[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24669-24679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11391]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 89 / Thursday, May 8, 2003 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 24669]]



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 309


Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative 
Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'' or ``FTC'') is 
commencing a rulemaking proceeding to amend the alternative fueled 
vehicle (``AFV'') label specified in the Commission's rule concerning 
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled 
Vehicles (``Rule''). The Commission proposes amending the Rule's AFV 
label for new vehicles by either updating or deleting the Environmental 
Protection Agency (``EPA'') emission certification standards the Rule 
requires be disclosed, and by adding a reference to EPA's green vehicle 
guide. EPA's guide, located on its website at http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle, provides detailed information regarding vehicle emissions 
generally and by vehicle model. The Commission is commencing this 
rulemaking proceeding because the emissions standards on the current 
AFV label will be obsolete starting in the 2004 vehicle model year, and 
the Ford Motor Company (``Ford'') has petitioned the Commission to 
revise the label in light of this. In this proceeding, the Commission 
also is conducting a review of this Rule pursuant to the Commission's 
regulatory review program. The notice includes a description of the 
procedures to be followed, an invitation to submit written comments, 
and questions and issues upon which the Commission particularly desires 
comments.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Six paper copies of each written comment should be submitted 
to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, 
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. To encourage prompt 
and efficient review and dissemination of the comments to the public, 
all comments also should be submitted, if possible, in electronic form, 
on either a 5\1/4\ or a 3\1/2\ inch computer disk, with a label on the 
disk stating the name of the commenter and the name and version of the 
word processing program used to create the document. (Programs based on 
DOS are preferred. Files from other operating systems should be 
submitted in ASCII text format to be accepted.)
    Alternatively, the Commission will accept papers and comments 
submitted to the following email address: [email protected], provided the 
content of any papers or comments submitted by email is organized in 
sequentially numbered paragraphs. All comments and any electronic 
versions (i.e., computer disks) should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 
309 Comment--Alternative Fuels and Vehicles Rule. The Commission will 
make this notice and, to the extent possible, all papers and comments 
received in electronic form in response to this notice available to the 
public through the Internet at the following address: http://www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Richardson, Attorney, (202) 326-
2798 (email: [email protected]), or Neil Blickman, Attorney, (202) 
326-3038 (email: [email protected]), Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A--Background

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPR'') is being published 
pursuant to the provisions of Part 1, Subpart C of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.21-1.26, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. 
Specifically, this rulemaking proceeding is being conducted pursuant to 
section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA''), 5 U.S.C. 
553, as was the original proceeding promulgating the Rule.\1\ Section 
553(b)(3) of the APA provides the Commission with the option of 
publishing the substance of a proposed rule instead of specific 
proposed rule language. The Commission seeks comment on the substance 
of proposed amendments to the Rule. The Commission also seeks comment 
on whether other options not proposed herein would be more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 59 FR 24014 (May 9, 1994). These procedures include: (1) 
Publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; (2) soliciting 
written comments on the Commission's proposals to amend the Rule; 
(3) obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (4) announcing 
final Commission action in a notice published in the Federal 
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Rule

    The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'' or the ``Act''),\2\ 
establishes a comprehensive national energy policy to increase 
gradually and steadily U.S. energy security in cost-effective and 
environmentally beneficial ways. The Act seeks to reduce U.S. 
dependence on oil imports, encourage conservation and more efficient 
energy use, reduce the use of oil-based fuels in the motor vehicle 
sector, and provide new energy options. The Act provides for programs 
that encourage the development of alternative fuels and alternative 
fueled vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 406(a) of EPA 92 directed the Commission to establish 
uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for 
alternative fuels and AFVs.\3\ In accordance with the statutory 
directive, on May 19, 1995, the Commission published a Rule requiring 
disclosure of specific information on labels posted on fuel dispensers 
for non-liquid alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas, 
electricity, and hydrogen), effective August 21, 1995, and on labels on 
AFVs, effective November 20, 1995.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).
    \4\ 60 FR 26926. The Rule also requires that sellers maintain 
records substantiating product-specific disclosures they include on 
these labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA 92 did not specify what information should be displayed on 
these labels. Instead, it provided generally that the Commission's rule 
must require disclosure of ``appropriate,'' ``useful,'' and ``timely'' 
cost and benefit information on ``simple'' labels. The purpose of the 
labeling requirements is to enable consumers to make informed choices 
and comparisons among competing non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels 
and AFVs.
    Section 309.20 of the Rule provides that before offering for 
consumer sale a new covered AFV, manufacturers must affix, on a visible 
surface of each such vehicle, a label consisting of three

