports from politically 
unstable regions of the world.''420
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\18PCC, G-22, 2.
    \4\19EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1.
    \4\20UCS, G-16, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API, Unocal and UCS supported listing environmental impact as a 
factor, but suggested that the explanation of its relevance be 
modified. Specifically, Unocal suggested that consumers be advised to 
consider how the alternative fuel under consideration compares to 
reformulated gasoline421 and other alternative fuels, and not just 
conventional gasoline.422 API suggested that consumers be advised 
to consider all ``relevant and objective'' environmental costs (instead 
of simply ``all environmental costs'') as compared to conventional or 
reformulated gasoline (instead of simply ``gasoline'').423 UCS 
stated that in evaluating environmental impact, consumers should 
consider certain different emissions categories (e.g., ozone precursors 
and carbon monoxide).424
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\21Reformulated gasoline is specially refined gasoline with 
low levels of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and hazardous 
air pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires sale of 
reformulated gasoline in the nine smoggiest areas.
    \4\22Unocal, G-9, 2.
    \4\23API, G-25, 6-7.
    \4\24UCS, G-16, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from three government agencies suggested further 
modifications within the basic proposed format. DOE suggested that 
characterizations for four of the factors (i.e., operating costs, 
health and safety, on-road performance and fuel availability) be 
consolidated into a ``short paragraph, because it will be difficult to 
say anything conclusive about these factors in such a limited amount of 
space. The paragraph could indicate that the performance of AFVs in 
those areas maybe (sic) different from similar gasoline-fueled 
vehicles.''425 It also suggested that separate characterizations 
for the other two factors (i.e., fuel type and environmental 
performance) should remain, but environmental performance should be 
expressed by disclosing the EPA emission level to which the AFV has 
been certified.426
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\25DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 173.
    \4\26Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEC stated that the list should explain the significance of each 
factor and present, ``at least in generic terms,'' comparative 
characteristics of the alternative fuels in terms of these 
factors.427 EPA generally supported the list of comparative 
factors, but cautioned that information should be available from other 
sources of information for each of the factors listed on the 
label.428 It also suggested that consumers be advised to consider 
acceleration rates and refueling methods when evaluating on-road 
performance, and noted that two of the proposed factors (fuel type and 
operating costs) will be disclosed on methanol and CNG vehicles under 
its new fuel economy labeling regulations.429
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\27CEC, H-8, 9-10. CEC acknowledged ``the difficulty in 
promulgating a uniform notice bearing substantive descriptions of 
factors such as fuel availability, particularly in view of the 
variations in refueling infrastructure and the evolving nature of 
the alternative fuels market.'' CEC, H-8, 10. CEC also did not give 
examples of how comparative characteristics for other pertinent 
factors could be expressed or displayed on a ``simple'' label.
    \4\28EPA, H-4, 2-4. EPA did not state that any of the proposed 
six factors should be removed from the list for this reason.
    \4\29Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The standard list of factors for comparisons proposed in the NPR 
does not, by itself, disclose comparative cost-benefit information. In 
developing this revised proposal 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. As noted, 
the majority of the 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 again concluded 
that the AFV labels should contain a standard list of factors consumers 
should consider before acquiring an AFV.
    The Commission also has determined to modify the list and 
explanatory statements proposed in the NPR to reflect other aspects of 
this SNPR. For example, the label format for new covered vehicles 
should reflect the fact that the Commission is proposing objective 
disclosures as to cruising range and environmental performance. Thus, 
for those vehicles, the Commission proposes that the discussion of 
those factors be omitted from the list. Similarly, the Commission 
proposes to omit health and safety from the list because, as discussed 
below,430 the proposed AFV label will refer consumers seeking 
safety information to NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\30See infra section III(C)(2)(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposes to add a new factor to the list 
addressing energy security and the fuel's domestic content. As noted 
previously, objective information regarding that factor would be useful 
to consumers but cannot feasibly be displayed on a label.431 
However, DOE's information brochure includes a general discussion 
addressing that topic for each of the featured fuels. For this factor, 
the Commission proposes that the label advise consumers that 
alternative fuels can reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil, especially 
if all the fuels' components are produced in this country, and that 
they should consider whether the fuel powering the vehicle is typically 
produced domestically or is imported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\31See supra section III(C)(2)(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposes retaining the remaining four factors 
(fuel type, operating costs, on-road performance, and fuel 
availability) because all four will likely be important for consumers 
to consider before purchasing an AFV.432 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.433 The 
Commission proposes no change to the explanatory statement described in 
the NPR for fuel type, operating costs, and fuel availability. For on-
road performance, however, the Commission proposes (pursuant to EPA's 
suggestion) adding references to differences in acceleration rates and 
refueling methods. To reflect that change, that category is renamed 
``Performance/Convenience.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\32See 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).
    \4\33Although EPA fuel-economy labels disclose information 
regarding fuel type and operating costs, those labels are not yet 
required for AFVs powered by all alternative fuels. 59 FR 39638, 
39639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Labeling for used covered vehicles would follow a similar format. 
Those labels would advise consumers to consider the following six 
factors before selecting a used AFV: Fuel type, operating costs, 
environmental impact, performance/convenience, fuel availability, and 
energy security/domestic content of the fuel. Explanatory statements 
for four of those six factors (i.e., fuel type, operating costs, fuel 
availability, and energy security/domestic content) would be identical 
to the statements on labels for new covered vehicles. Explanatory 
statements as to the final two factors (environmental impact and 
performance/convenience) would be modified to reflect the fact that 
those labels would not disclose objective information. Thus for 
environmental impact, the label would state 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), and that consumers should compare the environmental costs 
of driving an AFV with a gasoline powered vehicle. For performance/
convenience, the explanatory statement would state that vehicles 
powered by different fuels differ in terms of cruising range, cold 
start capabilities, refueling and/or recharging time, acceleration 
rates, and refueling methods.
    The Commission has also tentatively determined that other suggested 
additions or modifications to this part of the AFV label may not be 
appropriate. For example, the revised proposal does not address 
reformulated gasoline because the Commission is aware of no readily-
available information source which compares the properties of 
alternative fuels to that fuel. Similarly, reference advising consumers 
to compare an AFV's purchase price to a comparable gasoline-powered 
vehicle is omitted because consumers could be expected to consider that 
factor on their own.
    (2) Referral to other sources of information. The Commission 
proposed that the third part of the AFV label contains a statement 
directing consumers to other sources of objective information regarding 
AFVs.434 The Commission developed this proposal after considering 
the fact that while EPA 92 directed DOE to ``produce and make 
available'' an information package, the statute does not require AFV 
dealers or conversion companies to provide consumers with copies of the 
information package or to notify them of its availability.435 
Accordingly, the third part of the AFV label would contain a statement 
informing consumers that further information about alternative fuels 
and AFVs is available from DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\3459 FR 24014, 24021.
    \4\3542 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty of the 37 commenters addressed this issue. Eleven 
commenters, including DOE, supported the proposal in its 
entirety.436 DOE recommended that the AFV label advise consumers 
that they can obtain copies of DOE's consumer information package by 
calling the toll-free telephone number for DOE's National Alternative 
Fuels Hotline.437 Five others supported the proposal but with 
modifications. Of those five, DOT/NHTSA recommended that the label 
advise consumers that they can call the toll-free telephone number for 
NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline to obtain information regarding vehicle 
safety.438 CAS suggested that the AFV label advise consumers that 
free copies of DOE's information brochure were available from the AFV 
dealer or conversion company.439 NADA recommended that the label 
refer consumers to the DOE information package and EPA's Gas Mileage 
Guide.440 NPGA suggested that the label also contain addresses and 
phone numbers of organizations and relevant industry associations where 
consumers may ask questions and obtain further information.441 
AAMA supported the concept of the proposal but recommended that AFV 
manufacturers be given the discretion to determine where the 
information is disclosed (i.e., on a dedicated label or combined with 
existing labels).442
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\36Boston Edison, G-26, 9; CEC, H-8, 10; DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 
173-74; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; ETC, G-24, 6; MC-MD, H-7, 2; NAFA, G-
