Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles; Proposed Rule |
|---|
|
Donald S. Clark
Federal Trade Commission
May 9, 1994
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 88 (Monday, May 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11102]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 9, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Federal Trade Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
16 CFR Part 309
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled
Vehicles; Proposed Rule
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 309
RIN 3084-AA57
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative
Fueled Vehicles
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directs the
Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') to establish uniform labeling
requirements for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles.
This notice announces the substance of the Commission's proposed rule
implementing that directive. The Commission invites interested persons
to submit written comments addressing any issue they believe may bear
upon the proposed rule. Following the period for written comments,
Commission staff will conduct a Public Workshop-Conference to afford
interested persons an opportunity to discuss issues raised during the
comment period. The Public Workshop-Conference will be held on July 20-
21, 1994. After reviewing comments received in response to this notice,
the transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference, and any other
properly filed submissions, the Commission will publish a Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it will propose the text of a
labeling rule.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 23, 1994.
Notification of interest to participate in the Public Workshop-
Conference must be received on or before June 8, 1994. The Public
Workshop-Conference is scheduled to be held at the Federal Trade
Commission, Sixth and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, on July
20-21, 1994, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to participate in the Public
Workshop-Conference should be sent to the Division of Enforcement,
Federal Trade Commission, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20580, Attn: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Room S-4618. The Commission requests
that original submissions be filed with six copies, if feasible.
Submissions should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 309--Comment'' and
``16 CFR Part 309--Request to Participate in Public Workshop-
Conference'' as appropriate. If submissions are made by facsimile
transmission, please call 202/326-2372 to confirm receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Attorney,
Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC
20580, telephone 202/326-2372.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'')
directs the Commission to issue a rule establishing uniform labeling
requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for alternative
fuels1 and alternative fueled vehicles2 (``AFVs'').3 The
Act does not specify what information should be displayed on these
labels. Instead, it provides generally that the rule must require
disclosure of ``appropriate'' cost and benefit information to enable
the consumer to make reasonable purchasing choices and
comparisons.4 In formulating the rule, the Commission must
consider the problems associated with developing and publishing
``useful and timely'' information, taking into account lead time,
costs, frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and
other relevant factors.5 The labels themselves must be simple and,
where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing information
to consumers.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Alternative fuels'' are defined as:
[M]ethanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures
containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not
less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], by
rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or
vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and
other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied
petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels (other
than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity
(including electricity from solar energy); and any other fuel the
Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and
would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial
environmental benefits[.]
42 U.S.C.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993).
\2\ An ``alternative fueled vehicle'' is ``a dedicated vehicle
or a dual fueled vehicle.'' 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(3) (West Supp. 1993).
Each term is further defined in 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(6) and (8) (West
Supp. 1993).
\3\ Pub. L. No. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). Section 406(a)
is codified at 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 92 further directs the Department of Energy (``DOE'') to
coordinate its development of an information package with the
Commission's promulgation of labeling requirements.7 Specifically,
section 405 of EPA 92 requires DOE to produce and make available an
information package for consumers to help them choose among alternative
fuels and AFVs.8 DOE's information package must provide ``relevant
and objective'' information addressing seven ``motor vehicle and fuel
characteristics as compared to gasoline'' (including environmental
performance, energy efficiency, domestic content, cost, maintenance
requirements, reliability, and safety), information about the
conversion of conventional motor vehicles to AFVs, and ``such other
information as the Secretary [of DOE] determines is reasonable and
necessary to help promote the use of alternative fuels in motor
vehicles.''9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(b) (West Supp. 1993).
\8\ 42 U.S.C.A. 13231 (West Supp. 1993).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to EPA 92, the DOE Secretary is to provide technical
assistance to the Commission in developing its labeling
requirements,10 and the Commission is to issue this notice of
proposed rulemaking ``in consultation with'' the DOE Secretary, the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary
of Transportation.11 EPA 92 requires the Commission to issue a
final labeling rule within one year of this notice of proposed
rulemaking and to update its rule ``periodically to reflect the most
recent available information.''12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0 Id.
\1\1 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993). During its
development of this notice, Commission staff discussed the proposed
labeling requirements with staff from DOE, EPA, and DOT's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\1\2 Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Commission's second rulemaking concerning labeling
requirements for alternative fuels. In a separate proceeding also
required by EPA 92,13 the Commission recently extended the
requirements of its former Octane Rule14 (renamed the ``Fuel
Rating Rule'') beyond gasoline to include liquid alternative
fuels.15 As a result, retailers of such fuels are now required,
among other things, to post labels identifying the commonly used name
of the fuel and the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by
volume, of the fuel's principal component.16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\3 15 U.S.C.A. 2821-2823 (West Supp. 1993).
\1\4 Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part 306.
\1\5 58 FR 41356, 41373, Aug. 3, 1993 (to be codified at 16 CFR
306.0(i)(2)). In that proceeding, the Commission had no authority to
extend its requirements beyond liquid alternative fuels. 15 U.S.C.A.
2821 (West Supp. 1993).
\1\6 58 FR at 41373 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2)). The
Fuel Rating Rule became effective October 25, 1993. Id. at 41356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 92 requires the Commission, in formulating its rule, to obtain
the views of affected industries, consumer organizations, Federal and
State agencies, and all other interested parties.17 The Commission
has concluded that EPA 92 authorizes use of the notice and comment
rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') to
obtain the views of these entities.18 Pursuant to section
553(b)(3) of the APA, the Commission has elected to publish the
substance, instead of the specific language, of its proposed
rule.19
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\7 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
\1\8 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (c).
\1\9 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission seeks comment (written comment in response to this
notice and oral testimony during the Public Workshop-Conference) on
whether the proposed rule will accomplish the purposes of section
406(a). The Commission also seeks comment on whether some variation of
this proposal, or other options or variations not proposed here, would
be more appropriate.
II. The Commission's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
To assist in the development of its proposed labeling requirements
and this notice, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``ANPR'') in the Federal Register on December 10,
1993,20 seeking comment until January 26, 1994, on basic issues
raised by this proceeding. In its ANPR, the Commission requested
comment on issues relating to which fuels and vehicles should be
covered by the labeling requirements (i.e., the proposed rule's scope),
and what information should be required to be displayed on labels
(i.e., the proposed rule's disclosures). The Commission also sought
comment on how the labeling requirements should be updated, and the
extent to which the labels should be consolidated with other labels
providing information to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\0 58 FR 64914, Dec. 10, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the ANPR, the Commission received a total of 28
comments. These comments were from vehicle manufacturers,21 fuel
producers,22 governmental entities,23 and organizations
representing affected interests.24 All the comments were placed on
the public record pertaining to this proceeding.25 Comments
addressing issues raised in the ANPR are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\1 The Flxible Corporation (Flxible), D-4; Ford Motor Company
(Ford), D-10; General Motors (GM), D-12; Honda North America, Inc.,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda of America, Mfg., Inc., and
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. (Honda), D-15; Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
(Volvo/GM), D-1.
\2\2 Boston Edison Company (Boston Edison), D-11; Mobil Oil
Corporation (Mobil), D-16; Sun Company, Inc. (Sun), D-13.
\2\3 City of Chicago (Chicago), E-4; Minnesota Department of
Agriculture (Minnesota), E-8; Nebraska Energy Office, Alternative
Fuels Advisory Committee, Suppliers Subcommittee (Nebraska AFAC), E-
6; U.S Department of Energy (DOE), E-10; U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration, Energy Demand and Integration
Division (EIA/EDID), E-1; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics
Division (EIA/EEU-ISD), E-9; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, Office of Integrated Analysis and
Forecasting (EIA/OIAF), E-3; U.S. Department of Transportation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT/NHTSA), E-2;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), E-5; Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), E-7.