[[Page 24670]]

parts.\5\ Part one discloses objective information about the estimated 
cruising range and environmental impact of the particular AFV. Part two 
discloses and explains specific factors consumers should consider 
before buying an AFV.\6\ Part three lists specific toll-free telephone 
numbers for consumers who want to call the federal government for more 
information about AFVs.\7\ Section 309.20 of the Rule further states 
that no marks or information other than that specified by the Rule may 
appear on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 309.1(f) of the Rule defines a covered vehicle as 
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. Further, section 
309.1(t) of the Rule defines a new covered vehicle as a covered 
vehicle which has not been acquired by a consumer. The Rule also 
contains labeling requirements for used AFVs, but they are not at 
issue here because they do not require the disclosure of specific 
emissions information.
    \6\ The factors include information concerning fuel type, 
operating costs, performance/convenience, fuel availability, and 
energy security/renewability. As the proposed labels below indicate, 
the Commission proposes simplifying the descriptions of these 
factors to make them easier for consumers to read and comprehend.
    \7\ The federal government agencies referenced are the 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') and the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (``NHTSA''). The Commission also proposes 
revising slightly part three of the label by listing the 
Commission's toll-free telephone number and website for consumers 
who wish to call the FTC for more information about AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to environmental impact, the labels must state whether 
the vehicle has met an EPA emission certification standard and, if so, 
what standard. If a vehicle has been certified, that fact must be noted 
with a mark in a box on the label and a caret must be inserted above 
the certification standard the vehicle meets. The graphic on the label 
depicts seven EPA emissions standards in increasing order of 
stringency.

2. EPA's Emissions Certification Program

    For many years, EPA has promulgated emissions classification 
standards as part of its Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which 
establishes pollution limits for ``criteria air pollutants'' (i.e., 
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate 
matter). These pollutants are released as exhaust from an automobile's 
tailpipe. In addition, hydrocarbons in vapor form are released due to 
the evaporation of fuel and during refueling. The standards apply to 
new motor vehicles manufactured in specified model years. After 
manufacturers submit appropriate test reports and data, the EPA 
Administrator issues a ``certificate of conformity'' to those vehicle 
manufacturers demonstrating compliance with the applicable emissions 
standards.
    Pursuant to its authority under the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments,\8\ EPA began issuing stricter emission standards for each 
model year as a way of reducing levels of the criteria air pollutants. 
One set of standards, the Tier 1 standards, was phased in beginning 
with the 1994 model year. The second set of standards, phased in 
beginning with the 1999 model year, establishes stricter standards as 
part of a new ``clean-fuel vehicles'' program.\9\ To qualify as a 
clean-fuel vehicle, a vehicle must meet one of five increasingly 
stringent standards. The standards are denominated, in increasing order 
of stringency, TLEV (``Transitional Low Emission Vehicle''), LEV (``Low 
Emission Vehicle''), ULEV (``Ultra Low Emission Vehicle''), ILEV 
(``Inherently Low Emission Vehicle''), and ZEV (``Zero Emission 
Vehicle''). The Rule requires both sets of EPA emission standards to be 
disclosed because the Commission determined that information concerning 
EPA emission certification levels provides a simple way of comparing 
different AFVs and, therefore, is useful to consumers considering AFV 
acquisitions.\10\ Since the FTC's Rule was promulgated, EPA has 
promulgated new tailpipe emission standards, called the ``Tier 2'' 
standards.\11\ As a result, the EPA standards currently required to be 
disclosed on the Commission's AFV label will be obsolete starting in 
the 2004 vehicle model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).
    \9\ See 40 CFR 88 (1996).
    \10\ 60 FR 26926, 26946 (May 19, 1995).
    \11\ 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000). These standards regulate 
emissions from cars and light-duty trucks, which include sport 
utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and minivans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Ford's Petition