20, 3; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; RFA, G-5, 5, (Supp.), 1 (assuming 
industry has the opportunity to review the DOE brochure prior to 
publication); Sun, G-1, 2; Texas RRC, H-3, 1.
    \4\37DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 173-74.
    \4\38DOT/NHTSA, H-1, 2.
    \4\39CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2, 4.
    \4\40NADA, G-19, 2.
    \4\41NPGA, G-18, 6.
    \4\42AAMA, G-7, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Without addressing the merits of this aspect of the Commission's 
AFV labeling proposal, one comment (from TexasADA) opposed the proposal 
generally as part of its opposition to all new labeling.443 This 
general opposition was based on TexasADA's belief that new labeling 
would create hazards during test driving.444 Three comments stated 
that it was not possible to support or oppose the proposal because the 
DOE information brochure was not yet available for review.445
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\43TexasADA, G-11, 1.
    \4\44Id.
    \4\45AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11; API, G-25, 6-7; Mobil, G-2, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The referral statement proposed in the NPR does not, by itself, 
disclose cost-benefit information. In developing this revised proposal, 
the Commission has thus considered whether including a statement on the 
AFV label directing consumers to other sources of objective information 
regarding AFVs 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 believes that including a 
standard statement referring consumers to pertinent government 
information-sources is consistent with section 406(a)'s legislative 
purpose.
    The comments also indicated that a referral to objective 
information sources would be useful to consumers. The Commission 
concludes that, given the nature of the disclosure, consumers 
considering either new or used AFVs would find this statement equally 
relevant. Accordingly, the Commission has tentatively determined that a 
precise reference to DOE's consumer information brochure and NHTSA's 
vehicle safety hotline is appropriate on labeling for new and used 
covered AFVs. To implement that tentative determination, the label 
formats for new and used covered vehicles includes standard statements 
informing consumers that they can obtain (1) copies of a free consumer-
information brochure and general information about alternative fuels 
and 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.446
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\46See Figure 6 (new covered vehicles) and 8 (used covered 
vehicles) at the end of this SNPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Label Size and Format
    In the NPR, the Commission announced its tentative determination 
that a label larger than that proposed for fuel dispensers would be 
needed to accommodate the greater number of required 
disclosures.447 Accordingly, the Commission proposed requiring 
that AFV labels be 7\1/2\ inches wide by 11 inches high. Those 
dimensions are the same as for labels required by the Commission's Used 
Car Rule, which have adequate room to display effectively a large 
amount of information.448
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\4759 FR 24014, 24020.
    \4\4816 CFR 455.2(a)(2) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four commenters addressed this issue.449 CEC and RFA stated 
that requiring a standard label format (i.e., one which disclosed the 
same information in the same order) would be most useful to 
consumers.450 TexasADA stated that the Commission should not 
require the posting of AFV labels on windows because of possible 
hazards during test driving.451 EPA noted that the proposed label 
size is larger than the dimensions of its fuel economy labels452 
and suggested that the Commission consider whether the AFV label's size 
and/or posting location could obstruct a driver's view during test 
driving.453
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\49API stated that label size and format issues could best be 
answered by AFV manufacturers and converters). API, G-25, 8. Two 
other commenters indicated general support of the Commission's 
proposal. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1.
    \4\50CEC, H-8, 11 (``[t]he use of standard sizes and/or formats 
will facilitate use by consumers''); RFA, G-5, 5 (a standard format 
``will make comparisons by the consumer simple'').
    \4\51TexasADA, G-11, 2.
    \4\52EPA fuel economy labels are rectangular in shape with a 
minimum height of 4.5 inches and a minimum length of 7 inches wide. 
40 CFR 600.307-86(a)(1)(i) (1993).
    \4\53 EPA, H-4, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, required labeling under the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements must be ``simple.'' Accordingly, in developing this 
revised proposal the Commission has considered how best to meet 
consumers' needs given the statutory and practical constraints of 
vehicle labeling. The Commission proposes that AFV labels be reduced 
from the size proposed in the NPR and measure 7 inches wide by 5\1/2\ 
inches high.454 This reduction in label size will reduce a 
possible risk to safety, if any, associated with a label the size of 
the Buyers Guides required by the Used Car Rule,455 yet also be 
large enough to accomodate all pertinent information in a readable 
format. After reconfiguring the size and format proposed in the NPR to 
reflect the comments and information to be disclosed, the Commission 
proposes that two-sided labels be posted on covered vehicles as 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\54See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles).
    \4\55As part of its ongoing Regulatory Review of the Used Car 
Rule, the Commission is reviewing the format, including the size, of 
the Buyers Guides required under that Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission proposes 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 illustrate 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 illustrate 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 illustrate samples of this 
format; figure 7 would appear on the front, and figure 8 would appear 
on the back.
    The proposed rule also addresses general format issues common to 
all three labeling formats. For example, headlines and text for all 
labels are standard as illustrated in the sample labels.456 In 
addition, no marks or information other than that specified in the 
proposed labeling requirements shall appear on any of the 
labels.457
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\56See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(e) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(e) (for used covered vehicles).
    \4\57See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered 
vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Consolidation
    In the NPR, the Commission considered whether consolidating new AFV 
disclosures ``with other labels providing information to the consumer'' 
would be appropriate at the present time.458 Consolidation as 
required by EPA 92 could be undertaken in one of two ways: either by 
incorporating new AFV disclosures into existing labels, or by 
incorporating existing disclosures into new AFV labels. As to the first 
category, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should not 
consolidate new AFV disclosures into existing labels.459 As to the 
second category, the Commission noted that regulations requiring the 
posting of vehicle labels providing information regarding fuel economy 
and costs, emissions certification compliance, and safety are in effect 
or under active consideration by other governmental bodies. Because 
consumers would have immediate access to this information in other 
required labels, the Commission similarly concluded that providing the 
same information on its AFV labels (in a different format) could 
confuse consumers and was therefore unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\5842 U.S.C. 13231(a) (Supp. IV 1993); 59 FR 24014, 24019.
    \4\5959 FR 24014, 24019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twelve commenters addressed this issue.460 Three of those 
twelve commenters opposed or expressed concern about consolidation. TVA 
opposed all consolidation because it would provide no benefit to 
consumers.461 EPA stated that new AFV information could not 
reasonably be incorporated into its fuel economy label because they 
already are ``crowded.''462 NACAA stated that consolidation 
``probably makes sense,'' but ``my experience in dealing [with] a lot 
with dealers is that they're not so full of stickers that dealers don't 
put on their own to add for options * * *. So I don't think we've 
reached the saturation point.''463
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\60Two other commenters indicated general support with all 
aspects of the Commission's NPR proposal. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas 
RRC, H-3, 1.
    \4\61TVA, H-5, 1.
    \4\62EPA (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.
    \4\63NACAA (Tr.), 215-216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eight other commenters suggested that any new information required 
to be disclosed by the Commission's AFV labeling requirements be 
incorporated into existing labels. Two commenters (Boston Edison and 
NADA) suggested that new information pertaining to AFVs be consolidated 
into the EPA fuel economy label because consumers currently rely on 
that label for information regarding fuel, fuel economy, and operating 
costs.464 TexasADA stated that new information should be 
incorporated into the Monroney label.465
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\64Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 12, Ex. 5 (information 
regarding EPA emission standard, cruising range, and domestic fuel 
content should be incorporated into EPA label); NADA, G-19, 1.
    \4\65Texas ADA, G-11, 1. A ``Monroney label'' contains the 
information required by 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233 (disclosing, inter alia, 
each vehicle's make, model, identification number, and 
manufacturer's suggested retail price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, and GM stated that allowing AFV manufacturers 
the flexibility of incorporating new AFV information into existing 
labels would ``greatly reduce compliance costs and the production 
burden of installing another label.''466 Automobile manufacturers 
are ``running out of room to add additional labeling'' (because of 
existing and contemplated labeling requirements)467 and allowing 
flexibility would ``ensure the lowest cost to the consumer.''468 
Requiring new AFV labels could also overload consumers with 
information, thus ``not likely creat[ing] the desired impact on the 
consumer.''469
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\66AAMA, G-7, 2. Chrysler, Ford, and GM supported AAMA's 
comment on that point. Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1; GM, G-8, 3, 