\2\4 American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), D-3;
American Gas Association (AGA) and Natural Gas Vehicles Coalition
(NGVC), D-8; American Methanol Institute (AMI), D-7; American
Petroleum Institute (API), D-17; Electric Transportation Coalition
(ETC), D-14; Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA), D-18; National
Corn Growers Association (NCGA), D-9; National Propane Gas
Association (NPGA), D-5; Propane Consumers Coalition (PCC), D-6;
Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), D-2.
\2\5 Commission's Rulemaking Record No. R311002. Comments from
nongovernmental sources were coded ``D''; comments from governmental
agencies were coded ``E.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Scope
1. Alternative Fuels
To help determine which fuels should be addressed by the proposed
rule, the Commission requested comment on which alternative fuels are
presently available for consumer use.26 The comments stated that
compressed and liquefied natural gas (``CNG'' and ``LNG,''
respectively),27 ethanol,28 methanol,29 liquefied
petroleum gas (``LPG''),30 electricity,31 coal-derived liquid
fuels,32 reformulated petroleum,33 and soy diesel34 are
all alternative fuels presently available for consumer use. In response
to a separate question, several comments also addressed the
composition, means of production, and the costs and benefits involved
in utilizing alternative fuels for transportation.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\6 58 FR at 64915. In the Fuel Rating Rule proceeding, the
Commission had identified six commercially-available liquid
alternative fuels: methanol; denatured ethanol; M85 (85% methanol,
15% gasoline); E85 (85% denatured ethanol, 15% gasoline); liquefied
natural gas (LNG); and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 58 FR 16464,
16464, Mar. 26, 1993.
\2\7 AAMA, D-3, 1; AGA/NGVC, D-8, 4-5 (CNG and LNG); API, D-17,
2-3 (LNG); Boston Edison, D-11, 9 (CNG and LNG); Chicago, E-4, 1
(CNG); DOE, E-10, 2 (CNG); DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1 (CNG); EIA/OIAF, E-3,
1; Ford, D-10, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (CNG); NCGA, D-9, 1 (CNG); RFA, D-
2, 2 (CNG); Sun, D-13, 1 (CNG and LNG).
\2\8 AAMA, D-3, 1 (E85); API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9;
Chicago, E-4, 1; DOE, E-10, 2 (E85); EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford, D-10, 1
(E85); Minnesota, E-8, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (E85 through E100); NCGA,
D-9, 1; RFA, D-2, 2 (E85); Sun, D-13, 1 (E85).
\2\9 AAMA, D-3, 1 (M85 and M100); AMI, D-7, 1 (M85, M100G for
gasoline engines, and M100D for diesel engines); API, D-17, 2-3;
DOE, E-10, 2 (M85); Boston Edison, D-11, 9; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford,
D-10, 1 (M85 and M100); Minnesota, E-8, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1 (M85
through M100); NCGA, D-9, 1; RFA, D-2, 2 (M85); Sun, D-13, 1 (M85).
\3\0 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9
(propane); DOE, E-10, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Ford, D-10, 1; Mobil, D-
16, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1; NPGA, D-5, 1; RFA, D-2, 2; Sun, D-13, 1.
\3\1 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 2-3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9;
Chicago, E-4, 1; DOE, E-10, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14, 1; Ford,
D-10, 1; Mobil, D-16, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1; Sun, D-13, 1.
\3\2 API, D-17, 2-3.
\3\3 Boston Edison, D-11, 9. Reformulated gasoline, however, may
not constitute an alternative fuel for purposes of the statute
because it is merely a reformulation of conventional gasoline. See
42 U.S.C.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993) (alternative fuels are
``substantially not petroleum'').
\3\4 Chicago, E-4, 1.
\3\5 AAMA, D-3, Att. 2; AGA/NGVC, D-8, 4-5; Boston Edison, D-11,
7; ETC, D-14, 1-3; Mobil, D-16, 1; NPGA, D-5, 1-3; RFA, D-2, 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also asked whether the scope of its labeling
requirement should be limited to presently available alternative
fuels.36 Sixteen comments addressed this issue: Seven recommended
that coverage be limited to presently available alternative
fuels,37 three recommended that coverage not be limited to such
fuels,38 and six recommended that the Commission adopt an approach
flexible enough to cover new alternative fuels as they become
commercially available.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\6 58 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
\3\7 Boston Edison, D-11, 9; Chicago, E-4, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9,
2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; EMA, D-18, 2; Mobil, D-16, 2; RFA, D-2, 3.
\3\8 DOE, E-10, 3 (coverage should also extend to M100 and
E100); NPGA, D-5, 3 (coverage should extend to presently
``recognized'' alternative fuels); PCC, D-6, 1 (coverage should
extend to all alternative fuels specified in EPA 92, including any
that the DOE Secretary designates).
\3\9 AAMA, D-3, 1; API, D-17, 3; EIA/EDID, E-1, 1; ETC, D-14, 3;
Ford, D-10, 1; NCGA, D-9, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because not every alternative fuel is dispensed from a conventional
fuel pump (e.g., electricity is dispensed from a recharging unit), the
Commission requested comment regarding how such alternative fuels
should be labeled.40 No comments provided specific suggestions on
this point. ETC and Ford stated that only public recharging stations
should be labeled.41 Six other commenters stated that all such
refueling stations should be labeled to help consumers choose the
correct fuel for their engines.42 Mobil stated that ``it is moot
as to where the data should be labeled'' because ``labeling of
information that is not technically proven is not recommended at this
time.''43 NPGA suggested that no comparative information be
disclosed for alternative fuels because comparative information is not
needed when refueling.44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\058 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
\4\1ETC, D-14, 4 (requiring private electrical outlets to be
labeled would be ``impractical''; however, new, EV-only outlets and
public recharging facilities should be labeled); Ford, D-10, 1
(``[o]nly public alternative fueling (or recharging) stations should
be covered''). Ford stated that ``[t]he types of labels should be
consistent for all types of fuel dispensers,'' but did not indicate
why the labeling requirement should be limited to public stations.
\4\2AAMA, D-3, 2; API, D-17, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 9; Chicago,
E-4, 2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EMA, D-18, 2.
\4\3Mobil, D-16, 3.
\4\4NPGA, D-5, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Alternative Fueled Vehicles
To address the Commission's responsibility to issue labeling
requirements for AFVs (to the extent practicable), the Commission
sought comment on whether it should require labeling for all or only
some AFVs.45 Fifteen of the twenty-one responsive comments stated
that all dedicated and dual fueled vehicles should be covered.46
Three comments recommended that medium and heavy-duty, commercial
vehicles be excluded from coverage because these vehicles are custom
ordered by purchasers well informed about the operating costs and
performance of their planned purchase.47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\558 FR at 64915.
\4\6AGA/NGVC, D-8, 7; API, D-17, 4; Boston Edison, D-11, 10;
Chicago, E-4, 2; DOE, E-10, 3; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9,
2; ETC, D-14, 4; Flxible, D-4, 2; Ford, D-10, 1; Honda, D-15, 5;
PCC, D-6, 2; RFA, D-2, 3; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1. EIA/OIAF
suggested that AFV's available for purchase by ``the public'' (i.e.,
individual purchasers or fleet owners) should be labeled. That
comment did not explain the reason for this formulation. EIA/OIAF,
E-3, 1.
\4\7EMA, D-18, 1-2; GM, D-12, 1; Volvo/GM, D-1, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAMA, Honda and Mobil, without explaining how the Commission could
otherwise satisfy the statutory directive, recommended that no vehicles
be subjected to a labeling requirement.48 AAMA stated that all the
relevant information necessary for making comparisons among AFVs is
already available on existing vehicle labels.49 Honda stated that
labeling should be postponed until the market and infrastructure are
more developed.50 Mobil stated that until such time as
scientifically sound data can be published, made available for public
comment, and accepted by the appropriate governmental agencies,
labeling of fuels or vehicles with benefit and cost claims appears to
be an inappropriate action.51
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\8AAMA, D-3, 2; Mobil, D-16, 3. Ford and GM indicated that
they supported AAMA's comments. Ford, D-10, 1; GM, D-12, 1.
