May 19, 1995 federal register - Federal Trade Commission...Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 97/Friday,...

fede

ral r

egiste

r

26925

FridayMay 19, 1995

Part II

Federal TradeCommission16 CFR Part 309Labeling Requirements for AlternativeFuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles;Final Rule

26926 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

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 70percent, as determined by the Secretary [of Energy],by rule, to provide for requirements relating to coldstart, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume ofmethanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcoholswith gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefiedpetroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels;fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biologicalmaterials; electricity (including electricity fromsolar energy); and any other fuel the Secretarydetermines, by rule, is substantially not petroleumand would yield substantial energy security benefitsand 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).

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.8 42 U.S.C. 13231. DOE is also required to provide

technical assistance to the Commission indeveloping labeling requirements, and coordinatesuch technical assistance with its development ofa consumer information package. 42 U.S.C.13232(b).

9 42 U.S.C. 13231. The information packagerequired by this section was intended ‘‘to enable[consumers] to understand and to help them chooseamong alternative fuels and AFVs.’’ H. Rep. No.102–474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 185, reprinted in1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 1954, 2008.

10 42 U.S.C. 13231. EPA 92 also directs the DOESecretary to create an additional public educationprogram targeted specifically to the Federalgovernment. Under that mandate, the DOESecretary, ‘‘in cooperation with the Administratorof General Services,’’ must ‘‘promote programs andeducate officials and employees of Federal agencieson the merits of [AFVs].’’ 42 U.S.C. 13214(a). Thatsection further requires that the DOE Secretary‘‘shall provide and disseminate information toFederal agencies on,’’ inter alia, ‘‘the range andperformance capabilities of [AFVs].’’ Id.

11 15 U.S.C. 2821–2823.12 Octane Posting and Certification, 16 CFR Part

306.13 16 CFR 306.0(i)(2) (1994). In that proceeding,

the Commission had no authority to extend therule’s requirements beyond liquid alternative fuels.15 U.S.C. 2821 (Supp. IV 1993).

14 16 CFR 306.0(j)(2) (1994). The Fuel Rating Rulebecame effective October 25, 1993. 58 FR 41356,41356, Aug. 3, 1993.

15 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 309

RIN 3084–AA57

Labeling Requirements for AlternativeFuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Section 406(a) of the EnergyPolicy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPA 92’’) directsthe Federal Trade Commission(‘‘Commission’’) to establish uniformlabeling requirements, to the greatestextent practicable, for alternative fuelsand alternative fueled vehicles. OnNovember 18, 1994, the Commissionpublished a supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking in the FederalRegister announcing the substance ofproposed labeling requirements andsought written comment on its proposal.In this notice the Commissionannounces its final labelingrequirements, and explains why it hasmodified certain requirements fromthose proposed.EFFECTIVE DATE: Subpart A and SubpartB of 16 CFR Part 309 are effective onAugust 21, 1995. Subpart C of 16 CFRPart 309 is effective on November 20,1995. The incorporation by reference ofcertain publications listed in subpart Bof 16 CFR Part 309 is approved by theDirector of the Federal Register as ofAugust 21, 1995. The incorporation byreference of certain publications listedin subpart C of 16 CFR Part 309 isapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister as of November 20, 1995.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jeffrey E. Feinstein, Attorney, 202/326–2372, or Neil J. Blickman, Attorney,202/326–3038, Division of Enforcement,Federal Trade Commission,Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. IntroductionEPA 92 1 establishes a comprehensive

national energy strategy designed toincrease U.S. energy security andimprove the economy in cost effectiveand environmentally beneficial ways.2 Itseeks to reduce the dependence of theUnited States on oil imports; promoteenergy efficiency; reduce the use ofpetroleum-based fuels in motorvehicles; and provide new energyoptions. Other programs in titles III, IV,V, and VI of EPA 92 promote the

development of alternative fuels 3 andalternative fueled vehicles (‘‘AFVs’’).4

Two provisions in title IV of EPA 92require that information on alternativefuels and AFVs be made available toconsumers. In one provision, section406(a) of EPA 92 directs theCommission to issue a rule establishinguniform labeling requirements, to thegreatest extent practicable, foralternative fuels and alternative fueledvehicles.5 The Act does not specify whatinformation should be displayed onthese labels. Instead, it providesgenerally that the rule must requiredisclosure of ‘‘appropriate,’’ ‘‘useful,’’and ‘‘timely’’ cost and benefitinformation on ‘‘simple’’ labels.6 Thepurpose of the labeling requirements isto enable consumers to make reasonablechoices and comparisons. Informulating the rule, the Commissionmust consider the problems associatedwith developing and publishing therequired information, taking intoaccount lead time, costs, frequency ofchanges in costs and benefits that mayoccur, and other relevant factors. Whereappropriate, the labels required bysection 406(a) are to be consolidatedwith other labels providing informationto consumers. EPA 92 requires theCommission to update its labelingrequirements ‘‘periodically to reflect themost recent available information.’’ 7

A second and complementaryprovision directs the Secretary of Energy(‘‘DOE’’) to develop an informationpackage for consumers.8 Specifically,section 405 of EPA 92 requires DOE toproduce and make available aninformation package for consumers to

help them choose among alternativefuels and AFVs.9 DOE’s informationpackage must provide ‘‘relevant andobjective’’ information addressing‘‘motor vehicle characteristics and fuelcharacteristics as compared to gasoline’’(including environmental performance,energy efficiency, domestic content,cost, maintenance requirements,reliability, and safety), informationabout the conversion of conventionalmotor vehicles to AFVs, and ‘‘suchother information as the Secretary [ofDOE] determines is reasonable andnecessary to help promote the use ofalternative fuels in motor vehicles.’’ 10

This is the Commission’s secondrulemaking concerning labelingrequirements for alternative fuels. In aseparate proceeding also required byEPA 92,11 the Commission extended therequirements of its former OctaneRule 12 (renamed the ‘‘Fuel RatingRule’’) beyond gasoline to include liquidalternative fuels.13 As a result, retailersof such fuels are now required, amongother things, to post labels identifyingthe commonly used name of the fueland the amount, expressed as aminimum percentage by volume, of thefuel’s principal component.14

II. Public ParticipationEPA 92 required the Commission, in

formulating its labeling requirements, to‘‘obtain the views of affected industries,consumer organizations, Federal andState agencies, and others.’’ 15 It alsorequired the Commission to issue aNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’)in consultation with DOE, theAdministrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (‘‘EPA’’), and theSecretary of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’)

26927Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

16 Id. Commission staff consulted with staff fromDOE, EPA, and DOT’s National Highway TrafficSafety Administration while developing its initialand supplemental labeling proposals.

17 58 FR 64914.18 59 FR 24014.19 59 FR 59666.20 Commission’s Rulemaking Record No.

R311002. Comments submitted in response to theSNPR are coded either ‘‘I’’ (indicating that theywere filed by nongovernmental parties) or ‘‘J’’(indicating that they were filed by governmentalagencies). Written comments submitted in responseto prior Federal Register notices are coded either‘‘D’’ or ‘‘E’’ (in response to the ANPR) or ‘‘G’’ or ‘‘H’’(in response to the NPR). Written requests toparticipate in the Workshop are coded ‘‘A.’’ TheWorkshop transcript is filed in category ‘‘L.’’Information placed on the public record byCommission staff is coded ‘‘B.’’