5. See also AAMA (Tr.), 210 (same).
    \4\67GM, G-8, 3.
    \4\68Chrysler, G-13, 1.
    \4\69GM, G-8, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter (CAS) suggested that the Commission incorporate 
existing information (NHTSA determinations that the vehicle complies 
with or has been exempted from federal motor-vehicle safety standards) 
into its AFV labels.470 CAS also suggested that the Commission 
require that this label be attached to EPA's fuel-economy label, so 
that information regarding fuel economy, cruising range, and emissions 
would appear in the same general area.471 RFA stated that it did 
not oppose consolidation of AFV information into existing labels but 
suggested that all AFV related information should be kept in the same 
spot on each AFV.472
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\70CAS, G-17, 5; (Supp.), 6-7. CAS qualified its comment by 
stating that it was difficult to comment on the degree of 
consolidation without first knowing how much information the 
Commission require be disclosed. CAS, G-17 (Supp.), 6.
    \4\71CAS, G-17 (Supp.), 6.
    \4\72RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, EPA 92 requires the Commission to consolidate 
its AFV labels with other labels providing information to consumers 
``where appropriate.'' In developing this revised proposal the 
Commission has thus considered the propriety either of incorporating 
the information the Commission will require for AFVs into existing 
labels (e.g., EPA's fuel economy label or the Commission's used car 
Buyers Guide), or of incorporating existing information into its AFV 
labels. For both options, the Commission notes 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 concludes that consolidating the information proposed to 
be disclosed with other labels providing information to consumers is 
not appropriate at the present time.
5. Effective Date
    In the NPR 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.473 Five commenters addressed this issue.474 CEC stated 
that the Commission's proposal allowed sufficient time for 
implementation.475 Flxible and Thomas BB expressed concern about 
supporting the proposed effective date before the Commission had 
announced the content of its AFV labeling requirements in more 
detail.476
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\7359 FR 24014, 24017, 24022.
    \4\74Two other commenters (AGA/NGVC and API) stated that this 
issue could best be addressed by AFV manufacturers and aftermarket 
converters. AGA/NGVC, G-6, 12; API, G-25, 8.
    \4\75CEC, H-8, 12.
    \4\76Flxible, G-12, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AAMA and NPGA opposed the proposed effective date because, 
``[b]ased on past experience with new label requirements,'' affected 
industries would need a period greater than ninety days to design, 
order, receive, and install required labels on affected 
vehicles.477 As a result, ninety days did not allow adequate time 
for compliance.478 AAMA suggested that the AFV labeling 
requirements be effective at least nine months after 
publication;479 NPGA recommended six months.480 AAMA also 
stated that requiring compliance within nine months would not ``impede 
the label's intent'' because DOE has issued its information package, 
the market for AFVs is small in the near term, and most AFV purchases 
in the near term will be made by fleet operators who ``will already be 
well educated with respect to [AFVs] through their direct interaction 
with vehicle manufacturers.''481
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\77AAMA, G-7, 3; see also NPGA, G-18, 6 (same). AAMA's 
comments on that point were supported by Chrysler, Ford, and GM. 
Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1; GM, G-8, 1.
    \4\78AAMA, G-7, 3; NPGA, G-18, 6.
    \4\79Id.
    \4\80NPGA, G-18, 6.
    \4\81AAMA, G-7, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 does not address when the Commission's AFV labeling 
requirements must be effective. In developing this revised proposal 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.482 After considering the comments, 
the Commission believes that the proposed effective date (i.e., ninety 
days after publication in the Federal Register) is both reasonable and 
consistent with EPA 92's legislative program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\82As noted, EPA 92 requires the Commission to consider ``the 
problems associated with developing and publishing useful and timely 
cost and benefit information, taking into account lead time, costs, 
the frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and 
other relevant factors.'' 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments from automobile manufacturers indicated that industries 
affected by the AFV labeling requirements would require far greater 
than ninety days to comply with the final rule. As a result, the 
Commission has considered the extent to which a ninety-day effective 
date would cause an unreasonable hardship to the industries affected by 
the proposed rule. The Commission notes that for used covered AFVs, its 
proposal requires disclosure of standard information in a uniform 
format.483 Implementation of that requirement would thus simply 
require obtaining copies of the required label format and arranging for 
posting in affected vehicles. Because the Commission does not believe 
that the market for used vehicles powered by alternative fuels is 
extensive at this time, it is also not likely that this requirement 
will presently affect a significant number of used vehicle dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\83See proposed rule Sec. 309.203(e) (content of labels for 
used covered vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For new covered AFVs, the Commission's revised proposal would 
require disclosure of a combination of information: standard 
information pertinent to all AFVs in general and objective information 
particular to each AFV. For these vehicles the Commission notes that 
the objective information required to be disclosed should either be 
available or readily ascertainable. For example, the vehicles must be 
certified as meeting an EPA certification standard, so AFV 
manufacturers will have ready access to that information. The 
Commission also notes that recently-issued EPA regulations regarding 
AFV fuel-economy labeling were effective no later than sixty days after 
publication in the Federal Register.484
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\8459 FR 39638, 39638, Aug. 3, 1994 (fuel economy test 
procedures and labeling requirements). Other pertinent EPA 
regulations have similar (or shorter) effective dates. See, e.g., 
Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50042, Sept. 30, 1994 (rule 
effective no later than 60 days after publication); Gaseous Fuels 
Rule, 59 FR 48472, 48472, Sept. 21, 1994 (rule effective no later 
than 60 days after publication); Clean Fuel Fleet Program; 
Definitions and General Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64679, Dec. 9, 1993 
(rule effective 30 days after publication); Clean Fuel Fleet 
Program; Transportation Control Measure Exemptions, and Related 
Provisions, 58 FR 11888, 11888, March 1, 1993 (rule effective two 
days after publication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that consumers will need comparative 
information shortly after the final rule's publication date in mid-
1995, because EPA 92's fleet acquisition mandates begin with fiscal 
year 1996 for the federal fleet485 and model year 1996 for 
alternative fuel providers.486 Accordingly, after considering the 
record, the Commission proposes that its AFV labeling requirements be 
effective ninety days after publication in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\8542 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \4\8642 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.''\487\ This requirement contrasts with EPA 92's direction 
to DOE to update its consumer information package ``annually.''\488\ 
Given the irregular pace of such technological development and 
regulatory activity, the Commission believes 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,\489\ the Commission cannot predict when those 
standards will be adopted. The Commission therefore intends 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \487\42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).
    \488\42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).
    \489\59 FR 39638, 39639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires agencies to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis when publishing a proposed 
rule unless the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a 
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.''\490\ In the NPR, the Commission stated that the economic 
impact of the proposed requirements appeared to be de minimis. At that 
time, the Commission proposed no recordkeeping requirements, and the 
proposed disclosures consisted of information that was basic and easily 
ascertainable. The Commission tentatively concluded in the NPR that the 
proposed rule also would not affect a substantial number of small 
entities because information the Commission possessed indicated 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 RFA\491\ or applicable regulations of the Small 
Business Administration.\492\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \490\5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).
    \491\5 U.S.C. 601(6).
    \492\13 CFR Part 121 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these factors, the Commission certified in the NPR that 
the labeling requirements in the proposed rule would not, if 
promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and, therefore, that a regulatory analysis was not necessary. 
To ensure the accuracy of its certification, the Commission requested 
comment on whether the proposed rule would have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The Commission received no 
comments in response to the NPR concerning its analysis under RFA.
    The labeling disclosure requirements the Commission now proposes do 
not impose significant additional requirements over those proposed in 
the NPR. The Commission now proposes, however, requiring that producers 
and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than 
electricity), retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including 
electricity), and manufacturers of electric vehicle charging system 
equipment and electrical energy dispensing systems for electric 
vehicles maintain records to substantiate certain product-specific 
disclosures that must be included on labels. In addition, the 
Commission now also proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers maintain 
records to substantiate the two product-specific disclosures that must 
be included on labels.
    Despite these additional proposed requirements, the Commission has 
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 suggests 