\4\9AAMA, D-3, 2.
\5\0Honda, D-15, 7.
\5\1Mobil, D-16, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also requested comment regarding whether its
labeling requirements should extend to vehicles converted to use
alternative fuels ``after market'' (i.e., after sale of the vehicles by
original equipment manufacturers).52 Eighteen comments addressed
this issue. Twelve said that coverage should extend to all aftermarket
conversions because all AFVs should be subjected to the same labeling
requirements.53 Five comments stated that labeling requirements
would be difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, for vehicles already owned
and operated.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\258 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
\5\3AAMA, D-3, 2; Boston Edison, D-11, 10; Chicago, E-4, 3; EIA/
EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; Flxible, D-4, 2; Honda, D-15, 4-
5; NCGA, D-9, 2; NPGA, D-5, 4; PCC, D-6, 2; RFA, D-2, 3 (but only a
portion of the information required of new vehicles should appear on
the label); Sun, D-13, 2. DOT/NHTSA stated that it is considering
labeling information for CNG-powered vehicles, and that this
information ``would be equally applicable if the container is fitted
to a new vehicle or a converted vehicle.'' DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1.
\5\4AGA/NGVC, D-8, 8; DOE, E-10, 3-4; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-
14, 4; Ford, D-10, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Labeling Disclosures
As noted previously, the cost and benefit information required by
the Commission's labeling rule must be ``appropriate,'' ``useful,'' and
``timely.''55 None of those terms, however, is defined in EPA 92.
In its ANPR, the Commission thus sought comment addressing three issues
concerning the information to be disclosed in its labeling
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\542 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Commission sought comment on whether it should target
required labeling to a particular audience of consumers (e.g.,
individual purchasers or fleet owners).56 In response, eight
comments indicated that the Commission should not target particular
market segments.57 RFA stated that the information required on
vehicle labels should be easily understandable by all consumers.58
AAMA, however, stated that the information should be targeted to
individual consumers (presumably as opposed to fleet owners) ``so that
consumers can make reasonable choices.''59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\658 FR at 64915.
\5\7AGA/NGVC, D-8, 8; Boston Edison, D-11, 11; Chicago, E-4, 4;
EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; ETC, D-14, 5; Mobil, D-16, 3; NPGA, D-5, 4; PCC,
D-6, 2.
\5\8RFA, D-2, 3.
\5\9AAMA, D-3, 2. This comment did not further explain why the
Commission's labeling requirements should target this audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Commission sought comment on what information consumers
would need to compare different alternative fuels and AFVs.60 To
compare conventional fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel) with alternative
fuels, the comments stated that information regarding the following
would be important: price,61 emissions,62 mileage,63
energy content,64 domestic content (i.e., the percentage of the
fuel derived from domestic natural resources),65 and hazards, if
any.66 The comments further stated that information about similar
factors would help consumers choose among different alternative
fuels.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\058 FR 64915.
\6\1AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10, 12; ETC, D-14, 5; Mobil, D-16, 4; NPGA,
D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 2-3.
\6\2Boston Edison, D-11, 6, 12-14; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-14,
5; NPGA, D-5, 5.
\6\3Chicago, E-4, 4; NPGA, D-5, 5.
\6\4AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10, 12; ETC, D-14, 5.
\6\5Boston Edison, D-11, 6, 12-14; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-14,
5.
\6\6Boston Edison, D-11, 12; Chicago, E-4, 4.
\6\7Fuel cost: AMI, D-7, 3; DOE, E-10, 3; ETC, D-14, 6; EIA/EEU-
ISD, E-9, 1; Mobil, D-16, 4; emissions: NPGA, D-5, 5; AMI, D-7, 3;
and ETC, D-14, 6; composition: AMI, D-7, 3; octane or cetane rating:
AMI, D-7, 3; EMA, D-18, 2; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 2; domestic content:
NCGA, D-9, 2; health and safety: NCGA, D-9, 2; EMA, D-18, 2;
Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; refueling access and ease: ETC,
D-14, 6; usage limitations: ETC, D-14, 6; EMA, D-18, 2; usage
requirements: ETC, D-14, 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To compare conventional vehicles with AFVs, the comments stated
that consumers will need cost information relating to the fuel, initial
vehicle price, and vehicle operation and maintenance.68 In
addition to cost, the comments stated that information on the following
additional factors would be useful: emissions;69 fuel type;70
mileage;71 average tank, fuel or storage unit capacity;72
refueling time;73 cruising range;74 availability and access
to refueling stations and facilities;75 safety;76 resale
value;77 and tax consequences.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\8AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; API, D-17, 5; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-
14, 5-6; PCC, D-6, 4.
\6\9AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; API, D-17, 5; Chicago, E-4, 4; ETC, D-
14, 5-6; NPGA, D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 4; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
\7\0API, D-17, 5; ETC, D-14, 5-6.
\7\1Chicago, E-4, 4; NPGA, D-5, 5; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
\7\2RFA, D-2, 3-4.
\7\3API, D-17, 5.
\7\4API, D-17, 5; PCC, D-6, 4; RFA, D-2, 3-4.
\7\5API, D-17, 5; NPGA, D-5, 5; PCC, D-6, 4.
\7\6Chicago, E-4, 4; PCC, D-6, 4.
\7\7ETC, D-14, 5-6; PCC, D-6, 4.
\7\8API, D-17, 5. API did not specify what those consequences
would be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments stated that comparing different AFVs would require an
evaluation of the same factors.79 For those comparisons, the
comments also indicated that consumers will need to know the AFV's
price,80 maintenance costs,81 passenger and cargo
space,82 vehicle performance,83 and fuel composition.84
Three comments also stated that consumers will need telephone numbers
for additional sources of information about alternative fuels and
AFVs.85
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\9Fuel type: AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 2;
EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; Flxible, D-4, 2; Honda, D-15, 3-4; NCGA, D-9,
2; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel economy: AAMA, D-3, 1-
2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; DOE, E-10, 4; Honda, D-15, 3-4; NPGA, D-5, 5; Sun,
D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel cost: AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5;
DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; Honda, D-15, 3-4; Nebraska
AFAC, E-6, 1; Sun, D-13, 2; emissions certification: AAMA, D-3, 1-2;
AMI, D-7, 4-5; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; ETC, D-14,
6; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1; NPGA, D-5, 5; WDNR, E-7, 1; cruising
range: DOE, E-10, 4; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14, 6; Honda, D-15, 3-
4; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR, E-7, 1; fuel tank capacity: EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9,
1; Sun, D-13, 2; safety: EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; NCGA, D-9, 2; Nebraska
AFAC, E-6, 1; refueling ease and access: ETC, D-14, 6; Nebraska
AFAC, E-6, 1; NPGA, D-5, 5; refueling time: DOE, E-10, 4; EIA/OIAF,
E-3, 1.
\8\0AAMA, D-3, 1-2; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; ETC, D-14, 6.
\8\1AMI, D-7, 4-5; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1.
\8\2EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; ETC, D-14, 6.
\8\3EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; ETC, D-14, 6; Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1.
\8\4Nebraska AFAC, E-6, 1. The comments further indicated that
consumers will need to know whether the vehicle has been converted
to alternative fuel operation and, if so, the identity of the
manufacturer of the conversion kit and the installer of the system.
AAMA, D-3, 1-2; AMI, D-7, 4-5; NCGA, D-9, 2. One comment stated that
consumers will need to know the expected battery life for electric
vehicles. EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1.