In this notice, comments are cited by identifyingthe commenter (by abbreviation), the commentnumber, and the relevant page number(s), e.g.,‘‘RFA, I–3, 1–3.’’ Supplemental comments filedafter the Workshop are designated as (Supp.), e.g.,‘‘RFA (Supp.), G–5, 1.’’ Discussion in the Workshopis cited by identifying the party, a reference to thetranscript, and the relevant page number(s), e.g.,‘‘EPA (Tr.), 184.’’ Staff submissions are cited byidentifying the document number, relevant pagenumber(s), and document date, e.g., ‘‘B–13, 3, Jan.25, 1994.’’

21 58 FR 64914, 64915.22 59 FR 24015–24017.23 59 FR 24014, 24020.24 AAMA, 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 (onbehalf of unidentified clients in the automotiveindustry); EMA, A–3 (request submitted by NealGerber & Eisenberg); ETC, A–11 (request submittedby 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 DownstreamAlternatives, Inc.); UCS, A–15.

25 The law firm Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellottdid not file a written comment.

26 Lois E. Bennett, GM; Timothy D. Davis,Columbia Gas (representing AGA/NGVC); RobertGraham 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 BostonEdison); Paul McArdle, DOE; Denise McCourt, API;Patrick O’Connor, Kent & O’Connor (representingNAFA); Larry D. Osgood, Phillips 66 PropaneCompany (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., VanNess Feldman (representing ETC); Kenneth L.Zerafa, EPA. Philip J. Harter, Esq., served as theWorkshop’s moderator.

27 The NPR announced that the Workshop wouldtake place over two days, but the participantsconcluded discussing the agenda staff had preparedin one day. As a result, the Workshop’s second daywas cancelled. (Tr.), 238.

28 59 FR 24014, 24023.29 AAMA, AGA/NGVC, Boston Edison, CAS,

EMA, Flxible, NPGA, and RFA.30 Two commenters endorsed the Commission’s

reliance on the Workshop transcript in itspreparation of the SNPR. See API, I–15, cover letterat 3 (‘‘We believe the issues expressed in the July[Workshop] were fairly addressed by the FTC in its[SNPR].’’); RFA, I–3, 2 (‘‘We believe that thechanges reflected in the revised final rule werejustified based on written comments and theinformation covered at the public workshop.’’).

within eighteen months after October24, 1992 (the statute’s enactment date).16

To comply with those requirements, theCommission received information fromthe public relating to this proceedingfrom five sources: written commentsfiled in response to an Advanced Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’)published on December 10, 1993,17

written comments filed in response toan NPR published on May 9, 1994,18

testimony during a Public Workshop-Conference (‘‘Workshop’’) held on July20, 1994, supplemental writtencomments filed after the Workshop, andwritten comments filed in response to aSupplemental Notice of ProposedRulemaking (‘‘SNPR’’) published onNovember 18, 1994.19 All suchinformation (i.e., the written commentsand Workshop transcript) was placed onthe public record of this proceeding.The discussion below includesinformation from all five sources, aswell as documents placed on the publicrecord by the Commission’s staff.20 TheCommission considered all thesematerials in developing this finallabeling rule.

A. The Commission’s ANPR

In its ANPR, the Commission soughtwritten comment on basic issues raisedby section 406(a)’s mandate.Accordingly, it requested comment onissues relating to which fuels andvehicles should be covered by thelabeling requirements (i.e., the proposedrule’s scope), and what informationshould be required to be displayed onlabels (i.e., the proposed rule’s

disclosures).21 The Commission alsosought comment on how the labelingrequirements should be updated, andthe extent to which the labels should beconsolidated with other labels providinginformation to consumers. In response,the Commission received 28 writtencomments addressing these issues. Thecomments were summarized in theCommission’s NPR.22

B. The Commission’s NPRThe Commission considered written

comments responding to the ANPR indeveloping its initial labeling proposal,which was published in the FederalRegister as the Commission’s NPR. TheNPR announced the substance ofproposed labeling requirements and aproposed rule implementing section406(a)’s mandate. In that NPR, theCommission invited interested personsto submit written comments on anyissue of fact, law or policy that mighthave bearing upon the proposedlabeling requirements. In response, theCommission received 37 writtencomments addressing the Commission’sproposal. The comments responding tothe NPR were summarized in theCommission’s SNPR.

C. Public Workshop-ConferenceThe Commission announced in the

NPR that its staff would conduct aWorkshop to afford staff and interestedparties an opportunity to discuss issuesraised in the rulemaking proceeding.23

The Workshop was not intended toachieve a consensus of opinion amongparticipants or between participants andCommission staff with respect to anyissue. Instead, its purpose was toexamine publicly areas of significantcontroversy or divergent opinions thatwere raised in the written comments.

Twenty-one interested parties timelysubmitted written requests to participatein the Workshop.24 Twenty of thoseparties filed written comments asrequired,25 and all twenty were invitedto participate. Two parties (Chrysler andGreenpeace) subsequently elected not to

attend, and, as a result, individualsrepresenting eighteen interested partiesparticipated at the Workshop.26 TheWorkshop was held on July 20, 1994, atthe Commission’s headquarters and wasconducted as announced in the NPR.27

D. Post-Workshop CommentsIn its NPR, the Commission

announced that Workshop participantswould be permitted one week to filesupplemental written commentsaddressing concerns raised during theWorkshop.28 Eight participants electedto file such comments.29 TheCommission also announced that afterreviewing written comments received inresponse to the NPR, the Workshoptranscript, and the post-Workshopcomments, it would publish an SNPR.The SNPR would propose the text of alabeling rule and allow the public anopportunity to comment on the revisedlabeling proposal.

E. Supplemental Notice of ProposedRulemaking

The Commission considered writtencomments on the public record, theWorkshop transcript,30 and staffsubmissions in developing a revisedlabeling proposal, which was publishedin the Federal Register as theCommission’s SNPR. The SNPRannounced modifications to theCommission’s initial labeling proposaland the specific language of a proposedlabeling rule. The Commission invitedinterested persons to submit written


31 Ford Motor Company (‘‘Ford’’), I–4; ElectroAutomotive (‘‘Electro Auto’’), I–7; Toyota MotorCorporation (‘‘Toyota’’), I–11; Chrysler Corporation(‘‘Chrysler’’), I–13.

32 Mobil Oil Corporation (‘‘Mobil’’), I–2; UnocalCorporation (‘‘Unocal’’), I–5; CommercialElectronics NGV Systems Division (‘‘Comm Elec’’),I–8; Boston Edison and Edison Electric Institute(submitted by Larson and Curry) (‘‘Boston Edison/EEI’’), I–14.

33 U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’), J–1; Cityof Chicago, Illinois (‘‘Chicago’’), J–2; California AirResources Board (‘‘CARB’’), J–3; U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration, EnergyEnd Use and Integrated Statistics Division (‘‘EIA/EEU-ISD’’), J–4; U.S. Department of Transportation,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(‘‘DOT/NHTSA’’), J–5.