    Ford's petition concerns EPA's new more stringent federal tailpipe 
emission standards. These federal tailpipe emission standards, as well 
as new, more stringent California Low Emission Vehicle II (``LEV II'') 
standards discussed below, limit exhaust emissions of five pollutants: 
non-methane organic gases, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 
particulate matter, and formaldehyde.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ According to staff at EPA, the Tier 2 program is designed 
to reduce the emissions most responsible for the ozone and 
particulate matter impact from these vehicles--nitrogen oxides and 
non-methane organic gases consisting primarily of hydrocarbons and 
contributing to ambient volatile organic compounds. Hydrocarbons and 
nitrogen oxides are the major contributors to urban smog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tier 2 is a fleet averaging program, which is modeled after the 
California LEV II standards. Manufacturers can produce vehicles with 
emissions ranging from relatively dirty to zero, but the mix of 
vehicles a manufacturer sells each year must have average nitrogen 
oxide emissions below a specified value. The Tier 2 tailpipe emissions 
standards are structured into eleven certification levels of different 
stringency called ``certification bins.'' Vehicle manufacturers will 
have a choice of certifying particular vehicles to any of the eleven 
bins. However, the average nitrogen oxide emissions of the entire 
vehicle fleet sold by each manufacturer will have to meet an average 
nitrogen oxide standard of 0.07 grams per mile.
    Additionally, Ford noted that in October 1999, California adopted 
more stringent state tailpipe emission standards, called the ``LEV II'' 
standards, which are effective starting in the 2004 vehicle model year. 
California did not adopt the same standards EPA established, nor did it 
adopt the same acronyms (bins) for its standards. California's LEV II 
standards are denominated, in increasing order of stringency, LEV, 
ULEV, SULEV (``Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle''), PZEV (``Partial 
Zero Emission Vehicle''), and ZEV. California's LEV II standards affect 
passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles. Generally, 
the LEV II standards extend passenger car emission standards to heavier 
sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks, extend and tighten fleet 
average tailpipe emission standards during the period 2004-2010, 
significantly tighten nitrogen oxide and particulate matter standards 
for all vehicle emission categories, and further reduce evaporative 
emissions.
    Ford, and other manufacturers, will be certifying their AFVs to the 
more stringent EPA Tier 2 emission standards in the 2004 model year. 
Ford is petitioning the Commission to amend the Commission's AFV label 
because it does not provide a means of conveying information about the 
new EPA Tier 2 standards. Ford, therefore, is requesting that the 
Commission amend the Rule to permit use of an AFV label that differs

[[Page 24671]]

in two respects from the currently required AFV label, as follows:
    (1) To convey accurate information to consumers nationwide 
regarding new covered AFVs, Ford requested that the Commission amend 
the Rule's AFV label by substituting the eleven Tier 2 certification 
bins for the EPA emission standards that currently appear on the AFV 
label. To convey accurate information to consumers in California, as 
well as the four other states that have adopted the California 
standards, Ford also requested that the Commission amend the Rule to 
permit inclusion of boxes and acronyms for California's LEV II emission 
standards on the Commission's AFV label. Ford further requested 
permission to add a check-box to the label with accompanying text that 
reads, ``This vehicle meets the California Air Resources Board LEV II 
emissions standard noted below.''
    (2) Alternatively, Ford requested that the AFV label be amended to 
require disclosure of only the EPA Tier 2 emission standard, if any, to 
which the AFV has been certified, and permit disclosure on the same 
label of the California LEV II emission standard, if any, to which the 
AFV has been certified.
    Ford asserted that granting its petition will provide useful 
information to consumers considering AFV acquisitions and will permit 
Ford to demonstrate to consumers the technological advances it has made 
in producing cleaner, lower-emitting vehicles. Without changes to the 
Commission's AFV label, Ford stated that it will not be possible to 
inform customers clearly of the true emissions performance of these 
cleaner vehicles, because the label would not reflect the correct 
emission standard. Ford also stated that it is important that a single 
AFV label be applied to all vehicles to avoid excessive cost and 
complexity. Thus, Ford requested permission to include California's LEV 
II emission standards on the AFV label. As a result of the adoption of 
the California standards by Maine, Massachusetts, New York, and 
Vermont, California certified vehicles will be required in five states, 
representing over 15% of the total U.S. sales, according to Ford. 
Therefore, Ford asserted that including California's standards on the 
label also would be helpful to consumers outside of California.

