|
|---|
|
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Trade Commission Byline: Donald S. Clark Date: 18 November 1994 Subject: American Government 
|
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-28278] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 18, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 309 RIN 3084-AA57 Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Section 406(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPA 92'') directs the Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') to establish uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles. On May 9, 1994, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing the substance of proposed labeling requirements and sought written comment on its proposal. In this notice the Commission announces modifications to that initial labeling proposal and the specific language of a proposed labeling rule. The Commission invites interested persons to submit written comments addressing any issue they believe may bear upon the proposed rule. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 19, 1994. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, Attn: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, room S-4618. The Commission requests that original submissions be filed with six copies, if feasible. Submissions should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 309-- SNPR Comment.'' If submissions are made by facsimile transmission, please call 202/326-2372 to confirm receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, telephone 202/326-2372. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction EPA 921 establishes a comprehensive national energy strategy designed to increase U.S. energy security and improve the economy in cost effective and environmentally beneficial ways.2 It seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports; promote energy efficiency; reduce the use of petroleum-based fuels in motor vehicles; and provide new energy options. Key programs in titles III, IV, V, and VI of EPA 92 promote the development of alternative fuels3 and alternative fueled vehicles (``AFVs'').4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 2776 (1992). \2\ H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 132, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1954, 1955. \3\ ``Alternative fuels'' are defined as: ``[M]ethanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy], by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993). \4\ An ``alternative fueled vehicle'' is ``a dedicated vehicle or a dual fueled vehicle[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 13211(3). Each term is further defined in 42 U.S.C. 13211 (6) and (8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two provisions in title IV of EPA 92 require that information on alternative fuels and AFVs be made available to ``consumers'' (a term not defined in EPA 92). In one provision, section 406(a) of EPA 92 directs the Commission to issue a rule establishing uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles.5 The Act does not specify what information should be displayed on these labels. Instead, it provides generally that the rule must require disclosure of ``appropriate,'' ``useful,'' and ``timely'' cost and benefit information on ``simple'' labels.6 The purpose of the labeling requirements is to enable consumers to make reasonable choices and comparisons. In formulating the rule, the Commission must consider the problems associated with developing and publishing the required information, taking into account lead time, costs, frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and other relevant factors. Where appropriate, the labels required by section 406(a) are to be consolidated with other labels providing information to consumers. EPA 92 requires the Commission to update its labeling requirements ``periodically to reflect the most recent available information.''7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Section 406(a) is codified at 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993). \6\ 42 U.S.C. 13232(a). \7\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A second and complementary provision directs the Secretary of the Department of Energy (``DOE'') to develop an information package for consumers.8 Specifically, section 405 of EPA 92 requires DOE to produce and make available an information package for consumers to help them choose among alternative fuels and AFVs.9 DOE's information package must provide ``relevant and objective'' information addressing seven ``motor vehicle and fuel characteristics as compared to gasoline'' (including environmental performance, energy efficiency, domestic content, cost, maintenance requirements, reliability, and safety), information about the conversion of conventional motor vehicles to AFVs, and ``such other information as the Secretary [of DOE] determines is reasonable and necessary to help promote the use of alternative fuels in motor vehicles.''10 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 42 U.S.C. 13231. DOE is also required to provide technical assistance to the Commission in developing labeling requirements, and coordinate such technical assistance with its development of a consumer information package. 42 U.S.C. 13232(b). \9\ Id. The information package required by this section was intended ``to enable [consumers] to understand and to help them choose among alternative fuels and AFVs.'' H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 185, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1954, 2008. \1\0 42 U.S.C. 13232(b). EPA 92 also directs the DOE Secretary to create an additional public education program targeted specifically to the Federal government. Under that mandate, the DOE Secretary, ``in cooperation with the Administrator of General Services,'' must ``promote programs and educate officials and employees of Federal agencies on the merits of AFVs.'' 42 U.S.C. 13214(a). That section further requires that the DOE Secretary ``shall provide and disseminate information to Federal agencies on,'' inter alia, ``the range and performance capabilities of [AFVs].'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Commission's second rulemaking concerning labeling requirements for alternative fuels. In a separate proceeding also required by EPA 92,11 the Commission recently extended the requirements of its former Octane Rule12 (renamed the ``Fuel Rating Rule'') beyond gasoline to include liquid alternative fuels.13 As a result, retailers of such fuels are now required, among other things, to post labels identifying the commonly used name of the fuel and the amount, expressed as a minimum percentage by volume, of the fuel's principal component.14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\1 15 U.S.C. 2821-2823. \1\2 Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part 306. \1\3 16 CFR 306.0(i)(2) (1994). In that proceeding, the Commission had no authority to extend its requirements beyond liquid alternative fuels. 15 U.S.C. 2821 (Supp. IV 1993). \1\4 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2) (1994). The Fuel Rating Rule became effective October 25, 1993. 58 FR 41356, 41356, Aug. 3, 1993. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission seeks written comment on whether the proposed rule, as described in this supplemental notice, will accomplish the purposes of section 406(a). The Commission also seeks comment on whether some variation of this proposal, or other options or variations not proposed here, would be more appropriate. II. Public Participation EPA 92 requires the Commission, in formulating its labeling requirements, to obtain the views of affected industries, consumer organizations, Federal and State agencies, and all other interested parties.15 It also required the Commission to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPR'') in consultation with DOE, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (``DOT'') within eighteen months of the statute's enactment date (i.e., October 24, 1992).16 To comply with those requirements, the Commission received information from the public relating to this proceeding from four sources: written comments filed in response to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'') published on December 10, 1993,17 written comments filed in response to an NPR published on May 9, 1994,18 testimony during a Public Workshop-Conference (``Workshop'') held on July 20, 1994, and supplemental comments filed after the Workshop. All such information (i.e., the comments and Workshop transcript) was placed on the public record of this proceeding. The discussion below includes information from all four sources, as well as documents placed on the public record by the Commission's staff.19 The Commission considered all these materials in developing this revised labeling proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\542 U.S.C. 13232(a). \1\6Id. During its development of this supplemental notice, Commission staff discussed the proposed labeling requirements with staff from DOE, EPA, and DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. \1\758 FR 64914. \1\859 FR 24014. \1\9Commission's Rulemaking Record No. R311002. Comments are coded either ``G'' (indicating that they were filed by nongovernmental parties) or ``H'' (indicating that they were filed by governmental agencies). The Workshop transcript is filed in category ``L.'' Information placed on the public record by Commission staff is coded ``B.'' In this SNPR, comments are cited by identifying the commenter, by name, the comment number, and the relevant page number(s), e.g., ``ETC, G-24, 1-3.'' Supplemental comments are designated as (Supp.), e.g., ``RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1.'' Discussion in the Workshop is cited by identifying the party, a reference to the transcript, and the relevant page number(s), e.g., ``EPA (Tr.), 184.'' Staff submissions are cited by identifying the document number, relevant page number(s), and document date, e.g., ``B-13, 3, Jan. 25, 1994.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. The Commission's ANPR In its ANPR, the Commission sought written comment on basic issues raised by section 406(a)'s mandate. Accordingly, it requested comment on issues relating to which fuels and vehicles should be covered by the labeling requirements (i.e., the proposed rule's scope), and what information should be required to be displayed on labels (i.e., the proposed rule's disclosures).20 The Commission also sought comment on how the labeling requirements should be updated, and the extent to which the labels should be consolidated with other labels providing information to consumers. In response, the Commission received 28 written comments addressing these issues. The comments were summarized in the Commission's NPR.21 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\058 FR 64914, 64915. \2\159 FR 24015-24017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. The Commission's NPR The Commission considered written comments responding to the ANPR in developing its initial labeling proposal, which was published in the Federal Register as the Commission's NPR. The NPR announced the substance of proposed labeling requirements and a proposed rule implementing section 406(a)'s mandate. In that NPR, the Commission invited interested persons to submit written comments until June 23, 1994, on any issue of fact, law or policy that might have bearing upon the proposed labeling requirements. As described below, 37 commenters (representing vehicle manufacturers,22 fuel producers,23 governmental entities,24 consumer organizations,25 and other interested organizations26) responded to the NPR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\2Chrysler Corporation, (``Chrysler''), G-13; The Flxible Corporation (``Flxible''), G-12; Ford Motor Company (``Ford''), G- 14; General Motors (``GM''), G-8; Thomas Built Buses, Inc. (``Thomas BB''), G-10. \2\3Boston Edison Company, (``Boston Edison''), G-26; Mobil Oil Corporation (``Mobil''), G-2; Phillips 66 Company, (``Phillips 66''), G-15; Sun Company, Inc. (``Sun''), G-1; Unocal Corporation (``Unocal''), G-9. \2\4California Energy Commission, (``CEC''), H-8; Montgomery County, Maryland, Office of Consumer Affairs (``MC-MD''), H-7; Nebraska Alternative Fuels Advisory Committee (``Nebraska EO''), H- 9; Tennessee Valley Corporation (``TVA''), H-5; Texas Railroad Commission (``Texas RRC''), H-3; U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE''); H-10; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division (``EIA/EEU-ISD''), H-2; U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``DOT/NHTSA''), H-1; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), H-4. \2\5Center for Auto Safety (``CAS''), G-17; Greenpeace, Inc. (``Greenpeace''), G-27; Union of Concerned Scientists (``UCS''), G- 16. \2\6American Automobile Manufacturers Association (``AAMA''), G- 7; American Gas Association and Natural Gas Vehicles Coalition (``AGA/NGVC''), G-6; American Methanol Institute (``AMI''), G-4; American Petroleum Institute (``API''), G-25; Bill of Rights Association (``BOR''), G-4; Electric Transportation Coalition (``ETC''), G-24; Engine Manufacturers Association (``EMA''), G-21; National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (``NACAA''), H-6; National Association of Fleet Administrators (``NAFA''), G-20; National Automobile Dealers Association (``NADA''), G-19; National Propane Gas Association (``NPGA''), G-18; Propane Consumers Coalition (``PCC''), G-22; Renewable Fuels Association (``RFA''), G- 5; Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (``SIGMA''), G-23; Texas Automobile Dealers Association (``Texas ADA''), G-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. Public Workshop-Conference The Commission announced in the NPR that its staff would conduct a Workshop to afford staff and interested parties an opportunity to discuss issues raised in the rulemaking proceeding.27 The Workshop was not intended to achieve a consensus of opinion among participants or between participants and Commission staff with respect to any issue. Instead, its purpose was to examine publicly areas of significant controversy or divergent opinions that were raised in the written comments. Persons interested in participating in the Workshop were required to notify Commission staff by June 8, 1994, and file a written comment by the comment due date (i.e., June 23, 1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\759 FR 24014, 24020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-one interested parties submitted written requests to participate in the Workshop.28 Twenty of those parties filed written comments as required,29 and all twenty were invited to participate. Two parties (Chrysler and Greenpeace) subsequently elected not to attend, and, as a result, individuals representing eighteen interested parties participated at the Workshop.30 The Workshop was held on July 20, 1994, at the Commission's headquarters and was conducted as announced in the NPR.31 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\8AAMA, A-2 (on behalf of AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, and GM); AGA/ NGVC, A-8; AMI, A-10; API, A-12; Boston Edison, A-16; CAS, A-14; DOE, A-1; Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, A-17 (on behalf of unidentified clients in the automotive industry); EMA, A-3 (request submitted by Neal Gerber & Eisenberg); ETC, A-11 (request submitted by Van Ness Feldman); EPA, A-9; Flxible, A-6; Greenpeace, A-18; NACAA, A-7; NAFA, A-13 (request submitted by Kent & O'Connor, Inc.); NPGA, A-5 (on behalf of NPGA and Phillips 66); RFA, A-4 (request submitted by Downstream Alternatives, Inc.); UCS, A-15. \2\9The law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott did not file a written comment. \3\0Lois E. Bennett, GM; Timothy D. Davis, Columbia Gas (representing AGA/NGVC); Robert Graham and Peter Morman, CAS; Marcel L. Halberstadt, AAMA; Nancy L. Homeister, Ford; Evan W. Johnson, MC- MD (representing NACAA); Martin S. Karl, Boston Edison; Allen R. Larson, Esq., Larson and Curry (representing Boston Edison); Paul McArdle, DOE; Denise McCourt, API; Patrick O'Connor, Kent & O'Connor (representing NAFA); Larry D. Osgood, Phillips 66 Propane Company (representing NPGA); Robert E. Reynolds, Downstream Alternatives, Inc. (representing RFA); Glyn Short, AMI; Lisa A. Stegink, Esq., Neal Gerber & Eisenberg (representing EMA); Jaime C. Steve, UCS; Lance Watt, Flxible; Ellen S. Young, Esq., Van Ness Feldman (representing ETC); Kenneth L. Zerafa, EPA. Philip J. Harter, Esq., served as the Workshop's moderator. \3\1The NPR announced that the Workshop would take place over two days, but the participants concluded discussing the agenda staff had prepared in one day. As a result, the Workshop's second day was cancelled. (Tr.), 238. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Post-Workshop Comments and SNPR In its NPR, the Commission announced that Workshop participants would be permitted one week to file supplemental written comments addressing concerns raised during the Workshop.32 Eight participants elected to file such comments.33 The Commission also announced that after reviewing written comments received in response to the NPR, the Workshop transcript, and the post-Workshop comments, it would publish an SNPR. The SNPR would propose the text of a labeling rule and allow the public an opportunity to comment on the revised labeling proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\259 FR 24014, 24023. \3\3AAMA, AGA/NGVC, Boston Edison, CAS, EMA, Flxible, NPGA, and RFA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Supplemental Proposed Labeling Rule A. Comment Suggestions Beyond Commission's Authority Under EPA 92 As noted previously, section 406(a) directs the Commission to establish labeling requirements for alternative fuels and AFVs disclosing cost and benefit information. Because this rulemaking proceeding is mandated by statute, the Commission's authority is limited to what is authorized by EPA 92. Several NPR commenters, however, suggested regulatory options that involve matters other than labeling requirements, alternative fuels or AFVs, and cost and benefit information (i.e., they involve matters beyond section 406(a)'s statutory language). To the extent that these commenters suggested labeling requirements beyond that authorized by section 406(a), the Commission has tentatively concluded that it has no authority to propose them. For example, several commenters suggested that the Commission require AFV dealers to have copies of the DOE brochure available for consumer inspection and use.34 These commenters believed that the Commission could model such a requirement on an existing EPA regulation directing automobile dealers to make available free copies of EPA's Gas Mileage Guide (a booklet comparing the fuel economy of similarly-sized new automobiles).35 The Commission believes, however, that such a requirement does not appear to be reasonably within section 406(a)'s scope, which is limited to uniform labeling requirements. In any event, the Commission notes that EPA's regulation was promulgated pursuant to a specific congressional directive that EPA require dealers to provide such information to consumers.36 In the absence of a similar congressional directive, the Commission believes that such a requirement may be beyond its authority under EPA 92.37 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\4ETC, G-24, 6; NAFA, G-20, 3-5; NPGA (Tr.), 188-89. CAS suggested that the Commission require AFV dealers and conversion companies to provide copies of the DOE package to consumers, and that consumers acknowledge receipt by signing a designated sales document. CAS, G-17, 7; (Tr.), 174; (Supp.), G-17, 4. CAS also proposed that the AFV label advise consumers that a free copy of the DOE brochure is available from the dealer. CAS (Supp.), G-17, 4. ETC also suggested, however, that dealers would find it in their interest to have the DOE brochures available to consumers. ETC (Tr.), 168. \3\540 CFR 600.401-77 to 600.407-77 (1993). \3\6 See 15 U.S.C. 2006(b)(2) (``The EPA Administrator * * * shall prescribe rules requiring dealers to make available to prospective purchasers [fuel economy information] compiled by the EPA Administrator under paragraph (1).''). \3\7The Commission notes, however, that a DOE official at the Workshop stated that DOE would consider distributing copies of the information package to AFV dealerships. DOE (Tr.), 227-28. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For similar reasons, the Commission has also tentatively concluded that requiring any of the following may exceed its authority under EPA 92: (1) Labeling for conventional fueled vehicles;38 (2) that information on AFV labels be provided to consumers at the time an AFV is offered for sale;39 and (3) that ``all pertinent information'' (e.g., fuel hazards, tank capacity, refueling or recharging time, and cruising range) be disclosed in vehicle owners' manuals.40 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\8AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11 (requiring disclosures only for AFVs could unnecessarily raise consumer concerns about these products). \3\9NAFA, G-20, 2 (``For example, when a representative of a conversion company meets with a consumer to offer to convert a vehicle, the representative would provide the consumer with the appropriate information in a format similar to the vehicle label.''). NAFA based this suggestion on its concern that consumers would not always be able to inspect labels prior to acquisition. Id. \4\0NACAA, H-6, 2. The Commission also believes that one suggestion (that it develop an information bulletin discussing pertinent considerations), while not beyond its authority, may not be necessary because of DOE's mandate to complete the same task. CEC, H-8, 1-2, 6; NAFA, G-20, 3. Traditionally, however, the Commission issues consumer education materials after new rules are issued, and that will be considered when this proceeding is completed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels 1. Scope of the Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels a. Proposed scope of the rule. As noted previously, section 406(a) of EPA 92, in part, requires the Commission to establish uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable, for alternative fuels. The NPR proposed fuel labeling requirements for three non-liquid fuels, compressed natural gas (``CNG''), gaseous hydrogen gas (``hydrogen'') and electricity.41 Section 406(a) also directs the Commission to consider labeling requirements for liquid ``alternative fuels.'' The Commission's Fuel Rating Rule, however, contains labeling requirements for liquid alternative fuels that are similar to the labeling requirements proposed in the SNPR for non- liquid alternative fuels. The Fuel Rating Rule's labeling requirements cover only liquid alternative fuels. Although that rule serves a somewhat different purpose,42 the Commission stated in the NPR that harmonizing labeling requirements, when practicable, is appropriate. The Commission's NPR proposal has the effect of imposing the same labeling requirements on both liquid and non-liquid alternative fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\1These are the only non-liquid fuels defined as ``alternative fuels'' in EPA 92. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993). \4\2The purpose of the EPA 92 amendments to Title II of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2821-2825, was to give purchasers information they need to choose the correct type or grade of fuel for their vehicles. 58 FR 41356. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine commenters addressed the scope of the Commission's proposals in the NPR. All of the commenters supported limiting the scope of this proceeding to non-liquid alternative fuels because the Commission's proposal, if adopted, would impose equal, fuel-neutral labeling requirements on all alternative fuels.43 No commenters specifically recommended that the Commission include in this proceeding alternative fuels other than the three the Commission identified. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\3API, G-25, 1-3 (supports expanding the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements to non-liquid alternative fuels to encourage a fuel- neutral regulatory scheme); CEC, H-8, 1-6 (supports proposal because it would result in consistent labeling of all alternative fuels); Mobil, G-2, 1-3 (supports proposal because it is consistent with Fuel Rating Rule); NAFA, G-20, 1 (endorses proposal because it would result in uniform labeling requirements for all alternative fuels); NPGA, G-18, 2-3 (extremely important all alternative fuels be subject to essentially identical requirements); Phillips 66, G-15, 1 (recommends Fuel Rating Rule's labeling requirements be extended to non-liquid alternative fuels); RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1 (supports extension of current labeling requirements for liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule to gaseous alternative fuels); SIGMA, G-23, 1 (generally supports the Commission's entire proposal with respect to fuel labeling, including its scope); Sun, G-1, 1 (favors proposal because it places equal labeling requirements on all competing fuels). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the comments received, and the existing similar requirements imposed by the Commission's Fuel Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels, the Commission proposes limiting this proposed rule to the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG, hydrogen and electricity. The Commission's proposal, if adopted, would result in equal, uniform, fuel-neutral labeling requirements for all alternative fuels.44 In accordance with section 406(a)'s directive to review the rule ``periodically to reflect the most recent available information,''45 the Commission will supplement the list of covered fuels as DOE designates new non-liquid fuels as alternative fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\4See API, G-25, 1-3; CEC, H-8, 1-6; Mobil, G-2, 1-3; NAFA, G- 20, 1; NPGA, G-18, 2-3; Phillips 66, G-15, 1; RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1; SIGMA, G-23, 1; Sun, G-1, 1. \4\542 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Description of alternative fuels proposed to be covered in the final rule--(1) Compressed natural gas Natural gas is used as a vehicle fuel mainly in the form of CNG, although it also may be used as liquefied natural gas (``LNG''). CNG is used as an automotive fuel in spark ignition engines, and is stored at a pressure up to 220 atmospheres in heavy, rather bulky cylinders, which limits its storage capacity in a vehicle.46 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\6``Automotive Fuels Handbook'' (1990), by Keith Owen and Trevor Coley, published by Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (``SAE''), B-34, 454. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Natural gas consists mainly of methane, and is widely available in many parts of the world. Methane-rich gas also is made by the anaerobic decomposition of animal waste and vegetable matter (biogas). Gas composition is important to natural gas vehicle users because large amounts of non-methane hydrocarbons will enrich the fuel mixture, reduce the octane number, lead to increased hydrocarbon emissions, and increase the potential for engine knock. These variables require that engine parameters, such as air to fuel mixture and ignition timing, be adjusted on the basis of the composition of the local natural gas supply.47 Natural gas composition varies throughout the country, depending on original composition and processing. Pipeline quality natural gas is composed of several different gases, with methane typically accounting for 85 percent to 99 percent, with other hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, some butanes, and nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide, water, and odorants making up the remainder.48 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\7``Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles,'' prepared by Science Applications International Corporation for Office of Alternative Fuels, Office of Transportation Technologies, Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (March 2, 1992), NREL Contract No.: XF-1-11107-1, B-35, 17. \4\8Id., at 16. See also Standards for Emissions for Emissions From Natural Gas-Fueled, and Liquefied Petroleum Gas-Fueled Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines, and Certification Procedures for Aftermarket Conversions (``Gaseous Fuels Rule''), 59 FR 48472, 48484 (1994) (given wide range of natural gas compositions currently available, EPA proposed very broad specifications for natural gas certification fuel, which included a range for methane content of 74 to 98.5 percent, as well as broad ranges for several other parameters); Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Recommended Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel,'' SAE J1616 (1994), B-40, 1 (natural gas is comprised chiefly of methane, generally 88 to 96 molecular (``mole'') percent); Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 454 (composition of natural gas somewhat variable, depending on gas field or biological feedstocks from which it is produced; impurities include higher hydrocarbons, the heavier of which usually are removed as condensate, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and particularly in biogas, hydrogen sulfide); Compressed Natural Gas Measurement Issues, by C.F. Blazek, J.A. Kinast and P. Freeman, Institute of Gas Technology (1993), B-50, 5 (natural gas varies in composition by location and seasonally); Natural Gas as a Stationary Engine and Vehicular Fuel, by William E. Liss and William H. Thrasher, SAE Technical Paper 912364 (1991), B-51, 44 (natural gas exhibits widely varying composition which is controlled through processing and separation steps); Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels An Overview, Energy Information Administration, DOE/EIA-0585/O (1994), B-52, 52 (the variability in the composition of natural gas can affect its performance as a transportation fuel); Variability of Natural Gas Composition in Select Major Metropolitan Areas of the United States, by W.E. Liss, W.H. Thrasher, G.F. Steinmetz, P. Chowdiah, and A. Attari, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-92/0123 (1992), B-53, 14 (indicating that the methane content of natural gas can vary from 74.5 percent to 98.1 percent). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The heating value of CNG (i.e., its energy content) is significantly lower than that of gasoline.\49\ But, CNG has excellent octane properties so that vehicles can use high compression ratios when CNG is the sole fuel. This gives improved combustion efficiency.\50\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \49\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 454-55. \50\Id., at 455 (both research octane number and motor octane number about 120). See also Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, B-35, 19 (research octane rating is about 130). The fairly high research octane rating of natural gas makes it relatively resistant to engine knock. The anti-knock property is a result of the high ignition temperature, resistance to ``autoignition,'' and the relatively low flame speed of natural gas. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CNG refueling transfers natural gas under pressure and may be set up as either slow-fill or fast-fill. Slow-fill generally uses over- night refueling and requires less costly refueling station equipment than fast-fill. Fast-fill refueling time is only slightly longer than gasoline refueling time.\51\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, B-35, 17. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas can be produced by electrolysis of water or from natural gas or coal.\52\ Hydrogen may be used in an internal combustion engine (``ICE'') as a gaseous fuel similar to natural gas, or in a fuel cell to power an electric motor.\53\ Because it has a very high flame speed and a wide ignitability range, it can be used at extremely lean air-fuel ratios in ICEs.\54\ The advantages of using hydrogen in a fuel cell rather than an ICE, on the other hand, are high efficiency and a vehicle that has zero emissions.\55\ By using either hydrogen or electricity in vehicles, the emissions occur at the generating facility and are thereby centralized and easier to control, maintain, and monitor.\56\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458. \53\``Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles Technology Assessment Report,'' for California Energy Commission, by Technology Transition Corporation, and Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hydrogen Research, Texas A&M University (by principal investigators Dr. David Swan, Assistant Director, Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hydrogen Research, and Debbi L. Smith, Manager, Resource Development and Special Projects, Technology Transition Corporation), B-36, 1. \54\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458. \55\Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles Technology Assessment Report, B-36, 1. \56\Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Use of hydrogen gas as a fuel for commercial and private vehicles, however, remains largely a matter of research and development. Hydrogen has been used in the energy sector to enhance gasoline refining and to fuel rockets for space travel. The historic difficulty in using hydrogen as a vehicle fuel has been how to store it and the lack of a sufficient infrastructure to supply the hydrogen in relatively small volumes. At the present time, it is not clear what power system technology is most suitable for the use of hydrogen and how much the power system and fuel storage will add to the cost of vehicles.\57\ First, the weight of the storage tank on the vehicle would be very high if the fuel was used either in the liquid or compressed gaseous form. Second, hydrogen gas is highly explosive when mixed with air. The use of hydrides, such as iron-titanium, however, is a possible way of overcoming these drawbacks. Hydrogen is adsorbed by the hydride and can be released by the application of heat obtained from the vehicle's exhaust. Although this system would overcome many of the safety problems, the range of the vehicle would be restricted, filling would be slow, and the cost could be high.\58\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\Id. \58\Automotive Fuels Handbook, B-34, 458. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Electricity. Electric vehicles (``EVs'') are powered by electricity stored in a rechargeable battery pack. Current EVs use lead-acid batteries. Battery technology is an area of primary research for EVs, with the goal of improving vehicle power and range. Nickel- iron and sodium-sulfur batteries, for example, are expected to have commercial EV applications within the next decade.\59\ Use of electric vehicles currently is limited. Expansion of the use of EVs will depend to a large extent on the development of an infrastructure to supply the electricity to recharge the vehicle's batteries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\Introduction to Alternative Fuel Vehicles, B-35, 35. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EVs may be produced with or without an on-board charging system. EVs with on-board charging systems may be able to recharge their batteries by connecting to a standard electrical dispensing outlet, or may be able to utilize separate charging equipment, depending on the on-board charging system. The voltage required for recharging EV batteries depends on the battery type. For G-vans, a 200/250-volt, single phase, 60 amperes (``amp''), power source is needed. This voltage range is compatible with the U.S. standard voltage: 208/240- volt, single phase, 60 amp.\60\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\Id., at 36. The G-van is a limited production, one-ton van produced by Conceptior Industries, which became available December 1, 1990. According to Introduction to Alternative Fuels at 34, the G-Van is the only EV certified to meet all U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (``FMVSS''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Battery charging currently involves connecting the battery pack to an off-board charger by plugging a cable into a socket in the front of the vehicle.\61\ After fully charging the batteries, periodic refresher charges are made to maintain the batteries in a fully charged state. Fully discharged batteries can be recharged in approximately 8 to 10 hours, depending on ambient temperature. Batteries that are not fully discharged require less charging time. Because batteries may be damaged from leaving them in a discharged state, a regular charging routine is recommended. Vehicle range may be extended throughout the day by recharging the batteries at a site other than a regular recharging station. These ``opportunity charges'' require an on-board charger, which is not currently included on most EVs.\62\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \61\Standard equipment for a charging station include an off- board charger and circuit breaker. An AC kwh meter is recommended to monitor power consumption. Id., at 36. \62\Id., at 41. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Electric Power Research Institute (``EPRI'') has identified three methods of EV charging for development, depending on the range of power levels anticipated for charging EVs. Level 1 would allow recharging by plugging into the most common grounded electrical outlet. Level 2 would require special equipment dedicated to EV charging and connection to the electric power supply. Level 2 is expected to be the primary method for charging at both private and public facilities. Level 3 would allow recharge at commercial fast charge stations in about the same time it takes to refuel an internal combustion vehicle.\63\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \63\``Electric Vehicle Charging Systems: Executive Summary'' (undated draft), Electric Power Research Institute (``EPRI''), submitted to Neil Blickman, FTC, on August 30, 1994, by W.I. Whiddon & Associates, Inc., B-49, 1-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two methods of connecting an EV or recharging are under development, conductive and inductive. Conductive connections are the most widely used method of connecting electrical sources and loads. A conductive connection consists of contacts that join the electrical conductors at the interface, such as plugging a lamp cord into a standard electrical outlet. In an inductively coupled system, alternating current power is transferred magnetically or ``induced'' between a primary winding on the supply side to a secondary winding on the vehicle side of the interface. Thus, there is no direct contact through which electrical power flows.\64\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \64\Id., at 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Comments on Disclosures Proposed in NPR The Commission proposed in the NPR that retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels post standard labels identifying the commonly used names of those fuels on public fuel dispensers (including electrical dispensing units and recharging stations used to recharge EV batteries).\65\ The Commission also proposed requiring disclosure of the gaseous fuel's principal component and permitting disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum percentages.\66\ The Commission's proposal recognized that electricity used for recharging EV batteries might need to be subject to different labeling disclosures, and solicited comment on whether a different measure of content (e.g., requiring disclosure of voltage for electricity) would be more appropriate.\67\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \65\59 FR 24014, 24018. \66\Id. CNG vehicle fuel is composed primarily of methane with small percentages of ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen vehicle fuel is composed primarily of hydrogen, with very small percentages of water, oxygen, and nitrogen. See sections III.B.1.b (1) and (2) supra. \67\Unlike the other alternative fuels, the electricity used to recharge the batteries that power electric vehicles is not dispensed from a conventional fuel pump. It is dispensed from an electrical dispenser or recharging station and produces different physical effects depending on the type of dispenser or charging equipment through which it is dispensed. See section III.B.1.b(3) supra. Therefore, the Commission recognized that electricity used as a vehicle fuel might have to be rated in accordance with the characteristics of the specific electrical dispenser or recharging station. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the proposal, the labels would be placed conspicuously in full view of consumers (i.e., ultimate purchasers) and as near as reasonably practical to the fuel's unit price disclosure. These proposals are analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquid alternative fuels.\68\ The Commission proposed this simple labeling requirement for fuel dispensers after considering how it might best balance consumers' needs for useful and timely cost and benefit information with the problems associated with displaying such information in a simple label format. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \68\16 CFR 306.10(b)(1), 306.10(f) (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-three commenters addressed the issues raised in the NPR. None opposed the Commission's proposals as a whole. Nine commenters generally supported the Commission's proposals in their entirety because, if adopted, they would be consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for liquid alternative fuels, and they would assist consumers in identifying the proper fuel for their vehicles.\69\ Three commenters also supported the Commission's proposals by stating specifically that the fuel dispenser label should identify the fuel in a standardized format to direct consumers to the correct fuel dispensers.\70\ These and other suggested labeling disclosures are discussed in more detail in sections III.B.3 and 4 infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \69\API, G-25, 1-3; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Mobil, G-2, 1-3; NAFA, G-20, 1; NPGA, G-18, 2-3; Phillips 66, G-15, 1; RFA, G-5, 2-3, (Supp.), G-5, 1; SIGMA, G-23, 1; Sun, G-1, 1-2. \70\DOE, H-10, 2-4; RFA, G-5, 2-3, (Tr.), 28, 38; Thomas BB, G- 10, 1. See also AAMA (Tr.), 37, 62 (fuel dispenser label should identify the fuel). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Label Disclosures Proposed for Final Rule Based on the comments received and the requirements of section 406(a) of EPA 92, for the fuel labeling requirement the Commission proposes that retailers of the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG, hydrogen and electricity post standard labels identifying the commonly used names of those fuels on public fuel dispensers (including electric dispensers used to recharge batteries in electric vehicles).