34 Center for Auto Safety (‘‘CAS’’), I–12.35 Renewable Fuels Association (submitted by

Downstream Alternatives, Inc.) (‘‘RFA’’), I–3;Engine Manufacturers Association (submitted byNeal Gerber & Eisenberg) (‘‘EMA’’), I–6; ElectricTransportation Coalition (submitted by Van NessFeldman) (‘‘ETC’’), I–9; National Association ofFleet Administrators, Inc. (‘‘NAFA’’), I–10;American Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’), I–15;American Automobile Manufacturers Association(‘‘AAMA’’), I–16; American Gas Association andNatural Gas Vehicle Coalition (‘‘AGA/NGVC’’), I–18; Natural Gas Vehicle Producers Association(‘‘NGVPA’’), I–19.

36 E. A. Mechtly, Ph.D., Engineering Educator,University of Illinois (‘‘Mechtly’’), I–1; Louis F.Sokol, CAMS, Metrification Consultant (‘‘Sokol’’),I–17.

37 ETC, G–24, 6; NAFA, G–20, 3–5; NPGA (Tr.),188–89. CAS suggested that the Commission require

AFV dealers and conversion companies to providecopies of the DOE package to consumers, and thatconsumers acknowledge receipt by signing adesignated sales document. CAS, G–17, 7; (Tr.),174; (Supp.), G–17, 4. See also CAS, I–12, 1 (FTCshould ‘‘encourage availability’’ of DOE brochure atAFV dealerships). CAS also proposed that the AFVlabel advise consumers that a free copy of the DOEbrochure is available from the dealer. CAS (Supp.),G–17, 4. ETC also suggested, however, that dealerswould find it in their interest to have the DOEbrochures available to consumers. ETC (Tr.), 168.

38 40 CFR 600.401–77 to 600.407–77 (1993).39 See 15 U.S.C. 2006(b)(2) (‘‘The EPA

Administrator * * * shall prescribe rules requiringdealers to make available to prospective purchasers[fuel economy information] compiled by the EPAAdministrator under paragraph (1).’’).

40 The Commission notes, however, that a DOEofficial at the Workshop stated that DOE wouldconsider distributing copies of the informationpackage to AFV dealerships. DOE (Tr.), 227–28. Inits comment, RFA wrote to ‘‘encourage some formalreview process’’ of that brochure by industry. RFA,I–3, 2.

41 AGA/NGVC, G–6, 11 (requiring disclosuresonly for AFVs could unnecessarily raise consumerconcerns about these products).

42 NAFA, I–10, 2; G–20, 2 (‘‘For example, whena representative of a conversion company meetswith a consumer to offer to convert a vehicle, therepresentative would provide the consumer withthe appropriate information in a format similar tothe vehicle label.’’). NAFA based this suggestion onits concern that consumers would not always beable to inspect labels prior to acquisition. Id.

43 NACAA, H–6, 2. The Commission also believesthat one suggestion (that it develop an informationbulletin discussing pertinent considerations), whilenot beyond its authority, may not be necessarybecause of DOE’s mandate to complete the sametask. CEC, H–8, 1–2, 6; NAFA, G–20, 3. In anyevent, the Commission normally issues consumereducation materials after new rules are issued, and

that will be considered when this proceeding iscompleted.

44 AAMA, I–16, 6.45 These are the only non-liquid fuels defined as

‘‘alternative fuels’’ in EPA 92. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)(Supp. IV 1993).

46 Five other comments generally supported allaspects of the Commission’s alternative fuelslabeling proposal without addressing this specificissue. Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4; Chicago, J–2, 2–3; DOE, J–1, 2; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1; RFA, I–3, 2.In addition, comments on an earlier Commissionproposal similarly supported limiting the scope ofthis proceeding to non-liquid alternative fuels. 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.

47 Chicago, J–2, 2–3.48 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV 1993).49 U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Taking An Alternative

Route, B–33.50 The purpose of the EPA 92 amendments to

Title II of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act,15 U.S.C. 2821–2825, was to give purchasersinformation they need to choose the correct type orgrade of fuel for their vehicles. 58 FR 41356.Section 406(a)’s purpose is to provide consumerswith appropriate cost and benefit information toenable them to make informed choices amongalternative fuels and AFVs. 59 FR 59666.

comments until December 19, 1994,addressing any issue they believedmight bear upon the proposed rule. Asdescribed below, the Commissionreceived 24 written comments inresponse to its SNPR from vehiclemanufacturers,31 fuel producers,32

governmental entities,33 a consumerorganization,34 organizationsrepresenting affected interests,35 andother interested individuals.36

III. Labeling Requirements Proposed inthe SNPR

A. Comment Suggestions BeyondCommission’s Authority Under EPA 92

As noted previously, section 406(a)directs the Commission to establishlabeling requirements for alternativefuels and AFVs disclosing cost andbenefit information. Because thisrulemaking proceeding is mandated bystatute, the Commission’s authority islimited to what is authorized by EPA 92.During this proceeding, however,several commenters suggestedregulatory options that are beyond theCommission’s statutory authoritybecause they involve matters other thanlabeling requirements, alternative fuelsor AFVs, and cost and benefitinformation.

For example, several commenterssuggested that the Commission requireAFV dealers to have copies of the DOEbrochure available for consumerinspection and use.37 These commenters

believed that the Commission couldmodel such a requirement on anexisting EPA regulation directingautomobile dealers to make availablefree copies of EPA’s Gas Mileage Guide(a booklet comparing the fuel economyof similarly-sized new automobiles).38

Such a requirement does not appear tobe reasonably within section 406(a)’sscope, which is limited to uniformlabeling requirements. In any event, theCommission notes that EPA’s regulationwas promulgated pursuant to a specificCongressional directive that EPA requiredealers to provide such information toconsumers.39 In the absence of a similarCongressional directive, theCommission believes that such arequirement may be beyond itsauthority under EPA 92.40

For similar reasons, the Commissionhas also concluded that requiring any ofthe following may exceed its authorityunder EPA 92: (1) labeling forconventional fueled vehicles; 41 (2) thatinformation on AFV labels be providedto consumers (in a non-label format) atthe time an AFV is offered for sale; 42 (3)that ‘‘all pertinent information’’ (e.g.,fuel hazards, tank capacity, refueling orrecharging time, and cruising range) bedisclosed in vehicle owners’ manuals; 43

and (4) that a ‘‘simple card’’ describingfactors consumers should considerbefore acquiring an AFV be placedwithin new and used vehicles.44

B. Labeling Requirements for AlternativeFuels

1. Scope of the Labeling Requirements

In the SNPR, the Commissionproposed that the scope of its labelingrequirements extend to three non-liquidalternative fuels: compressed natural gas(‘‘CNG’’), hydrogen gas (‘‘hydrogen’’)and electricity.45 One commentaddressed this aspect of theCommission’s proposal.46 For safetyreasons, that comment recommendedthat the Commission limit the scope ofthe rule to alternative fuels that havebeen tested and approved for use byEPA.47 The Commission notes that EPA92 specifically defines the term‘‘alternative fuel’’ to include the threefuels at issue; 48 and because they arereadily available, DOE identifies themand encourages their use in itsliterature.49 Furthermore, other thanemission certification procedures, EPAhas no procedures for certifying fuels asbeing safe for use.