\8\5EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 1; Minnesota, E-8, 2-3; NCGA, D-9, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Commission sought comment on the information that should
be disclosed (as opposed to merely what is relevant) to consumers to
help them make reasonable purchasing choices and comparisons.86
The most frequently mentioned factor to be disclosed on fuel dispensers
was unit pricing information comparing the cost of the fuel to a
standard unit (e.g., a gallon of gasoline).87 Other factors
included health and safety information,88 and fuel type (or
name),89 rating (octane or cetane, as appropriate),90
emissions,91 energy content,92 principal ingredient,93
and quantity purchased.94 Boston Edison stated that the labels
should identify the percentage of fuel that comes from domestic
sources.95 The Minnesota Department of Agriculture said there is
no need to mandate labels on the fuel dispenser itself because ``[w]hen
the fuel is being sold by private marketers, they will provide the most
appropriate labeling for any individual marketplace.''96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\658 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
\8\7AAMA, D-3, 2; AMI, D-7, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 12; DOE, E-
10, 3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; ETC, D-14, 7; Mobil, D-16, 5; PCC, D-6,
3.
\8\8EMA, D-18, 3; EMA, D-18, 3; ETC, D-14, 7; Nebraska, E-6, 2;
NHTSA, E-2, 2; WDNR, E-7, 2.
\8\9AAMA, D-3, 2; AMI, D-7, 3; API, D-17, 4-5; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9,
2; Nebraska, E-6, 2; NHTSA, E-2, 2; Sun, D-13, 1.
\9\0AMI, D-7, 3; EMA, D-18, 3; Nebraska, E-6, 2.
\9\1AMI, D-7, 3; Boston Edison, D-11, 12.
\9\2AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10 (labels should compare ``the amount of
energy in different fuels by indicating the quantity * * * of
different fuels needed to equal the energy content in gasoline'');
Boston Edison, D-11, 11 (the British Thermal Unit ``provides the
most accurate unit of measure that can be used to evaluate the
relative merits of each type of fuel'').
\9\3AMI, D-7, 3.
\9\4EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2.
\9\5Boston Edison, D-11, 12.
\9\6Minnesota, E-8, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to vehicle labeling, the comments recommended that information
regarding cost,97 emissions,98 fuel economy,99
safety,100 fuel type,101 and performance (e.g., cruising
range)102 be disclosed on a label on the vehicle. Other suggested
disclosures included domestic content of the fuel,103 ownership
type (individual or fleet),104 tank capacity,105 and fuel
availability.106 Two comments recommended certain disclosures for
AFVs, but did not specify where the required information should be
disclosed (i.e., on a label, in a fact sheet, or elsewhere).107
API suggested that the Commission develop a brochure for consumers
disclosing pertinent information.108
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\7AGA/NGVC, D-8, 9-10; AMI, D-7, 5; Boston Edison, D-11, 12;
EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; ETC, D-14,
7; RFA, D-2, 4.
\9\8AGA/NGVC, D-8, 10-11; Boston Edison, D-11, 12; EIA/EEU-ISD,
E-9, 2; ETC, D-14, 7; RFA, D-2, 4; WDNR, E-7, 2.
\9\9AMI, D-7, 5; DOE, E-10, 4; RFA, D-2, 4; Sun, D-13, 2; WDNR,
E-7, 2.
\1\00EIA/EDID, E-1, 2-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; NHTSA, E-2, 2;
WDNR, E-7, 2.
\1\01AMI, D-7, 4; API, D-17, 6; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; Flxible, D-
4, 2; Minnesota, E-8, 3; NHTSA, E-2, 2; WDNR, E-7, 2.
\1\02Boston Edison, D-11, 12; EIA/EDID, E-1, 2; EIA/EEU-ISD, E-
9, 2; EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1; RFA, D-2, 4; WDNR, E-7, 2.
\1\03Boston Edison, D-11, 12; RFA, D-2, 4.
\1\04WDNR, E-7, 2.
\1\05EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2; RFA, D-2, 4. DOE recommended refueling
time and refueling frequency. DOE, E-10, 4.
\1\06EIA/EEU-ISD, E-9, 2.
\1\07Chicago, E-4, 4 (alternative fuel mix ratio, economic
advantages, energy efficiency, environmental performance, miles/
alternative fuel gallon); NCGA, D-9, 2 (domestic content, renewable
content, Global Warming Index rating, health/safety information).
\1\08API, D-17, 5. The suggested brochure would disclose
``relative fuel costs, maintenance costs, operational costs,
emissions reductions, possible tax consequences, and the type of
fuel needed to power an AFV.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Updating Labeling Disclosures
Because EPA 92 requires the Commission to update its labeling
requirements ``periodically,'' the Commission sought comment on how
frequently it should update its labeling requirements.109 Eight
comments stated that the Commission should review its labeling
requirements at regular intervals (i.e., either annually,110 or
every two,111 three,112 or five to ten years).113 Other
comments indicated that the Commission should update labels only when
necessary to reflect practical developments in technology.114
Mobil stated that label updating should reflect fuel cost
changes.115
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\09 58 FR 64914, 64915, Dec. 10, 1993.
\1\10 AGA/NGVC, D-8, 13; Boston Edison, D-11, 16; DOE, E-10, 4;
EIA/OIAF, E-3, 1.
\1\11 Chicago, E-4, 4-5; ETC, D-14, 8.
\1\12 AMI, D-7, 5.
\1\13 RFA, D-2, 5.
\1\14 NCGA, D-9, 3; NPGA, D-5, 6.
\1\15 Mobil, D-16, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consolidation
Finally, the Commission sought comment regarding section 406(a)'s
direction that the Commission consolidate its labels with other labels
providing information to consumers ``where appropriate.''116 Four
comments suggested that the required information could be consolidated
with existing fuel economy labels.117 Five other comments
suggested that consolidation would be difficult or would provide no
benefit to consumers.118 One comment stated that these labeling
requirements should not duplicate existing labels.119
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\16 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
\1\17 AGA/NGVC, D-8, 13; EPA, E-5, 5 (consolidation with EPA
labels should be ``investigate[d]''); Ford, D-10, 1; NPGA, D-5, 6.
\1\18 API, D-17, 7; DOE, E-10, 4; Mobil, D-16, 6; NCGA, D-9, 3;
RFA, D-2, 5.
\1\19 ETC, D-14, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Labeling Rule
In developing its labeling proposal, the Commission is required to
reconcile several competing concerns. As noted previously, EPA 92
directs the Commission to develop uniform labels disclosing appropriate
cost and benefit information.120 However, in determining what
information is appropriate, it must consider the problems associated
with developing and publishing such information.121 The
information to be disclosed also must be displayed on simple
labels.122 Given this context, and after considering the comments,
the Commission proposes separate labeling requirements for alternative
fuels and AFVs, to become effective 90 days after publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register. Because few consumers have
extensive experience with either alternative fuels or AFVs, the
Commission's proposal is designed to be of use to a general consumer
audience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\20 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
\1\21Id.
\1\22Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Alternative Fuel Labeling
For the fuel labeling requirement, the Commission proposes that
retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels post standard labels
identifying the commonly used names of those fuels on fuel dispensers
and recharging stations servicing consumers. The labels would be placed
conspicuously in full view of consumers and as near as reasonably
practical to the fuel's unit price. The Commission also proposes
requiring disclosure of the fuel's principal component and permitting
disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum percentages. These
proposals are analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule
pertaining to liquid alternative fuels.123 The Commission requests
comment on the feasibility of such disclosures and how they may best be
accomplished. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a different
measure of content (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for
electricity) would be more appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\23 58 FR at 41374 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and
306.10(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNG, electricity, and hydrogen are the only non-liquid fuels
defined as ``alternative fuels'' in EPA 92.124 Although section
406(a) directs the Commission to issue labeling requirements for
``alternative fuels'' (presumably for all such fuels), the liquid
alternative fuels currently are subject to similar requirements imposed
by the Fuel Rating Rule. In accordance with section 406(a)'s directive
to review the rule ``periodically to reflect the most recent available
information,''125 the Commission will supplement the list of
covered fuels as new non-liquid alternative fuels are designated as
alternative fuels by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\24 42 U.S.C.A. 13211(2) (West Supp. 1993).