\71\ The labels would be placed conspicuously in full view of consumers and as near as reasonably practical to the fuel's unit price. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \71\See Secs. 309.1(q) and 309.15 of the text of the proposed rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to CNG and hydrogen, the Commission also proposes requiring disclosure of the fuel's principal component and permitting disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum molecular percentages (``minimum mole percent'').\72\ These proposals are analogous to provisions in the Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquid alternative fuels.\73\ Most of the commenters addressing these issues stated they supported such proposals because, if adopted, they would be consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for liquid alternative fuels, and they would assist consumers in identifying the proper fuel for their vehicles. Therefore, all alternative fuels marketed to consumers would be subject to consistent requirements.\74\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \72\Id. See also section III.B.5.b(1) infra. The unit of the amount of a substance is defined under the international system of units to be the amount of substance of a system that contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles. ``The International System of Units (SI),'' NIST Special Publication 330 (1991 edition), August 1991, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (hereinafter cited as ``NIST Publication 330''), B-43, 4-5. \73\16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and 306.10(f) (1994). \74\API, G-25, 1-3 (until a private voluntary, consensus standards organization develops specifications for alternative fuels, additional disclosure requirements are inappropriate; expand Fuel Rating Rule to cover non-liquid alternative fuels to encourage fuel-neutral regulatory scheme; and labeling of principal component may provide useful information to consumers); EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1 (expressed general support for the proposed rule); Mobil, G-2, 1-3 (the proposed label is consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule, and no other disclosures should be required, but allowing disclosure of components other than the fuel's principal component, without restrictions, could result in consumer misinformation); NAFA, G-20, 1 (endorses a uniform labeling requirement for alternative fuels); NPGA, G-18, 2-3 (extremely important that all alternative fuels be subject to essentially identical requirements, and the Commission's proposal is sufficient under the statutory requirements), (Tr.) 48- 49 (issue is how to get the consumer to the correct pump, and in that respect, the orange labels for liquid alternative fuels do an effective job); Phillips 66, G-15, 1; RFA, G-5, 2-3 (the benefit of providing additional information beyond that proposed is not well established), (Tr.), 28, 31, 38, (Supp.), G-5, 1 (the current labeling requirements for alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule are adequate and the same labeling requirements should be extended to gaseous fuels); SIGMA, G-23, 1 (supports the proposed requirements and urges the Commission to adopt the proposed rule without change); Sun, G-1, 1-2 (agrees with the Commission's proposal to extend the Fuel Rating Rule labeling requirements to non-liquid alternative fuels thereby placing equal regulatory requirements on all alternative fuels). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As mentioned, the principal component of the vehicle fuel CNG is methane, and the principal component of hydrogen is hydrogen. Several commenters specifically concurred with the Commission's proposal to require disclosure of the minimum methane content of CNG to assist consumers in purchasing CNG that satisfies requirements specified by engine manufacturers to meet performance and emissions certification levels.75 The Commission also notes that commenters and other technical sources indicate that because natural gas composition varies throughout the country, its methane content can vary from 85 percent to 99 percent.76 Methane content is important because CNG with too low a methane content will not meet manufacturers' requirements for CNG vehicle engines. Because CNG exists with too low a methane content to be used as a vehicular fuel,77 requiring disclosure of the minimum methane content will help ensure that non-vehicular CNG is not inadvertently sold for vehicular purposes. Although CNG sold as a vehicle fuel should always meet minimum vehicle needs, information about minimum methane content can help assure consumers that the CNG they are purchasing will meet their engines' needs. The Commission's proposed labeling approach for CNG and hydrogen provides a basic measure of fuel quality and, used in conjunction with the owner's manual containing the vehicle manufacturer's fuel recommendations, it provides consumers with the information necessary to select the fuel on which their vehicle has been designed to perform.78 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\5AAMA (Tr.), 37, 62 (label should identify the fuel), 81 (at this time a minimum methane content disclosure is appropriate); Flxible (Tr.), 74, (Supp.), G-12, 2 (dispensers for CNG should be labeled with the minimum methane content due to the requirements dictated by some engine manufacturers to meet performance and emissions certification levels); RFA, G-5, 3; Sun, G-1, 1. \7\6See note supra. \7\7See Flxible (Tr.), 74-77. \7\8Although at present CNG vehicles apparently are designed to run on the broad range of methane content in available vehicle CNG, in the future manufacturers may design vehicles favoring specific, higher methane contents. If so, producers and marketers will have the flexibility to develop and blend fuels appropriate for those specifications as well as perhaps location and climate, and retailers will have the flexibility to adjust fuel dispenser labels accordingly, if they chose to do so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With respect to public electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, the commenters recommended that the Commission require disclosure of the minimum operating parameters that are necessary to protect the consumer operating the equipment, the vehicle whose batteries are being charged, as well as the charging equipment. Several commenters suggested these parameters include disclosure of the voltage at which electrical power is supplied by electric charging equipment.79 Two commenters suggested that the electric recharging station label include the maximum current in amperes that can be delivered,80 and two recommended that the label indicate whether the charging equipment supplies alternating or direct current.81 Another commenter stated that because there are two distinct charging technologies, the label should indicate whether the unit is a conductive charger (a plug on a cord) or an inductive charger (a paddle in a port system).82 Two commenters indicated that the label should disclose the kilowatt capacity of the charging equipment to tell consumers how quickly their vehicles could recharge.83 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\9AAMA (Tr.), 91-92; Boston Edison, G-26, 5-6, (Tr.), 88-91, 93-95, 100; CEC, H-8, 1-6; DOE, H-10, 2-4; Mobile, G-2, 3. \8\0Mobil, G-2, 3; CEC, H-8, 1-6. \8\1Boston Edison (Tr.), 90; CEC, H-8, 1-6. \8\2Boston Edison (Tr.), 88. \8\3Boston Edison (Tr.), 90; RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The commenters indicated that the proposed disclosures would be useful in assisting consumers to locate electric fuel dispensers that are compatible with the consumers' vehicles, and to determine how quickly their vehicles' batteries would recharge. Accordingly, the Commission proposes requiring several brief disclosures on labels on public electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems (i.e, electric charging system equipment and electrical energy dispensing systems).84 The proposed rule would require that labels on public electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems include, in addition to the commonly used name of the fuel (e.g., electricity), kilowatt capacity, voltage, current (either AC or DC), amperes and type of charger (either conductive or inductive).85 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\4See Sec. 309.1(j), (l), and (m) of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. \8\5See Secs. 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15 of the text of the proposed rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed requirements for CNG, hydrogen and electricity thus would provide consumers with the most important pieces of information needed when refueling: Fuel type and composition (or, for electricity, other relevant parameters). Although in the absence of such requirements sellers could be expected to identify the fuels sold, they may not do so in a standardized format that assists consumers in identifying the proper fuel quickly. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether they would provide information regarding the precise composition of the fuels, or relevant parameters of the EV fuel dispenser. In addition, the Commission has concluded that other comparative information on the fuel dispenser, as discussed in section III.B.4 infra, is unlikely to be necessary in most instances. For consumers with dedicated AFVs (i.e., vehicles capable of operating on only one fuel), the selection process between competing fuels is concluded once an AFV is acquired. Consumers driving dual or flexible fueled vehicles (i.e., vehicles capable of being powered both by a conventional and an alternative fuel) will be limited to purchasing fuels meeting their engines' requirements (one being gasoline, with which consumers are already familiar and which is already labeled with pertinent information). Thus, providing consumers with other information comparing various types of alternative fuels is best done prior to the time the vehicle is acquired. Further, excluding other, less important information avoids information overload. In contrast to vehicle purchases, consumers' fuel purchases typically occur in a quick transaction. In a report to Congress assessing the need for a uniform national label on fuel pumps, the Commission noted that time constraints may affect how consumers read, understand, and use information.86 Indeed, ``studies show that less accurate information processing occurs under time constraints; test subjects focus on fewer pieces of information and unduly emphasize negative information.''87 Simplicity therefore is an even greater consideration in the labeling of fuels than in the labeling of AFVs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\6Federal Trade Commission, Study Of A Uniform National Label For Devices That Dispense Automotive Fuels to Consumers (1993), at 29. \8\7Id., at 29 n.152. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Label Disclosures Considered But Not Proposed for Final Rule In formulating its labeling proposals in this notice, the Commission, as required, sought to reconcile several competing concerns. As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to develop uniform labels disclosing appropriate cost and benefit information. However, in determining what information is appropriate, it must consider the problems associated with developing and publishing such information on simple labels. Given this context, and after considering the comments, the Commission has considered and rejected several alternative disclosures for dispenser labels suggested by the commenters. a. Octane rating. Four commenters addressed whether the Commission should require, or allow, posting of octane ratings for non-liquid alternative fuels. Nebraska EO recommended that the Commission require disclosure of an octane number for spark ignition or a cetane number for compression ignition fuels.88 NACAA supported requiring disclosure of octane rating if alternative fuels are available in different grades.89 AGA/NGVC did not recommend that the Commission require disclosure of octane rating, but suggested that the Commission clarify that fuel retailers have the option of disclosing a fuel's minimum octane rating as an ``other component.''90 AGA/NGVC stated that, although octane levels for natural gas are not likely to vary at different retailers, the octane rating of natural gas is a valuable component that allows manufacturers to optimize dedicated vehicles to run more efficiently. AGA/NGVC asserted, therefore, that providing consumers with octane information highlights the advantages of natural gas and gives them a basis for comparing its qualities with other fuels. NPGA, however, suggested that it would not be appropriate for the Commission to require the posting of octane ratings for CNG, hydrogen or electricity. NPGA commented that there are no standards for determining the octane ratings of these fuels, and presently these fuels are not being developed to be available in different grades at a station.91 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\8Nebraska EO, H-9, 1. \8\9NACAA, H-6, 1-2. \9\0AGA/NGVC, G-6, 5-6. \9\1Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49-50. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission's Fuel Rating Rule requires disclosure on fuel pumps of gasoline's octane rating, which is a measure of how well the gasoline resists engine knocking. The octane rating needed to prevent knocking varies with the engine's compression ratio, and different engines may require gasoline with different octane ratings. The Fuel Rating Rule is designed to enable consumers to buy gasoline with an octane rating high enough to prevent engine knock, and to help consumers avoid ``octane overbuying'' or buying gasoline with an octane higher than needed to prevent engine knock. When it conducted the rulemaking proceeding to add pump posting requirements for liquid alternative fuels to the Fuel Rating Rule, the Commission noted that, unlike gasoline, the physical and chemical properties of each liquid alternative fuel may not vary substantially.92 The Commission also observed that it expected that engines designed for alternative fueled vehicles would be designed to use fixed-octane alternative fuels without engine knock. The Commission further stated that there might be practical problems in implementing a reliable octane certification and posting program for alternative liquid automotive fuels, because of the lack of a standardized, such as an ASTM-approved, test method for determining octane ratings of such fuels.93 Finally, the Commission expressed concern that the posting of high octane ratings associated with alternative liquid automotive fuels may contribute to the misperception that high-octane gasoline always is best for vehicles, and thereby aggravate existing gasoline octane overbuying.94 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\258 FR 16464, 16469. \9\3Id. \9\4Id. at 16470. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the comments submitted in this proceeding, as well as the comments submitted in the liquid alternative fuel amendment proceeding (which the Commission finds are relevant to this proceeding),95 the Commission has determined not to propose requiring the posting of octane ratings for CNG and hydrogen. The Commission has concluded that, unlike octane ratings for gasoline, there appears to be little or no benefit to disclosing octane ratings for alternative fuels at this time. Octane ratings for alternative fuels are high enough to avoid engine knock problems in vehicles designed to use alternative fuels, and, such ratings do not provide information relevant to vehicle performance of alternative fueled vehicles. In addition, the octane ratings of a given type of alternative fuel would not vary significantly.96 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\5See 58 FR 41356, 41361. \9\6Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49-50. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In contrast, there are significant disadvantages to requiring octane posting and certification for alternative fuels. In particular, the Commission is reluctant to require a disclosure that might mislead consumers about the significance of the high octane ratings of alternative fuels, which exceed the octane ratings of gasoline. Such a disclosure also might cause consumers to believe that gasoline and alternative fuels are interchangeable, or that different alternative fuels are interchangeable with one another. Further, it also might foster consumer misperceptions that higher octane necessarily signifies higher quality and better performance.97 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\7Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Comparative information based upon BTUs or gasoline-gallon- equivalents. As an alternative to the Commission's proposal, three commenters, Unocal, PCC and DOE, suggested that the Commission require the use of alternative fuel labels that advise consumers of the price of an alternative fuel and the quantity of the alternative fuel dispensed in terms of gasoline-gallon-equivalent (``GGE'') units based on the energy contents of the alternative fuels.98 According to the commenters, such a disclosure would allow consumers to compare the cost of an alternative fuel to that of gasoline using a common energy unit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\8DOE, H-10, 2-4; PCC, G-22, 1, 3; Unocal, G-9, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, seven commenters suggested that such comparative cost data is not conducive to fuel labeling and is more a dispenser equipment metering and fuel marketing issue.99 The commenters also indicated that Commission requirements to disclose comparative cost data in terms of the energy contents of alternative fuels may not be necessary if the weights and measures organizations accept, as a method of sale, measurement of alternative fuels in terms of gasoline-gallon- equivalents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\9AGA/NGVC, G-6, 3, 5-6, (Tr.), 44, 59; API, G-25, 1-3 (commercial information that enables the consumer to evaluate the costs of an alternative fuel purchase will be displayed on the dispenser); DOE (Tr.), 53 (GGE is more a metering issue); ETC (Tr.), 41; Mobil, G-2, 1-2; NACAA (Tr.), 39 (information relating to the sale of fuels by gasoline-gallon-equivalents is more a metering and marketing issue); RFA (Tr.), 57. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed, the Commission notes that the National Conference on Weights and Measures (``NCWM''), a consensus standards-writing organization for state and local regulatory agencies, at its recent annual meeting, adopted for national use the GGE as a method of sale for CNG sold as an engine fuel.100 According to the NCWM, the GGE is defined as 5.660 pounds of CNG. (Consumers would not purchase one gallon of CNG, but would receive 5.660 pounds of CNG with the approximate equivalent energy of a gallon of gasoline.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\00See Program and Committee Reports for the National Conference on Weights and Measures 79th Annual Meeting, July 17-21, 1994, B-37; and Brickencamp, Method of Sale for CNG Paves Way to Greater Public Acceptance, Nat. Gas Fuels, Sept. 1994, B-47, 47. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CNG dispensers, therefore, will likely display three items of information: (1) Total sale price for the CNG in dollars, e.g., $3.75, (2) amount of CNG in GGE in this sale, e.g., 5.00, and (3) unit price per GGE in dollars/GGE, e.g., $0.749. A NCWM approved dispenser label also would state, ``1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent is Equal to 5.66 lbs. of Natural Gas. This quantity of Natural Gas delivers approximately the same amount of energy to your vehicle as a typical gallon of gasoline.'' After considering the comments received, and the NCWM's recent action, the Commission has determined not to propose GGE disclosures. Such information is not conducive to keeping the fuel label simple as required by EPA 92. Further, NCWM's action indicates this information is more an equipment metering issue that is more properly addressed by weights and measures organizations. Commission required disclosures would be unnecessary and duplicative, especially in connection with the sale of CNG. Moreover, if national conversion factors for the GGE of other alternative fuels are defined in the future, then it is likely that weights and measures authorities will issue requirements to enable the sale of those fuels in energy equivalencies. Further, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that the Commission could define the GGE of fuels other than CNG at this time. On a related point, Boston Edison stated that comparisons based upon GGEs are less accurate than those based upon fuel neutral British thermal units (``Btus'').\101\ However, two commenters specifically opposed a requirement that fuel dispenser labels identify the heating value or energy content of a fuel expressed in Btus. AGA stated that a Btu disclosure would be practically meaningless to consumers,\102\ and NPGA stated that a Btu rating might be useful to consumers only when choosing a new vehicle or deciding whether to convert an existing vehicle to an alternative fuel, but not when refueling.\103\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \101\Boston Edison, G-26, 5-6. \102\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 24. \103\Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the record, the Commission has decided not to propose requiring that fuel dispenser labels identify the fuels' heating values. Instead of helping consumers make informed purchasing decisions, this option might instead confuse or mislead consumers. The energy content of a fuel, as measured by its Btu rating, is an imprecise gauge of that fuel's actual fuel economy. Driving range and fuel economy are the function of many variables (e.g., engine design, engine efficiency, driving habits), and not simply the energy content of a fuel. As a result, Btu ratings do not always accurately reflect actual fuel economy. In addition, because the heating values of the alternative fuels are less than the heating value of gasoline, labels based on heating values might encourage consumers to purchase gasoline, because such labels might suggest alternative fuels are less efficient than gasoline. Finally, the Commission notes that the BTU content of alternative fuels is largely determined by their chemical content. Thus, disclosure of the percentage content of the principal component provides the energy content information that consumers need to make fuel cost comparisons. For example, if a consumer knows the price per gallon of M-85 and the miles-per-gallon a vehicle can achieve on M-85, then he can calculate the fuel cost per mile. Similarly, if a consumer knows the price per cubic foot of CNG consisting of 90 percent methane and the miles-per-cubic foot achievable with that fuel, he can calculate the fuel cost per mile. c. Performance effects (cruising range). One commenter suggested that fuel dispenser labels advise consumers that the cruising range of the vehicle when running on an alternative fuel will be less than when the vehicle is running on gasoline due to the alternative fuel's lower energy content.\104\ However, two commenters stated that information relating to the vehicle's cruising range is not appropriate for a dispenser label.\105\ Phillips 66/NPGA further commented that cruising range is not necessarily less when operating on an alternative fuel, such as propane.\106\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \104\PCC, G-22, 1, 3. \105\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 37; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50-51. \106\Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 50. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the comments, the Commission has determined that a general statement on a fuel dispenser label relating to cruising range would not provide sufficient comparative information to consumers to enable them to make reasonable purchasing choices and comparisons between fuels of the same type. However, the Commission recognizes that information relating to cruising range would be useful to consumers when choosing a vehicle or deciding whether to convert an existing vehicle to an alternative fuel. Therefore, the Commission has tentatively determined that information relating to cruising range would be appropriate on labels it is proposing for covered AFVs, as discussed in section III.C infra. d. Meets material specifications. Several commenters pointed out the need for fuel specifications for all alternative fuels.\107\ To expedite the establishment of such national specifications, AMI recommended that the fuel dispenser labels guarantee delivery of alternative fuels meeting specifications defined by the California Air Resources Board in 1993,\108\ until national standards are in place. AMI stated that without specifications, neither emission benefits nor engine performance can be reliably determined, to the ultimate detriment of the consumer.\109\ Another commenter, however, specifically stated that California's fuel specifications may not be practical for the rest of the country.\110\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \107\AAMA (Tr.), 29; AMI, G-3, 1; API, G-25, 1-3, (Tr.), 28, 77; EMA, G-21, 8-9, (Supp.), 1-2; Flxible (Tr.), 76; NAFA (Tr.), 74; RFA (Tr.), 38; Thomas BB, G-10, 1. \108\See Specifications for Compressed Natural Gas, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sec. 2292.5 (1993), B-41; Specifications for Hydrogen, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section 2292.7 (1993), B-42. \109\AMI, G-3, 1. \110\AAMA (Tr.), 29. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- During its rulemaking proceeding to establish automotive fuel ratings for the liquid alternative fuels, the Commission also considered this type of labeling approach, and whether it would be feasible to assist consumers in making choices and comparisons between alternative fuels.\111\ Most commenters in that proceeding supported a fuel labeling approach based on specifications, but only if it was based on consensus fuel standards or specifications. Under this approach, disclosure of a particular fuel descriptor would indicate that the fuel meets technical material specifications established by a recognized standards-setting organization. Standards established under a consensus process would have the advantage of being developed with input from and approval of engine manufacturers, fuel suppliers, users, and regulators. The use of label descriptors based on standard specifications would benefit consumers because they could determine easily whether alternative fuels marketed under the descriptors were compatible with the original vehicle equipment manufacturer's requirements. In addition, this approach would allow an alternative liquid automotive fuel supplier to improve the fuel beyond the minimum specifications and promote the improved fuel over those of its competitors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \111\58 FR 41356, 41364, 41365. In the Alternative Fuel Rule proceeding, several commenters also opposed Commission adoption of alternative fuel specifications developed by the California Air Resources Board, because they were not developed by a consensus process, were technically flawed, and were developed for California's particular needs and, therefore, could be overly restrictive for other parts of the country. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As anticipated by the Commission, however, the primary objection in the liquid alternative fuels proceeding to this option was that neither the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') nor any other consensus standards-setting organization had developed and adopted specifications and standards for most of the alternative automotive fuels (the exception being liquefied petroleum gas for which ASTM has developed a standard). One commenter in the current proceeding specifically noted that ASTM has not developed a standard for CNG.\112\ But, another commenter stated that the Society of Automotive Engineers has established a ``recommended practice'' for CNG called J1616.\113\ Recommended practice SAE J1616 was issued as a guide to address the composition of natural gas used as an automotive fuel, not as a standard for CNG. The guide states it anticipates that a CNG standard will evolve, but emphasizes that experience and more technical knowledge are needed.\114\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \112\API (Tr.), 77. \113\AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 24. \114\Society of Automotive Engineers, ``Recommended Practice for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel,'' SAE J1616, B-40, 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclosure of a fuel descriptor based on accepted and approved fuel specifications and standards could provide meaningful comparative information to consumers relating to the quality of the fuel they are purchasing. After considering the comments in this proceeding, however, and in light of the conclusions reached by the Commission in the liquid alternative fuel proceeding, the Commission finds that adequate, generally accepted standards and specifications suitable for nationwide use do not presently exist for most alternative fuels, and specifically do not exist for CNG or hydrogen. Further, the Commission has an insufficient record and basis on which to adopt California's standards for alternative vehicle fuels. Therefore, the Commission has determined not to propose that fuel dispenser labels guarantee the delivery of fuels meeting California's specifications. The Commission continues to favor the development of specifications and standards that define alternative fuels by a consensus standards- setting organization, such as ASTM, or by a government agency with appropriate engineering and technical expertise to set such specifications and standards for nationwide use. This would permit participation by affected parties such as alternative fuel producers and providers, engine manufacturers, regulators, consumers, and organizations or government agencies with pertinent technical expertise. It also would provide a mechanism for evaluating proposed test methods and procedures necessary to determine compliance with the standards. e. Environmental benefits (emissions). AMI suggested that the fuel dispenser label indicate the environmental benefits of alternative fuels.115 Specifically, AMI suggested that the Commission require disclosure of a generic statement on alternative fuel labels such as: ``Use of this fuel can result in significant reductions in exhaust pollutants compared with an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle.'' Phillips 66/NPGA commented, however, that such a statement would not particularly assist consumers in making a fuel purchasing decision at the dispenser.116 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\15 AMI, G-3, 2. \1\16Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the comments, the Commission has determined that including such a generic statement on the fuel dispenser label would not provide sufficient information to assist consumers in making choices and comparisons. However, the Commission recognizes that information relating to emissions and the environmental benefits of alternative fuels would be useful to consumers when choosing an alternatively fueled vehicle or deciding whether to convert an existing vehicle to an alternative fuel. Therefore, the Commission has tentatively determined that information relating to emissions would be appropriate on the labels it is proposing for covered AFVs, as discussed in section III.C infra. f. Pressure. For safety reasons, two commenters recommended that CNG fuel dispensers display the fueling pressure, either 2,400, 3,000 or 3,600 P.S.I. (pounds per square inch) so that dispenser fueling pressure is compatible with CNG vehicle tank storage pressure.117 For example, fueling a 2,400 P.S.I. vehicle tank from a 3,600 P.S.I. fueling dispenser could result in severe damage to a fueling system, as well as personal injury if an explosion occurred. Two commenters, however, indicated that fueling pressure is a safety issue that has been addressed by the industry in designing dispensers. Therefore, this information is unnecessary on a CNG dispenser label.118 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\17Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 1. \1\18Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51; AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 103-104. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In developing this proposal, the Commission considered whether including fueling pressure on CNG dispenser labels would provide timely comparative information to consumers in light of the independent steps the industry has taken to address this issue. The commenters indicated that the industry has developed pressure coded standard dispenser/ vehicle CNG connectors so that consumers will not be able to overfuel a low pressure vehicle from a high pressure dispenser.119 Further, the use of standard CNG vehicle fueling connectors complying with the ANSI/AGA NGV1 specification is required at public dispensing points by National Fire Protection Association safety standard 52 (``NFPA 52''), which is a fire code adopted by most, if not all, states.120 Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a proposal requiring the disclosure of fueling pressure on CNG dispenser labels is unnecessary at this time. Further, the proposed rule would require that labels for new and used covered AFVs include standard statements informing consumers that they can obtain vehicle safety information by calling the toll-free telephone number for DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline, as discussed in section III.C infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\19See ANSI/AGA NGV1-1994 American National Standard For Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, attached to AGA/NGVC's comment, G-6. \1\20ANSI/NFPA 52 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems, 1992, B-39. See also Stookey, An Analysis of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. Gas Fuels, June 1994, at 27-30, B-48. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- g. Safety warnings. Several commenters focused on safety issues.121 NACAA stated, for example, that the labels should note any hazards or cautions to prevent damage to automotive engines.122 Nebraska EO commented that labels should include a cautionary note that this and all fuels are hazardous.123 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\21E.g., Thomas BB, G-10, 1. \1\22NACAA, H-6, 1-2. \1\23Nebraska EO, H-9, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission has considered whether including a safety warning statement on a fuel dispenser label would help consumers make reasonable fuel choices and comparisons. The Commission notes, however, that safety standards for operation of motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations are covered by the Uniform Fire Code.124 Further, to some extent, the proposed fuel labeling requirements, particularly those for EV public dispenser systems, implicitly consider safety issues for refueling by directing consumers to the proper fuel dispenser. Beyond this (and fire code requirements that are already in place), consumers considering the purchase of AFVs may find safety information more pertinent when purchasing an AFV. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that rather than propose that safety disclosures appear on fuel dispenser labels, it will propose requiring a reference to DOE's consumer information brochure and NHTSA's Vehicle Safety Hotline on labels for covered AFVs, as discussed in section III.C infra. Consequently, the Commission anticipates that a marketer's refueling instructions, whether appearing in an AFV owner's manual or on the fuel dispenser, would discuss or incorporate relevant safety measures. However, if in the future information becomes available demonstrating a need for the Commission to require safety-related disclosures on the dispenser labels, the Commission can consider it during its periodic review of the Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\24For example, in July 1993, the voting membership of the Uniform Fire Code (``UFC'') and Uniform Fire Code Standards adopted new regulations for the design, construction and operation of CNG motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations. The minimum requirements are primarily based on the requirements of NFPA 52, ``Standard for CNG Vehicular Fueling Systems,'' 1992 edition. The Uniform Fire Code (which is a democratic code development organization whose membership includes fire and building officials, design professionals, equipment manufacturers and trade organizations) and the Uniform Fire Code Standards are a model code that provides minimum design requirements for building and site fire protection, the safe storage and use of hazardous materials, general fire and life safety requirements and maintenance requirements for the fire safety and fire protection designs of the Uniform Building Code. Article 52 of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code addresses the design, construction, commissioning and operation of all motor vehicle fuel- dispensing stations. See Stookey, An Analysis of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. Gas Fuels, June 1994, B-48, 27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- h. Refueling instructions. One commenter recommended that fuel dispenser labels include appropriate refueling instructions.125 As a marketing issue, however, alternative fuel marketers will want to display refueling instructions for consumers on alternative fuel dispensers prominently, as is done now on gasoline dispensers. Thus, the Commission believes that it is unnecessary to include refueling instructions on fuel dispenser labels. Such instructions may vary by fuel and may exceed the constraints of a simple label format. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to propose requiring that refueling instructions appear on fuel dispenser labels for the non-liquid alternative fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\25Thomas BB, G-10, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- i. Wobbe number. Two commenters stated that for CNG, two primary factors that describe the general characteristics of natural gas are the methane content and the Wobbe number.126 According to RFA, the Wobbe number is a measure of the fuel energy flow rate through a fixed orifice under given inlet conditions. RFA states that a change in Wobbe number of the gas will have a direct correlation to changes in engine performance due to variations in the air/fuel ratio of orifice based metering systems of vehicles.127 In addition, EMA stated that the Wobbe number is an indicator of the fuel's heating value.128 Although neither commenter recommended that the Commission require disclosure of the Wobbe number on CNG dispenser labels, their comments suggested that the Commission should at least consider it as an option. One commenter specifically opposed a Wobbe number disclosure, stating it would be so difficult to explain that consumers would not find it useful.129 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\26EMA (Supp.), G-21, 1-2; RFA, G-5, 3. \1\27RFA, G-5, 3. \1\28EMA (Supp.), G-21, 1-2. \1\29AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the comments, the Commission believes that the purported benefits to consumers of including the Wobbe number on CNG labels are speculative and do not exceed the costs to industry. If, as has been suggested, the Wobbe number is an indicator of heating value, then it should be correlated with methane content and thus indicated indirectly by disclosure of the percentage content of methane. Further, while the Wobbe index may be important to engine manufacturers and fuel producers as an important element of a fuel specification, CNG labels based on a Wobbe number could be confusing or misleading to consumers attempting to determine the relationship between the Wobbe number and actual engine performance. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to propose requiring disclosure of the Wobbe number on CNG dispenser labels. 5. Additional Proposals for Final Rule a. Label size and format. In the NPR, the Commission proposed that labels for non-liquid alternative fuels follow the same standardized size and format requirements as those for liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule,130 and sought comment on this proposal.131 Nine commenters addressed questions concerning the size and format of alternative fuel labels, and none opposed the proposals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\30 Labels required by the Fuel Rating Rule are 3 inches wide by 2\1/2\ inches long, with process black type on an orange background. 16 CFR 306.12 (1994). \1\3159 FR 24014, 24021. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seven commenters stated that non-liquid alternative fuels should follow the same size and format requirements as liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.132 The reasons given for keeping the requirements the same were: promoting consistency,133 keeping information simple so that consumers can easily understand the labels,134 and fairness and equity.135 SIGMA stated simply that it supported the proposed requirements and urged the Commission to adopt the proposed rule without change.136 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\32AGA/NGVC, G-6, 8; API, G-25, 4 (provided that content requirements for non-liquid alternative fuels are similar to those for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel Rating Rule, similar size and format labels are appropriate, consistent, and should be recognizable to consumers); Mobil, G-2, 4; NPGA, G-18, 4; RFA, G-5, 4; Sun, G-1, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 2 (does not understand why non- liquid fuels should be treated differently than liquid fuels). AGA/ NGVC and API did not state reasons for their comments. \1\33Mobil, G-2, 4; RFA, G-5, 4. \1\34Sun, G-1, 2. \1\35NPGA, G-19, 4. \1\36SIGMA, G-23, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although section 406(a) does not specify size and format standards for alternative fuel labels, it directs the Commission ``to establish uniform labeling requirements, to the greatest extent practicable.'' It also specifies that ``[r]equired labeling under the rule shall be simple and, where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing information to the consumer.'' In the NPR, the Commission proposed that the non-liquid alternative fuel labels not be consolidated with other mandatory labels or require otherwise duplicative disclosures.137 Only one commenter addressed this issue, stating that consolidation would appear to provide no benefit and would only lead to public confusion.138 After considering the comments, the Commission proposes that non-liquid alternative fuels labels follow the same standardized size and format requirements of the Fuel Rating Rule.139 Further, to keep the labels uniform and simple, the Commission does not propose requiring any label consolidation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\3759 FR 24014, 24018. \1\38TVA, H-5. \1\39See section 309.17 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements. An objective product claim carries with it a representation that the seller possessed and relied upon a reasonable basis for that claim.140 When a seller does not expressly or impliedly state a certain level of support for a representation, the Commission assumes that consumers expect the seller to have a reasonable basis for the claim.141 Further, ``a firm's failure to possess and rely upon a reasonable basis for objective claims constitutes an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.''142 The fuel dispenser labeling rule the Commission proposes would require that sellers possess adequate substantiation to ensure that the information on the labels is accurate and reliable, and, as required by section 406(a) of EPA 92, that the information can ``reasonably enable the consumer to make choices and comparisons.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\40Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 813 (1984), aff'd, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987). \1\41FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 104 F.T.C. 839, 840. See Thompson Medical, 104 F.T.C. 786, 813. \1\42FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 104 F.T.C. 839. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When products are sold in units, packaged or unpackaged, ``labeling'' normally is accomplished by disclosing information on the product packaging, on a label attached directly to the product, or marked directly on the product.143 Most often, though not always, such labeling disclosures are added to the product or product packaging by the party producing the product. Items sold in bulk (such as gasoline or alternative fuels), on the other hand, cannot be labeled on individual or multiple unit packaging to ensure that the ultimate consumer sees the labeled information. The only practical method of ensuring that labeling information for such products reaches the consumer is to label the bulk product dispenser at the point of retail sale. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\43See, e.g., Rule Concerning Disclosures of Information about Energy Consumption and Water Use for Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required under the Energy Policy & Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule''), 16 CFR Part 305 (1994); Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation (``R-value Rule''), 16 CFR Part 460 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From a practical standpoint, retail sellers of alternative fuels are not in a position to determine the accuracy of the information to be disclosed about the specific fuel. It would be impractical, and probably more expensive to the consumer, to require retail sellers to test each delivery of a gaseous fuel or to test the electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems they use to determine the accuracy of the information they must disclose on labels on fuel dispensers. In making disclosures to consumers, retail sellers of alternative fuels, therefore, must rely on the accuracy of the information provided to them from gaseous fuel importers, producers, refiners and distributors, or from manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems. The Commission believes that substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements for importers, producers, refiners and distributors of gaseous alternative fuels, and manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems, and substantiation and recordkeeping requirements for retail sellers of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (including electricity) are necessary to ensure that the information posted on labels on retail fuel dispensers is accurate.144 The Commission, therefore, proposes to include substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements in the rule, similar to such requirements in the Fuel Rating Rule for sellers of liquid alternative fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\44The Commission stated in the NPR that it believed that harmonizing labeling requirements for non-liquid and liquid alternative fuels, when practicable, would be appropriate. However, the Commission stated that it believed that requiring retailers to post consistent with ratings certified to them and to maintain records, as is required for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel Rating Rule, would be beyond the scope of the Commission's mandate under section 406(a) of EPA 92 (59 FR 24014, 24018 n. 133). Upon further consideration, and in light of the discussion in the text supra, the Commission reconsidered that position and has determined to propose requiring substantiation, certification, and recordkeeping requirements for non-liquid alternative fuels like those for liquid alternative fuels in the Fuel Rating Rule. The Commission believes that the proposed requirements are justified because they are rationally related to the establishment of ``uniform labeling requirements'' that provide important information to consumers. Interested parties are invited to address the proposed requirements in their written comments in response to this SNPR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Substantiation. The Commission's labeling proposals would require labeling disclosures only of the type of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity), and of the minimum molecular percent (a more accurate description than volume of the content of a gas) of the principal component of each gaseous alternative vehicle fuel and of specific, limited information about the output of the electric vehicle fuel dispenser system. Under the Commission's advertising substantiation doctrine, which requires sellers to have a reasonable basis to support material, objective claims, the Commission proposes requiring that importers, producers, and refiners of non- liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, that substantiates the minimum mole percent of the principal component that retailers must disclose on fuel dispenser labels. For the minimum mole percent content of methane (the principal component) in CNG, the Commission proposes requiring that the reasonable basis be tests conducted according to ASTM D 1945-81.145 For the minimum mole percent content of hydrogen (the principal component) in hydrogen gas, the Commission proposes requiring that the reasonable basis be tests conducted according to ASTM D 1946-90.146 These ASTM documents include test procedures, developed through the ASTM consensus process, to determine the chemical composition of CNG and hydrogen, respectively, including the mole percent of methane in CNG and of hydrogen in hydrogen gas.147 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\45See note infra. \1\46Id. \1\47The Fuel Rating Rule did not require that specific ASTM test methods be used to satisfy the Rule's reasonable basis standard for liquid alternative fuels because existing ASTM test methods were undergoing verification review to determine whether they would be appropriate for use in establishing standards for the liquid alternative fuels. Further, the Commission was informed that other test methods were being developed that might serve equally well as part of a liquid alternative fuel standard. On the other hand, the Commission understands that the ASTM test methods it proposes requiring as a reasonable basis for determining the minimum molecular percentages of the principal components of CNG and hydrogen have been ASTM test methods for many years and have been recognized as competent and reliable procedures. Further, the Commission understands that no other test methods that could be used to make these determinations have been proposed to the California Air Resources Board or are under development by any standards- setting organizations. If additional test methods are developed in the future, the Commission will consider whether to include them among the required test methods. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the minimum mole percent content of any other component that importers, producers, or refiners wish to certify, the proposed rule would not specify the test procedure they must use, but only that they have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, to substantiate the claim. The proposed rule would not require that importers, producers, or refiners meet particular material specifications or standards for the common name they use to describe the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) they distribute, but that they have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, to substantiate the common name or identifier they use. Similarly, manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems would be required to have a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, to substantiate the information retail sellers must post on labels on the electric vehicle fuel dispensers. Distributors and retail sellers could rely on the certifications they receive, as discussed in section III.B.5.2 infra, so their burden would be minimal. Distributors and retailers would not need to make the actual determinations unless they alter the fuel they receive before reselling it.148 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\48See Secs. 309.13(c) and 309.15(c) of the text of the proposed rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For public electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems, the information the Commission proposes requiring to be disclosed can be measured using standard measuring devices or procedures. Therefore, accurate measurements made using standard electric industry procedures that are recognized as competent and reliable would be sufficient to serve as the required reasonable basis. Currently, there is not sufficient record evidence for imposing specific, nationwide, minimum material standards or specifications for the composition of CNG or hydrogen gas.149 Neither ASTM nor any other standards-setting entity has developed and adopted consensus material specifications for these non-liquid (gaseous) alternative fuels. Nor do federal specifications currently exist. As previously discussed, the state of California has issued minimum material specifications for both CNG and hydrogen gas sold in California.150 These specifications require determination of the minimum mole percent composition of the principal component of these gaseous alternative fuels according to the specific ASTM test procedures that the Commission proposes to require as substantiation for the proposed disclosures.151 Although the Commission could require that non-liquid alternative fuels meet the California minimum material specifications, there is insufficient evidence on the record for doing so. Further, in the absence of more extensive information, which may not yet exist, mandating that non-liquid (gaseous) alternative fuels meet any particular minimum material standards specifications could have unforeseen adverse anti-competitive, environmental, or vehicle performance effects.152 However, because it is important that sellers base objective disclosures on uniform measurements when recognized and accepted uniform measurement procedures are available, and because ASTM has issued test procedures to measure the minimum mole percent of the principle components of CNG and hydrogen, the Commission has determined to propose requiring use of the ASTM test procedures to substantiate those disclosures. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\49See AMI, G-3, 1; CEC, H-8, 6 (not aware of any existing, adequate and generally accepted standards for disclosures for alternative fuels). \1\50See note supra. \1\51The ASTM test procedures referenced in the California specifications are: (1) for measuring the mole percent of methane in CNG--ASTM D 1945-81; (2) for measuring the mole percent of hydrogen in hydrogen gas--ASTM D 2650-88. Id. According to ASTM representatives, ASTM D 1945-91 (placed on the record as document number B-54) has superseded ASTM D 1945-81 and ASTM D 1946-90 (placed on the record as document number B-55) has superseded ASTM D 2650-88. The California specifications also cite specific test procedures for measuring the mole percent of other components of CNG and hydrogen. The California specifications state that other test procedures may be used following a determination by the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board that they produce results equivalent to the results obtained with the referenced test procedures. \1\52An analysis of the California material specifications also indicates that, to ensure fuel quality and proper automobile performance, disclosing minimum percentage of the principal component of the fuel would be important and helpful. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission's approach to requiring substantiation testing, without specifying a particular test method, for components other than the principle component allows sellers to rely on existing industry test procedures if they are reasonable and yield accurate results. For example, the California specifications list specific ASTM procedures to be used to determine the mole percent of various components of CNG and hydrogen, in addition to the methane content of CNG and the hydrogen content of hydrogen gas. The Commission proposes to accept, but not require, use of the ASTM test procedures cited in the California specifications as the required reasonable basis for voluntary disclosure of additional components of CNG and hydrogen. Although the Commission has decided not to propose requiring that non-liquid alternative fuels conform to any specific material specification, the Commission's proposed requirement that marketers disclose the principal component of each fuel should encourage the industry to develop uniform material specifications or standards in consensus organizations for these fuels to ensure the uniform quality of the fuels in the marketplace. The development of material specifications or standards for non-liquid (gaseous) alternative fuels should help facilitate acceptance of these fuels. The proposed requirements are consistent with the substantiation requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.153 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\53 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Certification. The Commission proposes requiring that importers, producers, refiners, and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), and that manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems certify to others to whom they distribute the information that retailers must post on fuel dispensers.154 Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity) would be required to certify to distributors consistent with their determination of the minimum mole percent of the fuel's major component, and of any additional component they wish to disclose. Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be required to certify to distributors and/or retailers the information retailers would be required to disclose on labels on fuel dispensers. Distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity) and of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be required to certify to retailers consistent with the certification they received.155 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\54See sections 309.10 and 309.11 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. \1\55See section 309.13 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. If distributors blend fuels, Sec. 309.13(c) of the proposed rule would require them to substantiate the minimum percentage of the principal component according to the requirements of Sec. 309.10, and certify that information to their non-consumer customers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuel (other than electricity) could make the certification in either of two ways: (a) Include with each transfer a delivery ticket or other paper (such as, an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket or any other written proof of transfer). The delivery ticket or other paper must contain at least the importer's, producer's, or refiner's name, the name of the person to whom the non-liquid alternative fuel (other than electricity) is transferred, the date of the transfer, the common name of the fuel and the minimum mole percent of the fuel's major component, and of any additional component the producer or importer wishes to disclose. (b) Give the person to whom the fuel is transferred a letter or written statement, including the date, the producer's or importer's name, the name of the person to whom the fuel is transferred, the common name of the fuel, and the minimum mole percent of the fuel's major component, and of any additional component the producer or importer wishes to disclose. The letter or written statement would be effective until the importer, producer, or refiner transfers non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with a lower percentage of the major component, or of any other component claimed. At that time, the importer, producer, or refiner would have to certify the new information about the fuel with a new notice. Distributors of non-liquid alternative fuel (other than electricity) would be required to make the certification in each transfer to anyone who is not a consumer. Distributors could make the required certification by: (a) Using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as outlined for importers and producers in item (a), above, or by using a letter of certification, as outlined for importers, producers, and refiners in item (b), above. (b) Using either a letter or a delivery ticket or other paper when transferring to a common carrier. When distributors receive non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) from a common carrier, the distributors also must receive from the common carrier a certification of information required to be disclosed on the label on the retail fuel dispenser, either by letter or on a delivery ticket or other paper. Manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be required to make the certification in each transfer of such systems. Manufacturers could do so in either of two ways: (a) Manufacturers could make the required certification by including a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of an EV fuel dispensing system. It could be an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It would be required to contain at least the manufacturer's name, the name of the person to whom the EV fuel dispensing system is transferred, the date of the transfer, the model number or other identifier of the EV fuel dispensing system, and the information required to be disclosed on the retail fuel dispenser label. (b) Manufacturers could make the required certification by placing clearly and conspicuously on the EV fuel dispensing system a permanent legible marking or permanently attached label that discloses the manufacturer's name, the model number or other identifier of the EV fuel dispensing system, and the information required to be disclosed on the retail fuel dispenser label. Such marking or label would have to be located where it can be seen after installation of the EV fuel dispensing system. The marking or label would be deemed ``legible,'' in terms of placement, if it is located in close proximity to the manufacturer's identification marking. This marking or label would have to be in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the label required to be posted on the public EV fuel dispenser at the point of retail sale. Distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems would be required to make the certification in each transfer. Distributors could do so in either of two ways: (a) Using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as outlined for manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems in item (a) supra. (b) Using the permanent marking or label permanently attached to the system by the manufacturer, as outlined for manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems in item (b) supra. The proposed requirements are consistent with the certification requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.\156\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \156\16 CFR 306.6, 306.8 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Recordkeeping. The Commission proposes requiring that importers, producers, and refiners of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity) maintain records of the tests performed by or for them that they rely upon as their required reasonable basis for their certifications.\157\ The Commission likewise proposes requiring that manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems maintain records of the tests or measurements performed by or for them, or of other data or records, that they rely upon as their required reasonable basis for their certifications.\158\ The Commission also proposes requiring that distributors and retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity) maintain records consisting of the certifications they receive from importers, producers, refiners, or distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), and that distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems maintain records consisting of the certification they receive from manufacturers or distributors of the systems.\159\ Like the Fuel Rating Rule, the proposed rule would require that these records be kept for one year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \157\See Sec. 309.12 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. \158\Id. \159\See Secs. 309.14 and 309.16 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed requirements are consistent with the recordkeeping requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule.\160\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \160\16 CFR 306.7, 306.9, 306.11 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Effective date. In the NPR, the Commission proposed requiring that the non-liquid alternative fuels labeling requirements become effective 90 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, and sought comment on that proposal.\161\ Nine commenters addressed this issue either directly or by implication.\162\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \161\59 FR 24014, 24017, 24021. \162\SIGMA, G-23, 1 (supported all the Commission's proposals and urged the Commission to adopt the proposed rule without change); AGA/NGVC, G-6, 8 (expressed no opinion on proposed time period, but stated it would check with members that own fuel stations to ascertain if the compliance period would be too short); Phillips 66, G-15, 2 (Phillips 66 did not respond directly to the time period for the rule to become effective, but referred to separate comments submitted by NPGA and API, which stated different opinions; Phillips 66 did not specify which comment it supported on this issue.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Four commenters stated that the proposed time period gave sufficient time for covered parties to comply with the proposed requirements.\163\ NPGA stated that the 90-day period was not sufficient. It suggested a period of at least six months after publication of the final rule would be necessary because information must be collected from various fuel suppliers or wholesalers, the information must be placed in a format that meets standards established by the regulations, and layouts must be prepared in label form and distributed for use.\164\ Thomas BB questioned the sufficiency of 90 days, but stated that it would depend on the content of the final rule.\165\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \163\API, G-25, 4 (90 days is sufficient, provided the effective date, size, and format requirements for them are similar to those contained in the Fuel Rating Rule for liquid fuels); Flxible, G-12, 2 (90 days is sufficient if the requirements for commercial vehicles are made according to the proposals in the ANPR; if the requirements were different, they would have to be reviewed to determine how long it would take to comply); Mobil, G-2, 4 (provided effective date and labeling requirements are consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels, there should not be a problem with implementation); RFA, G-5, 4 (90 days is sufficient because the number of outlets affected is small and labels would be printed in small quantities on a local basis or provided to retailers and their fuel suppliers). \164\NPGA, G-18, (comment) 4. \165\Thomas BB, G-10, 2 (will take considerably longer to establish national standards for some fuels). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 406(a) of EPA 92 requires the Commission to issue the final labeling rules within one year of publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking, but does not specify when the rules shall become effective. In developing this proposal, the Commission has considered how best to balance consumers' needs for comparative information with industry's need for a reasonable period of time to come into compliance. After considering the comments, the Commission believes that the proposed effective date (i.e., 90 days after publication in the Federal Register) is reasonable.\166\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \166\The effective date of the final amendments adding liquid alternative fuels to the Fuel Rating Rule was less than 90 days after publication of the final rules in the Federal Register. The final rules were published on August 3, 1993. They became effective on October 25, 1993, as required by EPA 92. 58 FR 41356. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. Periodic updating of labels. In the NPR, the Commission did not propose a specific timetable for future reviews of the final labeling rules. The Commission, however, explained that section 406(a) of EPA 92 requires the Commission to update its labeling requirements ``periodically.'' Three commenters addressed the need to update the final rules periodically. API encouraged the Commission to review the rule, particularly after private, voluntary consensus standards organizations develop fuel specifications for alternative fuels. API also encouraged the Commission to consider reviewing the rule as new alternative fuels enter the marketplace. API did not suggest a specific timetable for periodic reviews.\167\ CEC suggested that the Commission may have to update its labeling requirements as electric vehicle technology advances, but likewise did not recommend a specific timetable.\168\ TVA commented that the Commission should update labeling disclosures only when necessary to reflect practical developments in technology. It also stated that a new label should indicate that it supersedes the previous label.\169\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \167\API, G-25, 9. \168\CEC, H-8, 5-6. \169\TVA, H-5, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As required by section 406(a) of EPA 92, the Commission intends to conduct reviews to update the rule periodically to take into consideration relevant developments, such as when DOE designates new non-liquid alternative fuels. In addition, the Commission's ongoing regulatory review process schedules all rules and guides for review at least once during every ten-year period. Because the Commission cannot predict when new relevant developments may occur, the Commission is not otherwise proposing a specific timetable for future reviews in the final rule. C. Labeling Requirements for AFVs 1. Scope of the AFV Labeling Requirement In its NPR, the Commission proposed that original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') and AFV conversion companies affix, and AFV dealers maintain, standard labels on new AFVs sold or offered for sale to consumers.170 The Commission further proposed that the term ``consumer,'' which is not defined in EPA 92, be defined as a person (i.e., an individual, corporation, or any other business organization) purchasing a new AFV from a dealer or AFV conversion company.171 These proposed requirements were derived in part from existing regulations regarding posting of EPA fuel-economy labels172 and were intended to exclude two sales categories (i.e., used AFV sales and special orders directly from manufacturers) from the scope of the Commission's AFV labeling requirement.173 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\7059 FR 24014, 24018. \1\71Id. at 24018 n.138. \1\72 Id. at 24018 n.136. See 40 CFR 600.306-86(a) (1993). \1\73 59 FR 24014, 24018 n.138. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nineteen commenters addressed the proposed scope of the AFV labeling requirements. Two of the nineteen indicated general support for the Commission's labeling proposal but did not address this specific issue.174 One other commenter supported the Commission's definition of the term ``consumer'' as proposed.175 The remaining sixteen addressed one or more issues pertaining to this aspect of the Commission's proposal, as discussed below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\74EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \1\75AGA/NGVC stated that the Commission's proposed definition was ``a reasonable interpretation of the statute'' because industry ``can target and educate specialty markets and their consumers.'' AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11-12. In its supplemental written comment, AGA/NGVC addressed the issue of aftermarket conversions. See infra note 196 and accompanying text. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Covered AFVs. Several commenters addressed whether the Commission's labeling requirements should apply to all AFVs, as that term is defined in EPA 92. As defined by that statute, an AFV is either ``a dedicated vehicle or a dual fueled vehicle.''176 As further defined, a ``dedicated vehicle'' means an automobile (or other self- propelled vehicle), designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway, that operates solely on alternative fuel.177 Similarly, a ``dual fueled vehicle'' is an automobile (or other self- propelled vehicle), designed for transporting persons or property on a street or highway, that is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel.178 As such, the statutory definition of an ``AFV'' includes tour buses, transit buses, heavy-duty commercial trucks, and large motor homes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\76 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993). \1\77 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(6) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dedicated vehicle'' is either a ``dedicated automobile,'' as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(C) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that operates solely on alternative fuel). \1\78 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(8) (Supp. IV 1993) (a ``dual fueled vehicle'' is either a ``dual fueled automobile,'' as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(D) (Supp. IV 1993), or a ``motor vehicle,'' as defined in 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, that is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding the AFVs covered by the Commission's labeling requirements, four commenters indicated that the labeling requirements should apply to all AFVs, so that consumers of those vehicles have access to the same information.179 Nine commenters, however, suggested that the Rule's scope could reasonably be limited in a manner consistent with EPA 92's mandate and purpose. For example, several commenters supported the Commission's proposal to limit the Rule's scope to AFVs obtained from dealers or AFV conversion companies (i.e., not directly from the manufacturer as a special order). Those commenters stated that consumers making special orders would likely have sufficient knowledge of available fuel alternatives and would need more detailed and vehicle-specific information than could be provided on a standardized label.180 They also stated that specially ordered AFVs were typically manufactured after the order had been placed, so that the consumer would not actually see the vehicle until delivery.181 Requiring the posting of cost-benefit labels on such vehicles thus would not help consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\79Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; NACAA (Tr.), 132; NAFA (Tr.), 123, 134; TVA, H-5, 1. \1\80CEC, H-8, 11; ETC, G-24, 5; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1. Flxible stated that the Rule's scope should be limited to vehicles operated by the general public. Flxible, G-12, 2. \1\81GM (Tr.), 127-128 (``[P]utting a label on a vehicle after it's been built is already a done deal because all those decisions had to be made at the ordering.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other commenters suggested a different approach. Those commenters stated that the Commission's AFV labeling requirements should exclude from its scope AFVs with gross vehicle weight ratings (``GVWR'')182 over 8,500 lbs. (i.e., medium and heavy duty AFVs). EMA stated that AFVs over 8,500 lbs. GVWR should be excluded because consumers considering such vehicles make decisions based on extensive evaluations of more factors and information than a simple label could provide.183 Flxible stated that consumers considering heavier commercial vehicles have usually reviewed published data on features, compared specific vehicle types, and studied life-cycle cost studies before placing orders. They thus have no need for ``consumer'' labeling.184 AAMA stated that those vehicles are typically manufactured after their purchase by commercial vehicle buyers who are well informed about pertinent costs and benefits.185 EPA also noted that its fuel economy requirements (disclosing fuel economy information in window stickers) do not apply to vehicles over 8,500 lbs. GVWR.186 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\82EPA defines GVWR as a vehicle's actual weight (including all standard and optional equipment and fuel) plus 300 pounds. See 40 CFR 86.082-2 (1993) (defining ``GVWR,'' ``loaded vehicle weight,'' and ``vehicle curb weight.''). \1\83EMA, G-21, 2, 3-4, 7, (Tr.), 123. EMA cited examples where the considerations relevant to ordering a heavy-duty AFV were summarized in an OEM's 25-page sales brochure and a 400-page truck data book. EMA (Supp.), G-21, 2-3. \1\84Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 1-3 (window stickers should be for vehicles purchased for personal use and from dealer lots, i.e., under 8,500 lbs. GVWR), (Tr.), 134 (rule should be limited to passenger-type vehicles). \1\85AAMA, G-7, 3-4, (Tr.), 124 (purchasing decision ``will already have been made long before [purchaser] walks into the showroom and sees the label.''). Chrysler and Ford supported AAMA's position that these vehicles should be excluded from the scope of the Commission's AFV labeling requirements. Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1. \1\86EPA (Tr.), 122; 40 CFR 600.002-85(4)(iii) (1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted previously, the Commission must issue uniform labeling requirements only ``to the greatest extent practicable.''187 In developing this revised proposal the Commission has considered the practicality and appropriateness of including all AFVs within the scope of its labeling requirements. Including all such vehicles might help educate consumers about the general availability of AFVs of all sizes. However, the record appears to indicate that consumers considering vehicles over 8,500 lbs. GVWR would not likely make choices and comparisons based on the cost-benefit information contained in a simple label. The Commission also considered including all AFVs (regardless of weight) and developing different label formats tailored to the apparently different needs of light and heavy-duty AFV consumers. This also did not appear to be practical because heavier vehicles are typically custom ordered. While these evaluations may change in the future, for now at least it seems likely that for consumers considering such vehicles, disclosures in a labeling format may not be appropriate, useful, or timely. As a result, the Commission has tentatively determined that, at the present time, AFVs over 8,500 lbs. GVWR will not be included within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\8742 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To implement this tentative determination, the Commission proposes to include a definition of ``covered vehicles'' (i.e., in substance, AFVs under 8,500 lbs. GVWR), in the proposed rule.188 The Commission derived this definition from EPA 92's definition of the term ``light duty motor vehicles,'' a term given special significance by that statute.189 EPA 92's definition of that term references two vehicle classifications used by the Clean Air Act (light duty trucks or light duty vehicles) ``of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds [GVWR].''190 The Clean Air Act191 in turn refers to existing EPA definitions of both vehicle classifications.192 Thus, the proposed definition of ``covered vehicle'' basically encompasses the same category of vehicle referenced in EPA 92's fleet acquisition requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\88See proposed rule section 309.1(f) (defining ``covered vehicle''). The term ``covered vehicle'' was derived from the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's (``EPCA'') use of the term ``covered product.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6291(a)(2), 6292(a) (statute's scope defined in terms of enumerated consumer products); 16 CFR 305.2, 305.3 (1994) (same for Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule implementing EPCA). \1\89 Three of EPA 92's five ``major'' alternative-fuel provisions impose minimum vehicle-acquisition requirements on designated entities (i.e., the Federal government; alternative fuel providers; and other non-Federal fleets). H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 137, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1960. For alternative fuel providers and other non-Federal fleets, the vehicles covered by those mandates are ``light duty motor vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory acquisition requirement for alternative fuel providers); 42 U.S.C. 13257 (Supp. IV 1993) (contingent acquisition requirement for other non-Federal fleet operators). The Federal fleet is required to acquire ``light duty [AFVs],'' a term not defined in EPA 92, instead of ``light duty motor vehicles.'' See 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory acquisition requirement for Federal government). Neither the statute nor its legislative history suggests that those terms have different meanings and the discrepancy may have been inadvertent. The Commission need not resolve the matter, however, because it seems clear that the intent was to tailor the Federal fleet's acquisition requirement to a certain category of AFVs. \1\9042 U.S.C. 13211(11) (Supp. IV 1993) (``The term `light duty motor vehicle' means a light duty truck or light duty vehicle, as such terms are defined under section 216(7) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7550(7)), of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds [GVWR].''). \1\91 42 U.S.C. 7550(7) (the terms ``light duty truck'' and ``light duty vehicle'' have the meaning provided in regulations promulgated by the [EPA] Administrator and in effect as of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.''). \1\92 A light duty truck is defined as ``[a]ny motor vehicle rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as (sic) a vehicle curb weight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of 45 square feet or less, which is (1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.'' 40 CFR 86.082-2 (1993). A light duty vehicle is defined as ``a passenger car or passenger car derivative capable of seating 12 passengers or less.'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. AFV manufacturers and conversion companies. As noted previously, in its NPR the Commission proposed that its AFV labeling requirements apply to AFV manufacturers and conversion companies.193 The Commission did not further specify, however, the extent to which such entities would be required to comply with its labeling proposal. In response, several commenters addressed the circumstances under which either entity should be included within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements. As to AFV manufacturers, the commenters agreed that all vehicles designed and assembled by OEMs to operate on alternative fuel should be included within the scope of the Commission's AFV labeling requirements.194 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\9359 FR 24014, 24018. A conversion company reconfigures the fuel system of an existing vehicle to permit operation on alternative fuel. \1\94See, e.g., Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; ETC, G-24, 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to conversion companies, however, some commenters suggested that the labeling requirements distinguish between two different categories of conversions: whether the vehicle is converted to alternative fuel before or after it is delivered to the first consumer. For example, AGA/NGVC and ETC stated that conversions performed before the vehicle is delivered to a first consumer should be included within the scope of the AFV labeling requirement.195 These conversions bear similarities to OEM AFVs because in both circumstances the vehicles are configured to alternative fuel before delivery to the first consumer. Consumers considering these converted AFVs would thus have equal need for comparative information as consumers considering other ``new'' vehicles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\95AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6 (``We agree with the FTC and others that vehicles that are converted prior to being delivered to the first time buyer should be labeled in the same fashion as other `new' vehicles.''); ETC, G-24, 4 (``All vehicles that are considered `new' vehicles, regardless of whether they are sold by an original equipment manufacturer or a converter or upfitter, should be subject to the labeling requirement.''). Commenters responding to the Commission's ANPR were in similar agreement. See 59 FR 24014, 24016 nn. 53, 54 and accompanying text. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to the second category, those commenters stated that companies performing conversions after the vehicle is delivered to a consumer (so called ``aftermarket conversions'') should be excluded from the AFV labeling requirements because consumers would have already been educated about the costs and benefits of alternative fuels.196 Four other commenters addressed this category. Three stated that aftermarket conversions should be covered because the labeling requirements should apply to all AFVs.197 NPGA stated that aftermarket conversions should be treated in a separate rulemaking proceeding because ``circumstances surrounding the majority of aftermarket conversions * * * are so different from the vehicles equipped by [OEMs] to operate on an alternative fuel.''198 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\96 AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G-6, 3-4, (Tr.), 231-232; ETC, G-24, 4. \1\97 Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 13; NAFA (Tr.), 130 (the same information available from manufacturers should be available from conversion companies); TVA, H-5, 1. \1\98 NPGA, G-18 (Supp.), 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The intent of the Commission's proposal (as it applied to AFV conversion companies) was to address what the Commission understood was a significant segment of the AFV industry. DOE has noted that: ``Because of the limited availability and selection of [OEM] vehicles, conversions are providing a transition to the time when automakers produce more [AFVs] for public sale.''199 As a result, ``[t]he demand for vehicles meeting the [clean-fuel] standards will presumably grow, thus increasing the conversion market share for companies capable of producing large numbers of high-quality converted vehicles.''200 Among the factors creating such a demand are acquisition requirements for centrally fueled fleets contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (``CAAA'').201 Those requirements ``may be met through the conversion of existing or new gasoline or diesel-powered vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles * * * ''202 Interests affected by those mandates, as well as others interested in achieving the clean-air benefits of driving AFVs, may therefore find an incentive to convert existing vehicles to alternative fuel. The Commission therefore believes that it should address this issue in this proceeding to the greatest extent practicable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\99 B-3, inside front cover. \2\00 58 FR 32474, 32494, June 10, 1993. \2\01 The CAAA's acquisition requirements are in addition to similar requirements, described infra section III(C)(1)(c), imposed by EPA 92. \2\02 42 U.S.C. 7587(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted, AGA/NGVC and ETC suggested that vehicles converted to alternative fuel after being acquired by consumers should be excluded from the AFV labeling requirements because consumers considering conversion of existing vehicles would not benefit from a ``labeling'' requirement. Accordingly, in developing this revised proposal the Commission has considered the practicality and appropriateness of including this category within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements. The Commission notes that section 406 does not address the issue of AFV conversions, and that including such vehicles could help consumers compare different alternative fuels and conversion systems. However, the Commission believes that the circumstances surrounding such conversions may make such a requirement impractical or unnecessary.203 For example, the Commission understands that some consumers convert their vehicles themselves without utilizing the services of a conversion installation company. Further, consumers relying on conversion companies to perform the necessary reconfiguration will presumably be evaluating which alternative fuel to which their vehicle should be converted. In those circumstances, consumers would not likely make such decisions based on information contained in a simple label. Companies performing conversions, at a consumer's request, would have nothing to label until the consumer had already decided to do a conversion, and labeling the vehicle post- conversion would not be helpful. Further, as noted, requiring disclosure other than in a labeling format may be beyond the scope of the Commission's authority under EPA 92.204 The Commission also finds that requiring conversion companies to disclose objective information as to comparative factors will likely be problematic because such information can vary with the vehicle's condition.205 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\03 In comments responding to the Commission's ANPR, DOE noted that: ``It would be more difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, for in- use vehicles (already owned and operated) that are converted to use alternative fuels during their vehicle life to meet the AFV labeling requirements.'' DOE, E-10, 3-4. \2\04 See supra section III(A). \2\05 See infra text accompanying notes 235 and 236. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In any event, the Commission notes that DOE has addressed conversions of existing vehicles in its consumer information brochure.206 Some of the information contained in that brochure is general (e.g., electric vehicle conversions ``are available in larger metropolitan areas. Contact OEM dealer for qualified converter and warranty information''),207 while some is more specific and objective. For example, the brochure notes that converting an existing conventional-fueled vehicle to CNG ``costs about $2,700 to $5,000 per vehicle.''208 Given the apparent impracticalities surrounding a requirement for aftermarket alternative-fuel conversions, and the availability of pertinent information in DOE's brochure, the Commission intends to exclude from its AFV labeling requirements situations where conventional fueled vehicles are converted to alternative fuel after being acquired by consumers. The proposed rule thus imposes no requirements on conversion companies to label such vehicles.209 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\06EPA 92 requires that DOE's information package ``include information with respect to the conversion of conventional motor vehicles to [AFVs].'' 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993). \2\07B-3, 16. \2\08B-3, 23. \2\09 See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2) (limiting labeling requirements for new covered vehicles to conversion systems installed ``prior to such vehicle's being acquired by a consumer''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also has considered whether vehicles converted to alternative fuel prior to their acquisition by consumers (e.g., after a gasoline powered vehicle has been fully assembled) should be included within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements. As noted, section 406(a) does not expressly exclude such vehicles from its scope and the Commission is aware of no reason why such vehicles should be so excluded. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to include such vehicles within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements. The Commission has determined, however, that its treatment of the entity responsible for such a labeling requirement (i.e., the AFV conversion company) needs further refinement. In developing this revised labeling proposal, the Commission took particular note of EPA regulations addressing this subject issued after publication of the Commission's NPR. Those regulations implemented a provision of the 1990 CAAA deeming that ``person[s] who convert conventional vehicles to clean-fuel vehicles'' are ``manufacturers,'' and thus responsible for complying with some or all of EPA's certification, production, line testing, in-use testing, warranty, and recall requirements.\210\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \210\42 U.S.C. 7587(c); Emission Standards for Clean-Fuel Vehicles and Engines, Requirements for Clean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and California Pilot Test Program (``Fleet Standards Rule''), 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062, Sept. 30, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the preamble announcing those regulations, EPA noted that two entities could be considered the ``person who converts'': the person who installs the conversion kit (i.e., the hardware converting the vehicle to alternative fuel), or the person who manufactures the conversion kit.211 After considering the advantages and disadvantages of assigning liability to either entity, however, EPA concluded that assigning liability strictly to either entity was not appropriate. Instead, it determined it should assign liability based on which party was in the best position to be familiar with pertinent vehicle-performance characteristics. Interpreting its own regulations, EPA determined that the entity best suited to comply with these requirements was the entity (kit installer, manufacturer, or other) who had applied for and received a certificate of conformity that the vehicle meets appropriate EPA emission standards.212 Based on public comment received during that proceeding, EPA anticipated that in most cases the kit manufacturer would be the certifying party because this entity would be in the best position to perform the required certification testing.213 Accordingly, EPA further expected that its regulations would encourage certifiers to develop oversight programs and enter into indemnification agreements with installers to insure that installations were performed properly.214 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\11 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061. \2\12Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062. Implementing that determination will provide that: ``The clean-fuel vehicle aftermarket conversion certifier shall be considered a manufacturer for purposes of Clean Air Act sections 206 and 207 and related enforcement provisions, and must accept liability for in-use performance of the (sic) all vehicles produced under the certificate of conformity as outlined in 40 CFR part 85.'' Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50081, to be codified at 40 CFR 88.306-94(d). \2\13Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062. \2\14Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061-50062, 50064. Given the nature of their liability, EPA noted that ``[k]it manufacturers would be wholly within their rights to require such indemnification agreements before allowing installers to install their kit.'' Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because harmonizing regulatory approaches, when practicable, is appropriate and desirable, the Commission is basing its approach to determining which entities are responsible for complying with its AFV labeling requirements on EPA's regulations addressing the same issue. The Commission has determined that it is appropriate to designate the certifier as being responsible for compliance with these requirements because that entity will be in the best position to know the vehicle's performance attributes. The Commission also expects that certifiers would take similar steps to insure compliance with this revised labeling proposal, such as developing oversight programs and entering into indemnification agreements with installers to insure that accurate labels were posted as required. Under the Commission's revised AFV labeling proposal, the entity responsible for complying with its labeling requirements for new covered vehicles\215\ is the ``manufacturer.'' The proposed rule defines ``manufacturer'' as ``the person who obtains a certificate of conformity that the vehicle complies with the standards and requirements of [EPA's emission and clean-fuel vehicle regulations].''\216\ Under the proposed rule, manufacturers of new covered vehicles are required to affix (or cause to be affixed) new vehicle labels on each such vehicle prior to its being offered for acquisition by consumers.\217\ If, however, an ``aftermarket conversion system'' (i.e., a conversion kit)\218\ is installed on a vehicle by a person other than the manufacturer prior to being acquired by a consumer, the manufacturer is responsible for providing that person with the objective information regarding that vehicle required by the proposed rule.\219\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \215\The Commission's revised proposal as to used covered vehicles is discussed infra section III(C)(1)(d). \216\Proposed rule Sec. 309.1(r). \217\Proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(1). \218\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(b) (defining ``aftermarket conversion system''). This definition was derived from a recently- issued EPA definition of the same term. See Gaseous Fuels Rule, 59 FR 48472, 48490, to be codified at 40 CFR 85.502(c). \219\See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(a)(2). Specific data proposed to be disclosed on labels for new covered AFVs is discussed infra section III(C)(2)(a). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Acquisitions by consumers. As noted previously, the Commission's AFV labeling requirements are to assist ``consumers,'' and one aspect of the Commission's NPR proposal defined that term as a purchase by an individual, corporation, or other business organization.\220\ Several commenters stated that the proposed definition incorrectly limited the Rule's scope. For example, the Commission's proposal had the effect of excluding leasing arrangements from its scope. NAFA noted that EPA 92 and the Clean Air Act both impose AFV ``acquisition'' mandates on certain designated entities and suggested that the Commission's AFV labeling requirements track those requirements.\221\ Other commenters addressing this issue agreed that the Commission should broaden the Rule's scope to encompass purchases and leases.\222\ The proposed definition also had the effect of excluding purchases by government agencies. API stated that this definition should be modified to include federal, state, and local governments as consumers.\223\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \220\59 FR 24014, 24018. \221\NAFA (Tr.), 133. For example, EPA 92 requires that, ``The Federal Government shall acquire at least 5,000 light duty [AFVs] in fiscal year 1993.'' 42 U.S.C. 13212(a)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1993). \222\DOE (Tr.), 135; ETC (Tr.), 135; NACAA (Tr.), 135; RFA, G-5, 5. \223\API, G-25, 8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to leasing arrangements, the commenters indicated that interest in AFVs could be motivated in large part by congressional mandates. Because consumers will be required to ``acquire'' AFVs, the Commission has determined that its AFV labeling requirements should include such arrangements to the greatest extent practicable, and to modify its definition of consumer to further EPA 92's legislative purpose. In determining what is practicable, the Commission notes that consumers entering into leasing arrangements have different information needs. For example, consumers entering into long-term leasing arrangements often do so for commercial purposes, and make leasing choices based on evaluating factors pertinent to a commercial acquisition. These persons likely would need the same vehicle information as purchasers and should be covered by the proposed rule. Consumers entering into short-term arrangements (e.g., weekend rentals to the general public for non-commercial purposes) may or may not have similar or equal need for pertinent information. In any event, they may not view the vehicle until after it has been leased. As a result, the labels would not help consumers make choices and comparisons. Based on its belief that consumers entering into short-term leasing arrangements will not make decisions based upon information disclosed in a label, the Commission thus has tentatively determined that including short- term leasing arrangements in the proposed rule is not necessary. As to including governmental entities within the scope of the term ``consumer,'' the Commission notes that EPA 92 imposes mandatory acquisition requirements on the Federal fleet.\224\ As such, Federal fleet operators will likely have equal need for comparative information as other entities required to acquire AFVs. The Commission has tentatively determined, therefore, that neither the Federal government nor other governmental agencies should be excluded from the scope of its AFV labeling requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \224\See 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To implement these tentative determinations, the proposed rule's labeling requirements apply to covered vehicles ``offered for acquisition by consumers.''\225\ The intent of one aspect of this proposal is to include purchases and long-term leasing arrangements within the scope of the AFV labeling requirements. Accordingly, an acquisition is defined in the proposed rule as including either of the following: (1) Acquiring the beneficial title to a covered vehicle; or (2) acquiring a covered vehicle for transportation purposes pursuant to a contract or similar arrangement for a period of 120 days or more.\226\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \225\See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(a)(1) (new covered vehicles), 309.21(a) (used covered vehicles). \226\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(a) (defining ``acquisition''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This definition was derived from a recent EPA regulation implementing aspects of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,\227\ which used the 120 day period as the dividing line between short and long- term leases. In the preamble announcing that regulation, EPA announced its determination that the 120 day period is slightly longer than a calendar season and that leases of less than that period were therefore short-term and temporary.\228\ The Commission agrees that the 120 day period reflects a reasonable demarcation between short and long term rentals. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \227\Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Definitions and General Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64689-64690, Dec. 9, 1993 (defining the phrase ``owned or operated, leased or otherwise controlled by such person'' as used in section 241(5) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7581(5)). \228\58 FR 64679, 64689, 64690 (excluding leases under 120 days from Clean Fuel Fleet Program). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also proposes to define the term ``consumer'' to include individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, States, municipalities, political subdivisions of States, and agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States.\229\ The proposed definition of this term was derived from section 302(e) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments\230\ and EPA's regulation implementing that section, 40 CFR 88.302-94 (1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \229\See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(d) (defining ``consumer''). \230\42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining ``person''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- d. Used AFVs. One commenter suggested that used AFVs should be excluded from the Commission's labeling requirements because section 406(a) was primarily concerned with new AFVs.\231\ The remaining six commenters addressing this issue agreed that a consumer contemplating the acquisition of a used AFV would have the same need for comparative information as a consumer considering a new AFV, and thus used AFVs should be covered within the AFV labeling requirements.\232\ At the Workshop, representatives for AMI and NAFA also stated that used AFVs should be included in this proceeding at the present time because used AFVs are (or will soon be) offered for sale to consumers.\233\ Two of these commenters recognized, however, that requiring used vehicle dealers to make objective disclosures regarding a used AFV's performance could be problematic.\234\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \231\NACAA (Tr.), 221. \232\AMI (Tr.), 136, 218; Boston Edison, G-26, 10; ETC, G-24, 4; NAFA, G-20, 5, (Tr.), 222; PCC, G-22, 2; RFA, G-5, 5, (Tr.), 217. \233\See AMI (Tr.), 218 (``[T]his is a real problem now. There are nearly 10,000 [flexible] fuel vehicles in California alone, and * * * several hundred are being offered for sale now to private consumers.''). See also NAFA (Tr.), 222: ``I think one of the things you have to be concerned about looking down the road with alternative fuels is that if there is not a resale market for these vehicles, the program will whither and die * * * So we don't have a procedure to provide information to that second purchaser. And they have questions about alternative fuels. And they don't know how to go about getting a brochure like this * * * If you don't create the resale market, then the first market doesn't really develop.'' \234\ETC, G-24, 4; RFA (Tr.), 217. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For example, because some cost-benefit information is included on temporary window stickers (e.g., EPA's fuel economy rating) or in vehicle owner's manuals, a used AFV dealer may not always possess such information. In any event, some comparative information (e.g., EPA's fuel economy rating) could vary significantly with the vehicle's condition.235 Requiring disclosure of information based on the vehicle's condition when new could therefore be misleading to consumers.236 To remedy this problem, EPA and ETC suggested that used AFV labeling disclose general descriptive information and not address objective performance factors.237 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\35 EPA (Tr.), 220. \2\36 Id. \2\37 EPA (Tr.), 220; ETC, G-24, 4 (labels required by Commission's Used Car Rule, 16 CFR Part 455, could incorporate specific information about AFVs). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA 92's definition of AFV makes no distinction between new and used vehicles.238 In developing the NPR the Commission believed that the market for such vehicles had not reached the volume where uniform labeling requirements were necessary. Accordingly, the Commission excluded such vehicles from the scope of its AFV labeling requirement and intended to review this issue as part of its periodic review of the labeling rule. The comments indicated, however, that consumers would likely have the same need for information, and would consider the same factors, whether they were contemplating a new or used AFV acquisition. Thus, after considering the record, the Commission has concluded that including such vehicles within the scope of its AFV labeling requirements is appropriate at this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\38 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993) (defining ``AFV''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, the comments also indicated that requiring disclosure of comparative information about used AFVs may not be practicable. To address one problem inherent in such a disclosure (i.e., the unavailability of pertinent information), the Commission has considered requiring that disclosures be displayed on permanent vehicle labeling. However, this option would not surmount the more basic problem that objective information may no longer accurately reflect the vehicle's present condition (and thus would not form a valid basis upon which to make reasonable choices and comparisons).239 Accordingly, the Commission believes that requiring disclosure of information that may be inaccurate or invalid creates a risk of misleading consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\39 While consumers may expect that used vehicles will have different performance attributes than new cars, if the Commission required disclosure of specific data on standard labels (based on the vehicle's condition when new), it might create the impression with some consumers that these disclosures may still be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission has thus tentatively determined that both new and used AFVs should be included within the scope of its labeling requirements, but that they be given different treatment. The proposed rule defines the terms ``new covered vehicle'' and ``used covered vehicle'' and establishes labeling requirements as to each classification.240 Under the proposed rule, a new covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has not yet been acquired by a consumer,241 while a used covered vehicle means (in substance) a covered vehicle which previously has been acquired by a consumer.242 The proposed rule also defines the terms ``new vehicle dealer''243 and ``used vehicle dealer.''244 As described more fully below, the proposed rule addresses the problem of requiring disclosure of comparative information on used AFVs by establishing different labeling formats (i.e., new vehicle labels245 and used vehicle labels246) disclosing different types of information for new and used covered AFVs.247 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\40 See proposed rule Secs. 309.20 (``Labeling requirements for new covered vehicles''), 309.21 (``Labeling requirements for used covered vehicles''). \2\41 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(t) (defining ``new covered vehicle''). \2\42 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(dd) (defining ``used covered vehicle''). This definition was derived from the Commission's definition of the term ``used vehicle'' in its Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2) (1994). \2\43 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(u). This definition was derived from EPA's definition of the term ``dealer,'' the entity responsible for maintaining fuel economy labels on new automobiles. See 40 CFR 600.002-93(a)(18) (1993) (defining ``dealer''). Under EPA's regulations, consumers selling used automobiles are not required to post or maintain fuel economy labels. In this proposal, the Commission similarly intends that individual consumers not be required to comply with the AFV labeling requirements. \2\44 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ee). This definition was derived from the Commission's definition of ``dealer'' in its Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3) (1994). \2\45 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(v) (defining ``new vehicle labels''). \2\46 See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(ff) (defining ``used vehicle labels''). \2\47 See infra section III(C)(2) (a) and (c), and proposed rule Secs. 309.20(e) (new covered vehicles) and 309.21(e) (used covered vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Disclosures on AFV Labeling As discussed below, 34 of the 37 commenters addressed the substance of the Commission's proposed AFV labeling requirements (i.e., the information to be disclosed on AFV labels).248 In developing the NPR's proposed requirements, the Commission was guided by two sets of considerations. The first concerned problems associated with developing and publishing cost-benefit information. For example, the Commission considered the extent to which balanced, accurate information for pertinent comparative factors could be conveyed on the ``simple'' label envisioned by Congress.249 It also considered whether appropriate technical standards existed to compare some factors, and whether providing the same information required in labels by other government agencies (in different formats) could confuse consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\48 Three commenters (BOR, Greenpeace, and SIGMA) did not address disclosures on AFV labels. \2\49 59 FR 24014, 24019. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second set of considerations pertained to the type of information consumers would find most appropriate, useful, and timely in making AFV choices and comparisons. For example, the Commission stated in the NPR that consumers would require disclosure of far greater comparative information when considering an AFV purchase then when refueling.250 As a result, the Commission proposed that AFV labels disclose more comprehensive cost-benefit information to consumers than labels for alternative fuels. The Commission also stated that because few consumers have extensive experience with AFVs, its labeling proposal should be designed to be useful to a general consumer audience. Finally, there was less need for the Commission to attempt to present complex information in the constrained format of an AFV label because DOE was required to prepare and distribute an information package for consumers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\50Id. All nine commenters addressing that issue supported the Commission's assessment. AAMA (Tr.), 37-38; AMI, G-3, 1; Boston Edison (Tr.), 84; CEC, H-8, 1; ETC (Tr.), 42; NAFA (Tr.), 53; NPGA (Tr.), 50, 51; RFA, G-5, 4; Sun, G-1, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After evaluating those considerations, the Commission tentatively determined that an AFV label disclosing a combination of information would be most useful to consumers making choices and comparisons. The specific label format proposed in the NPR disclosed a combination of information in a three-part format.251 The first part would disclose objective information pertaining to each particular AFV, while the second and third parts would disclose information pertaining to AFVs in general. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\51 59 FR 24014, 24019-24020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission re-evaluated all those considerations while developing this revised AFV labeling proposal. Of great significance in the development of this proposal was DOE's issuance of the first annual edition of its required information package in July 1993. That 32-page brochure, titled ``Taking an Alternative Route: Alternative Fuels Fueling The Future,'' was expressly designed to meet the needs of a targeted consumer audience: fleet owners and managers.252 While the brochure includes information specifically of interest to that group, it also includes general information about the most readily available alternative fuels: Electricity, ethanol, methanol, CNG, and propane. For each featured fuel, the brochure offers information regarding the same ten categories: fuel description (i.e., how the fuel is produced and its general composition for transportation purposes), domestic content, fueling (i.e., how AFVs powered by the fuel are refueled or recharged), fuel availability, vehicle experience and availability, operational performance (e.g., range, acceleration, and cruising speed), maintenance and reliability, safety, costs (e.g., fuel and conversion costs), and resources for further information (e.g., trade associations and the DOE Alternative Fuels Hotline).253 The brochure also includes a glossary of relevant terms.254 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\52 Commission staff placed a copy of DOE's brochure on the public record of this proceeding. For example, the brochure describes mandates and incentives pertinent to fleet operators contained in EPA 92 and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. B-3, 1, 3-15, 26-32. \2\53 B-3, 16-25. CAS notes that environmental and consumer organizations are not included as sources to contact for more information. CAS (Supp.), G-17, 6. \2\54 B-3, inside cover. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DOE brochure does not offer specific data regarding environmental performance. Instead, a standard statement (``Produces less air toxics and ozone-forming emissions than gasoline'') is included in a graphic for each of the five featured fuels. The brochure also advises consumers generally that manufacturers are responsible for certifying their vehicles to federal emission standards, that manufacturers seeking to produce and certify AFVs as clean-fuel vehicles must meet specified clean-fuel emission standards, and that AFV conversion companies face similar certification requirements.255 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\55 B-3, 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of additional significance was EPA's promulgation of new regulations pertaining to alternative fuels and AFVs. For example, on May 27, 1994, EPA issued certification procedures for aftermarket conversion equipment (i.e., hardware allowing a vehicle to operate completely or in part on a fuel other than the fuel for which it was originally designed and manufactured) and emission standards and test procedures for the certification of certain CNG and LPG fueled vehicles.256 On June 14, 1994, EPA also issued emission standards for certain clean-fuel vehicles and other conversion regulations.257 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\56Gaseous Fuels Rule, 59 FR 48472, Sept. 21, 1994. \2\57Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This revised proposal is the result of the Commission's analysis of all pertinent considerations, the rulemaking record (including written comments and Workshop statements) and recent developments. As described in more detail below, the Commission continues to believe that a combination of objective and descriptive information will best meet consumers' needs for comparative cost-benefit information. The Commission also believes that this format will best address the problems associated with developing and publishing such information. a. Specific data disclosures--(1) Fuel tank capacity/cruising range. After considering disclosure of numerous objective factors, the Commission proposed in the NPR that one type of specific data--fuel tank capacity--be calculated and displayed on AFV labels.258 Fuel tank capacity would be expressed in gallons for AFVs powered by liquid alternative fuels, and the Commission sought comment on how it should be disclosed for gaseous and electric powered AFVs. The Commission suggested that consumers could use fuel tank capacity to estimate cruising range, a ``principal piece of cost-benefit information.''259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\5859 FR 24014, 24020. \2\59Id. For AFV's with EPA fuel economy labels, consumers could estimate cruising range by multiplying fuel tank capacity by the posted miles-per-gallon rating for that vehicle. Id. at 24020 n.153. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-seven commenters addressed one or more aspects of this proposal.260 Of those twenty-seven, three stated how fuel tank capacity should be expressed or displayed but did not otherwise support or oppose disclosure of this information.261 Fifteen other commenters supported the Commission's proposal in whole or in part. Ten of those fifteen indicated that fuel tank capacity could be useful if it was expressed in equivalent units (i.e., which accounted for the fact that alternative fuels have different energy contents).262 Eight of those ten commenters noted that consumers could use that information to determine cruising range.263 Five other commenters stated that both fuel tank capacity and cruising range should be disclosed on AFV labels.264 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\60Eight other commenters (BOR, G-4; Greenpeace, G-27; MC-MD, G-23; NACAA, H-6; NHTSA, H-1; SIGMA, G-23; Texas ADA, G-11; Thomas BB, G-10) did not address any aspect of this issue. Two others indicated general support for the Commission's labeling proposal without addressing this specific issue. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \2\61EPA, H-4, 2 (fuel tank capacity should be expressed in same units that will be used in retail sales ``if [the Commission] decides in the final rule to include'' that measure) (emphasis added); NADA, G-19, 2 (fuel tank capacity ``could easily be incorporated into'' EPA fuel economy labels). TVA stated that AFV labels for electric vehicles should disclose electrical capacity, recharging voltage, recharging architecture, and connection configuration. TVA, H-5, 1. TVA did not otherwise define or explain the significance of the third and fourth factors. \2\62AAMA, G-7, 2; AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10; API, G-26, 5-6; Chrysler, G-13, 1 (supporting AAMA); Ford, G-14, 1, 2 (supporting AAMA); GM, G-8, 1, 4, 5 (supporting AAMA generally, but suggesting that battery capacity for EVs be expressed in kilowatt-hours, ``the accepted standard unit of measurement for electricity.''); Mobil, G-2, 5; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; Sun, G-1, 2; Unocal, G-9, 2. \2\63AAMA, G-7, 2; AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10; API, G-26, 5-6; Chrysler, G-13, 1 (supporting AAMA); Ford, G-14, 1, 2 (supporting AAMA); GM, G-8, 1 (supporting AAMA); Sun, G-1, 2; Unocal, G-9, 2. Two of those commenters also said that for electric vehicles, range, and not battery capacity, should be disclosed to consumers. Mobil, G-2, 5; Sun, G-1, 2. \2\64AMI, G-3, 1; CEC, H-8, 9; DOE, H-10, 4, (Tr.), 146; Phillips 66, G-15, 1; UCS (Tr.), 143. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine commenters opposed the proposal to require disclosure of fuel tank capacity. ETC stated that an electric vehicle's (EV) battery capacity is only one of a ``wide number of factors'' affecting cruising range and thus by itself is a poor indicator of that factor.265 EMA and Flxible stated that disclosures as to either fuel tank capacity or range were not feasible for heavy-duty vehicles because such vehicles are often custom-ordered to meet a customer's specifications.266 NPGA supported disclosing fuel economy (expressed as miles/gallon) because ``most consumers will more readily understand'' that information.267 Five other commenters stated that cruising range should be disclosed instead of fuel tank capacity.268 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\65ETC, G-24, 1. \2\66EMA, G-21, 5-6, (Supp.), 4; Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 3. \2\67NPGA, G-18, 3. NPGA further stated that fuel tank capacity ``might be valid useful information'' when a vehicle's fuel economy was ``relatively close in value'' when operating on either an alternative fuel or gasoline. Id. DOE's information brochure indicates that propane is the only alternative fuel with such properties. See B-3, 25 (``Range is almost equivalent to that of comparable gasoline vehicle.''). At the Workshop, NPGA's representative supported disclosing cruising range on AFV labels. NPGA (Tr.), 51. \2\68Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 8-9, 11-12; CAS, G-17, G-17, 2, (Tr.), 138, (Supp.), 1; NAFA, G-20, 2-3; PCC, G-27, 2; RFA, G-5, 4, (Supp.), 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted previously, the Commission must require disclosure of appropriate cost-benefit information to help consumers make choices and comparisons. Given that mandate, the Commission has considered whether the record supports its prior belief that information about fuel tank capacity (however expressed) would help consumers make meaningful choices and comparisons. As the Commission indicated in its NPR, it considered disclosure of fuel tank capacity important not for its own significance, but as a way of helping consumers calculate cruising range.269 Commenters responding to the NPR noted that cruising range is an objective piece of cost-benefit information upon which consumers can make choices and comparisons.270 It is also one of the most important facts consumers need regarding whether and which AFV to acquire; as AAMA noted: ``This information (i.e., range) is vital for the consumer when deciding between various alternative fuels * * *.''271 Because cruising ranges for AFVs can differ significantly from cruising ranges for conventional fuel vehicles, with which consumers are most familiar, consumers also have a practical need for this information.272 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\6959 FR 24014, 24020. \2\70CAS (Tr.), 156 (range gives consumers ``the ability to compare in the showroom a very visible number that you can go from car to car to car and compare.''); (Supp.), G-17, 1. \2\71AAMA, G-7, 2. See also AMI (Tr.), 141 (range is one of the most important factors); NAFA (Tr.), 147 (same); Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 9; (Tr.), 142 (range is most important concern of people considering EV purchase). \2\72RFA (Tr.), 153, (Supp.), G-5, 2 (``[G]iven the sparsity and distance between alternative fuel refueling stations, vehicle owners need to be aware of approximate range.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After reviewing the record, however, the Commission has decided not to propose disclosure of fuel tank capacity as a surrogate for cruising range. The Commission notes that while fuel tank capacity has the advantage of being able to be expressed with precision,273 its usefulness to consumers might be undermined by several factors. First, fuel tank capacity by itself is a poor indicator of cruising range because (1) alternative fuels have different energy contents per unit of measure and (2) engines are not equally efficient. Therefore, vehicles with equivalent-sized fuel tanks could achieve different cruising ranges.274 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\73GM (Tr.), 140; UCS (Tr.), 143. \2\74Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 11-12 (fuel tank capacity is not relevant, does not provide consumers with meaningful comparisons, and is misleading); ETC (Tr.), 150 (fuel tank capacity alone ``is not going to give you a good basis for being able to * * * figure out what you really need to know, which is how far you're going [to] go''); Mobil, G-2, 5; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, attempts to account for energy-content differences by expressing each tank's capacity in equivalent units (e.g., so-called ``gasoline equivalent gallons'') could be similarly problematic because consensus methods for making such conversions or comparisons have not yet been developed or promulgated for all alternative fuels.275 For example, DOE is required to determine a ``petroleum equivalency factor'' for various classes of electric vehicles.276 Such a factor would permit comparisons between the fuel economies of conventional and electric powered vehicles.277 Similarly, DOT has not yet established fuel equivalency factors for ``gaseous fuels other than natural gas'' (i.e., liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydrogen), as required by EPA 92.278 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\75At the Workshop, AAMA appeared to acknowledge the difficulties inherent in such an approach. Discussing a label format it suggested the Commission should consider, its representative stated that, ``We had originally put language referring to gasoline equivalent gallons, but recognizing the problems with some nonliquid fuels, we're leaving that open at present.'' AAMA (Tr.), 165-66. \2\7615 U.S.C. 2003(a)(3) (A), (C); 49 FR 5336, 5337, Feb. 4, 1994. \2\77Id. DOE proposed to promulgate new equivalency factors in an NPR published Feb. 4, 1994, to update those last published in 1987. 