The Commission’s SNPR proposalwas limited to non-liquid fuels becausethe Commission’s Fuel Rating Rulecontains labeling requirements forliquid alternative fuels. Further, theCommission proposed requirements forthe non-liquid fuels that are similar tothe Fuel Rating Rule’s requirements forliquid alternative fuels. Although thatrule serves a somewhat differentpurpose,50 the Commission believes thatharmonizing labeling requirements,


51 See 59 FR 59666, 59669–59670 for a generaldescription of the qualities of the alternative fuelscovered by the final rule.

52 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).53 The Secretary of the Department of Energy has

the responsibility to designate, by rule, new fuelsas alternative fuels. 42 U.S.C. 13211(2) (Supp. IV1993).

54 See proposed rule §§ 309.1(q) and 309.15, 59FR 59666, 59704, 59706.

55 59 FR 59666, 59671–59672.56 CNG vehicle fuel is composed primarily of

methane with small percentages of ethane, propane,butane, nitrogen, helium, carbon dioxide andhydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen vehicle fuel iscomposed primarily of hydrogen, with very smallpercentages of water, oxygen, and nitrogen.

57 Under the international system of units, ‘‘themole is the amount of substance of a system which

contains as many elementary entities as there areatoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12. When themole is used, the elementary entities must bespecified and may be atoms, molecules, ions,electrons, other particles, or specified groups ofsuch 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 ‘‘NIST Publication 330’’), B–43, 4–5.

58 16 CFR 306.10(b)(1) and 306.10(f) (1994).59 59 FR 59666, 59671. See AAMA (Tr.), 37, 62

(label should identify the fuel), 81 (at this time aminimum methane content disclosure isappropriate); Flxible (Tr.), 74, (Supp.), G–12, 2(dispensers for CNG should be labeled with theminimum methane content due to the requirementsdictated by some engine manufacturers to meetperformance and emissions certification levels);RFA, G–5, 3; Sun, G–1, 1.

60 59 FR 59666, 59671. See API, G–25, 1–3 (untila private, voluntary, consensus standardsorganization develops specifications for alternativefuels, additional disclosure requirements areinappropriate; expand Fuel Rating Rule to covernon-liquid alternative fuels to encourage fuel-neutral regulatory scheme; and labeling of principalcomponent may provide useful information toconsumers); EIA/EEU–ISD, H–2, 1 (expressedgeneral support for the proposed rule); Mobil, G–2, 1–3 (the proposed label is consistent with theFuel Rating Rule, and no other disclosures shouldbe required); NAFA, G–20, 1 (endorses a uniformlabeling requirement for alternative fuels); NPGA,G–18, 2–3 (extremely important that all alternativefuels be subject to essentially identicalrequirements, and the Commission’s proposal issufficient under the statutory requirements), (Tr.)48–49 (issue is how to get the consumer to thecorrect pump, and in that respect, the orange labelsfor liquid alternative fuels do an effective job);Phillips 66, G–15, 1; RFA, G–5, 2–3 (the benefit ofproviding additional information beyond thatproposed is not well established), (Tr.), 28, 31, 38,(Supp.), G–5, 1 (the current labeling requirementsfor alternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule areadequate and the same labeling requirementsshould be extended to gaseous fuels); SIGMA, G–23, 1 (supports the proposed requirements andurges the Commission to adopt the proposed rulewithout change); Sun, G–1, 1–2 (agrees with theCommission’s proposal to extend the Fuel RatingRule labeling requirements to non-liquid alternativefuels thereby placing equal regulatory requirementson all alternative fuels).

61 See Flxible (Tr.), 74–77.

62 59 FR 59666, 59671.63 Unlike the other alternative fuels, the electricity

used to recharge the batteries that power electricvehicles is not dispensed from a conventional fuelpump. It is dispensed from an electrical dispenseror recharging station and produces differentphysical effects depending on the type of dispenseror charging equipment through which it isdispensed. Therefore, the Commission recognizedthat electricity used as a vehicle fuel might have tobe rated in accordance with the characteristics ofthe specific electrical dispenser or rechargingstation.

64 See proposed rule §§ 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15, 59FR 59666, 59704, 59706.

65 The specific bases for the Commission’s SNPRproposal are discussed in more detail at 59 FR59666, 59671–59672.

66 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4; Chicago, J–2, 2–3;DOE, J–1, 2; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1; RFA, I–3, 2.

67 API, I–15, 2; Mobil, I–2, 3.

when practicable, is appropriate. Thus,the Commission’s SNPR proposal hadthe effect of imposing labelingrequirements on non-liquid alternativefuels that are similar to those thatcurrently exist for liquid alternativefuels.

After considering the record, theCommission has determined that thescope of the rule shall be limited to thenon-liquid alternative fuels CNG,hydrogen and electricity.51 This willresult in equal, uniform, fuel-neutrallabeling requirements for all alternativefuels that are currently used orcontemplated for use as automotivefuels. Further, in accordance withsection 406(a)’s directive to review therule ‘‘periodically to reflect the mostrecent available information,’’ 52 theCommission will supplement the list ofcovered fuels if and when DOEdesignates new non-liquid fuels asalternative fuels.53

2. Label Disclosures for Non-liquidAlternative Fuels

a. SNPR proposals. In the SNPR, theCommission proposed that retailersselling CNG, hydrogen and electricity toconsumers post standard labelsidentifying the commonly used namesof those fuels on public fuel dispensers(including electric dispensers used torecharge batteries in electric vehicles).54

The labels would be placedconspicuously in full view of consumers(i.e., ultimate purchasers) and as near asreasonably practical to the fuel’s unitprice disclosure. No comments weresubmitted regarding this facet of theSNPR proposal. The Commission,therefore, has determined to adopt theserequirements in the final rule for thereasons stated in the SNPR.55

With respect to CNG and hydrogen,the Commission also proposed requiringdisclosure of the fuel’s principalcomponent and permitting disclosure ofother components,56 expressed asminimum molecular percentages(‘‘minimum mole percent’’).57 These

proposals are analogous to provisions inthe Fuel Rating Rule pertaining to liquidalternative fuels.58 In the SNPR, theCommission tentatively concluded thatits proposal to require disclosure of theminimum methane content of CNGwould assist consumers in purchasingCNG that satisfies requirementsspecified by engine manufacturers tomeet performance and emissionscertification levels.59 The Commissionalso concluded that its proposal wouldbe consistent with the Fuel RatingRule’s requirements for liquidalternative fuels,60 and would assistconsumers in identifying the proper fuelfor their vehicles. The Commissionfurther noted that because CNG existswith too low a methane content to beused as a transportation fuel,61 requiringdisclosure of the minimum methanecontent would help ensure that CNG

that is not suitable for use as atransportation fuel is not inadvertentlysold for that purpose. Although CNGsold as a transportation fuel mustalways meet minimum vehicle needs,information about minimum methanecontent could help assure consumersthat the CNG they are purchasing willmeet their engines’ needs.62

The Commission also recognized thatelectricity used for recharging electricvehicle (‘‘EV’’) batteries might need tobe subject to different labelingdisclosures.63 Accordingly, forelectricity, the SNPR proposed requiringthat labels on public electric vehiclefuel dispensing systems include thecommonly used name of the fuel,kilowatt capacity, voltage, current(either AC or DC), amperage and type ofcharger (either conductive orinductive).64 In the SNPR, theCommission tentatively concluded thatsuch disclosures were the minimumoperating parameters that would benecessary to protect consumersoperating the equipment, the vehicleswhose batteries would be charged, aswell as the charging equipment.65

Sixteen comments addressed theissues raised in the SNPR. Fivecomments generally supported theCommission’s proposals in their entiretybecause if adopted, the proposals wouldprovide appropriate and usefulinformation to consumers attempting tomake alternative fuel purchasingdecisions.66 The remaining elevencomments are discussed in thefollowing section and in section III(B)(3)infra.

b. Comments on SNPR concerningCNG. Two comments questionedwhether the Commission’s SNPRproposal to require disclosure of theminimum methane content of CNGwould be helpful to consumers in theabsence of standards requiring aminimum methane content for CNGvehicle fuel.67 The Commission believes


68 Although at present CNG vehicles apparentlyare designed to run on the broad range of methanecontent in available vehicle CNG, in the futuremanufacturers may design vehicles favoringspecific, higher methane contents.