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. 
Except for those companies that sell non-liquid alternative fuel 
(including electricity) to consumers, the Commission believes most of 
these industry members are not ``small entities'' as that term is 
defined in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and in the 
regulations of the Small Business Administration, found in 13 CFR Part 
121 (1994).
    Although there may be some ``small entities'' among retail sellers 
of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), the labeling 
rules proposed today would likely have only a minimal impact on these 
small entities. Any such impact would likely consist of minimal 
additional recordkeeping and of retailers merely placing labels on fuel 
dispensers (to the extent this is not done by distributors for their 
retailer customers). The impact on small entities, therefore, appears 
to be de minimis and not significant.
    In light of these factors, the Commission certifies under RFA that 
the rule proposed in this notice would not, if promulgated, have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Therefore, a regulatory analysis is not necessary.\493\ To ensure the 
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests 
comment in section VIII.B, below, on whether the proposed rule will 
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. After reviewing any comments received on this 
subject, the Commission will decide whether the preparation of a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \493\This analysis and conclusion is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. 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 NPR 
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 NACAA's comment raised 
an issued not previously covered in other parts of this notice.
    Specifically, NACAA stated that it believes federal labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles are 
essential because many jurisdictions have no provisions to cover engine 
fuels. It urged, however, that the Commission's regulations in no way 
preclude localities, as needed, from creating more stringent labeling 
requirements for alternative fuels. NACAA stated that it believes the 
Commission's proposed labeling requirements would not create undue 
burdens on consumers or industry.\494\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \494\NACAA, H-6, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preemption standard in the proposed rule is the same as the 
standard used in other Commission rules, i.e., the rule supersedes only 
state and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with, or 
would frustrate the purposes of, the requirements of the rule.495 
Under this standard, state or local laws or regulations that create 
more stringent labeling requirements for alternative fuels would not be 
preempted unless those laws or regulations would frustrate the purposes 
of the Commission's rule. In addition, a State or local government 
could petition the Commission, for good cause, to permit the 
enforcement of any part of a State or local law or regulations that 
would be preempted by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \495\See Sec. 309.104 of the text of the proposed labeling rule 
in section XI, below. This preemption standard is different than the 
standard in the Fuel Rating Rule. Under Sec. 306.4 of the Fuel 
Rating Rule, ``no State or any political subdivision thereof may 
adopt or continue in effect, except as provided in subsection (b), 
any provision of law or regulation with respect to such act or 
omission, unless such provision of such law or regulation is the 
same as the applicable provision of this title.'' 16 CFR 306.4 
(1994). The preemption provision in the Fuel Rating Rule is 
specified by Section 204 of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 
15 U.S.C. 2824. There is no similar provision that applies to this 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API encouraged the Commission to review the rule, particularly 
after private, voluntary consensus standards organizations develop fuel 
specifications for alternative fuels. API also encouraged the 
Commission to consider reviewing the rule as new alternative fuels 
enter the marketplace.\496\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \496\API, G-25, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission intends to conduct reviews as necessary to take into 
consideration relevant developments.497 Section 406 of EPA 92 
requires the Commission to update the rule periodically to reflect the 
most recently available information, and the Commission's ongoing 
regulatory review process schedules all rules and guides for review at 
least once every ten-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \497\See supra sections III(B)(5)(d) and III(C)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'')\498\ and regulations of the 
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')\499\ implementing the PRA, 
require agencies to obtain clearance for regulations that involve the 
``collection of information,'' which includes both reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. Because the rule the Commission proposed in 
the NPR contained disclosure requirements only, the Commission 
concluded there was no proposed ``information collection'' to submit to 
OMB for clearance. To ensure the accuracy of its conclusion, however, 
the Commission solicited comments in the NPR on any paperwork burden 
that the public believed the proposed requirements might impose. The 
Commission received no comments in response to the NPR concerning this 
conclusion or any paperwork burden the proposed rule might have 
imposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \498\44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \499\5 CFR 1320.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for sellers of 
liquid alternative fuels, however, the Commission now proposes 
requiring that producers, importers, refiners, and distributors of non-
liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), retailers of non-
liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and manufacturers and 
distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems maintain 
records to substantiate the product-specific disclosures that would be 
required on fuel dispenser labels. In addition, the Commission now 
proposes 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 5 CFR 1320.7(c) (1994), the OMB regulations 
implementing PRA. They therefore will be submitted to OMB for review 
under the PRA before the Commission issues the final rule. The 
Commission believes, however, 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 expects that 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.
    The Commission expects that manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel 
dispenser 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 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.500 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.501 
The Commission believes that the same burden per covered industry 
member is appropriate for the proposed recordkeeping requirements in 
this rulemaking proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\0058 FR 41356, 41370-41371.
    \5\01Section 1320.7(b)(1) of the regulations implementing the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers 
maintain records to substantiate the tailpipe emission standard to 
which the vehicle has been certified by EPA 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.502 For electric vehicles, cruising 
range must 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 
proposes that manufacturers possess a reasonable basis, consisting of 
competent and reliable evidence, for the cruising range values 
disclosed. Also under the Commission's proposed rule, AFV labels for 
new covered vehicles would contain a graphic depicting the exhaust 
emission standard to which the vehicle has been certified pursuant to 
applicable EPA regulations.503 The Commission estimates that the 
information collection burden associated with the proposed 
recordkeeping requirements for AFV manufacturers would be thirty 
minutes per year per manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\0240 CFR Part 600 (1993).
    \5\0340 CFR Parts 86 and 88 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates that approximately 1,300 industry members 
would be covered by the recordkeeping requirements that apply to the 
proposed rule's fuel labeling disclosures. Of these, the Commission 
estimates that approximately 1,000 industry members import, produce, 
refine, distribute or retail CNG to the public for use in AFVs. The 
Commission estimates that approximately 50 industry members manufacture 
or distribute electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems and that no more 
than 250 companies retail electricity to the public through electric 
vehicle fuel dispensing systems. The Commission estimates that 
currently few, if any, industry members sell hydrogen to consumers for 
use in AFVs. Based on these figures, the Commission estimates that the 
total yearly burden information collection burden of the proposed rule 
on these industry members would be 130 hours (six minutes per year 
times 1,300 industry members).
    Although under the proposed rule manufacturers would be required to 
determine cruising ranges and emission standards for different models 
of vehicles, the burden estimate is small because the records at issue 
are likely to be developed and retained by the industry during the 
normal course of business. The Commission estimates that approximately 
58 industry members would be covered by the proposed rule's cruising 
range and emission standard recordkeeping requirements. This is based 
on similar estimates EPA made in connection with its emission standards 
recordkeeping requirements contained in a final rule establishing two 
clean-fuel vehicle programs. The information collection requirements in 
EPA's rule were submitted to OMB by EPA and discussed in ICR No. 
1694.504 Based on these figures, the Commission estimates 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\04Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50072, Sept. 30, 1994. 
Under EPA's Clean Fuel Fleet Program, a percentage of new vehicles 
acquired by certain fleet owners located in covered areas will be 
required to meet clean-fuel fleet vehicle emission standards. The 
California Pilot Test Program requires manufacturers to sell light-
duty clean-fuel vehicles in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the total burden 
associated with complying with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements 
for AFVs and non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), as 
proposed, 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 solicits comment on the paperwork 
burden that the proposed requirements may impose to ensure that no 
additional burden has been overlooked.