\1\25 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission developed this relatively simple labeling
requirement for fuel dispensers after considering how it might best
balance consumers' need for useful and timely cost and benefit
information with the problems associated with displaying such
information in a simple label format. The requirement provides
consumers with the most important pieces of information needed when
refueling: Fuel type and composition. Although in the absence of this
requirement sellers could be expected to identify the fuel sold, they
may not do so in a standardized format. The Commission believes that a
standardized format assists consumers in identifying the proper
fuel.126 Furthermore, it is uncertain whether they would provide
information regarding the precise composition of the fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\26 Comments stating that fuel type (or name) should be
disclosed are cited at note 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, comparative information at the fuel pump is unlikely
to be necessary in most instances. For consumers with dedicated AFVs
(i.e., vehicles capable of operating on only one fuel), the selection
process between competing fuels is concluded once an AFV is acquired.
Consumers driving dual or flexible fueled vehicles (i.e., vehicles
capable of being powered both by a conventional and an alternative
fuel) will be limited to purchasing fuels meeting their engines'
requirements (one being gasoline, with which consumers are already
familiar and which is already labeled with pertinent information).
Thus, providing consumers with information comparing various types of
alternative fuels is best done prior to the time the vehicle is
acquired.
There also are reasons to avoid requiring additional, less
important information. One consideration is the avoidance of
information overload. In contrast to vehicle purchases, consumers' fuel
purchases typically occur in a quick transaction. In a Report to
Congress assessing the need for a uniform national label on fuel pumps,
the Commission noted that time constraints may affect how consumers
read, understand, and use information.127 Indeed, ``studies show
that less accurate information processing occurs under time
constraints; test subjects focus on fewer pieces of information and
unduly emphasize negative information.''128 Simplicity therefore
is a greater consideration in labeling of fuels than in the labeling of
AFVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\27Federal Trade Commission, Study Of A Uniform National Label
For Devices That Dispense Automotive Fuels to Consumers (1993)
(hereinafter FTC Study), at 29.
\1\28Id. at 29 n.152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid cluttering labels further, the Commission also believes
that it should not consolidate these labels with other mandatory labels
or require otherwise duplicative disclosures.129 For example, a
labeling proposal that the National Conference on Weights and Measures
(``NCWM''), a consensus standards-writing organization for state and
local regulatory agencies, is considering would require that retail CNG
dispensers display the quantity of CNG in gallons-of-gasoline
equivalents to help consumers compare the price of CNG to
gasoline.130
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\29See ETC, D-14, 7-8 (AFV labels should not duplicate
existing labels).
\1\30U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Report of the 78th National Conference on
Weights and Measures 229-33 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed labeling requirement also has the advantage of placing
equal regulatory requirements on all competing fuels.131 The Fuel
Rating Rule's labeling requirements cover only liquid alternative
fuels. Although that Rule serves a different purpose,132 the
Commission believes that harmonizing labeling requirements, when
practicable, is appropriate.133 Fuel Rating Rule labels for liquid
alternative fuels must identify the commonly used name of the fuel and
the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by volume, of the fuel's
principal component.134 That Rule also permits disclosure of other
components, also expressed as a minimum percentage.135 The
Commission is proposing disclosure of the same information for non-
liquid alternative fuels. The Commission further proposes that the
alternative fuels labels follow the same size and format requirements
of the Fuel Rating Rule.136 The Commission also seeks comment
regarding how the components of those fuels can be calculated or
expressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\31RFA, D-2, 5 (labeling should extend to all alternative
fuels, as that term is defined in EPA 92, sold to consumers); Sun,
D-13, 1 (same).
\1\32The purpose of the EPA 92 amendments to title II of the
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2821-2825, was to give
purchasers information they need to choose the correct type or grade
of fuel for their vehicles. 58 FR at 41356.
\1\33See API, D-17, 4, 8 (labels required by Fuel Rating Rule
provide sufficient information); RFA, D-2, 5 (same); Sun, D-13, 1
(fuel descriptor labels should apply to all available alternative
fuels). Retailers of liquid alternative fuels have additional
responsibilities under the Fuel Rating Rule, e.g., posting
consistent with rating certified to retailer and maintaining
required records. See 58 FR at 41374 (to be codified as 16 CFR
306.10(d) and 306.11). The Commission believes that those
requirements are beyond the scope of its mandate under Section
406(a).
\1\3458 FR at 41373 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.0(j)((2)).
\1\35Id.
\1\3658 FR at 41375 (to be codified at 16 CFR 306.12). Labels
required by the Fuel Rating Rule are 3 inches wide by 2\1/2\ inches
long, with process black type on an orange background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. AFV Labeling
For the AFV labeling requirement, the Commission proposes that
original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') and AFV conversion
companies affix, and AFV dealers maintain,137 standard labels on
new AFVs sold or offered for sale to consumers.138 The labels
would consist of three parts. The first part would disclose fuel tank
capacity of the labeled AFV; the second part would contain a list of
comparative factors relevant to AFVs in general; and the third part
would direct consumers to other sources of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\37EPA's fuel economy label is required to be affixed and
maintained in a similar fashion. 46 U.S.C. 2006.
\1\38The term ``consumer'' is not defined in EPA 92. The
Commission proposes that ``consumer'' be defined as a person (i.e.,
an individual, corporation, or any other business organization)
purchasing a new AFV from a dealer or AFV conversion company (i.e.,
not directly from the manufacturer as a special order). See GM, D-
12, 1 (medium and heavy-duty trucks should be excluded from proposed
rule's scope because most are custom ordered); Volvo/GM, D-1, 1
(heavy duty trucks, because they are custom ordered, should be
excluded). The Commission seeks comment on this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, the Commission believes that comparative
information would be most useful to consumers prior to the time the
vehicle is purchased. In developing its proposal for AFV labeling, the
Commission considered requiring disclosure of information pertaining to
all the factors cited in the comments, including fuel and/or operating
costs and environmental impact (i.e., emissions). Information about
those factors would clearly help consumers make purchasing choices,
assuming the information was accurate, understandable and comparable.
For most of those factors, however, the Commission has tentatively
decided that the level of detail necessary to convey balanced, accurate
information to consumers cannot be contained on the ``simple'' label
envisioned by Congress. For example, an accurate assessment of the
life-cycle environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle
requires a review of numerous factors, including emissions resulting
from fuel production, distribution, handling, storage, dispensing, and
combustion.139 Measuring each of those factors itself requires an
analysis of numerous chemical compounds, including carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, volatile organic
carbons, radioactive particles, particulate matter, and aerosols.
Similarly, evaluating the true costs associated with driving a
particular AFV would require information about the vehicle's
acquisition (i.e., capital costs in acquiring or converting an AFV) and
operation (e.g., fuel costs, repair and maintenance costs, and any tax
consequences).140 All of this information cannot be presented
accurately on a simple label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\39Assessing only tail-pipe emissions could be easier, but
potentially misleading because of the significance of the
environmental impact involved in, for example, fuel production.