69 See final rule §§ 309.1(q)(1) and 309.15 infra.

70 Toyota, I–11, 2.71 See proposed rule § 309.15, 59 FR 59666,

59706, and final rule § 309.15 infra.72 Sokol, I–17, 1.73 CARB, J–3, 1.

74 See final rule §§ 309.1(q)(2) and 309.15 infra.75 Federal Trade Commission, Study of a Uniform

National Label for Devices That DispenseAutomotive Fuels to Consumers (1993), at 29.

76 Id., at 29 n.152.

that consensus standards specifying aminimum methane content for CNG asa vehicle fuel would be helpful, butrecognizes that they do not presentlyexist. The Commission’s proposedlabeling approach for CNG andhydrogen provides a basic measure offuel quality and, used in conjunctionwith the owner’s manual containing thevehicle manufacturer’s fuelrecommendations, it providesconsumers with the informationnecessary to select the fuel on whichtheir vehicle has been designed toperform.68

Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that the fuel rating for CNGand hydrogen must include thecommonly used name of the fuel andthe amount, expressed as a minimummolecular percentage, of the principalcomponent of the fuel. The label alsomay include a disclosure of othercomponents as minimum molecularpercentages, if desired.69 This ratingapproach will provide consumers withinformation necessary to make informedfuel purchasing decisions. It also willprovide fuel producers and marketerswith the flexibility to develop and blendfuels appropriate for location andclimate, consistent with United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency andoriginal equipment manufacturerrequirements. The Commission’s action,therefore, will assist in the developmentand use of non-liquid alternative fuelsand alternative fueled vehicles.

c. Comments on SNPR concerningelectricity. The Commission proposed inthe SNPR that the electric rechargingstation label disclose the voltage atwhich electrical power is supplied bythe electric charging equipment, themaximum current in amperes that canbe delivered, whether the chargingequipment supplies alternating or directcurrent, whether the unit is aconductive charger (a plug on a cord) oran inductive charger (a paddle in a portsystem), and the kilowatt capacity of thecharging equipment to tell consumershow quickly their vehicles can recharge.Three comments specifically related tothese proposals. One commentquestioned the need for a kilowattcapacity disclosure since consumerscould derive it from the proposedvoltage/amperage disclosure forelectricity dispensers. The commentalso recommended that when twocharging methods are available from thesame electricity dispenser (e.g., 240 vac/

40 amps and 120 vac/15 amps) theCommission should require that bothmethods be disclosed.70

An explicit kilowatt capacitydisclosure is an important dispenserparameter that is useful in assistingconsumers to determine immediatelyhow quickly their vehicles’ batterieswill recharge. Although the Commissionacknowledges that kilowatt capacity canbe calculated from the voltage/amperagedisclosure, the kilowatt capacitydisclosure obviates the need forengaging in mathematical calculationsat the dispenser. The Commission hasdecided to address the issue of theavailability of multiple chargingmethods from the same dispenser byrequiring in the final rule that they bothbe disclosed, as recommended by thecomment, but on separate labels on thedispenser.71

Another comment recommended thatthe Commission’s amperage disclosureon the label be expressed as an ‘‘A’’instead of by the word ‘‘amps,’’ asproposed.72 The Commission hasconcluded, however, that use of theword ‘‘amps’’ on the label, because it ismore descriptive than an ‘‘A,’’ maymake consumers more familiar with theelectricity refueling infrastructure and,therefore, be more useful in assistingconsumers to locate the correctelectricity dispenser. Finally, onecomment suggested that the efficiencyof electric vehicle chargers is aparameter that perhaps shouldeventually appear on charger labelsonce standardized test procedures aredeveloped to determine efficiency.73

The Commission notes that electricvehicle chargers are not 100 percentefficient. Some energy is lost to heat inthe process of converting the energy thatis supplied to the charger to a form thatis usable by the vehicle battery. TheCommission will monitor thedevelopment of standardized testprocedures to determine electric vehiclecharger efficiency, and considerincluding this factor when moreinformation becomes available.

Accordingly, after considering thecomments on its SNPR proposal, theCommission has determined that labelson public electric vehicle fueldispensing systems shall include thecommonly used name of the fuel (e.g.,electricity), kilowatt capacity, voltage,current (either AC or DC), amperage andtype of charger (either conductive or

inductive).74 Such disclosures willassist consumers in locating electric fueldispensers that are compatible withtheir vehicles, and in determining howmuch time it will take for their vehicles’batteries to recharge.

d. Summary. In summary, therequirements for CNG, hydrogen andelectricity will provide consumers withthe most important pieces ofinformation needed when refueling: fueltype and composition (or, for electricity,other relevant parameters). Although inthe absence of such requirements sellerscould be expected to identify the fuelssold, they may not do so in astandardized format that assistsconsumers in identifying the proper fuelquickly. Furthermore, it is uncertainabsent these requirements whethersellers would provide informationregarding the precise composition of thefuels, or relevant parameters of the EVfuel dispenser.

3. Label Disclosures Considered but notAdopted in Final Rule

In addition, the Commissionconcludes that other information on thefuel dispenser concerning alternativefuels is unlikely to be useful in mostinstances. For consumers withdedicated AFVs (i.e., vehicles capable ofoperating on only one fuel), theselection process between competingfuels is concluded once an AFV isacquired. Consumers driving dual orflexible fueled vehicles (i.e., vehiclescapable of being powered both by aconventional and an alternative fuel)will be limited to purchasing fuelsmeeting their engines’ requirements.Thus, providing consumers with otherinformation designed to permitcomparisons among various types ofalternative fuels is best done prior to thetime the vehicle is acquired.

Further, excluding less importantinformation avoids informationoverload. In contrast to vehiclepurchases, fuel purchases typicallyoccur in a quick transaction. In a reportto Congress assessing the need for auniform national label on fuel pumps,the Commission noted that timeconstraints may affect how consumersread, understand, and use information.75

Indeed, ‘‘studies show that less accurateinformation processing occurs undertime constraints; test subjects focus onfewer pieces of information and undulyemphasize negative information.’’ 76

Simplicity therefore is an even greater


77 EMA, I–6, 2–4.78 Comm Elec, I–8, 2–7.79 API, I–15, 1.

80 59 FR 59666, 59673. See AGA/NGVC, I–18,Attachment at 8 (The antiknock performance ofnatural gas is best for pure methane or methane/inert gas mixtures, and declines somewhat withincreasing concentrations of non-methanehydrocarbons. This effect is not usually significantfor the typical range of pipeline gas composition,but may become important [in the future] in high-compression engines burning unprocessed gas orpropane-air mixtures).