VII. Metric Usage

    The metric measurement system is the preferred system of weights 
and measures for United States trade and commerce.505 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.506 In the NPR, the Commission identified one section 
of the proposed rule with a potential for use of metric terms. 
Specifically, the Commission proposed in the NPR that AFV labels 
disclose fuel tank capacity in gallons. The Commission sought comment 
on whether to require metric or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) 
units for this disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\0515 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No. 12,770, 56 FR 
35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing section 205b).
    \5\06Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Five commenters addressed the issue of whether the Commission 
should require disclosures of metric measurements. CEC encouraged the 
use of dual disclosures (i.e., in both ``inch-pound'' and metric 
measurements).507 RFA stated that volumes of liquid alternative 
fuels should be expressed in terms of gallons at the present time since 
that is the volume measurement most familiar to U.S. consumers, but 
that it did not believe there would be any drawbacks to duel units of 
measurement, i.e., both gallons and liters.508 AGA/NGVC opposed 
requiring metric disclosures.509 API stated that, although public 
awareness of metric units is not high at this time, a dual fuel tank 
labeling requirement for fuel tank capacity would accommodate the 
provisions of the Federal Metric Conversion Act.510 NPGA stated 
that it recognizes and supports the overall, long term goal of the 
Congress to change the domestic economy to metric units. However, with 
respect to AFVS, NPGA believes consumer labels should disclose fuel 
tank capacity in US gallons for the time being, with metric units 
required for all vehicles on a uniform basis at some time in the 
future.511
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\07CED, H-8, 12.
    \5\08FRA, G-5, 6.
    \5\09AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10-11.
    \5\10API, G-25, 9.
    \5\11NPGA, G-18, 5 (makes little sense to allow conventionally 
fueled vehicles to continue use of non-metric units for fuel tank 
capacity but require the use of metric units on alternative fueled 
vehicles which collectively comprise only a small fraction of the 
total number of such vehicles in service and use). Likewise, NPGA 
believes that a requirement for dual units (metric and non-metric) 
should be deferred until such notation is required of all covered 
vehicles. Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has decided not to propose that AFV labels disclose 
fuel tank capacity in gallons. However, the Commission now proposes to 
require that AFV labels disclose cruising range, i.e., miles on one 
tank or charge.512 Given the limited size of the proposed AFV 
label and the amount of information it would contain, the Commission 
does not believe that it would be practical to include metric 
equivalents. The Commission, therefore, does not propose requiring 
disclosure of cruising range in metric (i.e., kilometers) as well as 
inch-pound measurements (i.e., miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\12See Secs. 309.20 and 309.22 of the text of the proposed 
rule in section XI infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. 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.
    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 Act513 and the Commission's Rule of 
Practice,514 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\135 U.S.C. 552.
    \5\1416 CFR 4.11 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Proposed Labeling Rule