\1\40See, e.g., 26 U.S.C.A. 30, 179A (West Supp. 1993) (creating
tax credits for qualified electric vehicles and deductions for
clean-fuel vehicles and certain refueling property).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other cost-benefit information (e.g., comparing reliability by
measuring each alternative fuel's ability to start a cold engine) is
also difficult to disclose on a simple label because no technical
standards exist for measuring some factors.141 The Commission
often relies on consensus standards-setting organizations, such as the
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM''), or governmental
agencies with engineering and technical expertise to develop such
standards.142 Here, the comments did not identify any such
standards, and the Commission is not otherwise aware that standards
exist for all the factors. Without standards upon which to base
required disclosures, the information manufacturers would provide would
not necessarily be comparable, and this could be confusing to
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\41Some comments stated that the supporting data on
alternative fuels in general are ``controversial, ambiguous or
misleading,'' Minnesota, E-8, 3, or ``still unproven,'' Mobil, D-16,
2-3, 5.
\1\42See, e.g., 16 CFR 306.0(a), (b) (octane rating based on
ASTM specifications); 16 CFR 305.5 (appliance labeling based on DOE
test procedures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 92 also requires DOE to produce a brochure that provides
consumers with ``relevant and objective'' comparative information about
AFVs and alternative fuels, including environmental performance, energy
efficiency, domestic content, cost, maintenance requirements,
reliability, and safety.143 DOE's information package also must
include information regarding conversion of conventional vehicles to
run on alternative fuels.144 The brochure format will allow DOE
latitude to present valuable information in fuller measure.
Accordingly, there is less need for the Commission to attempt to
present complex information in the constrained format of an AFV label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\4342 U.S.C.A. 13231 (West Supp. 1993). DOE's information
package must be completed within 18 months after EPA 92's enactment
date (April 1994) and updated annually ``to reflect the most recent
available information.'' Id.
\1\44Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with labeling for alternative fuels, the Commission also
believes that it should not consolidate these labels with other
mandatory labels or require otherwise duplicative disclosures. For AFV
labeling, EPA has proposed that its fuel economy labels (which display
estimated miles per gallon and annual fuel cost information) be affixed
on AFVs powered by CNG, ethanol, and methanol.145 For dual fueled
vehicles operating on these or conventional fuels, the proposed
regulations would require that fuel economy data be provided only for
the conventional fuels; manufacturers would be given the option of
posting such data for the alternative fuels.146 EPA also has been
directed to promulgate rules that require fuel economy labeling for
vehicles powered by LPG, hydrogen, electricity, and other alternative
fuels.147 Rules requiring disclosure of information about
emissions certification148 and safety149 are also in effect
or under active consideration by other governmental bodies. Because
consumers will have immediate access to this information in other
required labels, the Commission believes that providing the same
information on its AFV labels (in a different format) could confuse
consumers, and is not thus appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\4556 FR 8856, 8860, 8869-71, Mar. 1, 1991; EPA, E-5, 2-4.
\1\4656 FR at 8861; EPA, E-5, 3-4. EPA expects that these
regulations will be issued ``in the near future.'' EPA, E-5, 5.
\1\4715 U.S.C.A. 2006 (West Supp. 1993).
\1\48EPA currently requires emissions certification labels
(which state that the vehicle conforms to applicable EPA
regulations) for certain 1994 model year AFV's powered by methanol.
See 40 CFR 86.094-35(c)(1)(ii)(A) (light duty vehicles); 40 CFR
86.094-35(c)(1)(ii)(B)(1) (light duty trucks). In California, state
regulations require that AFV's powered by CNG, ethanol, methanol,
and LPG, and conventional vehicles converted to run on any of these
fuels, also carry such labels. Section 1965, Title 13, California
Code of Regulations (CCR); California Air Resources Board Mail-Out
No. 93-34.
\1\49The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has proposed requiring a permanent label on CNG storage tanks
disclosing the name and address of the tank manufacturer, the month
and year of manufacture, and the maximum service pressure. 58 FR
5323, Jan. 21, 1993. NHTSA is also considering whether it should
require labeling as to the need for periodic reinspection of the CNG
container, the need to remove the container from service after its
useful life, and the proper fill pressure for refueling the
container. DOT/NHTSA, E-2, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to update its
labeling requirements ``periodically to reflect the most recent
available information.''150 The Commission therefore intends to
monitor the industry as standards for evaluating other relevant
objective factors are developed. As those standards are issued by
recognized organizations and agencies, the Commission expects to update
this part of the AFV labeling requirements accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5042 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above considerations, the Commission proposes a
labeling requirement containing three parts: (1) Disclosure of fuel
tank capacity, (2) a list of factors consumers should consider in
purchasing AFVs, and (3) a notice directing consumers to other sources
of information.
1. Disclosure of Fuel Tank Capacity
Section 406(a) mandates that the labels disclose cost and benefit
information. One principal piece of cost-benefit information is
cruising range.151 To help consumers estimate this from available
data,152 the Commission proposes that fuel tank capacity be
calculated and displayed for each AFV sold or offered for sale to
consumers. Fuel tank capacity would be expressed in gallons for AFVs
powered by liquid alternative fuels, and the Commission seeks comment
on how it should be disclosed for gaseous and electric powered
AFVs.153
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\51See notes 74 and 102, and accompanying text. Several
comments stated that related considerations (e.g., fuel tank
capacity and refueling time) are important in their own right. See
notes 72, 73, 79, and 105 and accompanying text.
\1\52For AFVs with EPA fuel economy labels, cruising range can
be estimated by multiplying fuel tank capacity by the posted miles-
per-gallon rating for that vehicle.
\1\53For AFVs capable of operating on both alternative and
conventional fuels, the labels would disclose the capacity of the
tank or battery storing the alternative fuel. For AFVs capable of
operating on multiple alternative fuels, the labels would disclose
the capacity of the tank or battery storing each alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. List of Comparative Factors
The second part of the proposed label would provide consumers with
a standard framework for evaluating issues relevant to AFVs in general.
Information contained on this part could help consumers evaluate
information disclosed on other labels, in advertising, and from other
sources. The Commission has tentatively determined that requiring
disclosure of a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general will help
consumers make choices and comparisons. The Commission also expects
that this aspect of its labeling requirement will encourage AFV
manufacturers, converters, and dealers to provide additional
information to meet consumers' expectations and needs.154
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\54See Boston Edison, D-11, 13 (``market forces will create
incentives for sellers to identify and respond to consumer demands
for information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AFV label would contain a form notice stating, in substance,
that vehicles powered by different fuels have different costs and
benefits, and that consumers should consider those differences when
considering an AFV purchase. The label would then list factors
consumers should consider before purchasing an AFV.155 Based on
the comments received, the Commission proposes that the second part of
the AFV label identify the following six factors: fuel type (i.e., the
fuel or fuels that power the vehicle); operating costs; environmental
impact; health and safety; on-road performance (i.e., cruising range,
cold start capability and refueling time); and fuel availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\55In an unrelated context, the Commission has previously
concluded that a list of purchasing considerations could convey
useful information to consumers. See Used Motor Vehicle Trade
Regulation Rule, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 49 FR 45692, 45706,
Nov. 19, 1984 (list of major defects that can occur in used motor
vehicles provides consumers with a framework for evaluating and
comparing warranty coverage and counteracts dealer
misrepresentations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each factor would be supplemented with a brief explanation of how
it is relevant to an AFV purchase. For example, for fuel type, the
label would contain a statement that AFVs are designed to be powered by
a certain fuel or fuels, and that consumers should be aware of which
fuel(s) powers that particular AFV. For operating costs, the label
would state that the total cost of operating an AFV includes, among
other things, fuel and maintenance costs, and that those costs for AFVs
are different than for gasoline-fueled vehicles and can vary
considerably. The label would also advise consumers that if the vehicle
posts an EPA alternative fuel-economy rating (``AFER''),156 they
can estimate their fuel costs per mile by dividing their fuel cost
(obtained from alternative fuel retailers) by the AFER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\56As noted previously, for dual fueled vehicles, EPA's
proposed regulations would give manufacturers the option of posting
fuel economy data for the alternative fuel. See note 149 and
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For environmental impact, the labels would state that all vehicles
(conventional and AFVs) affect the environment in ways both direct
(e.g., how the vehicle processes the fuel) and indirect (e.g., how the
fuel is produced and brought to market). Accordingly, in evaluating the
environmental impact of a particular AFV, consumers should consider all
environmental costs associated with driving a vehicle powered by that
alternative fuel, as well as any benefits as compared to gasoline.