81 AGA/NGVC, G–6, 5–6 (octane levels for naturalgas are not likely to vary at different retailers); andPhillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49–50.

82 AGA/NGVC, I–18, Attachment at 8 (no standardoctane testing methods exist for natural gas);Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 49–50 (there are nostandards for determining the octane ratings of CNGor hydrogen).

83 API, I–15, 1; Mobil, I–2, 2 (In summary,comparative type cost data are not conducive to fuellabeling. Labels that provide consumer informationalready exist today in the form of pricinginformation that enables consumers to makechoices and comparisons as required by section 406of EPA 92. The National Conference on Weights andMeasures is currently in the process of setting themeasurement standard for alternative fuels. Auniform unit of measure, such as the gasolineequivalent gallon, will provide consumersadditional economic information helpful in makinginformed purchasing decisions).

84 59 FR 59666, 59673–59674 (e.g., GGEdisclosures are not conducive to keeping the fuellabel simple, as required by EPA 92; thisinformation is more an equipment metering issuethat is more properly addressed by weights andmeasures organizations; the energy content of afuel, as measured by its BTU rating, does not alwaysaccurately reflect actual fuel economy).

85 API, I–15, 1.86 59 FR 59666, 59674 (e.g., cruising range is not

necessarily less when operating on an alternativefuel; a general statement on a fuel dispenser labelrelating to cruising range would not providesufficient comparative information to consumers toenable them to make reasonable purchasing choicesand comparisons between fuels of the same type).

consideration in the labeling of fuelsthan in the labeling of AFVs.

In formulating its labelingrequirements, the Commission sought toreconcile several competing concerns.As noted previously, EPA 92 directs theCommission to develop uniform labelsdisclosing appropriate cost and benefitinformation. However, in determiningwhat information is appropriate, theCommission must consider theproblems associated with developingand publishing such information onsimple labels. Given this context, andafter considering the comments, theCommission considered and rejected inthe SNPR several alternative disclosuresfor dispenser labels suggested byvarious comments. The SNPR generatedadditional comments, however, asdiscussed below. An analysis of thesecomments has not persuaded theCommission to require any of thepreviously rejected disclosures.

a. Octane rating. In the SNPR, theCommission rejected a proposal that itrequire the posting of octane ratings fornon-liquid alternative fuels. Threecomments were submitted in responseto that tentative determination in theSNPR. To prevent commercial, heavy-duty vehicle and fleet operators frommisfueling and experiencing relatedproblems, EMA recommended that theCommission require the posting ofoctane ratings for all non-liquidalternative fuels.77 Due to the variabilityin the fuel quality of natural gas,Commercial Electronics recommendedthat the Commission require disclosureof CNG’s octane rating.78 API, however,stated that the non-liquid alternativefuel dispenser labels should not includeoctane ratings.79

After considering the commentssubmitted, the Commission hasdetermined not to require the posting ofoctane ratings for CNG and hydrogen.To the extent that commercial fleetoperators have their own fuelingfacilities, they can specify a requiredoctane rating and insist in contractswith their suppliers that they determinesuch rating by an agreed method for thefuel purchased. Commercial operatorsmight also obtain such information if,for example, it were posted voluntarilyon fuel dispensers. Generally, however,as explained in the SNPR, theCommission concludes that octaneratings for alternative fuels are highenough to avoid engine knock problemsin vehicles presently designed to usealternative fuels, and such ratings donot provide significant information

relevant to vehicle performance ofalternative fueled vehicles.80 Inaddition, the octane ratings of a giventype of alternative fuel would not varysignificantly.81 Further, there might bepractical problems in implementing areliable octane certification and postingprogram for alternative liquidautomotive fuels, because of the lack ofa standardized test method, such as anASTM-approved test method fordetermining octane ratings of suchfuels.82

There also are significantdisadvantages to requiring octaneposting and certification for alternativefuels. In particular, the Commission isreluctant to require a disclosure thatmight mislead consumers about thebenefits of alternative fuels, the octaneratings of which exceed those ofgasoline. Further, it might fosterconsumer misperceptions that higheroctane necessarily signifies higherquality and better performance. Such adisclosure also might cause consumersto believe that gasoline and alternativefuels are interchangeable, or thatdifferent alternative fuels areinterchangeable with one another.

b. Comparative information basedupon BTUs or gasoline-gallon-equivalents. In the SNPR, theCommission considered but rejectedproposals that the Commission requirethe use of alternative fuel labels thateither: (1) advise consumers of the priceof an alternative fuel and the quantity ofthe alternative fuel dispensed in termsof gasoline-gallon-equivalent (‘‘GGE’’)units based on the energy contents ofthe alternative fuels, or (2) identify theheating value or energy content of a fuelexpressed in British thermal units(‘‘BTUs’’). In response to the SNPR, thetwo comments addressing this issuesupported the Commission’s position,recommending that the Commission notadopt a labeling approach that wouldrequire disclosure of comparativeinformation based upon BTUs or

gasoline-gallon-equivalents.83

Accordingly, for the reasons stated inthe SNPR, the Commission is notrequiring such disclosures on fueldispenser labels.84

c. Performance effects (cruisingrange). In the SNPR, the Commissionconsidered and rejected a proposal thatthe Commission require fuel dispenserlabels to advise consumers that thecruising range of a vehicle whenrunning on an alternative fuel will beless than when the vehicle is running ongasoline, due to the alternative fuel’slower energy content. In response to theSNPR, the one comment addressing thisissue supported the Commission’sposition, opposing a requirement thatdispenser labels include performanceeffects of the non-liquid alternativefuel.85 Accordingly, for the reasonsstated in the SNPR, the Commission isnot requiring disclosure of performanceeffects as an element of fuel dispenserlabels.86

However, the Commission recognizesthat information relating to cruisingrange would be useful to consumerswhen choosing a vehicle or decidingwhether to convert an existing vehicleto an alternative fuel. Therefore, theCommission has determined thatinformation relating to cruising rangewould be appropriate on labels it isrequiring for covered AFVs, asdiscussed in section III(C) infra.

d. Compliance with materialspecifications. In the SNPR, theCommission rejected a proposal that itrequire that dispenser labels indicatewhether the fuel meets the alternativefuel specifications defined by theCalifornia Air Resources Board in


87 See Specifications for Compressed Natural Gas,Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section2292.5 (1993), B–41; Specifications for Hydrogen,Title 13, California Code of Regulations, section2292.7 (1993), B–42.

88 59 FR 59666, 59674.89 Society of Automotive Engineers,

‘‘Recommended Practice for Compressed NaturalGas Vehicle Fuel,’’ SAE J1616, B–40, 16.

90 AAMA, I–16, 7–8; EMA, I–6, 2–4; NGVPA, I–19, 1.

91 AMI, G–3, 2; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51.92 API, I–15, 1.93 59 FR 59666, 59675 (e.g., a statement on a fuel

dispenser label advising consumers of theenvironmental benefits of alternative fuels wouldnot provide sufficient information to assistconsumers in making choices and comparisonsbetween fuels of the same type).