1. Alternative Fuel Labeling
    (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 existing 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?
    (f) Should the Commission require disclosure of the principal 
component of the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG and hydrogen and 
permit disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum molecular 
percentages?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a 
requirement? (c) How should information about those components be 
calculated and displayed? (d) What costs or problems are associated 
with requiring such a disclosure? (e) How might the Commission minimize 
any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
    (2) If no, why not?
    (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?
    (h) Should the Commission require disclosure of the type of fuel 
(i.e., electricity), kilowatt capacity, the voltage at which electrical 
power is supplied, the type of current supplied (either AC or DC), the 
maximum current in amperes that can be delivered, and whether the 
dispenser is conductive or inductive on labels on electrical dispensers 
and electric charging equipment used to recharge EV batteries?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a 
requirement? (c) How should those operating parameters be described and 
defined? (d) How should information about those parameters be 
calculated and displayed? (e) What costs or problems are associated 
with requiring such a disclosure? (f) How might the Commission minimize 
any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
    (2) If no, why not?
    (i) Should the Commission require any additional, fewer 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?
    (j) 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?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no, why not?
    (k) Should the Commission require use of specific ASTM or other 
test procedures to substantiate disclosure of the minimum percentage of 
methane in CNG and of hydrogen in hydrogen gas, and of any other 
components in CNG or hydrogen that sellers wish to disclose?
    (1) If yes, should the Commission require use of ASTM D 1945-91, 
``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas 
Chromatography,'' to substantiate the disclosure of the minimum 
percentage of methane in CNG? Why? Should the Commission require use of 
ASTM D 1946-90, ``Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas 
Chromatography,'' to substantiate the disclosure of the minimum 
percentage of hydrogen in hydrogen gas? Why?
    (2) If yes, should the Commission require use of other test 
procedures to substantiate these disclosures? If so, what test 
procedures? Why?
    (3) If no, why not?
    (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 labeling requirements for the non-liquid 
alternative fuels? Why is that extra time necessary?
    2. AFV Labeling
    (a) Should the Commission issue its revised 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 disclosure specified by existing law (either federal, 
state, or local) affect the Commission's AFV labeling proposal?
    (e) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``covered 
vehicle'' and ``new covered vehicle'' appropriate and feasible?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified 
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
    (f) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``manufacturer'' 
and ``aftermarket conversion system'' appropriate and feasible?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified 
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
    (g) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``acquisition,'' 
``person,'' and ``consumer'' appropriate and feasible?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified 
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
    (h) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``used covered 
vehicle'' and ``used vehicle dealer'' appropriate and feasible?
    (1) If yes, why?
    (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified 
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
    (i) Is cruising range a useful measure for consumer comparisons?
    (1) If yes, why? If no, why not?
    (j) What costs or problems are associated with displaying cruising 
range values in the proposed labeling formats? How might the Commission 
modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while 
maintaining the benefits?
    (k) Is the emission standard to which a vehicle has been certified 
a useful measure for consumer comparisons?
    (1) If yes, why? If no, why not?
    (l) What costs or problems are associated with displaying emission 
standards in the proposed labeling format? How might the Commission 
modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while 
maintaining the benefits?
    (m) Should a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general be included 
on AFV labels, as proposed in the SNPR?
    (1) If yes, why? If no, why not?
    (n) Should AFV labels notify consumers of the availability of DOE's 
consumer information brochure and DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline, as 
proposed in the SNPR?
    (1) If yes, why? If no, why not?
    (o) 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 
standards? (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?
    (p) What costs or problems, if any, are associated with the size 
and format proposed for the new vehicle labels? How might the 
Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, 
while maintaining the benefits?
    (q) What costs or problems, if any, are associated with the size 
and format proposed for the used vehicle labels? How might the 
Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, 
while maintaining the benefits?
    (r) Should any of the information proposed to be disclosed in this 
SNPR be consolidated into existing labels providing information to 
consumers?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Which labels? (c) How might this 
information be displayed to prevent information overload?
    (2) If no, why?
    (s) Should any information required to be displayed on existing 
labels be consolidated into the Commission's AFV labels?
    (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Which information? (c) How might this 
information be displayed to prevent information overload?
    (t) 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? (c) Why is that extra time 
necessary?
    (u) Does the Commission's proposal to update its AFV labeling 
requirements as appropriate, instead of on a fixed schedule, pose any 
problems to consumers or affected interests?
    (1) If yes, why? If no, why not?

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In light of the factors explained in section IV, above, the 
Commission certifies under the RFA that the rule proposed in this 
notice would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. To ensure the accuracy of this 
certification, however, the Commission requests comment on whether the 
proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The Commission requests that comments include 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. 
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

    As explained in section V, above, 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 benefits would the proposed rule provide to purchasers 
of non-liquid alternative fuels? Would the proposed rule impose 
costs on purchasers?
    2. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to 
increase its benefits to purchasers? How would these changes affect 
the costs the proposed rule would impose on firms subject to its 
requirements?
    3. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of 
compliance, would the proposed rule impose on firms subject to its 
requirements? Would the proposed rule provide benefits to such 
firms?
    4. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to 
reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its 
requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits provided 
by the proposed rule?
    5. Would the proposed rule overlap or conflict with other 
federal, state, or local laws or regulations?
    6. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of 
compliance, would the proposed rule impose on small firms subject to 
its requirements? How would these burdens or costs differ from those 
imposed on larger firms that would be subject to the proposed rule's 
requirements?
    7. To what extent would the burdens or costs that the proposed 
rule would impose on small firms be similar to those that small 
firms would incur under standard and prudent business practices?
    8. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to 
reduce the burdens or costs imposed on small firms?
    a. How would these changes affect the benefits of the proposed 
rule?
    b. Would such changes adversely affect the competitive position 
of larger firms?

    The Commission is also requesting comments about the overall costs 
and benefits of the proposed rule and its overall regulatory and 
economic impact as a part of its systematic review of all current and 
proposed Commission regulations and guides.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As described in section VI, above, the proposed rule would involve 
the ``collection of information,'' as that term is defined in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'')\515\ and regulations of the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'')\516\ implementing the PRA. ``Collection 
of information'' includes both reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. The Commission does not propose requiring that any 
reports be submitted to the Commission. However, the Commission 
proposes requiring that importers, producers, refiners, and 
distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), 
retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and 
manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispenser 
systems maintain records to substantiate certain product-specific 
disclosures that would be required on fuel dispenser labels. In 
addition, the Commission proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers 
maintain records to substantiate the two product-specific disclosures 
that would be required on AFV labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \515\44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \516\5 CFR 1320.7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed recordkeeping requirements are ``collections of 
information'' as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c) (1994), the OMB regulations 
implementing PRA. The Commission believes 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 believes that the proposed 
recordkeeping requirements would impose a burden of only six minutes 
per year for each importer, producer, refiner, or distributor of non-
liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), for each retail 
seller of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and for 
each manufacturer and distributor of electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
systems. The Commission believes that the proposed recordkeeping 
requirements would impose a burden of no more than 30 minutes per year 
for each AFV manufacturer.
    To ensure the accuracy of these estimates, the Commission is 
seeking public comment on the paperwork burden that the proposed rule 
may impose to ensure that no additional burden has been overlooked. In 
addition to comment on the burden per covered party per year, the 
Commission solicits comment on the number of importers, producers, 
refiners, and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than 
electricity), of retail sellers of non-liquid alternative fuels 
(including electricity), and of manufacturers and distributors of 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems who would be covered by the 
proposed rule. Further, the Commission solicits comment on the number 
of AFV manufacturers who would be covered by the proposed rule.

E. Metric Usage

    As explained in section VII, above, 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. 
The Commission now proposes to require that AFV labels disclose 
cruising range, i.e., miles on one tank or charge. Given the limited 
size of the proposed AFV label and the amount of information it would 
contain, the Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of 
cruising range in metric (i.e., kilometers) as well as inch-pound 
measurements (i.e., miles). However, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether to require metric or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) units 
for this disclosure.