59 FR 5336. \2\7815 U.S.C. 2013(c) (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also notes that while two consensus standards for comparing CNG and gasoline have been developed, they appear to be based on different measures. The National Conference on Weights and Measures, a consensus standards-writing organization for state and local regulatory agencies, recently adopted a proposal defining CNG in terms of mass (i.e., either kilograms or pounds).279 EPA's fuel economy calculations, however, are based on volumetric calculations which measure CNG in terms of cubic feet.280 At the Workshop, AGA/NGVC's representative stated that these two measures ``are largely apples and oranges.''281 That representative noted, however, that both measurements yielded results which were ``very, very close.''282 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\79National Conference on Weights and Measures, S.1.2.2, Units of Measure for Natural Gas When Sold as an Engine Fuel (adopted July 1994). \2\80EPA (Tr.), 112; NPGA (Tr.), 158. \2\81AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 111; see also NPGA (Tr.), 158 (``And so they're not going to be equal no matter what you do.''). \2\82AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 112; see also NPGA (Tr.), 159 (``I don't think right now they're off far enough to upset the whole apple cart. In the future it may need some refinement.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Third, several commenters supporting disclosure of fuel tank capacity stated that consumers could use that information, along with EPA's fuel economy estimates, to determine approximate cruising range.283 However, AFVs powered by certain fuels are not yet required to post fuel economy labels. As a result, consumers considering AFVs not covered by EPA's labeling program will not be able to use fuel tank capacity to calculate cruising range. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\83See, e.g., Ford, G-14, 1-2, (Tr.), 145. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other commenters expressed opposition to disclosing cruising ranges on AFV labels. In supplemental written comments filed after the Workshop, AAMA noted that although cruising range ``may be useful information for a consumer when purchasing an AFV,'' it preferred that such information not be disclosed on AFV labels.284 First, AAMA stated that disclosing cruising range for AFVs ``did not provide an adequate comparison for all vehicles'' because gasoline and diesel vehicles do not require disclosure of that information.285 Second, AAMA stated that disclosing this information could mislead consumers because no established test exists to measure it (making comparisons difficult)286 and it is difficult to estimate.287 For example, cruising range depends on vehicle options, driving conditions, personal driving habits, and vehicle conditions, all of which ``can dramatically affect the actual driving range.''288 As a result, disclosure of cruising range would be impractical because the information would be subject to too many caveats.289 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\84AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1, 3. See also GM (Tr.), 139-40 (``I think range is an important factor, but how do you actually show that number that's meaningful that's real.''). \2\85AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3. \2\86Ford (Tr.), 147; GM (Tr.), 139-40. \2\87For heavy duty vehicles, EMA and Flxible noted that cruising range was difficult to estimate because individual models could have different fuel tank capacities, customer usage, load, and other options. EMA (Supp.), G-21, 4; Flxible (Supp.), G-12, 3. \2\88AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3. \2\89Ford (Tr.), 144-45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specific fuels also raise problems unique to those fuels (i.e., an electric vehicle's range ``may vary significantly'' according to air temperature,290 a CNG powered AFV's according to refueling pressure and fuel temperature,291 and a dual fueled AFV's cruising range ``will vary according to which fuel is in the tank.'').292 GM added that other factors yet to be determined may also affect cruising range.293 As a result, disclosing cruising range could be misleading because consumers will not likely get that actual range while driving.294 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\90AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4; Ford (Tr.), 144. \2\91AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4. \2\92Id. \2\93GM (Tr.), 150-51 (``There are a lot of factors there that aren't clearly understood * * * And it just seems at this point in the juncture of the technology that * * * when you get into range with the emerging technology they're not really understanding all the factors that impact that yet.''). \2\94AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission notes, however, that the absence of cruising range information on conventional fueled vehicles will not preclude comparisons to AFVs as to that factor.295 For example, DOE's information package addresses cruising range for four of the five featured fuels (ethanol, methanol, CNG, and propane) in terms of a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.296 The Commission also expects that requiring disclosure as to this factor could encourage affected manufacturers and dealers to provide additional information to meet consumers' expectations and needs.297 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\95As noted previously, the Commission believes that it has no authority to require labeling for vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. See supra text accompanying note 38. \2\96B-3, 19, 21, 23, 25. \2\97See AGA/NGVC, G-6, 12 (``[F]uel retailers, vehicle manufacturers and trade associations can target and educate specialty markets and their consumers.''). In response to the Commission's ANPR, Boston Edison also stated that ``over time, market forces will create incentives for sellers to identify and respond to consumer demands for information, much as gasoline sellers supplement the information that they are required to provide under the Commission's Octane Rule.'' Boston Edison, D-11, 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, the other identified problems do not preclude an accurate, understandable, and comparable disclosure as to cruising range. The proposed label format could specifically identify the cruising range disclosure as being a ``manufacturer's estimate,'' and advise consumers that actual cruising range ``will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and the vehicle's condition.'' Consumers could be further cautioned that the labels are for comparison purposes and ``may not reflect actual driving range.'' A disclosure displayed in this format is not likely to pose problems to consumers accustomed to estimates.298 As a Workshop participant stated, some consumers may also have a particular need for such information. \2\98AMI (Tr.), 155 (consumers understand that ``basic information'' on the label is not going to be precise). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [B]ut personally if I was leaving on a 50 or 60-mile trip and my cruising range could be as low as 30, I'd like to know that. So I think I would like to know the low end of it even if there is a broad, you know, number that's not very well defined. I think it's still beneficial to know what the minimum, certainly the minimums are, because you have to be able to make it to the next fueling point.299 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\99RFA (Tr.), 149. See also RFA (Supp.), G-5, 2 (``the fact that a number of variables affect range ``does not preclude posting an estimated minimum and maximum range''). The Commission also notes that cruising range appears to be a prominent component of marketing and advertising claims promoting the use of AFVs, as demonstrated by the frequency which that factor is cited in consumer announcements. For example, Chrysler, GM and Ford have all made cruising range claims regarding their EVs in congressional testimony,300 promotional material301 and product specification sheets.302 Chrysler and GM also address cruising range in owner's manuals for the 1994 Dodge Spirit303 and 1993 Chevrolet Lumina.304 Peugeot has made similar claims in its promotional material.305 Companies converting cars to run on electricity306 and electricity utilities307 are also making cruising range claims for EVs. Similar claims are also being made for AFVs powered in whole or in part by CNG,308 hydrogen,309 LPG,310 and methanol.311 As such, it appears that a disclosure about cruising range may be feasible even given certain constraints. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\00For example, at a May 11, 1993, congressional hearing, representatives from Chrysler, Ford, and GM all made cruising range claims for their EVs. See Status of Domestic Electric Vehicle Development, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993) (statement of Doran K. Samples, Program Management Executive of the Electric Minivan Project, Chrysler, at 52, 56; Roberta J. Nichols, Electric Vehicle External Strategy Manager, Ford, at 60, 64, 66; and Kenneth R. Baker, Vice President, GM, at 76). \3\01See GM, Progress Report, B-5, front, Spring/Summer 1993 (GM's Impact 4 EV has ``a driving range of 70 miles in the city and 90 miles in normal highway driving.''); GM, GM's ``Impact'' Show Car and New Pre-Production Electric Vehicle Lead the 104th Tournament of Roses, B-6, at 2, Dec. 29, 1992 (``The Impact and the pre-production car * * * have a useful range of 100 miles* * *''); GM, General Motors Electric Vehicles Fit Most Drivers' Lifestyles, B-7, at 1, Oct. 20, 1992 (``GM's ``Impact'' prototype has a highway range of 100 miles.''). \3\02Chrysler 1994 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, B-8, back, May 7, 1993; Chrysler 1994 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager, B-9, back, Aug. 31, 1992; Ford Ecostar, B-10, back panel, undated; GM Impact 3, B-11, back, undated; GM Impact, B-12, back, undated (``It has a practical range of 80 miles per charge.''). \3\03AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1994 Dodge Spirit Owner's Manual at 105 (``Cruising Range: M-85 produces less energy when burned than gasoline. Therefore, cruising ranges and miles per gallon (MPG) will be considerably less when using M-85. Cruising ranges will increase as the content of gasoline in the fuel tank increases.''). \3\04AAMA (Supp.), G-17, 1993 Chevrolet Lumina Owner's Manual-- Ethanol Supplement, at 4 (``When using an E-85 mixture of fuel, your Lumina has a range of 250-300 miles (400-480 km).''); 1992 Chevrolet Lumina Owner's Manual--Methanol Supplement, at 5 (``When using an M- 85 mixture of fuel, your Lumina has a range of 200-250 miles (320- 400 km).''). \3\05PSA Peugeot Citroen, Electric Vehicles, B-13, at 3-5, 1992 (Peugeot 106 has range of 90-160 km; Citela has range of 210 km @ 40 kph; 110 km city * * * car continuously displays remaining range); Peugeot 405 Station Wagon has battery range of 72 km at 40 kph and highway range of 750 km at 100 kph). \3\06Dreisbach ElectroMotive, Inc., API Demi Motorola Saturn, B- 14, front, undated (range from 140 to 518 miles depending on battery configuration); Electro Automotive, Electro Automotive Makes Electric Cars Easy With The Voltsrabbit(tm) Kit, B-15, front, undated (range: 60-80 miles); Solar Car Corporation, Specifications for Chevy S-10 and GMC S-15 Pickup Truck (converted to run on electricity), B-16, front, Aug. 1, 1992 (``Normal Daily Range--50 to 80 miles, depending on terrain, speed and driving conditions.''). \3\07Arizona Public Service Company, Electric Vehicle Program, B-17, at first upper panel, undated (``Today's batteries give Evs a range of 30 to 100 miles on a single charge.''); Electric Power Research Institute, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure: How Far Will My Electric Vehicle Take Me?, B-18, front, 1992 (``[T]oday's EV models * * * offer a driving range of 60 to 100 miles* * *.''); Virginia Power, The Electric Vehicle: Clean, Quiet and Efficient (CO 923-VA/ EE 93084), B-19, front, undated (Solectria Force has range of 70-90 miles); Potomac Electric Power Company, Questions and Answers About the Solectria Force, B-20, front, Dec. 1992 (Solectria Force has driving range of ``60 miles if the batteries are fully charged* * * The effective range of the Force using current off-the-shelf battery technology is approximately 35 to 40 miles on a charge.''). \3\08Blue Bird Body Company, Product Specifications for NGV School Buses (models TC/2000 FE and TC/2000 RE), B-21, at 3, 1992 (``Vehicle range--300 miles with 6 tanks, 150 miles with 3 tanks''); Ford, Crown Victoria dedicated CNG, B-22, front, March 3, 1993 (``The driving range for these demonstration units is approximately 200 miles.''). \3\09Mazda, Mazda Takes Action To Address Global Environmental Concerns, B-23, at 3, July 27, 1993 (``With a full tank of hydrogen, the Mazda HR-X has a range of up to 125 miles.''). \3\10Clean Fuels Task Force of Western Liquid Gas Association, LPG: An Alternate Clean Air Motor Fuel With Significant Environmental and Economic Advantages, B-24, 7, May 1992 (``LPG offers the best range per gallon of the four non-gasoline clean fuels.''); NPGA, LP-Gas Is Moving America's Fleets, B-25, 6, 1991 (chart comparing driving ranges for ``identical vehicles, optimized for their specific fuel.''). \3\11Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV (using gasoline or M85), B- 26, front, March 4, 1993 (``Highway driving range is approximately 350 miles when using M85.''); Ford, Ford Announces Production of 1993 Taurus FFV, B-27, at 1, Dec. 16, 1992 (``By increasing the size of the fuel tank to 20.7 gallons, the driving range of the Taurus FFV when fueled with M85 is similar to a non-FFV Taurus.''); Ford, Econoline van and Club Wagon FFV (using gasoline and M85), B-28, front, March 4, 1993 (``The highway driving range is approximately 400 miles when using M85.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering this information, the Commission has determined that no matter how displayed (e.g., with cruising range or other objective measure), fuel tank capacity does not appear to be the most useful way to help consumers make comparisons. Instead, because of its possibly paramount importance to consumers, the Commission has tentatively determined that cruising range itself should be disclosed on labels for new covered AFVs.312 Under the Commission's revised proposal, cruising range would be displayed on AFV labels in two formats. The first labeling format would be for dedicated covered AFVs (i.e., covered AFVs designed to operate solely on alternative fuel).313 Labels for these vehicles would disclose the manufacturer's ``estimated cruising range'' for that vehicle (i.e., the manufacturer's reasonable estimate of the number of miles a covered vehicle will travel between refueling or recharging), expressed as a lower estimate and an upper estimate.314 Figure 4 at the end of this SNPR illustrates a sample disclosure for these vehicles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\12The Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of this information on labels for used covered AFVs. As noted previously, comparative information could vary significantly with a vehicle's condition. Requiring disclosure of such information on used vehicles could therefore be misleading to consumers. See supra section III(C)(1)(d). \3\13See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(g) (defining ``dedicated''). \3\14See proposed rule Secs. 309.1(o) (defining ``estimated cruising range''), 309.20(f)(2)(i) (requiring disclosure of estimated cruising range for dedicated vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The second labeling format would be for dual-fueled covered AFVs (i.e., capable of operating on alternative fuel and capable of operating on gasoline or diesel fuel).315 Labels for these vehicles would disclose two sets of values: the manufacturer's reasonable estimate of (a) the minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on alternative fuel, and (b) the minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on conventional fuel.316 Figure 5 at the end of this SNPR illustrates a sample disclosure for these vehicles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\15See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(i) (defining ``dual fueled''). \3\16See proposed rule Sec. 309.20(f)(2)(ii) (requiring disclosure of estimated cruising range for dual-fueled vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cruising range values would be expressed in whole integers. Because the disclosure would relate solely to the manufacturer's estimated (and not actual) cruising range, the labels would include a statement advising consumers that their actual cruising range will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits and the AFV's condition.317 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\17 EPA's fuel economy labels contain a similar statement. See 40 CFR 600.307-86(a)(3)(ii)(A) (1993) (``Actual mileage will vary with options, driving conditions, driving habits, and [vehicle's/ truck's] condition.''). See Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the Commission's revised proposal, manufacturers would calculate cruising range values in one of three ways. For vehicles required to comply with EPA's fuel-economy labeling provisions,318 cruising range values would be calculated by reference to the vehicle's estimated fuel-economy rating.319 For example, the lower range value would be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel-economy by its fuel tank or battery capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value.320 Conversely, the upper range value would be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel-economy by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value.321 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\18See 40 CFR part 600 (1993) (``Fuel economy of motor vehicles''). \3\19Numerous commenters suggested that cruising range values could be so calculated. See, e.g., AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 3 (``Combining MPG with tank capacity can give the customer a reasonable estimation of driving range.''); AMI (Tr.), 141; CAS (Supp.), G-17, 1-2; EPA (Tr.), 144; RFA (Tr.), 148. \3\20See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(i). \3\21See proposed rule Sec. 309.22(a)(1)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted previously, EPA is required to include AFVs powered by all alternative fuels within its fuel-economy labeling program, but has not yet announced a timetable for doing so.322 During the transition to that next phase, the Commission therefore proposes a different approach for vehicles not yet required to comply with EPA's fuel- economy labeling provisions. For electric vehicles, the Commission notes that the Society of Automotive Engineers (``SAE''), a consensus standard-setting organization, has issued a ``Recommended Practice'' establishing uniform procedures to calculate cruising range for electric vehicles.323 The Commission believes that reliance on uniform standards will facilitate comparability.324 Accordingly, the proposed rule states that cruising range values for EVs be calculated in accordance with that standard.325 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\2259 FR 39638, 39639 (announcing fuel-economy test labeling requirements for methanol and CNG vehicles). \3\23SAE's ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure,'' J1634, was issued in May 1993. B-33. This procedure is based in part on EPA's pertinent test procedures. B-33, 1, 9-10. \3\24B-33, 1. \3\25See proposed rule Secs. 309.22(a)(2) (for dedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(2) (for dual-fueled vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For other vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA's fuel economy stickers, the Commission knows of no comparable consensus procedure that could yield cruising range values in the proposed ``minimum-maximum'' format. As a result, the Commission is not requiring that manufacturers use a specific standard to determine cruising range. In similar situations (i.e., where the Commission has identified areas where consumers require disclosure of specific information, but no consensus standards exist to measure such information), the Commission has required that manufacturers have a ``reasonable basis'' for such disclosures.326 Accordingly, for those vehicles, the Commission proposes that manufacturers possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, of the minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings.327 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\26See, e.g., Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994) (``To determine automotive fuel ratings for alternative liquid automotive fuels, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the percentage by volume of the principal component of the [fuel] that you must disclose.''); Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423.6(c)(1)-(6) (1994) (``reasonable basis'' based on ``reliable evidence''); R-value Rule, 16 CFR 460.19(a) (1994) (``If you say or imply in your ads, labels, or other promotional materials that insulation can cut fuel bills or fuel use, you must have a reasonable basis for the claim.''). \3\27See proposed rule Secs. 309.22(a)(3) (for dedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(3) (for dual-fueled vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- During this transition (i.e., while EPA is developing fuel-economy labeling requirements), if test methods for determining cruising range values for AFVs are developed by consensus, the Commission will consider whether they constitute a reasonable basis.328 The Commission expects that industry compliance with this AFV labeling rule, in conjunction with the need to avoid uncertainty about whether particular test methods or calculations constitute a reasonable basis, will encourage development of standardized test methods and specifications. This, in turn, may facilitate widespread acceptance of AFVs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\28The Commission encourages DOE, as part of its ``technical assistance,'' to direct the development of such transition specifications. See 42 U.S.C. 13232(b) (Supp. IV 1993) (DOE ``shall provide technical assistance'' to the Commission and coordinate that assistance with its development of a consumer information brochure). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed rule also includes a provision requiring that manufacturers maintain records for three years demonstrating compliance with the proposed rule.329 While section 406(a) does not expressly address this issue, the Commission believes that a reasonable recordkeeping requirement is necessary to ensure the accuracy of disclosures made pursuant to these labeling requirements. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\29See proposed rule Sec. 309.23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Environmental impact. Incorporating environmental considerations into national energy policy was a key goal of EPA 92, and ``improv[ing] our environment'' was a ``principal purpose'' of that statute.330 Consistent with EPA 92's legislative purpose, numerous commenters responding to the Commission's ANPR identified information about environmental performance as being important to consumers considering AFV acquisitions.331 The Commission therefore considered requiring disclosure of comparative information as to this factor in its NPR. More specifically, the Commission considered whether disclosure of accurate information regarding the complete environmental cost of driving a particular AFV was feasible on a simple label. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\30H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 133, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 1956. The drafters also sought, inter alia, ``to promote cleaner alternative automotive fuels.'' Id. \3\31See 59 FR 24014, 24016-24017 n.62, 79, 91, 98 and accompanying text. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering such a comprehensive disclosure, the Commission tentatively decided that it was not appropriate for AFV labeling. An accurate assessment of the complete environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle could require a comprehensive review of numerous chemical compounds,332 measured at each stage of the fuel's life- cycle (i.e., during fuel production, distribution, handling, storage, dispensing, and combustion).333 Given that high standard, the Commission also concluded that assessing any one factor (e.g., tail- pipe emissions) without accounting for the others could be misleading.334 Because disclosure on a ``simple'' label of the complete environmental costs of an AFV did not appear feasible, the Commission proposed to address this factor by including it in a standard list of issues consumers should consider when considering an AFV acquisition.335 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\32E.g., carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, volatile organic compounds, radioactive particles, particulate matter, and aerosols. 59 FR 24014, 24019. \3\33Measuring each of those factors itself requires an analysis of numerous chemical compounds. 59 FR 24014, 24019. \3\3459 FR 24014, 24019 n.139. \3\3559 FR 24014, 24020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twelve commenters addressed the Commission's decision to omit comparative environmental information from AFV labels. Comments from automobile manufacturers generally favored not including such information on AFV labels. Those commenters stated that such disclosure was not appropriate because existing regulations require labeling indicating that the vehicle complies with federal standards,336 marketing considerations will encourage manufacturers to disclose this information,337 and existing standards assessing only tailpipe emissions present an incomplete and misleading picture of a vehicle's environmental performance.338 Eight other commenters, however, contended that a comparative disclosure as to environmental impact did not need to be based upon the full life-cycle impact of driving a particular vehicle.339 Instead, those commenters suggested that the Commission require disclosure of objective environmental information by reference to a specific existing standard: the emission classification to which the vehicle has been certified.340 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\36Ford (Tr.), 179. \3\37Chrysler (Tr.), 182; Ford (Tr.), 180. \3\38Ford (Tr.), 186. \3\39AGA/NGVC, G-6, 9, (Tr.), 180, 190; AMI (Tr.), 189; Boston Edison, G-26, 9-10, (Tr.), 176-77, (Supp.), 7-8; CAS, G-17, 4, (Tr.), 174-75, 178, (Supp.), 2-3; DOE (Tr.), 172; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1 (``concerned'' that list of factors omits reference to vehicle's emissions certification rating); NAFA, G-20, 3-5, (Tr.), 170-71, 186-87; UCS, G-16, 2-3. \3\40Id. Another commenter expressed no opinion but appeared to support disclosing the emission level to which the vehicle had been certified. EPA (Tr.), 177. One commenter stated that AFV labels should identify whether the vehicle had been certified to California's more stringent emission standards. UCS, G-16, 2-3. While this information could be useful to some consumers, other consumers could be confused by information about state emission certification on a federal cost-benefit label. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For several years, EPA has promulgated emission classification standards as part of its Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which establishes pollution limits for ``criteria air pollutants'' (i.e., hydrocarbons (``HC''),341 carbon monoxide (``CO''),342 nitrogen oxides (``NOX''),343 and particulate matter (``PM'')).344 Each of these pollutants is released into the air from an automobile's tailpipe as exhaust (i.e., as a by-product of an automobile's incomplete combustion process). In addition, HCs in vapor form are also released due to the evaporation of fuel and during refueling. The standards apply to new motor vehicles manufactured in specified model years. For example, exhaust emissions for light duty vehicles manufactured prior to 1994 ``shall not exceed'' the following levels (later denominated the ``Tier O'' emission standards), as measured using designated tests:345 0.41 grams/mile (``gpm'') HC, 1.0 gpm NO X, and 3.4 gpm CO.346 After submitting appropriate test reports and data, the EPA Administrator issues a ``certificate of conformity'' to those vehicle manufacturers demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission standards.347 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\41In sunlight, HC combines with nitrogen oxides to form ozone (a major component of smog). According to EPA, ``[o]zone irritates the eyes, damages the lungs, and aggravates respiratory problems. It is our most widespread and intractable urban air pollution problem. A number of exhaust hydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential to cause cancer.'' B-31, 2. \3\42CO ``reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and is particularly dangerous to persons with heart disease.'' Id. \3\43NO X are ``precursors to the formation of smog.'' Id. \3\44PM is a general term for soot, dust, smoke, and other tiny bits of solid material released into the air. It can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation and other health problems. B-32, 22. \3\45Exhaust emissions are measured on a ``chassis dynamometer,'' which simulates forces encountered on the road. Exhaust gases are sampled during the tests and analyzed afterward. \3\4640 CFR 86.085-8(a)(1)(i) to (iii) (1993). The PM standard (0.60 gpm) applies only to diesel engine. 40 CFR 86.085-8(a)(1)(iv) (1993). \3\47See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.091-30 (1993) (certification procedures for 1991 model year). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to its authority under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,348 EPA began issuing stricter emission standards for each model year as a way of reducing levels of the criteria air pollutants. One set of standards (denominated the ``Tier 1'' standards) is being phased in beginning with the 1994 model year.349 The second set establishes five stricter standards as part of a new ``clean-fuel vehicles'' program.350 To qualify as a clean-fuel vehicle, a vehicle must meet one of five sets of increasingly stringent standards. These standards are denominated, in increasing order of stringency, TLEV (``Transitional Low Emission Vehicle''), LEV (``Low Emission Vehicle''), ULEV (``Ultra Low Emission Vehicle''), ILEV (``Inherently Low Emission Vehicle''), and ZEV (``Zero Emission Vehicle'').351 As opposed to the Tier 1 standards, which apply to all applicable new motor vehicles, standards for ``clean-fuel vehicles'' are mandated for use, at present, in two EPA programs: the California Pilot Test program and Clean Fuel Fleet Program.352 EPA staff has informed the Commission, however, that it expects that vehicles meeting these standards will not be restricted to these programs (e.g., some state programs require acquisition of clean fuel vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\48Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990). \3\49The first Tier I standards (applicable to the 1994 and 1995 model year) became effective July 5, 1991. 56 FR 25724, 25724, June 5, 1991. \3\50See 40 CFR Part 88 (1993) (``Clean-Fuel Vehicles''). \3\51According to EPA, a vehicle certified as meeting the requirements of both the ULEV and ILEV standards have lower combined exhaust and evaporative emissions than an ILEV certified vehicle. \3\52The California Pilot Test Program requires that vehicle manufacturers in California produce and sell specified minimum numbers of clean fuel vehicles. The Clean Fuel Fleet Program requires that a percentage of new vehicles acquired by certain fleet owners located in covered areas meet ``clean-fuel fleet vehicle emission standards.'' Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The commenters supporting this option cited several reasons why this information should be included on AFV labels. First, because each AFV will be certified to a specific classification, certification levels provide a simple way of comparing different AFVs.353 Second, the information could be useful and important to some consumers likely to consider AFV acquisitions (e.g., fleet operators and environmentally-concerned consumers).354 Third, requiring disclosure of objective data allows consumers to evaluate competitive advertising and marketing claims regarding an AFV's environmental performance.355 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\53Boston Edison (Supp.), G-17, 8; CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA (Tr.), 186-87. \3\54CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; DOE (Tr.), 172; NAFA (Tr.), 170-71. \3\55CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2; NAFA, G-20, 4-5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA 92 also gives special attention to the fact that the environmental performance of alternative fuels differ, and that those differences need to be explained to consumers. For example, the drafters of EPA 92 noted that all alternative fuels ``have different strengths, weaknesses, prices, emissions, and regional niches * * *.''356 The record also indicates that comparative information regarding alternative fuels will be necessary for consumers considering AFV acquisitions. Several commenters noted that environmental performance will be a major factor motivating some consumers to consider AFV acquisitions, and that those consumers would need comparative information to evaluate advertising and marketing claims. Further, DOE's information brochure does not compare the environmental performance of different alternative fuels. Instead, the brochure contains a general statement that: ``Generally speaking, all alternative fuels produce lower amounts of air toxics and ozone-forming emissions than does gasoline.''357 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\56H. Rep. No. 102-474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 136, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953, 1959 (emphasis added). In addition, environmental performance is listed first in the list of factors to be addressed by DOE's information package. 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993). \3\57B-3, 15. That statement is repeated in the section devoted to each of the featured fuels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After reviewing EPA 92's legislative history and the commenters' statements, the Commission believes that including certain environmental performance information is appropriate, feasible, and consistent with the statute's legislative purpose. As a result, the Commission has tentatively determined that information regarding a vehicle's environmental performance, expressed in terms of the emission standard to which the vehicle has been certified, should be disclosed on labels for new covered AFVs.358 Under the Commission's revised proposal, AFV labels for new covered vehicles would identify whether the vehicle had been certified as meeting an EPA emissions standard.359 For vehicles which had not been so certified, manufacturers would place a mark in the box indicating that fact.360 For those vehicles which had been certified as meeting an emissions standard, manufacturers would place a mark in the appropriate box indicating that fact, and then indicate on a graphic the standard to which the vehicle had been certified. The graphic would depict seven EPA emissions standards from Tier 1 to ZEV. Prior to being offered for acquisition to consumers, manufacturers of such vehicles would identify the emission certification standard361 on that graphic by placing a caret above the applicable standard.362 The label would also contain a statement advising consumers that the overall environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle includes factors not measured by the EPA standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\58The Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of this information on labels for used covered AFVs. As noted previously, comparative information could vary significantly with a vehicle's condition. Requiring disclosure of such information on used vehicles could therefore be misleading to consumers. See supra section III(C)(1)(d). \3\59EPA has not yet issued emission standards and certification test procedures for certain fuels (e.g., hydrogen and electricity). \3\60See Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR. \3\61See proposed rule Sec. 309.1(n) (defining ``emission certification standard''). \3\62Figures 4 and 5 at the end of this SNPR are sample labels indicating a vehicle certified as meeting EPA's LEV emission standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In comments filed after the Workshop, AAMA offered six reasons opposing disclosure of emission certification levels on AFV labels (which was discussed extensively at the Workshop). The Commission considered each of these concerns while developing this revised proposal. Three of those reasons pertained to whether the information would be misleading to consumers: (1) Requiring such disclosure may create the inaccurate impression that only AFVs meet low emission standards, ``thus precluding a fair comparison and potentially putting low emitting gasoline vehicles at a sales disadvantage'';363 (2) emission certification values offer an incomplete picture of a vehicle's environmental performance;364 and (3) disclosing tailpipe emissions standards presupposes consumers are only concerned with urban smog, thus misleading consumers who believe the vehicle with the lowest standard is the most environmentally friendly.365 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\63AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 1-2. AFV labels may mislead fleet consumers ``who, if relying on the alternative fuel label, fail to realize that low emitting gasoline vehicles may be available.'' Id. at 2. \3\64AAMA (Supp.), G-7, 2. \3\65Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to those reasons, however, the Commission notes that environmental performance (as measured by emission standards) is cited by AFV manufacturers and other interested parties in specification sheets and other promotional material in a manner not easily amenable to comparisons.366 Further, although consumers may be concerned about more than urban smog, tailpipe emission standards were established by Congress based on an explicit determination that regulating tailpipe emissions is an ``effective means'' of controlling vehicle emissions.367 For all these reasons, the Commission concludes that informing consumers of applicable standards is appropriate. The Commission also notes, however, that the full fuel- cycle environmental impact of driving a particular vehicle includes an evaluation of other factors. The Commission believes that an effective way of addressing that fact is by accompanying the emissions information with a strong disclosure putting that information into perspective. As a result, the proposed label formats for new covered vehicles include the statement that ``The overall environmental impact of driving this vehicle includes many factors not measured by this standard.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\66See, e.g., Chrysler, Plymouth Acclaim and Dodge Spirit FFV (no model year listed), B-29, back, undated (``[R]educes smog- forming emissions by at least 30 percent, and in many cases by as much as 50 percent, compared to gasoline run counterparts. In addition, toxic emissions can be reduced by as much as 50 percent.''); Chrysler, Chrysler Corporation's [CNG] Vans & Wagons (no model year listed), B-30, inside front cover, undated (``Dodge [CNG] Vehicles will meet or beat all applicable emission standards up to and including California's requirements for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV). CNG fueled Dodge vans and wagons produce significantly less emissions of nonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen than similar gasoline powered vehicles.''); Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV, B-26, front, March 4, 1993 (``Emission Levels: Compared to gasoline vehicles, an ozone benefit of 30% is projected for an FFV when operating on M85.''). See also Clean Fuels Task Force of Western Liquid Gas Association, LPG: An Alternate Clean Air Motor Fuel With Significant Environmental and Economic Advantages, B-24, 2, May 1992 (``Use of LPG as a motor fuel virtually ELIMINATES PARTICULATES, the gasoline and diesel carbon residue that makes up 25 percent of the `brown cloud.' * * * An [EPA] test of a LPG-fueled Ford V8 full size sedan showed hydrocarbon emissions 29 percent cleaner than the accepted standard. Nitrogen oxides were down 57 percent, and carbon monoxide emissions 93% better than the then Federal standard.''). \3\67S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 89, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3474. See also id. (``Control on emissions from mobile sources will be an important part of the efforts to attain healthy air * * * for a simple reason: mobile vehicles are the largest source of ozone and carbon monoxide pollution.''); and NAFA (Tr.), 187 (because Clean Air Act is based on exhaust standard, ``it makes sense to provide that information to the public and to the consumer.