94 59 FR 59666, 59675. See Flxible (Supp.), G–12,2; Thomas BB, G–10, 1; Phillips 66/NPGA (Tr.), 51;AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 103–104.

95 AAMA, I–16, 8; NGVPA, I–19, 1.96 See ANSI/AGA NGV1–1994 American National

Standard For Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle(NGV) Fueling Connection Devices, attached toAGA/NGVC’s comment, G–6.

97 ANSI/NFPA 52 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)Vehicular Fuel Systems, 1992, B–39. See alsoStookey, An Analysis of the 1994 Uniform FireCode Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. GasFuels, June 1994, B–48, 27–30.

98 59 FR 59666, 59675.99 EMA, I–6, 3.100 For example, in July 1993, the voting

membership of the Uniform Fire Code (‘‘UFC’’) andUniform Fire Code Standards adopted newregulations for the design, construction andoperation of CNG motor vehicle fuel-dispensingstations. The UFC voting membership is ademocratic code development organization thatincludes fire and building officials, designprofessionals, equipment manufacturers and tradeorganizations. The UFC’s minimum requirementsare primarily based on the requirements of NFPA52, ‘‘Standard for CNG Vehicular Fueling Systems,’’1992 edition. The Uniform Fire Code Standards area model code that establishes requirements forbuilding and site fire protection, the safe storageand use of hazardous materials, and the fire safetyand fire protection designs of the Uniform BuildingCode. Article 52 of the 1994 UFC addresses thedesign, construction, commissioning and operation

1993.87 In rejecting the proposal, theCommission stated, in part, thatCalifornia’s specifications were notdeveloped by a consensus process, weredeveloped for California’s particularneeds and, therefore, may not bepractical for the rest of the country.88 Inthe SNPR, the Commission also rejecteda proposal that CNG dispenser labelsindicate whether the fuel meets theSociety of Automotive Engineers’(‘‘SAE’’) ‘‘recommended practice’’ forCNG called J1616. In rejecting thatproposal, the Commission stated thatrecommended practice SAE J1616 wasissued as a guide to address thecomposition of natural gas used as anautomotive fuel, not as a standard forCNG. The guide states it anticipates thata CNG standard will evolve, butemphasizes that experience and moretechnical knowledge are needed.89

Three comments responded to thosedeterminations in the SNPR. Thesecomments stated that inasmuch asconsistent fuel quality is required toensure proper vehicle operation,including emissions control, theCommission should require thatdispenser labels indicate compliance ornon-compliance with fuel qualityspecifications and refueling equipmentstandards, with specific references toeach, when they are developed for CNGand hydrogen.90 A disclosure based onaccepted and approved fuelspecifications and standards couldprovide meaningful comparativeinformation to consumers relating to thequality of the fuel they are purchasing.However, the aforementioned commentsappear to confirm that adequate,generally accepted standards andspecifications suitable for nationwideuse do not presently exist for mostalternative fuels, and specifically do notexist for CNG or hydrogen. Therefore,the Commission has determined not torequire that fuel dispenser labelsguarantee the delivery of fuels meetingcertain specifications.

The Commission, however, continuesto favor the development ofspecifications and standards that definealternative fuels by a consensusstandards-setting organization, such asASTM, or by a government agency withappropriate engineering and technical

expertise to set such specifications andstandards for nationwide use. This typeof standards development wouldinclude participation by affected partiessuch as alternative fuel producers andproviders, engine manufacturers,regulators, consumers, andorganizations or government agencieswith pertinent technical expertise. Italso would provide a mechanism forevaluating proposed test methods andprocedures necessary to determinecompliance with the standards. TheCommission will monitor thedevelopment of alternative fuelstandards and consider including themas an element of the dispenser labelswhen more information becomesavailable.

e. Environmental benefits (emissions).In the SNPR, the Commissionconsidered and rejected a proposal thatthe Commission require fuel dispenserlabels to generally advise consumers ofthe environmental benefits of alternativefuels.91 In response to the SNPR, the onecomment addressing this issuesupported the Commission’s position.92

Accordingly, for the reasons stated inthe SNPR, the Commission is notrequiring that fuel dispenser labelsindicate the environmental benefits ofalternative fuels.93

However, the Commission recognizesthat information relating to emissionsand the environmental benefits ofalternative fuels would be useful toconsumers when choosing analternatively fueled vehicle or decidingwhether to convert an existing vehicleto an alternative fuel. Therefore, theCommission has determined thatinformation relating to emissions wouldbe appropriate on the labels it isrequiring for covered AFVs, asdiscussed in section III(C) infra.

f. Pressure. In the SNPR, theCommission considered and rejected aproposal that the Commission requireCNG dispenser labels to display thefueling pressure, either 2,400, 3,000 or3,600 P.S.I. (pounds per square inch),and the nozzle type to indicate whetherdispenser fueling pressure is compatiblewith CNG vehicle tank storagepressure.94 The two comments on theCommission’s SNPR proposaladdressing this issue recommended that

the Commission require that CNGdispenser labels indicate the nozzle typeand corresponding fill pressure of theCNG dispenser, to avoid consumerinconvenience at the CNG fueling site.95

The Commission agrees that fuelingpressure is useful information. Theindustry, however, already has takenindependent steps to address this issue.Specifically, the industry has developedstandards for pressure coding dispenser/vehicle CNG connectors so thatconsumers will not be able to overfuela low pressure vehicle from a highpressure dispenser.96 Further, the use ofstandard CNG vehicle fuelingconnectors complying with the ANSI/AGA NGV1 specification is required atpublic dispensing points by NationalFire Protection Association safetystandard 52 (‘‘NFPA 52’’), which is afire code adopted by most, if not all,states.97 Accordingly, the Commissionhas determined that requiring thedisclosure of fueling pressure andnozzle type on CNG dispenser labels isunnecessary at this time.

g. Safety warnings. In the SNPR, theCommission considered but rejectedproposing safety warnings as an elementof the alternative fuel labels.98 The onecomment on the Commission’s SNPRproposal addressing this issuerecommended that the Commissionrequire that non-liquid alternative fueldispenser labels include informationabout the fuel’s potential hazards andlimitations on use.99

The Commission notes that safetystandards for operation of motor vehiclefuel-dispensing stations are covered bythe Uniform Fire Code.100 Further, to


of all motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations. SeeStookey, An Analysis of the 1994 Uniform FireCode Requirements for CNG Fuel Stations, Nat. GasFuels, June 1994, B–48, 27.

101 59 FR 59666, 59675 (e.g., this information canbe expected to be provided voluntarily).

102 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 8–11.

103 Id. AGA/NGVC had previously opposed aWobbe number disclosure, stating it would be sodifficult to explain that consumers would not findit useful (AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 43).

104 AGA/NGVC, I–18, Attachment at 5.105 See proposed rule § 309.17, 59 FR 59666,

59706–59707. Several comments received duringthis proceeding had recommended that labels fornon-liquid alternative fuels follow the same sizeand format requirements as those for liquidalternative fuels under the Fuel Rating Rule. Thereasons given for keeping the requirements thesame were: to promote consistency, fairness andequity, and to keep information simple so thatconsumers can easily understand the labels (AGA/NGVC, G–6, 8; API, G–25, 4; Mobil, G–2, 4; NPGA,

G–18, 4; RFA, G–5, 4; SIGMA, G–23, 1; Sun, G–1,2; Thomas BB, G–10, 2).