4. Discussion of the Rule's Emission Disclosure Requirements

    In issuing the Rule, the Commission concluded that requiring 
disclosure of emission certification standards is appropriate and would 
be useful to consumers. The Commission noted further that incorporating 
environmental considerations into national energy policy was a key goal 
of EPA 92, and improving the environment was a principal purpose of 
that statute. EPA 92 gives special attention to the fact that the 
environmental performance of alternative fuels differs, and that those 
differences need to be explained to consumers.\13\ Granting Ford's 
petition to include the federal Tier 2 and California LEV II standards 
on AFV labels may provide relevant comparative information regarding 
alternative fuels that will be helpful to consumers considering AFV 
acquisitions (e.g., fleet operators as well as environmentally 
concerned consumers). Specifically, because an AFV is certified to a 
specific emission standard, disclosure of the certification level may 
continue to provide a useful way of comparing different AFVs, and 
evaluating comparative advertising and marketing claims regarding an 
AFV's environmental performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 60 FR 26926, 26946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that the current label should be amended in 
light of EPA's new Tier 2 standards. Accordingly, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether either of the two Rule amendments Ford proposed 
should be adopted by the Commission. The Commission recognizes, 
however, that including the federal Tier 2 and California LEV II 
standards on the AFV label may result in a label that is even more 
complex than the current label. The additional complexity may detract 
from a consumer's ability to evaluate the information presented on the 
label. Thus, the Commission also is seeking comment on additional 
proposed options for amending the AFV label. These options would 
consolidate the information now prescribed on a two-sided label onto 
one side and eliminate information that soon will become obsolete by 
(1) deleting specific emissions information altogether or (2) requiring 
only the disclosure of the emission certification standard that has 
been met.

Part B--Proposed Alternative Options

    The Commission is seeking comment on four AFV labeling options.
    1. Option No. 1: This option tracks Ford's first proposal. It 
modifies the AFV label by substituting EPA's Tier 2 emission standards 
for the EPA standards that currently are depicted on the label. The 
Tier 2 standards reflect the varying emissions levels and are divided 
into 11 categories or ``bins.'' These bins are depicted as a horizontal 
row of boxes and corresponding acronyms that is divided into 11 equal 
parts or ``bins.'' This option permits, and therefore includes, an 
additional, second row of boxes and acronyms that depict the California 
LEV II standards. If a vehicle has been certified to a California LEV 
II standard, this option would allow that fact to be noted with a mark 
in a box on the label, along with a caret inserted above the standard 
to which the vehicle has been certified. Because California did not 
adopt the same number of standards (``bins'') as EPA, and not all of 
the California standards have a bin equivalent, two different rows are 
necessary to present this information. The Commission has slightly 
modified Ford's proposal by adding a reference in part three of the 
label to EPA's new green vehicle guide website, and states: ``Emissions 
are an important factor. For more information about how the vehicle you 
are considering compares to others, visit http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicle.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commission also proposes adding the EPA reference to 
the Rule's label for used AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed label represents all of the applicable federal and 
state emissions standards that may be used to certify a vehicle through 
the 2010 model year period. However, the information provided may 
overwhelm the label's space limitations and may not be helpful to 
consumers because of its complexity, and the lack of contextual 
references explaining the rows of boxes. Also, the addition of state 
standards may make the label even more information dense.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See generally Wesley A. Magat, W. Kip Viscusi, and Joel 
Huber, Consumer Processing of Hazard Warning Information, Journal of 
Risk and Uncertainty, 1:201-232, at 228 (1988) (``information 
overload results in less information retained by the consumer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Including EPA's website address on the label may provide consumers 
a helpful reference to comparative emissions information. At its 
website, EPA provides a thorough explanation of emissions information 
in a more comprehensive manner than otherwise would be possible on the 
AFV label. Thus, the Commission believes it would be helpful to 
consumers to reference EPA's emissions resources on the label.