IX. 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.

X. Communications by Outside Parties or Their Advisors

    Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 1.26(b)(5),\517\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \517\16 CFR 1.26(b)(5) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309

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

XI. Supplemental Proposed Labeling Rule

    Accordingly, the Commission proposes that chapter I of 16 CFR be 
amended by adding a new part 309 to read as follows:

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

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

Subpart A--General


Sec. 309.1  Definitions.

    As used in subparts B and C of this part:
    (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);
    (9) And any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is 
substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security 
benefits and substantial environmental benefits.
    (d) 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. 
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.
    (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; or
    (iii) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-
highway operation and use.
    (g) Dedicated means designed to operate solely on alternative fuel.
    (h) Distributor means any person 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 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 that is powered by 
electricity stored in a rechargeable battery, multiple batteries, or 
battery pack.
    (l) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system means electric charging 
system equipment or an electrical energy dispensing system.
    (m) Electrical energy dispensing system means equipment that does 
not include an electric charger and is used for dispensing electricity 
to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric 
vehicle that contains an on-board electric battery charger.
    (n) Emission certification standard means the emission standard to 
which a covered vehicle has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR parts 86 
and 88.
    (o) Estimated cruising range means a manufacturer's reasonable 
estimate of the number of miles a new covered vehicle will travel 
between refueling or recharging, expressed as a lower estimate (i.e., 
minimum estimated cruising range) and an upper estimate (i.e., maximum 
estimated cruising range), as determined by Sec. 309.22.
    (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''), and whether 
the system is conductive or inductive.
    (r) Manufacturer means the person who obtains a certificate of 
conformity that the vehicle complies with the standards and 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 86 and 88.
    (s) Manufacturer of an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system 
means any person who manufactures or assembles an electric vehicle fuel 
dispensing system that is distributed specifically for use by retailers 
in dispensing electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging 
batteries in an electric vehicle.
    (t) New covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has not been 
acquired by a consumer.
    (u) New vehicle dealer means a person who is engaged in the sale or 
leasing of new covered vehicles.
    (v) New vehicle label means a window sticker containing the 
information required by Sec. 309.20(e).
    (w) Non-liquid alternative fueled vehicle means a vehicle capable 
of operating on a non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel.
    (x) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel means compressed natural 
gas (``CNG''), hydrogen gas (``hydrogen''), electricity used to 
recharge electric vehicle batteries, and any other non-liquid vehicle 
fuel the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy 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).
    (aa) Refiner means any person engaged in the production or 
importation of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity).
    (bb) Retailer means any person who offers for sale, sells, or 
distributes non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity) 
to consumers.
    (cc) Secretary means the Secretary of the United States Department 
of Energy.
    (dd) Used covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has been 
acquired by a consumer, but does not include any vehicle sold only for 
scrap or parts (title documents surrendered to the State and a salvage 
certificate issued).
    (ee) Used vehicle dealer means a person engaged in the sale or 
leasing of used covered vehicles who has sold or leased five or more 
used covered vehicles in the previous twelve months, but does not 
include a bank or financial institution, a business selling or leasing 
used covered vehicles to an employee of that business, or a lessor 
selling or leasing a leased vehicle by or to that vehicle's lessee or 
to an employee of the lessee.
    (ff) Used vehicle label means a window sticker containing the 
information required by Sec. 309.21(e).


Sec. 309.2  What this part does.

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


Sec. 309.3  Stayed or invalid portions.

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


Sec. 309.4  Preemption.

    State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with, or 
frustrate the purposes of, the provisions of this part are preempted. 
However, a State or local government may petition the Commission, for 
good cause, to permit the enforcement of any part of a State or local 
law or regulation that would be preempted by this part.


Sec. 309.5-309.9  [Reserved]

Subpart B--Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels

Duties of Importers, Producers, and Refiners of Non-Liquid Alternative 
Vehicle Fuels (Other Than Electricity) and of Manufacturers of Electric 
Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems


Sec. 309.10  Alternative vehicle fuel rating.

    (a) If you are an importer, producer, or refiner of non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must determine 
the fuel rating of all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) before you transfer it. You can do that yourself or 
through a testing lab. To determine fuel ratings, you must possess a 
reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for 
the minimum percentage of the principal component of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) that you must 
disclose, and for the minimum percentages of other components that you 
choose to disclose. For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for 
the minimum percentage of the principal component of compressed natural 
gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in 
American Society of 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 of 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 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''), and whether the system is conductive or inductive.


Sec. 309.11  Certification.

    (a) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity), in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a 
consumer, you must certify the fuel rating of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) consistent with your 
determination. You can do this in either of two ways:
    (1) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of 
non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity). It may be 
an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery 
ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It must contain at 
least these four items:
    (i) Your name;
    (ii) The name of the person to whom the non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel (other than electricity) is transferred;
    (iii) The date of the transfer;
    (iv) The fuel rating.
    (2) Give the person a letter or written statement. This letter must 
include the date, your name, the other person's name, and the fuel 
rating of any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) you will transfer to that person from the date of the 
letter onwards. This letter of certification will be good until you 
transfer non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) 
with a lower fuel rating. 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, terminal ticket, 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 or other identifier of the 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 information required to be disclosed 
on the retail fuel dispenser label. 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 would have to be in addition to, and not 
as a substitute for, the label required to be posted on the electric 
vehicle fuel dispensing system by the retailer.


Sec. 309.12  Recordkeeping.

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

Duties of Distributors of Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels (Other 
Than Electricity) and of Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems


Sec. 309.13  Certification.

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


Sec. 309.14  Recordkeeping.

    You must keep for one year any delivery tickets or letters of 
certification on which you based your fuel rating certifications for 
non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity) and for 
electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, including the records listed 
in Sec. 309.11. You must also keep for one year records of any fuel 
rating determinations you made according to Sec. 309.13(c). The records 
must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff 
members, or by persons authorized by FTC.

Duties of Retailers


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

    (a) If you are a retailer who offers for sale, sells or distributes 
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, sells or 
distributes 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 electric vehicle fuel dispensing 
system. If you are selling two or more kinds of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuels with different fuel ratings from a single fuel dispenser, 
you must put separate labels for each kind of non-liquid alternative 
vehicle fuel on the face of the dispenser.
    (b) (1) The label, or labels, must be placed conspicuously on the 
fuel dispenser so as to be in full view of consumers and as near as 
reasonably practical to the price per unit of the non-liquid 
alternative vehicle fuel.
    (2) You may petition for an exemption from the placement 
requirements by writing the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC 20580. You must state the reasons that you want the 
exemption.
    (c) If you do not blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other 
than electricity), you must post consistent with the fuel rating 
certified to you. If you blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel 
(other than electricity), you must possess a reasonable basis, 
consisting of competent and reliable evidence, as required by 
Sec. 309.10(a), for the fuel rating that you post for the blend.
    (d) (1) You must maintain and replace labels as needed to make sure 
consumers can easily see and read them.
    (2) If the labels you have are destroyed or are unusable or 
unreadable for some unexpected reason, you can satisfy the law 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 
subpart, but do not limit this part'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 serve as an illustration of 
compliance with this subpart:

    ``Electricity''
    ``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 fuel, as outlined in Sec. 309.13(a) 
and (b), respectively.