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AAMA also raised three other problems with displaying this information on a label: (1) Displaying the certification levels themselves could be unclear to consumers;368 (2) displaying the information comparatively ``would be complicated and could lead to information overload and general confusion'';369 and (3) disclosure of certification levels is required by existing regulations.370 As to label design, the proposed label formats illustrated in Figures 4 (for dedicated vehicles) and 5 (for dual- fueled vehicles) convey useful information in a clear, simple format. The Commission also notes that, unlike its revised labeling proposal, other Federal regulations do not require disclosure of information regarding environmental performance in a comparative fashion, and the disclosures which are required are located in the engine compartment.371 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\68Id. \3\69Id. \3\70Id. \3\71See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.094-35(a)(1)(i) (for 1994 model year light duty vehicles, ``[a] permanent, legible label shall be affixed in a readily visible position in the engine compartment''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also has concluded that a reasonable recordkeeping requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with this provision. Accordingly, the proposed rule requires that manufacturers maintain records for three years demonstrating compliance with the proposed rule.372 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\72See proposed rule section 309.23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. Specific data disclosures considered but not proposed. As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to issue labeling requirements only ``to the greatest extent practicable,'' taking into account the problems associated with developing and publishing such information and the simple label format. Accordingly, in developing this revised AFV labeling proposal, the Commission assessed the practicality of requiring disclosure of information pertaining to all the factors cited in the comments. As to the following factors, the Commission has tentatively determined that the level of detail necessary to convey balanced, accurate objective information to consumers (i.e., by reference to some rating or empirical value) cannot be contained on the ``simple'' label envisioned by Congress. In all such cases, the Commission felt constrained by considerations of information overload,373 the lack of standards upon which to base required disclosures, and the easy availability of such information through other sources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\73AAMA (Tr.), 164-65 (``[W]e feel there is an enormous amount of information that a consumer has to know about * * * [AFVs] including electric vehicles, and if any attempt is made to put every factor on the label it's going to end up information overload and do nothing but confuse the consumer.''); Ford (Tr.), 175-76 (sticker is not appropriate place to provide detailed information; consumers need info before they get to the dealership). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Operating costs. For example, CAS proposed that the Commission require that operating costs be disclosed on AFV labels so that consumers will be aware ``if operating costs of an AFV will be significantly different than a comparable conventional vehicle.''374 CAS further suggested that a 1991 study published by DOT's Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') could form the basis for this disclosure.375 FHWA's report estimated the cost per mile of owning and operating eight categories of conventional fueled automobiles, vans, and light trucks.376 These estimates were based on aggregating five categories of ownership costs (e.g., depreciation, finance charges, and insurance) and seven operating costs (e.g., maintenance, fuel, and taxes).377 The cost estimates were from one metropolitan region (i.e., the Baltimore, Maryland, suburbs).378 CAS stated that by using that report as a baseline and adjusting for inflation, ``a reasonable estimate can be made comparing the operating costs of AFVs and gasoline powered vehicles in each size class.''379 Under its proposal, the AFV labels would state, ``Operating costs of this vehicle are expected to be at least 25% higher (or lower) than gasoline powered vehicles in its size class.''380 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\74CAS, G-17, 3, (Tr.), 166, (Supp.), 3. EPA's fuel economy label discloses the vehicle's annual fuel costs, but that figure does not include other operating costs. EPA (Tr.), 166. \3\75CAS, G-17, 3, (Tr.), 167, 169. See Cost of Owning and Operating Automobiles, Vans & Light Trucks, Report No. FHWA-PL-92- 019, prepared by Jack Faucett Associates (April 1992). Commission staff placed a copy of this report on the public record of this proceeding. See Document B-4. \3\76The eight categories are: subcompact, compact, intermediate, and full-size automobiles; mini and full-size vans; and compact and full-size pickup trucks. \3\77B-4, 5-8. \3\78B-4, 3. \3\79CAS, G-17, 3. \3\80Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission believes that expressing this information objectively (e.g., ``operating this AFV costs 18 cents/mile'') or comparatively (e.g., ``operating this AFV costs 10% more than a comparable conventional-fueled vehicle'') could help consumers make reasonable choices and comparisons. Accordingly, it has considered whether balanced, accurate information about that factor could be contained on a simple label. After considering the record, however, the Commission has tentatively determined that the problems associated with developing and publishing this information outweigh its usefulness to consumers at this time. Objective ways of reasonably estimating AFV operating costs have not yet been developed or technically proven, and the lack of general experience with these new technologies makes what information is available problematic and thus possibly misleading.381 For example, until economies of scale begin to take effect, potentially- higher AFV operating costs may be mitigated by financial incentives or tax advantages382 offered to consumers acquiring AFVs. The variability of these financial incentives could vary, further complicating the analysis. As a result, the Commission believes that a disclosure as to this factor would involve too many intricate variables and is not appropriate for a label. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\81Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 11; RFA (Tr.), 167. \3\82See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 30, 179A (Supp. IV 1993) (creating tax credits for qualified electric vehicles and deductions for clean- fuel vehicles and certain refueling property). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For similar reasons, the Commission also notes that relying on information reported in the 1991 DOT/FHA report or other authority for such AFV disclosures could be problematic at this time.383 For example, findings in the 1991 DOT/FHA report are dated and thus will likely not be accurate for consumers considering AFV acquisitions many years later. The report also is not updated on regular intervals (the first and only prior report was published in 1984)384 and the Commission understands that DOT/FHA has no plans to update the report in the near future. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\83CAS suggested that other reports (``such as the one by the AAA'') could serve as the authority for this disclosure if the DOT/ FHA report is not updated. CAS, G-17, 3. Reliance on other reports could be similarly problematic. \3\84B-4, 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission notes, however, that DOE has addressed the variability of operating costs in a general way in its consumer information brochure. For each of the featured fuels the brochure has a designated category discussing ``costs.'' That discussion offers cost information about fuel, conversions, vehicle, service, and diagnostic equipment.385 The Commission also expects that some general information regarding this factor will likely be disclosed voluntarily by AFV manufacturers, dealers, and conversion companies. Accordingly, after considering the record, the Commission has tentatively concluded that requiring disclosure of specific data as to this factor is not practicable. As described in section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commission concludes that for purposes of this labeling rule, it is appropriate to advise consumers to consider costs when evaluating AFVs, without providing specific data on this factor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\85B-4, 17-25. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Domestic content of the fuel. Because information on the domestic content of fuel might be of interest to some consumers interested in the societal benefit of promoting domestic industries, the Commission has considered the propriety of requiring disclosure of such information on AFV labels. Three commenters suggested that the AFV label indicate the extent to which the alternative fuel powering a particular AFV was produced domestically.386 Such a disclosure would help promote energy independence and energy security, key goals underlying EPA 92.387 Three other commenters opposed such a disclosure because it would not be practicable.388 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\86Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 9-11, 12, (Tr.), 202; RFA, G- 5, 5; UCS (Tr.), 201-2, 208. \3\87H. Rep. No. 102-474(1), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 132. \3\88AMI (Tr.), 206; API (Tr.), 201; NPGA (Tr.), 203. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering the record, the Commission has tentatively determined that requiring disclosure of objective information as to this factor is not practicable on the AFV label. The Commission is aware of no consensus standards for estimating the domestic content of transportation fuels389 and government reports which appear to address this topic do not cover all alternative fuels.390 In any event, the Commission concludes that a disclosure as to this factor, even if practicable, is not feasible because of the constraints of the label format.391 The Commission notes, however, that DOE's information brochure includes a general discussion of domestic content for each of the featured fuels. For example, the brochure states that ethanol's domestic content is ``[c]urrently as high as 100% for pure ethanol, depending on world market price.''392 Accordingly, as described in section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commission concludes that consumers should be advised to consider this factor when evaluating AFVs, but that labels should not include specific data on this factor. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\89NPGA (Tr.), 203. \3\90Boston Edison stated that the data necessary to determine the domestic content of motor vehicle fuel is published by DOE's Energy Information Administration (``EIA''). Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 11. EIA's reports, though, do not appear to cover all the alternative fuels. See Boston Edison (Supp.), Exhibit 4 (no data for ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, or LPG). \3\91RFA generally supported a disclosure as to this factor but noted at the Workshop that ``I question whether or not we want that to be [on] a label on the vehicle because I think we've added enough stuff now that it's really a scroll * * *. But perhaps maybe the reference to the brochure and then maybe the DOE since they would have access to the EIA information readily available, maybe it should go into the information brochure * * * I think it would be too difficult to keep it up in the context of a label.'' RFA (Tr.), 207-08. \3\92B-3, 18. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Fuel economy/energy efficiency. Boston Edison suggested that the Commission require that ``fuel economy/energy efficiency'' information (expressed as miles per gallon) be disclosed on AFV labels.393 In developing this SNPR the Commission has considered whether requiring disclosure of such information would be useful to consumers. However, EPA, which is responsible for compiling fuel economy information for the federal fuel-economy labeling program, has plans to establish labeling requirements for AFVs powered by all alternative fuels.394 Therefore, the Commission concludes that requiring fuel economy information on its labels would be duplicative, and possibly confusing. It has thus tentatively determined that such information should not be disclosed on its AFV labels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\93In its initial comment Boston Edison stated that energy efficiency could be expressed as ``efficiency per BTU'' or ``efficiency per mile,'' but did not otherwise define a basis for these disclosures. Boston Edison, G-26, 3-4. See also Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 5-7. Although not stated, it appears that this suggestion was limited to labeling for electric vehicles. At the Workshop, CAS supported a disclosure for this factor, CAS (Tr.), 194, but later indicated that it was satisfied that EPA fuel economy labels will give consumers sufficient information on the comparative energy efficiency of competing vehicles during driving. CAS (Supp.), G-17, 3. \3\94EPA, H-4, 1, 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) Appropriate fuel, fuel availability, fuel grade, and refueling time. The Commission received comments suggesting that disclosure of other information (e.g., appropriate fuel for the vehicle,395 fuel availability,396 fuel grade,397 and refueling time398) should be required on AFV labels. The Commission notes that the fuel to be used in the vehicle will be prominently displayed on EPA's fuel economy labels. Although not yet required for all alternative fuels, as noted previously, EPA plans to issue them. In any event, fuel type is easily ascertainable. For example, AFV manufacturers will have a strong incentive to inform consumers of the correct fuel for particular vehicles. Thus it is not necessary to require such disclosures in this regulation or to duplicate disclosures contained in EPA required labels. As to the remaining factors, the Commission believes that disclosures are impractical because all useful information simply cannot fit in a simple label. The Commission also is not aware of a standard methodology or established practice for calculating any of those factors, and no commenter addressed that subject. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\95API, G-25, 5. \3\96CAS, G-17, 3. AGA/NGVC stated that the AGA's manual of available CNG fueling stations should be ``referenced,'' but did not indicate whether that should be on the AFV label or in the DOE brochure. AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 195. The Commission notes that the DOE brochure lists AGA and NGVC as sources for additional information about CNG-powered AFVs. See B-3, 23. \3\97MC-MD, H-7, 2. See also NACAA (Tr.), 196 (to the extent there are different grades, ``we don't know all the fuels out there.''). \3\98DOE, H-10, 6; (Tr.), 172-73. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission notes, however, that fuel availability and refueling methods (including refueling time for electricity and CNG) are addressed in the DOE brochure.399 Accordingly, as described in section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commission concludes that consumers should be advised, as a general matter, to consider those factors when evaluating AFVs. In addition, because the Commission has determined that consumers need basic comparative information while refueling, the principal component of alternative fuels is addressed in the Commission's Fuel Rating Rule400 and this SNPR.401 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\99See B-3, 16 (electricity), 18 (ethanol), 20 (methanol), 22 (CNG), 24 (propane). \4\00See 16 CFR 306.10(a) (1994) (requiring retailers to post automotive fuel ratings). \4\01See proposed rule section 309.15. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- c. Descriptive disclosures on AFV labeling--(1) List of comparative factors.--The Commission proposed that AFV labels disclose general, descriptive information pertinent to all consumers considering an AFV purchase.402 These descriptive disclosures would comprise the second and third parts of the AFV label. The second part of the AFV label would contain a form notice stating, in substance, that vehicles powered by different fuels have different costs and benefits, and that consumers should consider those differences when considering an AFV purchase. The Commission believed that this information could help consumers evaluate information disclosed on other labels, in advertising, and from other sources.403 The Commission also believed that requiring a list of factors consumers could use to consider and compare AFVs would encourage AFV manufacturers, conversion companies, and dealers to provide additional information to meet consumers' expectations and needs.404 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\0259 FR 24014, 24020. \4\03Id. The Commission reached a similar conclusion when it issued labeling requirements for used motor vehicles. In that proceeding, the Commission concluded that requiring disclosure of a standard list of purchasing considerations could convey useful information to consumers. See Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule, Statement of Basis and Purpose, 49 FR 45692, 45706, Nov. 19, 1984 (list of major defects that can occur in used motor vehicles provides consumers with a framework for evaluating and comparing warranty coverage and counteracts dealer misrepresentations). \4\0459 FR 24014, 24020. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specifically, the label would list the following six factors consumers should consider before purchasing an AFV: Fuel type (i.e., the fuel or fuels that power the vehicle); operating costs; environmental impact; health and safety; on-road performance (i.e., cruising range, cold start capability and refueling time); and fuel availability.405 Each factor would be supplemented with a brief explanation of how it is relevant to an AFV purchase. For example, for fuel type, the label would contain a statement that AFVs are designed to be powered by a certain fuel or fuels, and that consumers should be aware of which fuel(s) powers that particular AFV. For operating costs, the label would state that the total cost of operating an AFV includes, among other things, fuel and maintenance costs, and that those costs for AFVs are different than for gasoline-fueled vehicles and can vary considerably. A similar format was proposed for the four other comparative purchasing factors (i.e., environmental impact,406 health and safety,407 on-road performance,408 and fuel availability409). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\0559 FR 24014, 24020. \4\06For environmental impact, the labels would state that all vehicles (conventional and AFVs) affect the environment in ways both direct (e.g., how the vehicle processes the fuel) and indirect (e.g., how the fuel is produced and brought to market). Accordingly, in evaluating the environmental impact of a particular AFV, consumers should consider all environmental costs associated with driving a vehicle powered by that alternative fuel, as well as any benefits as compared to gasoline. Id. \4\07For health and safety, the labels would notify consumers that different fuels raise different health and safety concerns. As a result, consumers should consider any health and safety issues associated with normal driving and refueling, and in the event of an accident. Id. \4\08For on-road performance, the labels would advise consumers that vehicles powered by different fuels will differ in terms of their cruising range (i.e., how many miles the vehicle will go on a full supply of fuel), cold start capabilities (i.e., ability to start a cold engine), and refueling and/or recharging time (i.e., how long it will take to refill the vehicle's fuel tank to full capacity). Id. \4\09For fuel availability, the labels would advise consumers to determine whether a refueling and/or recharging infrastructure has been developed for the AFV under consideration which meets their driving needs. Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty-two commenters addressed this aspect of the Commission's proposal. Five commenters supported the proposal without modification.410 AGA/NGVC stated that it ``d[id] not disagree with the list'' but was ``concerned'' that such a requirement could ``unnecessarily raise consumers (sic) concerns'' about AFVs.411 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\10CAS, G-17, 3-4, (Supp.), 2, (Tr.), 166; Mobil, G-2, cover letter at 1 and 5-6; NAFA, G-20, 3; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; RFA, G-5, 5. One other commenter indicated general support for all aspects of the Commission's proposal. Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \4\11AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Six other commenters opposed or criticized the proposal. Of those, Boston Edison stated that alerting consumers to issues they should consider before purchasing an AFV without providing comparative information on those factors did not fulfill EPA 92's intent.412 AAMA and ETC stated that the list format would not be useful to consumers, and AAMA and NPGA stated that the list contained too much information and would overwhelm consumers.413 NADA stated that the information should be contained in an information booklet.414 Texas ADA opposed all new labeling generally and specifically opposed including the list on any AFV label.415 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\12Boston Edison, G-26, 6-7, 8-9. \4\13AAMA, G-7, 1-2; ETC, G-24, 6; NPGA, G-18, 7. \4\14NADA, G-19, 2. \4\15It appears that Texas ADA may have interpreted the Commission's proposal to require objective disclosures as to each of the six factors. Texas ADA, G-11, 1-3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ten comments supported the proposal in general but suggested modifications to certain aspects. Two of those comments suggested omissions from the list. TVA suggested that fuel availability be omitted because information regarding that factor could become outdated quickly.416 DOT/NHTSA stated that safety should be omitted (because all motor vehicles must be labeled to indicate that they conform to applicable Federal safety standards) and replaced with a notice that safety information is available from NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline.417 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\16TVA, H-5, 2. \4\17DOT/NHTSA, H-1, 1-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three comments suggested that certain factors be added to the list. PCC stated that the list should advise consumers to compare the AFV's purchase price to a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle.418 EIA/ EEU-ISD suggested that the label include information about the AFV's emissions certification rating, where consumers can find the rating, and some reference to its significance in meeting clean-air goals.419 UCS stated that the list should include energy security, and that the label should explain that, ``in evaluating the energy security impacts of a particular AFV, consumers should consider its impact on the U.S.'s dependency on energy imports from politically unstable regions of the world.''420 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\18PCC, G-22, 2. \4\19EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1. \4\20UCS, G-16, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- API, Unocal and UCS supported listing environmental impact as a factor, but suggested that the explanation of its relevance be modified. Specifically, Unocal suggested that consumers be advised to consider how the alternative fuel under consideration compares to reformulated gasoline421 and other alternative fuels, and not just conventional gasoline.422 API suggested that consumers be advised to consider all ``relevant and objective'' environmental costs (instead of simply ``all environmental costs'') as compared to conventional or reformulated gasoline (instead of simply ``gasoline'').423 UCS stated that in evaluating environmental impact, consumers should consider certain different emissions categories (e.g., ozone precursors and carbon monoxide).424 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\21Reformulated gasoline is specially refined gasoline with low levels of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires sale of reformulated gasoline in the nine smoggiest areas. \4\22Unocal, G-9, 2. \4\23API, G-25, 6-7. \4\24UCS, G-16, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments from three government agencies suggested further modifications within the basic proposed format. DOE suggested that characterizations for four of the factors (i.e., operating costs, health and safety, on-road performance and fuel availability) be consolidated into a ``short paragraph, because it will be difficult to say anything conclusive about these factors in such a limited amount of space. The paragraph could indicate that the performance of AFVs in those areas maybe (sic) different from similar gasoline-fueled vehicles.''425 It also suggested that separate characterizations for the other two factors (i.e., fuel type and environmental performance) should remain, but environmental performance should be expressed by disclosing the EPA emission level to which the AFV has been certified.426 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\25DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 173. \4\26Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CEC stated that the list should explain the significance of each factor and present, ``at least in generic terms,'' comparative characteristics of the alternative fuels in terms of these factors.427 EPA generally supported the list of comparative factors, but cautioned that information should be available from other sources of information for each of the factors listed on the label.428 It also suggested that consumers be advised to consider acceleration rates and refueling methods when evaluating on-road performance, and noted that two of the proposed factors (fuel type and operating costs) will be disclosed on methanol and CNG vehicles under its new fuel economy labeling regulations.429 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\27CEC, H-8, 9-10. CEC acknowledged ``the difficulty in promulgating a uniform notice bearing substantive descriptions of factors such as fuel availability, particularly in view of the variations in refueling infrastructure and the evolving nature of the alternative fuels market.'' CEC, H-8, 10. CEC also did not give examples of how comparative characteristics for other pertinent factors could be expressed or displayed on a ``simple'' label. \4\28EPA, H-4, 2-4. EPA did not state that any of the proposed six factors should be removed from the list for this reason. \4\29Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The standard list of factors for comparisons proposed in the NPR does not, by itself, disclose comparative cost-benefit information. In developing this revised proposal the Commission has considered whether including such a list on AFV labels would constitute ``appropriate information with respect to costs and benefits'' (as that phrase is used in section 406(a)), and would be useful to consumers. As noted, the majority of the commenters indicated that this approach would provide consumers with useful information. In addition, the Commission cannot, as a practical matter, require disclosure of comparative information as to every relevant factor given the constraints of a simple label format. Accordingly, the Commission has again concluded that the AFV labels should contain a standard list of factors consumers should consider before acquiring an AFV. The Commission also has determined to modify the list and explanatory statements proposed in the NPR to reflect other aspects of this SNPR. For example, the label format for new covered vehicles should reflect the fact that the Commission is proposing objective disclosures as to cruising range and environmental performance. Thus, for those vehicles, the Commission proposes that the discussion of those factors be omitted from the list. Similarly, the Commission proposes to omit health and safety from the list because, as discussed below,430 the proposed AFV label will refer consumers seeking safety information to NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\30See infra section III(C)(2)(c)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also proposes to add a new factor to the list addressing energy security and the fuel's domestic content. As noted previously, objective information regarding that factor would be useful to consumers but cannot feasibly be displayed on a label.431 However, DOE's information brochure includes a general discussion addressing that topic for each of the featured fuels. For this factor, the Commission proposes that the label advise consumers that alternative fuels can reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil, especially if all the fuels' components are produced in this country, and that they should consider whether the fuel powering the vehicle is typically produced domestically or is imported. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\31See supra section III(C)(2)(b)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also proposes retaining the remaining four factors (fuel type, operating costs, on-road performance, and fuel availability) because all four will likely be important for consumers to consider before purchasing an AFV.432 Information about the AFV's fuel type will be available directly from the dealer; and the other factors are addressed in DOE's information brochure.433 The Commission proposes no change to the explanatory statement described in the NPR for fuel type, operating costs, and fuel availability. For on- road performance, however, the Commission proposes (pursuant to EPA's suggestion) adding references to differences in acceleration rates and refueling methods. To reflect that change, that category is renamed ``Performance/Convenience.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\32See 59 FR 24014, 24016 nn.68, 70, 75, 79 and 24017 nn.83, 87, 89, 97, 101, 102, 106 and accompanying text (ANPR commenters identifying those factors as being important to consumers). \4\33Although EPA fuel-economy labels disclose information regarding fuel type and operating costs, those labels are not yet required for AFVs powered by all alternative fuels. 59 FR 39638, 39639. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Labeling for used covered vehicles would follow a similar format. Those labels would advise consumers to consider the following six factors before selecting a used AFV: Fuel type, operating costs, environmental impact, performance/convenience, fuel availability, and energy security/domestic content of the fuel. Explanatory statements for four of those six factors (i.e., fuel type, operating costs, fuel availability, and energy security/domestic content) would be identical to the statements on labels for new covered vehicles. Explanatory statements as to the final two factors (environmental impact and performance/convenience) would be modified to reflect the fact that those labels would not disclose objective information. Thus for environmental impact, the label would state that all vehicles (conventional and AFVs) affect the environment directly (e.g., tailpipe emissions) and indirectly (e.g., how the fuel is produced and brought to market), and that consumers should compare the environmental costs of driving an AFV with a gasoline powered vehicle. For performance/ convenience, the explanatory statement would state that vehicles powered by different fuels differ in terms of cruising range, cold start capabilities, refueling and/or recharging time, acceleration rates, and refueling methods. The Commission has also tentatively determined that other suggested additions or modifications to this part of the AFV label may not be appropriate. For example, the revised proposal does not address reformulated gasoline because the Commission is aware of no readily- available information source which compares the properties of alternative fuels to that fuel. Similarly, reference advising consumers to compare an AFV's purchase price to a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle is omitted because consumers could be expected to consider that factor on their own. (2) Referral to other sources of information. The Commission proposed that the third part of the AFV label contains a statement directing consumers to other sources of objective information regarding AFVs.434 The Commission developed this proposal after considering the fact that while EPA 92 directed DOE to ``produce and make available'' an information package, the statute does not require AFV dealers or conversion companies to provide consumers with copies of the information package or to notify them of its availability.435 Accordingly, the third part of the AFV label would contain a statement informing consumers that further information about alternative fuels and AFVs is available from DOE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\3459 FR 24014, 24021. \4\3542 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twenty of the 37 commenters addressed this issue. Eleven commenters, including DOE, supported the proposal in its entirety.436 DOE recommended that the AFV label advise consumers that they can obtain copies of DOE's consumer information package by calling the toll-free telephone number for DOE's National Alternative Fuels Hotline.437 Five others supported the proposal but with modifications. Of those five, DOT/NHTSA recommended that the label advise consumers that they can call the toll-free telephone number for NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline to obtain information regarding vehicle safety.438 CAS suggested that the AFV label advise consumers that free copies of DOE's information brochure were available from the AFV dealer or conversion company.439 NADA recommended that the label refer consumers to the DOE information package and EPA's Gas Mileage Guide.440 NPGA suggested that the label also contain addresses and phone numbers of organizations and relevant industry associations where consumers may ask questions and obtain further information.441 AAMA supported the concept of the proposal but recommended that AFV manufacturers be given the discretion to determine where the information is disclosed (i.e., on a dedicated label or combined with existing labels).442 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\36Boston Edison, G-26, 9; CEC, H-8, 10; DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 173-74; EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; ETC, G-24, 6; MC-MD, H-7, 2; NAFA, G- 20, 3; Nebraska EO, H-9, 1; RFA, G-5, 5, (Supp.), 1 (assuming industry has the opportunity to review the DOE brochure prior to publication); Sun, G-1, 2; Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \4\37DOE, H-10, 6, (Tr.), 173-74. \4\38DOT/NHTSA, H-1, 2. \4\39CAS (Supp.), G-17, 2, 4. \4\40NADA, G-19, 2. \4\41NPGA, G-18, 6. \4\42AAMA, G-7, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Without addressing the merits of this aspect of the Commission's AFV labeling proposal, one comment (from TexasADA) opposed the proposal generally as part of its opposition to all new labeling.443 This general opposition was based on TexasADA's belief that new labeling would create hazards during test driving.444 Three comments stated that it was not possible to support or oppose the proposal because the DOE information brochure was not yet available for review.445 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\43TexasADA, G-11, 1. \4\44Id. \4\45AGA/NGVC, G-6, 11; API, G-25, 6-7; Mobil, G-2, 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The referral statement proposed in the NPR does not, by itself, disclose cost-benefit information. In developing this revised proposal, the Commission has thus considered whether including a statement on the AFV label directing consumers to other sources of objective information regarding AFVs would help consumers make reasonable choices and comparisons. The Commission also considered whether including such a statement was feasible, given the constraints of a simple label format. After considering the record, the Commission believes that including a standard statement referring consumers to pertinent government information-sources is consistent with section 406(a)'s legislative purpose. The comments also indicated that a referral to objective information sources would be useful to consumers. The Commission concludes that, given the nature of the disclosure, consumers considering either new or used AFVs would find this statement equally relevant. Accordingly, the Commission has tentatively determined that a precise reference to DOE's consumer information brochure and NHTSA's vehicle safety hotline is appropriate on labeling for new and used covered AFVs. To implement that tentative determination, the label formats for new and used covered vehicles includes standard statements informing consumers that they can obtain (1) copies of a free consumer- information brochure and general information about alternative fuels and AFVs by calling the toll-free telephone number for DOE's National Alternative Fuels Hotline, and (2) vehicle safety information by calling the toll-free telephone number for DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline.446 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\46See Figure 6 (new covered vehicles) and 8 (used covered vehicles) at the end of this SNPR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Label Size and Format In the NPR, the Commission announced its tentative determination that a label larger than that proposed for fuel dispensers would be needed to accommodate the greater number of required disclosures.447 Accordingly, the Commission proposed requiring that AFV labels be 7\1/2\ inches wide by 11 inches high. Those dimensions are the same as for labels required by the Commission's Used Car Rule, which have adequate room to display effectively a large amount of information.448 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\4759 FR 24014, 24020. \4\4816 CFR 455.2(a)(2) (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Four commenters addressed this issue.449 CEC and RFA stated that requiring a standard label format (i.e., one which disclosed the same information in the same order) would be most useful to consumers.450 TexasADA stated that the Commission should not require the posting of AFV labels on windows because of possible hazards during test driving.451 EPA noted that the proposed label size is larger than the dimensions of its fuel economy labels452 and suggested that the Commission consider whether the AFV label's size and/or posting location could obstruct a driver's view during test driving.453 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\49API stated that label size and format issues could best be answered by AFV manufacturers and converters). API, G-25, 8. Two other commenters indicated general support of the Commission's proposal. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \4\50CEC, H-8, 11 (``[t]he use of standard sizes and/or formats will facilitate use by consumers''); RFA, G-5, 5 (a standard format ``will make comparisons by the consumer simple''). \4\51TexasADA, G-11, 2. \4\52EPA fuel economy labels are rectangular in shape with a minimum height of 4.5 inches and a minimum length of 7 inches wide. 40 CFR 600.307-86(a)(1)(i) (1993). \4\53 EPA, H-4, 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted, required labeling under the Commission's AFV labeling requirements must be ``simple.'' Accordingly, in developing this revised proposal the Commission has considered how best to meet consumers' needs given the statutory and practical constraints of vehicle labeling. The Commission proposes that AFV labels be reduced from the size proposed in the NPR and measure 7 inches wide by 5\1/2\ inches high.454 This reduction in label size will reduce a possible risk to safety, if any, associated with a label the size of the Buyers Guides required by the Used Car Rule,455 yet also be large enough to accomodate all pertinent information in a readable format. After reconfiguring the size and format proposed in the NPR to reflect the comments and information to be disclosed, the Commission proposes that two-sided labels be posted on covered vehicles as described below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\54See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles). \4\55As part of its ongoing Regulatory Review of the Used Car Rule, the Commission is reviewing the format, including the size, of the Buyers Guides required under that Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission proposes that information required to be disclosed by its AFV labeling requirements be displayed on a visible window surface in three label formats. The first label format would be for new covered AFVs designed to operate solely on alternative fuel. Figures 4 and 6 illustrate samples of this format; figure 4 (containing objective information particular to that vehicle) would appear on the front of the label, and figure 6 (containing general information) would appear on the back. The second label format would be for new covered vehicles capable of operating on alternative fuel and on conventional fuel. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate samples of this format; figure 5 (containing objective information particular to that vehicle) would appear on the front, and figure 6 again would appear on the back. The third label format would be for used covered AFVs. Figures 7 and 8 illustrate samples of this format; figure 7 would appear on the front, and figure 8 would appear on the back. The proposed rule also addresses general format issues common to all three labeling formats. For example, headlines and text for all labels are standard as illustrated in the sample labels.456 In addition, no marks or information other than that specified in the proposed labeling requirements shall appear on any of the labels.457 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\56See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(e) (for new covered vehicles), 309.21(e) (for used covered vehicles). \4\57See proposed rule Secs. 309.20(b) (for new covered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used covered vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Consolidation In the NPR, the Commission considered whether consolidating new AFV disclosures ``with other labels providing information to the consumer'' would be appropriate at the present time.458 Consolidation as required by EPA 92 could be undertaken in one of two ways: either by incorporating new AFV disclosures into existing labels, or by incorporating existing disclosures into new AFV labels. As to the first category, the Commission tentatively concluded that it should not consolidate new AFV disclosures into existing labels.459 As to the second category, the Commission noted that regulations requiring the posting of vehicle labels providing information regarding fuel economy and costs, emissions certification compliance, and safety are in effect or under active consideration by other governmental bodies. Because consumers would have immediate access to this information in other required labels, the Commission similarly concluded that providing the same information on its AFV labels (in a different format) could confuse consumers and was therefore unnecessary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\5842 U.S.C. 13231(a) (Supp. IV 1993); 59 FR 24014, 24019. \4\5959 FR 24014, 24019. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Twelve commenters addressed this issue.460 Three of those twelve commenters opposed or expressed concern about consolidation. TVA opposed all consolidation because it would provide no benefit to consumers.461 EPA stated that new AFV information could not reasonably be incorporated into its fuel economy label because they already are ``crowded.''462 NACAA stated that consolidation ``probably makes sense,'' but ``my experience in dealing [with] a lot with dealers is that they're not so full of stickers that dealers don't put on their own to add for options * * *. So I don't think we've reached the saturation point.''463 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\60Two other commenters indicated general support with all aspects of the Commission's NPR proposal. EIA/EEU-ISD, H-2, 1; Texas RRC, H-3, 1. \4\61TVA, H-5, 1. \4\62EPA (Tr.), 211 (``Everybody saw how crowded this (i.e., the EPA label) already was. I guess it depends on what type of information ultimately ends up whether we would have difficulties with consolidating the EPA's label. But we're looking at information overload right now.''). DOE, in a comment responding to the Commission's ANPR, stated further that, ``Survey work has indicated that the fuel economy label already contains too much information * * * ''). DOE, E-10, 4. \4\63NACAA (Tr.), 215-216. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eight other commenters suggested that any new information required to be disclosed by the Commission's AFV labeling requirements be incorporated into existing labels. Two commenters (Boston Edison and NADA) suggested that new information pertaining to AFVs be consolidated into the EPA fuel economy label because consumers currently rely on that label for information regarding fuel, fuel economy, and operating costs.464 TexasADA stated that new information should be incorporated into the Monroney label.465 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\64Boston Edison (Supp.), G-26, 12, Ex. 5 (information regarding EPA emission standard, cruising range, and domestic fuel content should be incorporated into EPA label); NADA, G-19, 1. \4\65Texas ADA, G-11, 1. A ``Monroney label'' contains the information required by 15 U.S.C. 1231-1233 (disclosing, inter alia, each vehicle's make, model, identification number, and manufacturer's suggested retail price). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AAMA, Chrysler, Ford, and GM stated that allowing AFV manufacturers the flexibility of incorporating new AFV information into existing labels would ``greatly reduce compliance costs and the production burden of installing another label.''466 Automobile manufacturers are ``running out of room to add additional labeling'' (because of existing and contemplated labeling requirements)467 and allowing flexibility would ``ensure the lowest cost to the consumer.''468 Requiring new AFV labels could also overload consumers with information, thus ``not likely creat[ing] the desired impact on the consumer.''469 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\66AAMA, G-7, 2. Chrysler, Ford, and GM supported AAMA's comment on that point. Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1; GM, G-8, 3, 5. See also AAMA (Tr.), 210 (same). \4\67GM, G-8, 3. \4\68Chrysler, G-13, 1. \4\69GM, G-8, 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One commenter (CAS) suggested that the Commission incorporate existing information (NHTSA determinations that the vehicle complies with or has been exempted from federal motor-vehicle safety standards) into its AFV labels.470 CAS also suggested that the Commission require that this label be attached to EPA's fuel-economy label, so that information regarding fuel economy, cruising range, and emissions would appear in the same general area.471 RFA stated that it did not oppose consolidation of AFV information into existing labels but suggested that all AFV related information should be kept in the same spot on each AFV.472 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\70CAS, G-17, 5; (Supp.), 6-7. CAS qualified its comment by stating that it was difficult to comment on the degree of consolidation without first knowing how much information the Commission require be disclosed. CAS, G-17 (Supp.), 6. \4\71CAS, G-17 (Supp.), 6. \4\72RFA (Supp.), G-5, 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As noted previously, EPA 92 requires the Commission to consolidate its AFV labels with other labels providing information to consumers ``where appropriate.'' In developing this revised proposal the Commission has thus considered the propriety either of incorporating the information the Commission will require for AFVs into existing labels (e.g., EPA's fuel economy label or the Commission's used car Buyers Guide), or of incorporating existing information into its AFV labels. For both options, the Commission notes that consolidation could help consumers by collecting pertinent information in a central location. Industries affected by the labeling requirements could also benefit by possibly reducing their compliance costs. However, disturbing labeling formats with which consumers are familiar could create confusion. Attempting to fit additional disclosures into existing labels also raises the possibility that the label will overload consumers with excessive amounts of information. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that consolidating the information proposed to be disclosed with other labels providing information to consumers is not appropriate at the present time. 5. Effective Date In the NPR the Commission proposed that its AFV labeling requirements be effective ninety days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, and sought comment on that proposed effective date.473 Five commenters addressed this issue.474 CEC stated that the Commission's proposal allowed sufficient time for implementation.475 Flxible and Thomas BB expressed concern about supporting the proposed effective date before the Commission had announced the content of its AFV labeling requirements in more detail.476 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\7359 FR 24014, 24017, 24022. \4\74Two other commenters (AGA/NGVC and API) stated that this issue could best be addressed by AFV manufacturers and aftermarket converters. AGA/NGVC, G-6, 12; API, G-25, 8. \4\75CEC, H-8, 12. \4\76Flxible, G-12, 2; Thomas BB, G-10, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- AAMA and NPGA opposed the proposed effective date because, ``[b]ased on past experience with new label requirements,'' affected industries would need a period greater than ninety days to design, order, receive, and install required labels on affected vehicles.477 As a result, ninety days did not allow adequate time for compliance.478 AAMA suggested that the AFV labeling requirements be effective at least nine months after publication;479 NPGA recommended six months.480 AAMA also stated that requiring compliance within nine months would not ``impede the label's intent'' because DOE has issued its information package, the market for AFVs is small in the near term, and most AFV purchases in the near term will be made by fleet operators who ``will already be well educated with respect to [AFVs] through their direct interaction with vehicle manufacturers.''481 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\77AAMA, G-7, 3; see also NPGA, G-18, 6 (same). AAMA's comments on that point were supported by Chrysler, Ford, and GM. Chrysler, G-13, 1; Ford, G-14, 1; GM, G-8, 1. \4\78AAMA, G-7, 3; NPGA, G-18, 6. \4\79Id. \4\80NPGA, G-18, 6. \4\81AAMA, G-7, 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA 92 does not address when the Commission's AFV labeling requirements must be effective. In developing this revised proposal the Commission has thus considered how best to balance consumers' needs for comparative information with industry's need for a reasonable period of time to come into compliance.482 After considering the comments, the Commission believes that the proposed effective date (i.e., ninety days after publication in the Federal Register) is both reasonable and consistent with EPA 92's legislative program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\82As noted, EPA 92 requires the Commission to consider ``the problems associated with developing and publishing useful and timely cost and benefit information, taking into account lead time, costs, the frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may occur, and other relevant factors.'' 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comments from automobile manufacturers indicated that industries affected by the AFV labeling requirements would require far greater than ninety days to comply with the final rule. As a result, the Commission has considered the extent to which a ninety-day effective date would cause an unreasonable hardship to the industries affected by the proposed rule. The Commission notes that for used covered AFVs, its proposal requires disclosure of standard information in a uniform format.483 Implementation of that requirement would thus simply require obtaining copies of the required label format and arranging for posting in affected vehicles. Because the Commission does not believe that the market for used vehicles powered by alternative fuels is extensive at this time, it is also not likely that this requirement will presently affect a significant number of used vehicle dealers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\83See proposed rule Sec. 309.203(e) (content of labels for used covered vehicles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For new covered AFVs, the Commission's revised proposal would require disclosure of a combination of information: standard information pertinent to all AFVs in general and objective information particular to each AFV. For these vehicles the Commission notes that the objective information required to be disclosed should either be available or readily ascertainable. For example, the vehicles must be certified as meeting an EPA certification standard, so AFV manufacturers will have ready access to that information. The Commission also notes that recently-issued EPA regulations regarding AFV fuel-economy labeling were effective no later than sixty days after publication in the Federal Register.484 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\8459 FR 39638, 39638, Aug. 3, 1994 (fuel economy test procedures and labeling requirements). Other pertinent EPA regulations have similar (or shorter) effective dates. See, e.g., Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50042, Sept. 30, 1994 (rule effective no later than 60 days after publication); Gaseous Fuels Rule, 59 FR 48472, 48472, Sept. 21, 1994 (rule effective no later than 60 days after publication); Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Definitions and General Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64679, Dec. 9, 1993 (rule effective 30 days after publication); Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Transportation Control Measure Exemptions, and Related Provisions, 58 FR 11888, 11888, March 1, 1993 (rule effective two days after publication). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission believes that consumers will need comparative information shortly after the final rule's publication date in mid- 1995, because EPA 92's fleet acquisition mandates begin with fiscal year 1996 for the federal fleet485 and model year 1996 for alternative fuel providers.486 Accordingly, after considering the record, the Commission proposes that its AFV labeling requirements be effective ninety days after publication in the Federal Register. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\8542 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993). \4\8642 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993). Acquisition requirements for private fleet operators begin in model year 1999. 42 U.S.C. 13257 (Supp. IV 1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Updating AFV Labeling Requirements As noted previously, EPA 92 directs the Commission to update its labeling requirements ``periodically'' (a duration not otherwise defined in the statute) ``to reflect the most recent available information.''\487\ This requirement contrasts with EPA 92's direction to DOE to update its consumer information package ``annually.''\488\ Given the irregular pace of such technological development and regulatory activity, the Commission believes that a flexible approach will best meet consumers' needs. For example, although the Commission understands that EPA will promulgate rules that require fuel economy labeling for vehicles powered by LPG, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative fuels,\489\ the Commission cannot predict when those standards will be adopted. The Commission therefore intends to keep apprised of pertinent technological advances, monitor the extent to which other governmental agencies impose labeling requirements, and then update its AFV labeling requirements as appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \487\42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993). \488\42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993). \489\59 FR 39638, 39639. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis when publishing a proposed rule unless the proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.''\490\ In the NPR, the Commission stated that the economic impact of the proposed requirements appeared to be de minimis. At that time, the Commission proposed no recordkeeping requirements, and the proposed disclosures consisted of information that was basic and easily ascertainable. The Commission tentatively concluded in the NPR that the proposed rule also would not affect a substantial number of small entities because information the Commission possessed indicated that relatively few companies currently sell alternative fuels or manufacture, convert, or sell AFVs. Of those that manufacture or sell AFVs, most are not ``small entit[ies]'' as that term is defined either in section 601 of RFA\491\ or applicable regulations of the Small Business Administration.\492\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \490\5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b). \491\5 U.S.C. 601(6). \492\13 CFR Part 121 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of these factors, the Commission certified in the NPR that the labeling requirements in the proposed rule would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, that a regulatory analysis was not necessary. To ensure the accuracy of its certification, the Commission requested comment on whether the proposed rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission received no comments in response to the NPR concerning its analysis under RFA. The labeling disclosure requirements the Commission now proposes do not impose significant additional requirements over those proposed in the NPR. The Commission now proposes, however, requiring that producers and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and manufacturers of electric vehicle charging system equipment and electrical energy dispensing systems for electric vehicles maintain records to substantiate certain product-specific disclosures that must be included on labels. In addition, the Commission now also proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers maintain records to substantiate the two product-specific disclosures that must be included on labels. Despite these additional proposed requirements, the Commission has preliminarily concluded that the proposed rule, if enacted, would have a minimal effect on all business entities within the affected industries, regardless of their size. Available information suggests that approximately 1,000 companies import, produce, refine, distribute, or retail CNG to consumers. Further, only approximately 50 companies manufacture or distribute electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, and no more than 250 retail companies sell electricity to consumers through such systems for the purpose of recharging electric vehicle batteries. Except for those companies that sell non-liquid alternative fuel (including electricity) to consumers, the Commission believes most of these industry members are not ``small entities'' as that term is defined in section 601 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and in the regulations of the Small Business Administration, found in 13 CFR Part 121 (1994). Although there may be some ``small entities'' among retail sellers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), the labeling rules proposed today would likely have only a minimal impact on these small entities. Any such impact would likely consist of minimal additional recordkeeping and of retailers merely placing labels on fuel dispensers (to the extent this is not done by distributors for their retailer customers). The impact on small entities, therefore, appears to be de minimis and not significant. In light of these factors, the Commission certifies under RFA that the rule proposed in this notice would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory analysis is not necessary.\493\ To ensure the accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests comment in section VIII.B, below, on whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, including specific information on the number of entities in each category that would be covered by the proposed rule, the number of these companies that are ``small entities,'' and the average annual burden for each entity. After reviewing any comments received on this subject, the Commission will decide whether the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is appropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \493\This analysis and conclusion is consistent with Commission's analysis and conclusion in its Statement of Basis and Purpose (``SBP'') for the liquid alternative fuels amendments to the Fuel Rating Rule. In that SBP, the Commission certified that the Fuel Rating Rule's similar requirements would not have a significant impact. 58 FR 41356, 41369-41370. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Regulatory Review The Commission has implemented a program to review all of its current and proposed rules and guides. One purpose of the review is to minimize the economic impact of new regulatory actions. As part of that overall regulatory review, the Commission solicited comments in the NPR on questions concerning benefits and significant burdens and costs of the proposed rule and alternatives to the proposals that would increase benefits to purchasers and minimize the costs and other burdens to firms subject to the rule's requirements. Only NACAA's comment raised an issued not previously covered in other parts of this notice. Specifically, NACAA stated that it believes federal labeling requirements for alternative fuels and alternative fueled vehicles are essential because many jurisdictions have no provisions to cover engine fuels. It urged, however, that the Commission's regulations in no way preclude localities, as needed, from creating more stringent labeling requirements for alternative fuels. NACAA stated that it believes the Commission's proposed labeling requirements would not create undue burdens on consumers or industry.\494\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \494\NACAA, H-6, 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The preemption standard in the proposed rule is the same as the standard used in other Commission rules, i.e., the rule supersedes only state and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with, or would frustrate the purposes of, the requirements of the rule.495 Under this standard, state or local laws or regulations that create more stringent labeling requirements for alternative fuels would not be preempted unless those laws or regulations would frustrate the purposes of the Commission's rule. In addition, a State or local government could petition the Commission, for good cause, to permit the enforcement of any part of a State or local law or regulations that would be preempted by the rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \495\See Sec. 309.104 of the text of the proposed labeling rule in section XI, below. This preemption standard is different than the standard in the Fuel Rating Rule. Under Sec. 306.4 of the Fuel Rating Rule, ``no State or any political subdivision thereof may adopt or continue in effect, except as provided in subsection (b), any provision of law or regulation with respect to such act or omission, unless such provision of such law or regulation is the same as the applicable provision of this title.'' 16 CFR 306.4 (1994). The preemption provision in the Fuel Rating Rule is specified by Section 204 of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2824. There is no similar provision that applies to this proposed rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- API encouraged the Commission to review the rule, particularly after private, voluntary consensus standards organizations develop fuel specifications for alternative fuels. API also encouraged the Commission to consider reviewing the rule as new alternative fuels enter the marketplace.\496\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \496\API, G-25, 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission intends to conduct reviews as necessary to take into consideration relevant developments.497 Section 406 of EPA 92 requires the Commission to update the rule periodically to reflect the most recently available information, and the Commission's ongoing regulatory review process schedules all rules and guides for review at least once every ten-year period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \497\See supra sections III(B)(5)(d) and III(C)(6). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'')\498\ and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')\499\ implementing the PRA, require agencies to obtain clearance for regulations that involve the ``collection of information,'' which includes both reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Because the rule the Commission proposed in the NPR contained disclosure requirements only, the Commission concluded there was no proposed ``information collection'' to submit to OMB for clearance. To ensure the accuracy of its conclusion, however, the Commission solicited comments in the NPR on any paperwork burden that the public believed the proposed requirements might impose. The Commission received no comments in response to the NPR concerning this conclusion or any paperwork burden the proposed rule might have imposed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \498\44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. \499\5 CFR 1320.7(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consistent with the Fuel Rating Rule's requirements for sellers of liquid alternative fuels, however, the Commission now proposes requiring that producers, importers, refiners, and distributors of non- liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), retailers of non- liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems maintain records to substantiate the product-specific disclosures that would be required on fuel dispenser labels. In addition, the Commission now proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers maintain records to substantiate two product-specific disclosures that would be required on AFV labels. The proposed recordkeeping requirements are ``collections of information'' as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c) (1994), the OMB regulations implementing PRA. They therefore will be submitted to OMB for review under the PRA before the Commission issues the final rule. The Commission believes, however, that the proposed recordkeeping requirements, if enacted, would impose a minimal annual ``collection of information'' burden on each covered party within the affected industries. The Commission also expects that certifications for non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity) will be noted on documents (shipping receipts, etc.) already in use, or will be accomplished with a one-time letter of certification, consistent with current procedures for gasoline and liquid alternative fuel suppliers covered by the Fuel Rating Rule. Producers, importers, refiners, and distributors of non- liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), and retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity) need merely file and retain these certifications as the required recordkeeping. The Commission expects that manufacturers of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems will permanently mark the required disclosures on the equipment or systems, or will note that information on documents (shipping receipts, etc.) already in use. Manufacturers need merely file and retain records demonstrating substantiation for the proposed labeling disclosures. Distributors and retailers need merely file the documents provided to them by the manufacturers or distributors. If the systems are permanently marked by the manufacturers, distributors and retailers may rely on the permanent markings as the required recordkeeping. In the liquid alternative fuel amendments to the Fuel Rating Rule, the Commission estimated that the information collection burden associated with that rule's recordkeeping requirements was six minutes per year per industry member.500 This estimate was small because the records at issue were likely to be retained by the industry during the normal course of business, and the ``burden,'' for OMB purposes, is defined to exclude effort that would be expended in any event.501 The Commission believes that the same burden per covered industry member is appropriate for the proposed recordkeeping requirements in this rulemaking proceeding. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\0058 FR 41356, 41370-41371. \5\01Section 1320.7(b)(1) of the regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act, 5 CFR 1320.7(b)(1) (1994), states: ``The time and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities (e.g., in compiling and maintaining business records) will be excluded from the ``burden'' if the agency demonstrates that the reporting or recordkeeping activities needed to comply are usual and customary.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission also proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers maintain records to substantiate the tailpipe emission standard to which the vehicle has been certified by EPA and their estimates of each vehicle's cruising range. Pursuant to the proposed rule, manufacturers would calculate cruising range values in one of three ways. For vehicles required to comply with EPA's fuel-economy labeling provisions, cruising range would be calculated using the vehicle's estimated fuel-economy rating.502 For electric vehicles, cruising range must be calculated in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineers' ``Recommended Practice,'' J1634. For other vehicles not yet required to be labeled with EPA's fuel economy stickers, the Commission proposes that manufacturers possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the cruising range values disclosed. Also under the Commission's proposed rule, AFV labels for new covered vehicles would contain a graphic depicting the exhaust emission standard to which the vehicle has been certified pursuant to applicable EPA regulations.503 The Commission estimates that the information collection burden associated with the proposed recordkeeping requirements for AFV manufacturers would be thirty minutes per year per manufacturer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\0240 CFR Part 600 (1993). \5\0340 CFR Parts 86 and 88 (1993). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission estimates that approximately 1,300 industry members would be covered by the recordkeeping requirements that apply to the proposed rule's fuel labeling disclosures. Of these, the Commission estimates that approximately 1,000 industry members import, produce, refine, distribute or retail CNG to the public for use in AFVs. The Commission estimates that approximately 50 industry members manufacture or distribute electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems and that no more than 250 companies retail electricity to the public through electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. The Commission estimates that currently few, if any, industry members sell hydrogen to consumers for use in AFVs. Based on these figures, the Commission estimates that the total yearly burden information collection burden of the proposed rule on these industry members would be 130 hours (six minutes per year times 1,300 industry members). Although under the proposed rule manufacturers would be required to determine cruising ranges and emission standards for different models of vehicles, the burden estimate is small because the records at issue are likely to be developed and retained by the industry during the normal course of business. The Commission estimates that approximately 58 industry members would be covered by the proposed rule's cruising range and emission standard recordkeeping requirements. This is based on similar estimates EPA made in connection with its emission standards recordkeeping requirements contained in a final rule establishing two clean-fuel vehicle programs. The information collection requirements in EPA's rule were submitted to OMB by EPA and discussed in ICR No. 1694.504 Based on these figures, the Commission estimates that the current total yearly burden of the proposed rule on the 58 industry members would be 29 hours (thirty minutes per year times 58 industry members). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\04Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50072, Sept. 30, 1994. Under EPA's Clean Fuel Fleet Program, a percentage of new vehicles acquired by certain fleet owners located in covered areas will be required to meet clean-fuel fleet vehicle emission standards. The California Pilot Test Program requires manufacturers to sell light- duty clean-fuel vehicles in California. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consequently, the Commission estimates that the total burden associated with complying with the Rule's recordkeeping requirements for AFVs and non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), as proposed, would be a total of approximately 159 hours per year for all affected industry members. To ensure the accuracy of these burden estimates, however, the Commission solicits comment on the paperwork burden that the proposed requirements may impose to ensure that no additional burden has been overlooked. VII. Metric Usage The metric measurement system is the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce.505 Federal law requires federal agencies to use the metric measurement system in all procurements, grants and other business-related activities (including rulemakings), except to the extent that such use is impractical or likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.506 In the NPR, the Commission identified one section of the proposed rule with a potential for use of metric terms. Specifically, the Commission proposed in the NPR that AFV labels disclose fuel tank capacity in gallons. The Commission sought comment on whether to require metric or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) units for this disclosure. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\0515 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No. 12,770, 56 FR 35801, July 21, 1991 (implementing section 205b). \5\06Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Five commenters addressed the issue of whether the Commission should require disclosures of metric measurements. CEC encouraged the use of dual disclosures (i.e., in both ``inch-pound'' and metric measurements).507 RFA stated that volumes of liquid alternative fuels should be expressed in terms of gallons at the present time since that is the volume measurement most familiar to U.S. consumers, but that it did not believe there would be any drawbacks to duel units of measurement, i.e., both gallons and liters.508 AGA/NGVC opposed requiring metric disclosures.509 API stated that, although public awareness of metric units is not high at this time, a dual fuel tank labeling requirement for fuel tank capacity would accommodate the provisions of the Federal Metric Conversion Act.510 NPGA stated that it recognizes and supports the overall, long term goal of the Congress to change the domestic economy to metric units. However, with respect to AFVS, NPGA believes consumer labels should disclose fuel tank capacity in US gallons for the time being, with metric units required for all vehicles on a uniform basis at some time in the future.511 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\07CED, H-8, 12. \5\08FRA, G-5, 6. \5\09AGA/NGVC, G-6, 10-11. \5\10API, G-25, 9. \5\11NPGA, G-18, 5 (makes little sense to allow conventionally fueled vehicles to continue use of non-metric units for fuel tank capacity but require the use of metric units on alternative fueled vehicles which collectively comprise only a small fraction of the total number of such vehicles in service and use). Likewise, NPGA believes that a requirement for dual units (metric and non-metric) should be deferred until such notation is required of all covered vehicles. Id. at 5. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission has decided not to propose that AFV labels disclose fuel tank capacity in gallons. However, the Commission now proposes to require that AFV labels disclose cruising range, i.e., miles on one tank or charge.512 Given the limited size of the proposed AFV label and the amount of information it would contain, the Commission does not believe that it would be practical to include metric equivalents. The Commission, therefore, does not propose requiring disclosure of cruising range in metric (i.e., kilometers) as well as inch-pound measurements (i.e., miles). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\12See Secs. 309.20 and 309.22 of the text of the proposed rule in section XI infra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIII. Invitation to Comment The Commission invites interested persons to address any questions of fact, law, or policy that they believe may bear upon the proposed rule. The Commission particularly desires comment, however, on the questions listed below. Before adopting a final rule, consideration will be given to any written comments timely submitted to the Commission. Comments submitted will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act513 and the Commission's Rule of Practice,514 during normal business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\135 U.S.C. 552. \5\1416 CFR 4.11 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Proposed Labeling Rule 1. Alternative Fuel Labeling (a) Should the Commission issue its proposal for labeling of non- liquid alternative fuels as a final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not? (b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal? (c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (d) Would any disclosures specified by existing law (either federal, state, or local) affect the Commission's alternative fuels labeling proposal? (e) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (f) Should the Commission require disclosure of the principal component of the non-liquid alternative fuels CNG and hydrogen and permit disclosure of other components, expressed as minimum molecular percentages? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a requirement? (c) How should information about those components be calculated and displayed? (d) What costs or problems are associated with requiring such a disclosure? (e) How might the Commission minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (g) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (h) Should the Commission require disclosure of the type of fuel (i.e., electricity), kilowatt capacity, the voltage at which electrical power is supplied, the type of current supplied (either AC or DC), the maximum current in amperes that can be delivered, and whether the dispenser is conductive or inductive on labels on electrical dispensers and electric charging equipment used to recharge EV batteries? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What are the benefits of such a requirement? (c) How should those operating parameters be described and defined? (d) How should information about those parameters be calculated and displayed? (e) What costs or problems are associated with requiring such a disclosure? (f) How might the Commission minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (i) Should the Commission require any additional, fewer or alternative disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those disclosures? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (j) Should the Commission require the same size and format in its labeling for non-liquid alternative fuels as required by the Fuel Rating Rule for liquid alternative fuels? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no, why not? (k) Should the Commission require use of specific ASTM or other test procedures to substantiate disclosure of the minimum percentage of methane in CNG and of hydrogen in hydrogen gas, and of any other components in CNG or hydrogen that sellers wish to disclose? (1) If yes, should the Commission require use of ASTM D 1945-91, ``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography,'' to substantiate the disclosure of the minimum percentage of methane in CNG? Why? Should the Commission require use of ASTM D 1946-90, ``Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography,'' to substantiate the disclosure of the minimum percentage of hydrogen in hydrogen gas? Why? (2) If yes, should the Commission require use of other test procedures to substantiate these disclosures? If so, what test procedures? Why? (3) If no, why not? (l) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary to comply with the proposed labeling requirements for the non-liquid alternative fuels? Why is that extra time necessary? 2. AFV Labeling (a) Should the Commission issue its revised proposal for AFV labeling as a final rule? If yes, why; if no, why not? (b) What are the advantages of the Commission's proposal? (c) What costs or problems are associated with the Commission's proposal? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (d) Would any disclosure specified by existing law (either federal, state, or local) affect the Commission's AFV labeling proposal? (e) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``covered vehicle'' and ``new covered vehicle'' appropriate and feasible? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (f) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``manufacturer'' and ``aftermarket conversion system'' appropriate and feasible? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (g) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``acquisition,'' ``person,'' and ``consumer'' appropriate and feasible? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (h) Are the Commission's proposed definitions of ``used covered vehicle'' and ``used vehicle dealer'' appropriate and feasible? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a): Why not? (b) How should the definitions be modified to reflect more accurately section 406(a)'s mandate and purpose? (i) Is cruising range a useful measure for consumer comparisons? (1) If yes, why? If no, why not? (j) What costs or problems are associated with displaying cruising range values in the proposed labeling formats? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (k) Is the emission standard to which a vehicle has been certified a useful measure for consumer comparisons? (1) If yes, why? If no, why not? (l) What costs or problems are associated with displaying emission standards in the proposed labeling format? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (m) Should a list of issues relevant to AFVs in general be included on AFV labels, as proposed in the SNPR? (1) If yes, why? If no, why not? (n) Should AFV labels notify consumers of the availability of DOE's consumer information brochure and DOT/NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline, as proposed in the SNPR? (1) If yes, why? If no, why not? (o) Should the Commission require any additional or alternative disclosures, or variations on the proposed disclosures? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) What should be disclosed? (c) Are there any adequate, generally accepted standards upon which to base those standards? (d) What are those standards? (e) What costs or problems are associated with this option? (f) How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (2) If no, why not? (p) What costs or problems, if any, are associated with the size and format proposed for the new vehicle labels? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (q) What costs or problems, if any, are associated with the size and format proposed for the used vehicle labels? How might the Commission modify its proposal to minimize any such costs or problems, while maintaining the benefits? (r) Should any of the information proposed to be disclosed in this SNPR be consolidated into existing labels providing information to consumers? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Which labels? (c) How might this information be displayed to prevent information overload? (2) If no, why? (s) Should any information required to be displayed on existing labels be consolidated into the Commission's AFV labels? (1) If yes: (a) Why? (b) Which information? (c) How might this information be displayed to prevent information overload? (t) Does the proposed effective date allow affected interests sufficient time to comply with the proposed requirements? (1) If yes, why? (2) If no: (a) Why not? (b) How much extra time would be necessary to comply with the proposed requirements? (c) Why is that extra time necessary? (u) Does the Commission's proposal to update its AFV labeling requirements as appropriate, instead of on a fixed schedule, pose any problems to consumers or affected interests? (1) If yes, why? If no, why not? B. Regulatory Flexibility Act In light of the factors explained in section IV, above, the Commission certifies under the RFA that the rule proposed in this notice would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. To ensure the accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests comment on whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests that comments include specific information on the number of entities in each category that would be covered by the proposed rule, the number of these companies that are ``small entities,'' and the average annual burden for each entity. After reviewing any comments received on this subject, the Commission will decide whether the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis is appropriate. C. Regulatory Review As explained in section V, above, the Commission has implemented a program to review all of its current and proposed rules and guides. One purpose of the review is to minimize the economic impact of new regulatory actions. As part of that overall regulatory review, the Commission solicits comments on the following questions: 1. What benefits would the proposed rule provide to purchasers of non-liquid alternative fuels? Would the proposed rule impose costs on purchasers? 2. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to increase its benefits to purchasers? How would these changes affect the costs the proposed rule would impose on firms subject to its requirements? 3. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance, would the proposed rule impose on firms subject to its requirements? Would the proposed rule provide benefits to such firms? 4. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements? How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the proposed rule? 5. Would the proposed rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or local laws or regulations? 6. What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance, would the proposed rule impose on small firms subject to its requirements? How would these burdens or costs differ from those imposed on larger firms that would be subject to the proposed rule's requirements? 7. To what extent would the burdens or costs that the proposed rule would impose on small firms be similar to those that small firms would incur under standard and prudent business practices? 8. What changes, if any, should be made to the proposed rule to reduce the burdens or costs imposed on small firms? a. How would these changes affect the benefits of the proposed rule? b. Would such changes adversely affect the competitive position of larger firms? The Commission is also requesting comments about the overall costs and benefits of the proposed rule and its overall regulatory and economic impact as a part of its systematic review of all current and proposed Commission regulations and guides. D. Paperwork Reduction Act As described in section VI, above, the proposed rule would involve the ``collection of information,'' as that term is defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'')\515\ and regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')\516\ implementing the PRA. ``Collection of information'' includes both reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The Commission does not propose requiring that any reports be submitted to the Commission. However, the Commission proposes requiring that importers, producers, refiners, and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), retailers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispenser systems maintain records to substantiate certain product-specific disclosures that would be required on fuel dispenser labels. In addition, the Commission proposes requiring that AFV manufacturers maintain records to substantiate the two product-specific disclosures that would be required on AFV labels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \515\44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. \516\5 CFR 1320.7(c). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed recordkeeping requirements are ``collections of information'' as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c) (1994), the OMB regulations implementing PRA. The Commission believes that the proposed recordkeeping requirements, if enacted, would impose a minimal annual ``collection of information'' burden on each covered party within the affected industries. The Commission believes that the proposed recordkeeping requirements would impose a burden of only six minutes per year for each importer, producer, refiner, or distributor of non- liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), for each retail seller of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and for each manufacturer and distributor of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. The Commission believes that the proposed recordkeeping requirements would impose a burden of no more than 30 minutes per year for each AFV manufacturer. To ensure the accuracy of these estimates, the Commission is seeking public comment on the paperwork burden that the proposed rule may impose to ensure that no additional burden has been overlooked. In addition to comment on the burden per covered party per year, the Commission solicits comment on the number of importers, producers, refiners, and distributors of non-liquid alternative fuels (other than electricity), of retail sellers of non-liquid alternative fuels (including electricity), and of manufacturers and distributors of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems who would be covered by the proposed rule. Further, the Commission solicits comment on the number of AFV manufacturers who would be covered by the proposed rule. E. Metric Usage As explained in section VII, above, federal law requires federal agencies to use the metric measurement system in all procurements, grants and other business-related activities (including rulemakings), except to the extent that such use is impractical or likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms. The Commission now proposes to require that AFV labels disclose cruising range, i.e., miles on one tank or charge. Given the limited size of the proposed AFV label and the amount of information it would contain, the Commission does not propose requiring disclosure of cruising range in metric (i.e., kilometers) as well as inch-pound measurements (i.e., miles). However, the Commission seeks comment on whether to require metric or dual (i.e., metric and non-metric) units for this disclosure. IX. Motions or Petitions Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Such motions or petitions will be transmitted to a Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer will be responsible for the orderly conduct of the proceeding and shall have all powers necessary to that end, including the authority to rule on all motions or petitions. Applications for review of rulings by a Presiding Officer will not be entertained by the Commission prior to its review of the entire record in the rulemaking proceeding, unless the Presiding Officer certifies in writing to the Commission that a ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an intermediate review of the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the proceeding or that subsequent review will be an inadequate remedy. X. Communications by Outside Parties or Their Advisors Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 1.26(b)(5),\517\ communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the following treatment: Written communications, including written communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications, not including oral communications from members of Congress, are permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim or summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner advisor to whom such oral communications are made and are promptly placed on the public record, together with any written communications and summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral communications. Oral communications from members of Congress shall be transcribed or summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner advisor to whom such oral communications are made and promptly placed on the public record, together with any written communication and summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral communications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \517\16 CFR 1.26(b)(5) (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309 Alternative fuel, Alternative fueled vehicle, Energy conservation, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping, Trade practices. XI. Supplemental Proposed Labeling Rule Accordingly, the Commission proposes that chapter I of 16 CFR be amended by adding a new part 309 to read as follows: PART 309--LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13232(a). Subpart A--General Sec. 309.1 Definitions. As used in subparts B and C of this part: (a) Acquisition includes either of the following: (1) Acquiring the beneficial title to a covered vehicle; or (2) Acquiring a covered vehicle for transportation purposes pursuant to a contract or similar arrangement for a period of 120 days or more. (b) Aftermarket conversion system means any combination of hardware which allows a vehicle or engine to operate on a fuel other than the fuel which the vehicle or engine was originally certified to use. (c) Alternative fuel means: (1) Methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; (2) Mixtures containing 85 percent or more by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and/or other alcohols (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary, by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions), with gasoline or other fuels; (3) Natural gas; (4) Liquefied petroleum gas; (5) Hydrogen; (6) Coal-derived liquid fuels; (7) Fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials; (8) Electricity (including electricity from solar energy); (9) And any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits. (d) Consumer or ultimate purchaser in subpart B means, with respect to any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity), the first person who purchases such fuel for purposes other than resale. Consumer in subpart C means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State, municipality, political subdivision of a State, and any agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States. (e) Conventional fuel means gasoline or diesel fuel. (f) Covered vehicle means either of the following: (1) A dedicated or dual fueled passenger car (or passenger car derivative) capable of seating 12 passengers or less; or (2) A dedicated or dual fueled motor vehicle (other than a passenger car or passenger car derivative) with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 8,500 pounds which has a vehicle curb weight of less than 6,000 pounds and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of less than 45 square feet, which is: (i) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle; or (ii) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons; or (iii) Available with special features enabling off-street or off- highway operation and use. (g) Dedicated means designed to operate solely on alternative fuel. (h) Distributor means any person who receives non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) and distributes such fuel to another person other than the consumer. It also means any person who receives an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system and distributes such system to a retailer. (i) Dual fueled means capable of operating on alternative fuel and capable of operating on conventional fuel. (j) Electric charging system equipment means equipment that includes an electric battery charger and is used for dispensing electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric vehicle. (k) Electric vehicle (``EV'') means a vehicle that is powered by electricity stored in a rechargeable battery, multiple batteries, or battery pack. (l) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system means electric charging system equipment or an electrical energy dispensing system. (m) Electrical energy dispensing system means equipment that does not include an electric charger and is used for dispensing electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric vehicle that contains an on-board electric battery charger. (n) Emission certification standard means the emission standard to which a covered vehicle has been certified pursuant to 40 CFR parts 86 and 88. (o) Estimated cruising range means a manufacturer's reasonable estimate of the number of miles a new covered vehicle will travel between refueling or recharging, expressed as a lower estimate (i.e., minimum estimated cruising range) and an upper estimate (i.e., maximum estimated cruising range), as determined by Sec. 309.22. (p) Fuel dispenser means: (1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity), the dispenser through which a retailer sells the fuel to consumers. (2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, the dispenser through which a retailer dispenses electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric vehicle. (q) Fuel rating means: (1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity), including, but not limited to, compressed natural gas and hydrogen gas, the commonly used name of the fuel with a disclosure of the amount, expressed as a minimum molecular percentage, of the principal component of the fuel. A disclosure of other components, expressed as a minimum molecular percentage, may be included, if desired. (2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, a common identifier (such as, but not limited to, ``electricity,'' ``electric charging system,'' ``electric charging station'') with a disclosure of the system's kilowatt (``kW'') capacity, voltage, whether the voltage is alternating current (``AC'') or direct current (``DC''), and whether the system is conductive or inductive. (r) Manufacturer means the person who obtains a certificate of conformity that the vehicle complies with the standards and requirements of 40 CFR parts 86 and 88. (s) Manufacturer of an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system means any person who manufactures or assembles an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system that is distributed specifically for use by retailers in dispensing electricity to consumers for the purpose of recharging batteries in an electric vehicle. (t) New covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has not been acquired by a consumer. (u) New vehicle dealer means a person who is engaged in the sale or leasing of new covered vehicles. (v) New vehicle label means a window sticker containing the information required by Sec. 309.20(e). (w) Non-liquid alternative fueled vehicle means a vehicle capable of operating on a non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel. (x) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel means compressed natural gas (``CNG''), hydrogen gas (``hydrogen''), electricity used to recharge electric vehicle batteries, and any other non-liquid vehicle fuel the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial energy benefits and substantial environmental benefits. (y) Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, or any other business organization. (z) Producer means any person who purchases component elements and combines them to produce and market non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity). (aa) Refiner means any person engaged in the production or importation of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity). (bb) Retailer means any person who offers for sale, sells, or distributes non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity) to consumers. (cc) Secretary means the Secretary of the United States Department of Energy. (dd) Used covered vehicle means a covered vehicle which has been acquired by a consumer, but does not include any vehicle sold only for scrap or parts (title documents surrendered to the State and a salvage certificate issued). (ee) Used vehicle dealer means a person engaged in the sale or leasing of used covered vehicles who has sold or leased five or more used covered vehicles in the previous twelve months, but does not include a bank or financial institution, a business selling or leasing used covered vehicles to an employee of that business, or a lessor selling or leasing a leased vehicle by or to that vehicle's lessee or to an employee of the lessee. (ff) Used vehicle label means a window sticker containing the information required by Sec. 309.21(e). Sec. 309.2 What this part does. This part establishes labeling requirements for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels, and for certain vehicles powered in whole or in part by alternative fuels. Sec. 309.3 Stayed or invalid portions. If any portion of this part is stayed or held invalid, the rest of it will stay in force. Sec. 309.4 Preemption. State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with, or frustrate the purposes of, the provisions of this part are preempted. However, a State or local government may petition the Commission, for good cause, to permit the enforcement of any part of a State or local law or regulation that would be preempted by this part. Sec. 309.5-309.9 [Reserved] Subpart B--Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels Duties of Importers, Producers, and Refiners of Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels (Other Than Electricity) and of Manufacturers of Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems Sec. 309.10 Alternative vehicle fuel rating. (a) If you are an importer, producer, or refiner of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must determine the fuel rating of all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) before you transfer it. You can do that yourself or through a testing lab. To determine fuel ratings, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the minimum percentage of the principal component of the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) that you must disclose, and for the minimum percentages of other components that you choose to disclose. For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for the minimum percentage of the principal component of compressed natural gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in American Society of Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') D 1945-91, ``Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography.'' For the purposes of this section, fuel ratings for the minimum percentage of the principal component of hydrogen gas are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in ASTM D 1946-90, ``Standard Practice for Analysis of Reformed Gas by Gas Chromatography.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of D 1945-91 and D 1946-90 may be obtained from the American Society of Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. (b) If you are a manufacturer of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, you must determine the fuel rating of the electric charge delivered by the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system before you transfer such systems. To determine the fuel rating of the electric vehicle dispensing system, you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, for the following output information you must disclose: kilowatt (``kW'') capacity, voltage, whether the voltage is alternating current (``AC'') or direct current (``DC''), and whether the system is conductive or inductive. Sec. 309.11 Certification. (a) For non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer, you must certify the fuel rating of the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) consistent with your determination. You can do this in either of two ways: (1) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity). It may be an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It must contain at least these four items: (i) Your name; (ii) The name of the person to whom the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) is transferred; (iii) The date of the transfer; (iv) The fuel rating. (2) Give the person a letter or written statement. This letter must include the date, your name, the other person's name, and the fuel rating of any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) you will transfer to that person from the date of the letter onwards. This letter of certification will be good until you transfer non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with a lower fuel rating. When this happens, you must certify the fuel rating of the new non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) either with a delivery ticket or by sending a new letter of certification. (b) For electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer, you must certify the fuel rating of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system consistent with your determination. You can do this in either of two ways: (1) Include a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system. It may be an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale, terminal ticket, delivery ticket, or any other written proof of transfer. It must contain at least these five items: (i) Your name; (ii) The name of the person to whom the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system is transferred; (iii) The date of the transfer; (iv) The model number or other identifier of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system; and (v) The fuel rating. (2) Make the required certification by placing clearly and conspicuously on the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system a permanent legible marking or permanently attached label that discloses the manufacturer's name, the model number, serial number, or other identifier of the system, and the information required to be disclosed on the retail fuel dispenser label. Such marking or label must be located where it can be seen after installation of the system. The marking or label will be deemed ``legible,'' in terms of placement, if it is located in close proximity to the manufacturer's identification marking. This marking or label would have to be in addition to, and not as a substitute for, the label required to be posted on the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the retailer. Sec. 309.12 Recordkeeping. You must keep for one year records of how you determined fuel ratings. The records must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, or by people authorized by FTC. Duties of Distributors of Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels (Other Than Electricity) and of Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems Sec. 309.13 Certification. (a) If you are a distributor of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must certify the fuel rating of the fuel in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer. You may certify either by using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer of fuel, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(a)(1), or by using a letter of certification, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(a)(2). When you receive non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) from a common carrier, you also must receive from the common carrier a certification of the rating of the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), either on the delivery ticket or other paper or in a letter. (b) If you are a distributor of electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, you must certify the fuel rating of the system in each transfer you make to anyone who is not a consumer. You may certify by using a delivery ticket or other paper with each transfer, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(b)(1), or by using the permanent marking or permanent label attached to the system by the manufacturer, as outlined in Sec. 309.11(b)(2). When you receive electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, you also must receive from the common carrier with each transfer a certification of the rating of the system, a delivery ticket or other paper, a letter of certification, or a permanent marking or permanent label attached to the system by the manufacturer. (c) If you do not blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity), you must certify consistent with the fuel rating certified to you. If you blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, as required by Sec. 309.10(a), for the fuel rating that you certify for the blend. Sec. 309.14 Recordkeeping. You must keep for one year any delivery tickets or letters of certification on which you based your fuel rating certifications for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity) and for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems, including the records listed in Sec. 309.11. You must also keep for one year records of any fuel rating determinations you made according to Sec. 309.13(c). The records must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, or by persons authorized by FTC. Duties of Retailers Sec. 309.15 Posting of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel rating. (a) If you are a retailer who offers for sale, sells or distributes non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) to consumers, you must post the fuel rating of each non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel. If you are a retailer who offers for sale, sells or distributes electricity to consumers through an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, you must post the fuel rating of the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system you use. You must do this by putting at least one label on the face of each electric vehicle fuel dispensing system. If you are selling two or more kinds of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels with different fuel ratings from a single fuel dispenser, you must put separate labels for each kind of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel on the face of the dispenser. (b) (1) The label, or labels, must be placed conspicuously on the fuel dispenser so as to be in full view of consumers and as near as reasonably practical to the price per unit of the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel. (2) You may petition for an exemption from the placement requirements by writing the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the reasons that you want the exemption. (c) If you do not blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity), you must post consistent with the fuel rating certified to you. If you blend non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, as required by Sec. 309.10(a), for the fuel rating that you post for the blend. (d) (1) You must maintain and replace labels as needed to make sure consumers can easily see and read them. (2) If the labels you have are destroyed or are unusable or unreadable for some unexpected reason, you can satisfy the law by posting a temporary label as much like the required label as possible. You must still get and post the required label without delay. (e) The following examples of fuel rating disclosures for CNG and hydrogen are meant to serve as illustrations of compliance with this subpart, but do not limit this part's coverage to only the mentioned non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (other than electricity): (1) ``CNG'' ``Minimum XXX% Methane'' (2) ``Hydrogen'' ``Minimum XXX% Hydrogen'' (f) The following example of fuel rating disclosures for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems is meant to serve as an illustration of compliance with this subpart: ``Electricity'' ``kW'' ``XXX vac XX amps'' ``Inductive'' (g) When you receive non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity), or an electric vehicle fuel dispensing system from a common carrier, you also must receive from the common carrier a certification of the fuel rating of fuel, as outlined in Sec. 309.13(a) and (b), respectively. Sec. 309.16 Recordkeeping You must keep for one year any delivery tickets, letters of certification, or other documentation, including the records listed in Sec. 309.13, on which you based your posting of fuel ratings for non- liquid alternative vehicle fuels. You also must keep for one year records of any fuel rating determinations you made according to Sec. 309.15(c). If you rely for your certification on a permanent marking or permanent label attached to the electric vehicle fuel dispensing system by the manufacturer, you must not remove or deface the permanent marking or label. The required records, other than the permanent marking or label on the electric charging system equipment or electrical energy dispensing system, may be kept at the retail outlet or at a reasonably close location. The records, including the permanent marking or label on each electric vehicle fuel dispensing system, must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members or by persons authorized by FTC. Sec. 309.17 Labels All labels must meet the following specifications: (a) Layout: (1) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) labels with one principal component. The label is 3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2 \1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the fuel name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the black band is \1/8\'' (.32 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between each line. The bottom line of type is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than \3/ 16\'' (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label. If you wish to change the dimensions of this single component label to accommodate a fuel descriptor that is longer than shown in the sample labels, you must petition the Federal Trade Commission. You can do this by writing to the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the size and contents of the label that you wish to use, and the reasons that you want to use it. (2) Non-liquid vehicle fuel (other than electricity) labels with two components. The label is 3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label contains the name of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the fuel name is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the black band is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between each line. The bottom line of type is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label. If you wish to change the dimensions of this two component label to accommodate additional fuel components, you must petition the Federal Trade Commission. You can do this by writing to the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. You must state the size and contents of the label that you wish to use, and the reasons that you want to use it. (3) Electric vehicle fuel dispensing system labels. The label is 3'' (7.62 cm) wide x 2\1/2\'' (6.35 cm) long. ``Helvetica black'' type is used throughout. All type is centered. The band at the top of the label contains the common identifier of the fuel. This band should measure 1'' (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the common identifier is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the top of the label and \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band, centered horizontally within the black band. The first line of type beneath the black band is \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the bottom of the black band. All type below the black band is centered horizontally, with \1/8\'' (.32 cm) between each line. The bottom line of type is \1/4\'' (.64 cm) from the bottom of the label. All type should fall no closer than \3/16\'' (.48 cm) from the side edges of the label. (b) Type size and setting: (1) Labels for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with one principal component. All type should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk- top and phototype setting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform in style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the fuel name is 50 point (\1/2\'' (1.27 cm) cap height) ``Helvetica Black,'' knocked out of a 1'' (2.54 cm) deep band. The type for the words ``MINIMUM'' and the principal component is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height). The type for percentage is 36 pt. (\3/8\'' (.96 cm) cap height). (2) Labels for non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (other than electricity) with two components. All type should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and phototype setting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform in style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the fuel name is 50 point (\1/2\'' 1.27 cm) cap height) ``Helvetica Black,'' knocked out of a 1'' (2.54 cm) deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height). (3) Labels for electric vehicle fuel dispensing systems. All type should be set in upper case (all caps) ``Helvetica Black'' throughout. Helvetica Black is available in a variety of computer desk-top and phototype setting systems. Its name may vary, but the type must conform in style and thickness to the sample provided here. The spacing between letters and words should be set as ``normal.'' The type for the common identifier is 50 point (\1/2\'' 1.27 cm) cap height) ``Helvetica Black,'' knocked out of a 1'' (2.54 cm) deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (\1/4\'' (.64 cm) cap height). (c) Colors. Labels for all non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels (including electricity). The background color on all the labels is Orange: PMS 1495. The knock-out type within the black band is orange PMS 1495. All other type is process black. All borders are process black. All colors must be non-fade. (d) Contents. Examples of the contents are shown in the sample labels. The proper fuel rating for each non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (including electricity) must be shown. No marks or information other than that called for by this part may appear on the labels. (e) Special label protection. All labels must be capable of withstanding extremes of weather conditions for a period of at least one year. They must be resistant to vehicle fuel, oil, grease, solvents, detergents, and water. (f) Illustrations of labels. Labels must meet the specifications in this section and look like Figures 1 through 3, except the black print should be on the appropriately colored background. Secs. 309.18-309.19 [Reserved] Subpart C--Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fueled Vehicles Sec. 309.20 Labeling requirements for new covered vehicles. (a) Affixing and maintaining labels. (1) Before offering a new covered vehicle for acquisition to consumers, manufacturers shall affix or cause to be affixed, and new vehicle dealers shall maintain or cause to be maintained, a new vehicle label on a visible window surface of each such vehicle. (2) If an aftermarket conversion system is installed on a vehicle by a person other than the manufacturer prior to such vehicle's being acquired by a consumer, the manufacturer shall provide that person with the vehicle's estimated cruising range (as determined by Sec. 309.22(a) for dedicated vehicles and Sec. 309.22(b) for dual fueled vehicles) and emission certification standard and ensure that new vehicle labels are affixed to such vehicles as required by paragraph (a) of this section. (b) Layout. Figures 1 through 8 of this subpart are prototype labels that demonstrate the proper layout. All positioning, spacing, type size, and line widths shall be similar to and consistent with the prototype labels. Labels required by this section are two-sided and rectangular in shape measuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) in width and 5\1/2\ inches (13.75 cm) in height. Figure 4 represents the prototype for the front side of the labels for dedicated vehicles. Figure 5 represents the prototype of the front side of the labels for dual-fueled vehicles. Figure 6 represents the prototype of the back side of the labels for both dedicated and dual-fueled vehicles. No marks or information other than that specified in this subpart shall appear on this label. (c) Type size and setting. The Helvetica Condensed and Helvetica family typefaces or equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific type sizes and faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels (Figures 4, 5, and 6). No hyphenation should be used in setting headline or text copy. Positioning and spacing should follow the prototypes closely. (d) Colors and paper stock. All labels shall be printed in process black ink on Hammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or equivalent) paper. Follow label prototypes for percentages of screen tints in Exhaust Emissions chart. (e) Content. (1) Headlines and text, as illustrated in Figures 4, 5, and 6, are standard for all labels. (2) Estimated cruising range. (i) For dedicated vehicles, determined in accordance with Sec. 309.22(a). (ii) For dual fueled vehicles, determined in accordance with Sec. 309.22(b). (3) The vehicle's emission certification standard, indicated by placing a caret above the standard to which that vehicle has been certified. Sec. 309.21 Labeling requirements for used covered vehicles. (a) Affixing and maintaining labels. Before offering a used covered vehicle for acquisition to consumers, used vehicle dealers shall affix and maintain, or cause to be affixed and maintained, a used vehicle label on a visible window surface of each such vehicle. (b) Layout. Figures 1 through 8 of this subpart are prototype labels that demonstrate the proper layout. All positioning, spacing, type size, and line widths should be similar to and consistent with the prototype labels. Labels required by this section are two-sided and rectangular in shape measuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) in width and 5\1/2\ inches (13.75 cm) in height. Figure 7 represents the prototype of the front side of the labels for used covered vehicles. Figure 8 represents the back side of the labels for used covered vehicles. No marks or information other than that specified in this subpart shall appear on this label. (c) Type size and setting. The Helvetica Condensed and Helvetica family typefaces or equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific type sizes and faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels (Figures 7 and 8). No hyphenation should be used in setting headline or text copy. Positioning and spacing should follow the prototypes closely. (d) Colors and paper stock. All labels shall be printed in process black ink on Hammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or equivalent) paper. (e) Contents. Headlines and text, as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8, are standard for all labels. Sec. 309.22 Determining estimated cruising range (a) Dedicated vehicles. (1) Estimated cruising range values for dedicated vehicles required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 600 are to be calculated in accordance with the following: (i) The lower range value shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (ii) The upper range value shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. (2) Estimated cruising range values for dedicated vehicles powered by electricity are to be calculated in accordance with the following: (i) The lower range value shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its battery capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (ii) The upper range value shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its battery capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. For the purposes of this section, city and highway fuel economy are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in SAE J1634, ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of J1634 may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (3) To determine the estimated cruising range values for dedicated vehicles not required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 600 (other than electric vehicles), you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings that is claimed. (b) Dual-fueled vehicles. (1) Estimated cruising range values for dual-fueled vehicles required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 600 are to be calculated in accordance with the following: (i) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its alternative-fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (ii) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on alternative fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its alternative-fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. (iii) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its conventional-fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (iv) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its conventional-fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. (2) Estimated cruising range values for dual-fueled vehicles capable of operating on electricity are to be calculated in accordance with the following: (i) The lower range value while operating exclusively on electricity shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its battery capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (ii) The upper range value while operating exclusively on electricity shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its battery capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. (iii) The lower range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated city fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next lower integer value. (iv) The upper range value for the vehicle while operating exclusively on conventional fuel shall be determined by multiplying the vehicle's estimated highway fuel economy by its fuel tank capacity, then rounding to the next higher integer value. For the purposes of this section, city and highway fuel economy are to be determined in accordance with test methods set forth in SAE J1634, ``Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption and Range Test Procedure.'' This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of J1634 may be obtained from the Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, or may be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, Public Reference Room, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. (3) To determine the estimated cruising range values for dual- fueled vehicles not required to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR part 600 (other than electric vehicles), you must possess a reasonable basis, consisting of competent and reliable evidence, of: (i) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on alternative fuel; and (ii) The minimum and maximum number of miles the vehicle will travel between refuelings or rechargings when operated exclusively on conventional fuel. Sec. 309.23 Recordkeeping. Manufacturers required to comply with this subpart shall establish, maintain, and retain copies of all data, reports, records, and procedures used to meet the requirements of this subpart for three years after the end of the model year to which they relate. They must be available for inspection by Federal Trade Commission staff members, or by people authorized by the Federal Trade Commission. BILLING CODE 6750-01-P ![]()
TP18NO94.014 ![]()
TP18NO94.015 ![]()
TP18NO94.016 ![]()
TP18NO94.017 ![]()
TP18NO94.018 ![]()
TP18NO94.019 BILLING CODE 6750-01-C By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Varney not participating. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. [FR Doc. 94-28278 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P