[[Page 24672]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY03.019


[[Page 24673]]


    2. Option No. 2: This option tracks Ford's alternate proposal. It 
would require disclosure of the EPA Tier 2 emission standard, if any, 
to which the AFV has been certified, and permit disclosure on the same 
label of the California LEV II emission standard, if any, to which the 
AFV has been certified. For this option, the Commission also proposes 
providing a reference in part three of the label to EPA's green vehicle 
guide website. This option simplifies the emissions disclosure section 
of the label and allows manufacturers to indicate their compliance with 
the EPA Tier 2 and California LEV II emission standards. The label 
would not, however, indicate where the vehicle falls on the two ranges 
of emission standards and, thus, may not readily communicate that other 
options, in terms of emissions certifications, are available. Consumers 
could consult EPA's website for comparative vehicle information based 
on emission levels. However, the limited emissions information on the 
label may not provide sufficient information to help consumers make 
comparisons.

[[Page 24674]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY03.020


[[Page 24675]]


    3. Option No. 3: This option deletes specific reference to EPA's 
emissions standards on the front of the AFV label, and instead directs 
interested consumers to EPA's green vehicle guide website where 
detailed information is provided. This website provides all of the 
necessary background information in a format more conducive to 
understanding and assessing comparative tailpipe emissions. It also 
includes references to all vehicles and is not limited to AFVs. 
Accordingly, the Commission requests comment on whether referring 
consumers to this website may provide a significantly more helpful 
basis for a consumer to assess relative costs and benefits in terms of 
purchasing an AFV than listing all the EPA emissions standards or 
disclosing which certification standard has been met.
    This proposal is based on several considerations. First, the 
emissions information on the current label is based on emissions 
standards that change over time. Any label revisions made to reflect 
the new Tier 2 standards also will become obsolete in the future. 
Second, the emissions information on the current label already is 
complex. Revising the label to reflect the federal Tier 2 and 
California LEV II standards would add more complex and non-contextual 
information to the label, which may not be particularly helpful to 
consumers. Additionally, although the bins reflect all of EPA's Tier 2 
emission standards, the overwhelming majority of AFVs ultimately may 
fall within only a limited number of bins. Thus, depicting bins that 
may never be referenced may not be helpful.
    The Commission further proposes moving the information in parts two 
and three of the AFV label from the back to the front of the label. 
This information includes the specific factors consumers should 
consider before buying an AFV, as well as referrals to DOE, EPA, and 
NHTSA for more information about AFVs. This option would eliminate the 
need to include information on the back of the label. A one-sided label 
may be easier for consumer to use, and possibly less costly to produce, 
even if the label dimensions are increased to encompass information now 
on two sides.\16\ A downside, however, may be that the front of the 
label includes so much information that it overwhelms consumers and 
does not help them make informed decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Currently the Rule specifies that the label must be 7 
inches wide and 5\1/2\ inches long. One possibility would be to 
expand the label to 7\1/2\ inches wide and 7 inches long, or larger, 
so that the print size can be proportionately larger.

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

[[Page 24676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY03.021

    4. Option No. 4: This option combines option number two and, in 
part, option number three. Specifically, the Commission proposes 
requiring disclosure of only the EPA Tier 2 emission standard, if any, 
to which the AFV has been certified, and permitting disclosure on the 
same label of the California LEV II emission standard, if any, to which 
the AFV has been certified. For this option, the Commission also 
proposes providing a reference in part three of the label to EPA's 
green vehicle guide website. In addition, the Commission proposes 
moving the information in parts two and three of the AFV label from the 
back to the front of the label.

[[Page 24677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY03.022

Part C--Regulatory Review

    In accordance with the Commission's modified ten-year regulatory 
review schedule, the regulatory review of the Rule is being conducted 
during this rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the Commission seeks 
information, as noted below, about the costs and benefits of the Rule 
and its regulatory and economic impact.