Sec. 309.16  Recordkeeping

    You must keep for one year any delivery tickets, letters of 
certification, or other documentation, including the records listed in 
Sec. 309.13, on which you based your posting of fuel ratings for non-
liquid alternative vehicle fuels. You also must keep for one year 
records of any fuel rating determinations you made according to 
Sec. 309.15(c). 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 required records, other than the 
permanent marking or label on the electric charging system equipment or 
electrical energy 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.


Sec. 309.17  Labels

    All labels must meet the following specifications:
    (a) Layout: (1) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than 
electricity) labels with one principal component. The label is 3'' 
(7.62 cm) wide x 2 \1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is 
used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label 
contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) 
deep. Spacing of the fuel name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the 
label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered 
horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the 
black band is \1/8\'' (.32 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All 
type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 
cm) between each line. 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 dimensions of this single component label to accommodate a fuel 
descriptor that is longer than shown in the sample labels, 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 vehicle fuel (other than electricity) labels with 
two components. The label is 3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) 
long. ``Helvetica black'' type is used throughout. All type is 
centered. The band at the top of the label contains the name of the 
fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the fuel 
name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 
cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the 
black band. The first line of type beneath the black band is \3/16\'' 
(.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All type below the black 
band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between each line. 
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 dimensions of this 
two component label to accommodate additional fuel components, you must 
petition the Federal Trade Commission. You can do this by writing to 
the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. 
You must state the size and contents of the label that you wish to use, 
and the reasons that you want to use it.
    (3) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system labels. The label is 
3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type 
is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the 
label contains the common identifier of the fuel. This band should 
measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the common identifier is \1/4\'' 
(.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the 
bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. 
The first line of type beneath the black band is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from 
the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered 
horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between each line. 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 fuel (other than electricity) with one principal component. 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 phototype setting 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) ``Helvetica 
Black,'' 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 fuel (other than 
electricity) with 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 phototype setting 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) ``Helvetica Black,'' knocked out of a 1'' (2.54 cm) 
deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height).
    (3) Labels for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. All type 
should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. 
Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and 
phototype setting 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) ``Helvetica 
Black,'' knocked out of a 1'' (2.54 cm) deep band. All other type is 24 
pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height).
    (c) Colors. Labels for all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels 
(including electricity). The background color on all the labels is 
Orange: PMS 1495. 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 the sample 
labels. 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.
    (f) Illustrations of labels. Labels must meet the specifications in 
this section and look like Figures 1 through 3, except the black print 
should be on the appropriately colored background.


Secs. 309.18-309.19  [Reserved]

Subpart C--Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fueled Vehicles


Sec. 309.20  Labeling requirements for new covered vehicles.

    (a) Affixing and maintaining labels. (1) Before offering a new 
covered vehicle for acquisition to consumers, manufacturers shall affix 
or cause to be affixed, and new vehicle dealers shall maintain or cause 
to be maintained, a new vehicle label on a visible window surface of 
each such vehicle.
    (2) If an aftermarket conversion system is installed on a vehicle 
by a person other than the manufacturer prior to such vehicle's being 
acquired by a consumer, the manufacturer shall provide that person with 
the vehicle's estimated cruising range (as determined by Sec. 309.22(a) 
for dedicated vehicles and Sec. 309.22(b) for dual fueled vehicles) and 
emission certification standard and ensure that new vehicle labels are 
affixed to such vehicles as required by paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Layout. Figures 1 through 8 of this subpart 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) in width and 5\1/2\ 
inches (13.75 cm) in height. Figure 4 represents the prototype for the 
front side of the labels for dedicated vehicles. Figure 5 represents 
the prototype of the front side of the labels for dual-fueled vehicles. 
Figure 6 represents the prototype of the back side of the labels for 
both dedicated and dual-fueled vehicles. 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, and 6). 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, and 6, are standard for all labels.
    (2) Estimated cruising range. (i) For dedicated vehicles, 
determined in accordance with Sec. 309.22(a).
    (ii) For dual fueled vehicles, determined in accordance with 
Sec. 309.22(b).
    (3) The vehicle's emission certification standard, indicated by 
placing a caret above the standard to which that vehicle has been 
certified.


Sec. 309.21  Labeling requirements for used covered vehicles.

    (a) Affixing and maintaining labels. Before offering a used covered 
vehicle for acquisition to consumers, used vehicle dealers shall affix 
and maintain, or cause to be affixed and maintained, a used vehicle 
label on a visible window surface of each such vehicle.
    (b) Layout. Figures 1 through 8 of this subpart are prototype 
labels that demonstrate the proper layout. All positioning, spacing, 
type size, and line widths should be similar to and consistent with the 
prototype labels. Labels required by this section are two-sided and 
rectangular in shape measuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) in width and 5\1/2\ 
inches (13.75 cm) in height. Figure 7 represents the prototype of the 
front side of the labels for used covered vehicles. Figure 8 represents 
the back side of the labels for used covered vehicles. 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). 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, are standard for all labels.


Sec. 309.22  Determining estimated cruising range

    (a) Dedicated vehicles. (1) Estimated cruising range values for 
dedicated vehicles required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 600 are to be calculated in accordance with the following:
    (i) The lower range value shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, then 
rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (ii) The upper range value shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, 
then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (2) Estimated cruising range values for dedicated vehicles powered 
by electricity 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 battery 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 battery capacity, then 
rounding to the next higher integer value. For the purposes of this 
section, city and highway fuel economy are to be determined in 
accordance with test methods set forth in SAE J1634, ``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 J1634 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 with the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 600 are to be calculated in accordance with the following:
    (i) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its alternative-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (ii) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its alternative-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (iii) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its conventional-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (iv) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its conventional-fuel tank 
capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value.
    (2) Estimated cruising range values for dual-fueled vehicles 
capable of operating on electricity are to be calculated in accordance 
with the following:
    (i) The lower range value while operating exclusively on 
electricity shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated 
city fuel economy by its battery capacity, then rounding to the next 
lower integer value.
    (ii) The upper range value while operating exclusively on 
electricity shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated 
highway fuel economy by its battery 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 fuel tank capacity, then 
rounding to the next lower integer value.
    (iv) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating 
exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the 
vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, 
then rounding to the next higher integer value. For the purposes of 
this section, city and highway fuel economy are to be determined in 
accordance with test methods set forth in SAE J1634, ``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 J1634 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 dual-
fueled vehicles not required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 
part 600 (other than electric vehicles), you must possess a reasonable 
basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, of:
    (i) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel 
between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on 
alternative fuel; and
    (ii) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will 
travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on 
conventional fuel.


Sec. 309.23  Recordkeeping.

    Manufacturers required to comply with 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

TP18NO94.014


TP18NO94.015


TP18NO94.016


TP18NO94.017


TP18NO94.018


TP18NO94.019

BILLING CODE 6750-01-C

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Varney not 
participating.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-28278 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P