The other factors would follow a similar format. For health and
safety, the labels would notify consumers that different fuels raise
different health and safety concerns. As a result, consumers should
consider any health and safety issues associated with normal driving
and refueling, and in the event of an accident. For on-road
performance, the labels would advise consumers that vehicles powered by
different fuels will differ in terms of their cruising range (i.e., how
many miles the vehicle will go on a full supply of fuel), cold start
capabilities (i.e., ability to start a cold engine) and refueling and/
or recharging time (i.e., how long it will take to refill the vehicle's
fuel tank to full capacity). For fuel availability, the labels would
advise consumers to determine whether a refueling and/or recharging
infrastructure has been developed for the AFV under consideration which
meets their driving needs.
3. Direction to Other Sources of Information
The third part of the proposed label would direct consumers to
additional sources of objective information regarding AFVs. Several
comments stated that information not required to be disclosed by the
Commission would be available to consumers in DOE's information
package.157 However, EPA 92 does not require AFV dealers or
conversion companies to provide consumers with copies of the DOE
information package or to notify them of its availability. Accordingly,
the third part of the proposed label would contain a statement
informing consumers that further information about alternative fuels
and AFVs is available from DOE.158
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\57See AAMA, D-3, 2; Ford, D-10, 2; GM, D-12, 1.
\1\58See ETC, D-14, 8 (labels could include cross-references to
availability of DOE brochures); Minnesota, E-8, 3 (brochures with
general consumer information, including phone numbers of additional
information resources, could be made available at the point of
purchase).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Label Size
With respect to label size, the Commission has tentatively
determined that a label larger than the fuel pump label is needed to
accommodate the greater number of required disclosures. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes requiring that AFV labels be 7\1/2\ inches wide
by 11 inches high. This is the same size as the labels required by the
Commission's Used Car Rule, which have adequate room to display
effectively a large amount of information.159
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\59Labels required by the Used Car Rule are no smaller than 11
inches high by 7\1/4\ inches wide in black type on a white
background. 16 CFR 455.2(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Invitation to Comment
The Commission invites interested persons to address any questions
of fact, law, or policy that they believe may bear upon the proposed
rule. The Commission particularly desires comment, however, on the
questions listed below.
All comments should reference the aspect of the proposed rule or
question being discussed. Comments opposing the proposed rule or
specific provisions should, if possible, suggest a specific
alternative. Proposals for alternative regulations should include
reasons and data explaining why the alternative would better serve the
purposes of EPA 92 and section 406(a).
Before adopting a final rule, consideration will be given to any
written comments timely submitted to the Commission. Comments submitted
will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act160 and the Commission's Rule of
Practice,161 during normal business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
at the Public Reference Room, room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th
and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\605 U.S.C. 552.
\1\6116 CFR 4.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Proposed Labeling Rule
1. Alternative Fuel Labeling
The Commission is proposing that retailers of non-liquid
alternative fuels post standard labels identifying the commonly used
names of those fuels on fuel dispensers and on recharging stations
selling to consumers.
(a) Should the Commission issue its proposal for labeling of non-
liquid alternative fuels as a final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not?
(b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal?
(c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's
proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any
such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
(d) Would any disclosures specified by law (either federal, state,
or local) affect the Commission's alternative-fuels labeling proposal?
(e) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining
the benefits?
(2) If no, why not?
The Fuel Rating Rule requires that the standard labels for liquid
alternative fuels identify the amount of the fuel's principal
component, and permits disclosure of other components, expressed as
minimum percentages by volume. The Commission is proposing this
requirement for non-liquid alternative fuels.
(f) Should the Commission require disclosure of the principal
component of the non-liquid alternative fuels, and permit disclosure of
other components, expressed as minimum percentages?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a
requirement? (c) What are the principal components of each of the non-
liquid alternative fuels? (d) Do the compositions of the non-liquid
alternative fuels vary from supplier to supplier? (e) How should
information about those components be calculated and displayed? (f)
What costs or problems are associated with requiring such a disclosure?
(g) How might the Commission minimize any such costs or problems, while
maintaining the benefits?
(2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) Is disclosure of a different measure of
content more appropriate (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for
electricity)? (c) What should that disclosure be, and why?
(g) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining
the benefits?
(2) If no, why not?
The Commission proposes that the labels for the non-liquid
alternative fuels follow the same size and format required by the Fuel
Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels.
(h) Should the Commission require the same size and format in its
labeling for non-liquid alternative fuels as required by the Fuel
Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels?
The Commission proposes that labeling requirements for alternative
fuels become effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register.
(i) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests
sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements?
(1) If yes, why?
(2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary
to comply with the proposed labeling requirements for alternative
fuels? Why is that extra time necessary?
2. AFV Labeling
The Commission proposes that OEMs and AFV conversion companies
selling or offering to sell AFVs to consumers affix, and that dealers
maintain, standard labels on the vehicles disclosing that particular
AFV's fuel tank capacity, a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general,
and a statement informing consumers that further information about
alternative fuels and AFVs is available from DOE.
(a) Should the Commission issue its proposal for AFV labeling as a
final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not?
(b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal?
(c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's
proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any
such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits?
(d) Would any disclosures specified by law (either federal, state,
or local) affect the Commission's AFV labeling proposal?
(e) Is fuel tank capacity a useful measure for consumer
comparisons?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Will this information be provided by OEMs
and AFV conversion companies in the absence of a regulatory
requirement? (c) Will disclosure of fuel tank capacity help consumers
calculate or estimate cruising range or any other important purchasing
criteria? If so, which purchasing criteria? (d) Is measuring fuel tank
capacity in gallons appropriate for AFVs powered by liquid fuels? (e)
How should fuel tank capacity be measured for AFVs powered by gaseous
fuels or electricity?
(2) If no, why not?
(f) Is a list of six issues relevant to AFVs in general on the AFV
label sufficient to alert consumers to issues they should consider
before purchasing an AFV?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Should the factors include the types of
statements the Commission outlined for each factor in Part III(B)(2)?
(2) If no, why not?
(g) Should the AFV label notify consumers of the availability of
DOE's information package? Why or why not?
(h) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative
disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures?
(1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there
any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those
disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems
are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify
its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining
the benefits?
(2) If no, why not?
The Commission proposes that the term ``consumer'' be defined as a
person (i.e., an individual, corporation, or any other business
organization) purchasing a new AFV from a dealer or AFV conversion
company (i.e., not directly from the manufacturer as a special order).
(i) Is the Commission's proposed definition of ``consumer''
consistent with section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose?
(1) If yes, why?
(2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How should the definition be modified
to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (c)
Should the Commission exclude used AFV purchases from the scope of the
proposed rule? Why or why not?
The Commission proposes that the labels for AFVs be of the same
size and format as the labels required by the Commission's Used Car
Rule.
(j) Should the Commission require the same size label in its AFV
labeling as required by the Commission's Used Car Rule?
(k) Should the Commission specify other format issues, such as
layout and type size?
The Commission proposes that AFV labeling requirements become
effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register.
(l) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests
sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements?
(1) If yes, why?
(2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary
to comply with the proposed requirements? Why is that extra time
necessary?