Part D--Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must 
issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a 
rule only when it (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual 
effect on the national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates 
that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price 
of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines 
that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities 
or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the 
proposed amendments to the Rule will not have such effects on the 
national economy, on the cost of, or on covered businesses or 
consumers. The Commission, however, requests comment on the economic 
effects of the proposed amendments.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, requires 
that the agency conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact 
of the proposed amendments on small businesses. The purpose of a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that the agency considers 
impact on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that 
could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small 
entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an 
analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the 
regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    The Commission has tentatively concluded that the proposed Rule 
amendments will not affect a substantial

[[Page 24678]]

number of small entities because information the Commission currently 
possesses indicates that relatively few companies currently 
manufacture, convert, or sell AFVs. Of those that manufacture, convert, 
or sell AFVs, most are not ``small entities,'' as that term is defined 
either in section 601 of RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601(6), or applicable 
regulations of the Small Business Administration, 13 CFR Part 121. 
Accordingly, the proposed amendments would not appear to have a 
significant economic impact upon such small entities. Specifically, the 
proposed amendments to the AFV label to either substitute the new EPA 
Tier 2 emission standards for the EPA standards currently displayed on 
the Commission's AFV label, or eliminate altogether or reduce the 
number of emission standard disclosures, and add a reference on the 
label to EPA's green vehicle guide website should benefit both small 
and large businesses. The amendments also should not have a significant 
or disproportionate impact on the labeling costs of small AFV 
manufacturers.
    Based on available information, therefore, the Commission certifies 
that amending the Rule as proposed will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small businesses. To ensure that no 
significant economic impact is being overlooked, however, the 
Commission requests comments on this issue. The Commission also seeks 
comments on possible alternatives to the proposed amendments to 
accomplish the stated objectives. After reviewing any comments 
received, the Commission will determine whether a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is appropriate.

Part E--Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Rule contains various information collection requirements for 
which the Commission has obtained clearance under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') Control Number 3084-0094. As noted above, Section 309.20 of 
the Rule provides that before offering a new covered AFV for 
acquisition to consumers, manufacturers must affix on a visible surface 
of each such vehicle a new vehicle label consisting of three parts. 
Part one must disclose objective information about the estimated 
cruising range and environmental impact of the particular AFV. With 
respect to environmental impact, the labels must tell consumers whether 
or not the vehicle has met an EPA emission certification standard and, 
if so, what standard. If a vehicle has been certified, that fact must 
be noted with a mark in a box on the label, and a caret must be 
inserted above the standard the vehicle has been certified to meet. The 
graphic on the label depicts seven EPA emissions standards in 
increasing order of stringency.
    The Commission has tentatively concluded that the proposed 
amendments would not increase and may decrease the paperwork burden 
associated with the aforementioned paperwork requirements. 
Consequently, there are no additional ``collection of information'' 
requirements included in the proposed amendments to submit to OMB for 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission's proposed 
amendments to modify the AFV label by either substituting the new EPA 
Tier 2 emission standards for the EPA standards currently displayed on 
the Commission's AFV label, or eliminating altogether or reducing the 
number of emission standard disclosures would not increase the Rule's 
paperwork burden. For example, substituting the EPA Tier 2 emission 
standards for the existing standards would not change the Rule's 
requirements, but merely would update the acronyms on the label to 
accurately depict the EPA emission standards currently in effect. 
Further, adding a specifically described reference on the label to 
EPA's green vehicle guide website would not increase the Rule's 
paperwork burden.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The public disclosure of information originally supplied by 
the federal government to the recipient for the purpose of 
disclosure to the public is not included within the definition of 
``collection of information'' in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 5 CFR 
1320.3(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Commission has tentatively concluded that the proposed 
amendments would not increase the paperwork burden associated with 
compliance with the Rule. To ensure that no significant paperwork 
burden is being overlooked, however, the Commission requests comments 
on this issue.

Part F--Additional Information for Interested Persons

1. Motions or Petitions

    Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

2. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors

    Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), 16 CFR 1.18(c)(1), the 
Commission has determined that communications with respect to the 
merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or 
Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. 
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the 
communication is received before the end of the comment period. They 
shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received 
later.

Part G--Invitation To Comment and Questions for Comment

    Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or 
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's 
consideration of proposed amendments to the Rule. The Commission 
requests that factual data upon which the comments are based be 
submitted with the comments. In particular, copy test or focus group 
data about various label options would be appreciated. In addition to 
the issues raised above, the Commission solicits public comment on the 
costs and benefits to industry members and consumers of each of the 
proposals, as well as the specific questions identified below. These 
questions are designed to assist the public and should not be construed 
as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted.
    The written comments submitted will be available for public 
inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552, and Commission regulations, on normal business days between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Federal Trade Commission, 600 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 130, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2222.

Questions

Proposed Rule Amendments

    1. Should the Commission amend the Rule's AFV label in accordance 
with option number one by substituting EPA's new Tier 2 emission 
standards for the EPA standards that currently are depicted on the 
label, permitting manufacturers to disclose on the label the California 
LEV II emission standard, if any, to which the vehicle has been 
certified, and adding a reference in part three of the label to EPA's 
new green vehicle guide website? If so, why? If not, why not?
    2. Should the Commission amend the Rule's AFV label in accordance 
with option number two by requiring disclosure of only the EPA Tier 2 
emission standard, if any, to which the AFV has been certified, 
permitting

[[Page 24679]]

disclosure on the same label of the California LEV II emission 
standard, if any, to which the AFV has been certified, and adding a 
reference in part three of the label to EPA's green vehicle guide 
website? If so, why? If not, why not?
    3. Should the Commission amend the Rule's AFV label in accordance 
with option number three by deleting altogether specific reference to 
EPA's emissions standards on the front of the AFV label, directing 
consumers to EPA's green vehicle guide website, and moving the 
information in parts two and three of the AFV label from the back to 
the front of the label? If so, why? If not, why not? What dimensions 
should the Commission specify if the Commission adopts a one-sided 
label?
    4. Should the Commission amend the Rule's AFV label in accordance 
with option number four by requiring disclosure of only the EPA Tier 2 
emission standard, if any, to which the AFV has been certified, and 
permitting disclosure on the same label of the California LEV II 
emission standard, if any, to which the AFV has been certified, 
providing a reference in part three of the label to EPA's green vehicle 
guide website, and moving the information in parts two and three of the 
AFV label from the back to the front of the label? If so, why? If not, 
why not?
    5. Are there any other options not proposed herein that the 
Commission should consider that would be more appropriate in terms of 
amending the Rule's AFV label in light of EPA's new Tier 2 emission 
standards and California's new LEV II standards?
    6. Should the Commission amend the Rule to permit disclosure of a 
state (e.g., California) emission standard to which a covered AFV has 
been certified?
    7. Would a required disclosure in part one of the Commission's AFV 
label concerning EPA emission certification standards continue to be 
useful to consumers considering AFV acquisitions?
    8. Part two of the Commission's AFV label requires disclosure of 
specific factors consumers should consider before purchasing an AFV. 
The factors relate to fuel type, operating costs, performance/
convenience, fuel availability, and energy security/renewability. Do 
these factors continue to be relevant and useful to consumers 
considering buying an AFV?
    9. Should the Commission also modify the Rule's label for used AFVs 
by adding a reference on the label to EPA's green vehicle guide 
website?
    10. The Commission's Rule-required labels currently reference DOE 
for more information about AFVs. Should the Commission add a reference 
on the AFV labels to DOE's alternative fuels data center website, 
http://www.afdc.doe.gov, so that interested persons can access relevant 
brochures?

Regulatory Review

    11. Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently 
promulgated?
    (a) What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the non-
liquid alternative fuels and the AFVs affected by the Rule?
    (b) Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers?
    12. What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase 
the benefits of the Rule to purchasers? How would these changes affect 
the costs the Rule imposes on firms who comply with the Rule? How would 
these changes affect the benefits to purchasers?
    13. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of 
compliance, has the Rule imposed on firms who comply with the Rule? Has 
the Rule provided benefits to such firms? If so, what benefits?
    14. What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the 
burdens or costs imposed on firms that comply with the Rule? How would 
these changes affect the benefits provided by the Rule?
    15. Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or 
local laws or regulations?
    16. Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes 
in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309

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

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

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-11391 Filed 5-7-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P