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'')162 requires agencies
to prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when publishing proposed
rules163 unless the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.''164 Here, the economic impact of both proposed
requirements appears to be de minimis; the Commission proposes no
recordkeeping requirements,165 and the proposed disclosures
consist of information that is basic and easily ascertainable. The
Commission tentatively concludes that the proposed rule also will not
affect a substantial number of small entities because information the
Commission currently possesses indicates that relatively few companies
currently sell alternative fuels or manufacture, convert, or sell AFVs.
Of those that manufacture or sell AFVs, most are not ``small
entit[ies]'' as that term is defined either in section 601 of
RFA166 or applicable regulations of the Small Business
Administration.167
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\62 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\1\63 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\1\64 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
\1\65 In 1993 the Commission certified that the Fuel Rating
Rule's requirements that retailers post labels and keep required
records would not have a significant impact. 58 FR 41356, 41371,
Aug. 3, 1993.
\1\66 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\1\67 13 CFR Part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the above, the Commission certifies that the proposed
rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities and, therefore, that a regulatory
analysis is not necessary. The Commission requests comment on this
certification, and whether the proposed rule will have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. After reviewing any
comments received on this subject, the Commission will decide whether
the preparation of a final regulatory-flexibility analysis is
appropriate.
C. Regulatory Review
The Commission has implemented a program to review all of its
current and proposed rules and guides. One purpose of the review is to
minimize the economic impact of new regulatory actions. As part of that
overall regulatory review, the Commission solicits comments on the
following questions:
1. What changes, if any, should be made to the Proposed Rule to
increase the benefits of the Rule to purchasers?
a. How would these changes affect the costs the Proposed Rule would
impose on firms subject to its requirements?
2. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of
compliance, will the Proposed Rule impose on firms subject to its
requirements?
a. Will the Proposed Rule provide benefits to such firms?
3. What changes, if any, should be made to the Proposed Rule to
reduce the burdens or costs that would be imposed on firms subject to
its requirements?
a. How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the
Proposed Rule?
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
If promulgated, the Commission's labeling requirements would not
involve the ``collection of information'' as defined by the regulations
of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')168 implementing
the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').169 Because the Commission's
proposed rule contains disclosure requirements only, there is no
``information collection'' in this proceeding to submit to OMB for
clearance. However, to ensure the accuracy of its conclusion, the
Commission solicits comment on any paperwork burden that the public
believes the proposed requirements may impose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\685 CFR 1320.7(c).
\1\6944 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Metric Usage
The metric measurement system is the preferred system of weights
and measures for United States trade and commerce.170 Federal law
requires federal agencies to use the metric measurement system in all
procurements, grants and other business-related activities (including
rulemakings), except to the extent that such use is impractical or
likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United
States firms.171 The Commission has identified one section of the
proposed rule with a potential for use of metric terms. Specifically,
the Commission is proposing that AFV labels disclose fuel tank capacity
in gallons. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require metric
or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) units for this disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\7015 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No. 12,770, 56 FR
35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing section 205b).
\1\71Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Public Participation
1. Public Workshop-Conference
The Commission's staff will conduct a Public Workshop-Conference to
discuss written comments received in response to this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. The purpose of the conference is to afford
Commission staff and interested parties an opportunity to discuss and
explore issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding, and, in particular,
to examine publicly areas of significant controversy or divergent
opinions that are raised in the written comments. The conference is not
intended to achieve a consensus of opinion among participants or
between participants and Commission staff with respect to any issue
raised in the rulemaking proceeding. Commission staff will consider the
views and suggestions made during the conference, in conjunction with
its consideration of the written comments, in formulating its final
recommendation to the Commission concerning the proposed rule.
Persons interested in participating in the Public Workshop-
Conference must notify Commission staff by June 8, 1994 (the ``Public
Workshop notification date'') as directed under the heading ADDRESSES,
above. Commission staff will select a limited number of parties from
among those who submit both requests to participate and written
comments to represent significant interests affected by the proposed
rule. These parties will participate in an open discussion of the
issues. The selected parties may ask and answer questions based on
their respective comments. In addition, the conference will be open to
the general public. Members of the general public who attend the
conference may have an opportunity to make a brief oral statement
presenting their views on issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding.
Oral statements of views by members of the general public will be
limited to a few minutes in length. The time allotted for these
statements will be determined on the basis of the time allotted for
discussion of the issues by the selected parties, as well as by the
number of persons who wish to make statements.
If the number of parties who request to participate in the Public
Workshop-Conference is so large that it would inhibit effective
discussion among the participants, then Commission staff will select as
the participants a limited number of parties to represent the interests
of those who submit written comments. The selections will be made on
the basis of the following criteria:
1. The party submits a written comment by the comment due date.
2. The party notifies Commission staff of its interest and
authorization to represent an affected interest by the Public Workshop
notification date.
3. The party's attendance would promote a balance of interests
being represented at the conference.
4. The party's attendance would promote the consideration and
discussion of the issues presented in the rulemaking proceeding.
5. The party has expertise in issues raised in the proposed rules.
6. The party adequately reflects the views of the affected
interest(s) which it purports to represent.
7. The party has been designated by one or more interested parties
(who timely file requests to participate and written comments) as a
party who shares group interests with the designator(s).
8. The number of parties selected will not be so large as to
inhibit effective discussion among them.
If they wish, commenters may designate a specific party to represent
their shared group interests in the Public Workshop-Conference.
If it is necessary to limit the number of participants, those not
selected to participate, but who submit both requests to participate
and written comments, will be afforded an opportunity at the end of the
session to present their views during a limited time period. The time
allotted for these statements will be determined on the basis of the
time necessary for discussion of the issues by the selected parties, as
well as by the number of persons who wish to make statements. If any
person cannot complete the presentation of his or her statements in the
allotted time, that person will be allowed, within one week thereafter,
to file a written statement covering those relevant matters that he or
she did not present orally. Except for written statements submitted
under these circumstances, written submissions will not be accepted
after the comment due date.
A neutral, third-party facilitator will be retained for the Public
Workshop-Conference. The Public Workshop-Conference is currently
scheduled to be held at the Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania
Avenue at Sixth Street, NW., Washington, DC, on July 20-21, 1994. Prior
to the conference, parties selected to participate in the Public
Workshop-Conference will be provided with copies of written comments
received in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. A
transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference will be placed on the
public record.
2. Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
After reviewing comments received in response to this notice, the
transcript of the Public Workshop-Conference, and any other properly
filed submissions, the Commission will publish a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking in which it will propose the text of a labeling
rule. The public will be given an additional opportunity to comment on
that supplemental notice.
3. Motions or Petitions
Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Such motions or petitions
will be transmitted to a Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will
be responsible for the orderly conduct of the proceeding and shall have
all powers necessary to that end, including the authority to rule on
all motions or petitions.
Applications for review of rulings by a Presiding Officer will not
be entertained by the Commission prior to its review of the entire
record in the rulemaking proceeding, unless the Presiding Officer
certifies in writing to the Commission that a ruling involves a
controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion, and that an intermediate review of
the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
proceeding or that subsequent review will be an inadequate remedy.
V. Communications by Outside Parties or Their Advisors
Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 1.26(b)(5),172
communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor during the
course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the following treatment:
Written communications, including written communications from members
of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to the Secretary for placement
on the public record. Oral communications, not including oral
communications from members of Congress, are permitted only when such
oral communications are transcribed verbatim or summarized at the
discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner advisor to whom such
oral communications are made and are promptly placed on the public
record, together with any written communications and summaries of any
oral communications relating to such oral communications. Oral
communications from members of Congress shall be transcribed or
summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner
advisor to whom such oral communications are made and promptly placed
on the public record, together with any written communication and
summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\7216 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309
Alternative fuel, Alternative fueled vehicle, Labeling, Trade
practices.
Authority: 42 U.S.C.A. 13232(a) (West Supp. 1993).
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-11102 Filed 5-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P