106 16 CFR 306.12 (1994).107 In the NPR, the Commission proposed and

rejected the idea of consolidating the non-liquidalternative fuel labels with other mandatory labels(59 FR 24014, 24018). The one comment addressingthis issue agreed that consolidation would appearto provide no benefit and would only lead to publicconfusion (TVA, H–5, 1).

108 API, I–15, 4; Mobil, I–2, 5.109 See 59 FR 59666, 59676. See also final rule

§ 309.17 infra.110 See proposed rule §§ 309.10–309.16, 59 FR

59666, 59704–59706.111 See 59 FR 59666, 59676–59679.

some extent, the fuel labelingrequirements, particularly those forelectric vehicle (‘‘EV’’) public dispensersystems, implicitly consider safetyissues for refueling by directingconsumers to the proper fuel dispenser.Beyond this (and fire code requirementsthat are already in place), consumersmay find safety information aboutvarious fuels more pertinent whenpurchasing an AFV than whenrefueling. Thus, the Commission is notpersuaded that including a safetywarning statement on a fuel dispenserlabel would help consumers makereasonable fuel choices andcomparisons. The Commission hasdetermined that rather than require thatsafety disclosures appear on fueldispenser labels, it will require areference to DOE’s consumerinformation brochure and DOT/NHTSA’s Vehicle Safety Hotline onlabels for covered AFVs, as discussed insection III(C) infra. The DOT/NHTSAHotline acts as a clearinghouse and canrefer consumers to other sources where,for example, information can beobtained about how to safely refuel CNGvehicles. Further, the Commissionanticipates that a marketer’s refuelinginstructions, whether appearing in anAFV owner’s manual or on the fueldispenser, will discuss or incorporaterelevant safety measures. However, if inthe future information demonstrates aneed for the Commission to requiresafety-related disclosures on thedispenser labels, the Commission canrevisit this issue.

h. Refueling instructions. In theSNPR, the Commission considered butrejected proposing refueling instructionsas an element of the fuel dispenserlabels. No comments were submittedregarding this tentative determination.Therefore, for the reasons stated in theSNPR, the Commission has determinednot to require such disclosures.101

i. Wobbe number. In the SNPR, theCommission considered but rejectedproposing the Wobbe number as anelement of the CNG dispenser label. Theone comment addressing this issuerecommended that the Commissionrequire that CNG fuel dispenser labelsinclude the fuel’s Wobbe number, ameasure of its air-fuel meteringproperties.102 Although AGA/NGVCrecommended that the Commissionrequire disclosure of the Wobbenumber, it also pointed out that all gas

pipelines and utilities monitor andcontrol closely the Wobbe number ofnatural gas. For gas distributed in mostof the United States, AGA/NGVC statedthat the Wobbe number typically ismaintained between 1320 and 1360,well within the range recommended fornatural gas vehicle fuel by SAE J1616(1300–1420).103

After considering AGA/NGVC’scomment, the Commission is notpersuaded that the purported benefits toconsumers of including the Wobbenumber on CNG labels are sufficientlysignificant to justify requiring itsdisclosure. Depending on the fuelmetering technology, variations in theWobbe number may slightly affectengine performance and emissions. Theeffect of variations in the Wobbenumber for gaseous-fueled vehicles issimilar to the effect of variations in thefuel energy content of gasoline inconventional vehicles. Further, modernspark-ignition engines are able tocompensate for reasonable variations inthe Wobbe number, just as theycompensate for variations in gasolineenergy content due to refiningdifferences or use of alcohol blends.104

Wobbe numbers for natural gas vehiclefuels also appear to be high enough toavoid engine problems in vehiclespresently designed to use CNG. Whilethe Wobbe number may be important toengine manufacturers and fuelproducers as an important element of afuel specification, it would not appearto provide consumers with significantadditional information relevant tovehicle performance. Accordingly, theCommission has determined not torequire disclosure of the Wobbe numberon CNG dispenser labels.

4. Additional Requirements of FinalRule

a. Label size and format. In the SNPR,the Commission proposed that labels fornon-liquid alternative fuels follow thesame standardized size and formatrequirements as those for liquidalternative fuels under the Fuel RatingRule.105 Labels required by the Fuel

Rating Rule are 3 inches wide by 21⁄2inches long, with process black type onan orange background.106 Althoughsection 406(a) does not specify size andformat standards for alternative fuellabels, it directs the Commission ‘‘toestablish uniform labeling requirements,to the greatest extent practicable.’’ Italso specifies that ‘‘[r]equired labelingunder the rule shall be simple and,where appropriate, consolidated withother labels providing information tothe consumer.’’ 107

Two comments addressed thisproposal. Both supported theCommission’s proposal because itpromoted consistency in the labeling ofall alternative fuels.108 Accordingly, theCommission has determined to requirethat labels for non-liquid alternativefuels follow the same standardized sizeand format requirements as those forliquid alternative fuels under the FuelRating Rule.109 Further, to keep thelabels uniform and simple, theCommission is not requiring any labelconsolidation.

b. Substantiation, certification, andrecordkeeping requirements. In theSNPR, to ensure the accuracy of therequired dispenser labels, theCommission proposed substantiation,certification, and recordkeepingrequirements for importers, producers,refiners and distributors of gaseousalternative fuels, and manufacturers anddistributors of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems. The Commissionalso proposed substantiation andrecordkeeping requirements for retailsellers of the three non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels.110 TheCommission based its SNPR proposal onits conclusion that the requirements arejustified because they are rationallyrelated to the establishment of ‘‘uniformlabeling requirements’’ that provideimportant information to consumers.111

As described below, several commentsaddressed two aspects of theCommission’s proposal. The commentsrelated to who should bear the burdenfor substantiating the fuel rating forCNG, and whether a particular ASTM


112 See proposed rule §§ 309.10, 309.11, 309.12,59 FR 59666, 59704–59705.

113 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3–6; API, I–15, 1–5; Unocal,I–5, 2.

114 Id.115 API, I–15, 4; Unocal, I–5, 2.

116 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 4–6.117 Unocal, I–5, 2.118 See proposed rule § 309.13, 59 FR 59666,

59705.119 AGA/NGVC, I–18, Attachment at 3–4.

120 See Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648,839 (1984) (Appendix), aff’d, 791 F.2d 189 (D.C.Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086 (1987).

test method for determining theminimum molecular percent of CNGshould be required. Because there wereno comments on the other facets of thesubstantiation, certification andrecordkeeping provisions proposed inthe SNPR, the Commission hasdetermined to issue them as proposed.These requirements are explainedbelow.

In the SNPR the Commissionproposed, in part, that importers,producers and refiners of natural gascomply with the proposed rule’s CNGfuel rating determination, certificationand recordkeeping requirements, whichincludes determining and certifying theminimum percentage of methane innatural gas.112 The Commission basedits proposal on its conclusion that itwould be impractical, and probablymore expensive to the consumer, torequire retail sellers to test each deliveryof a gaseous fuel. In making disclosuresto consumers, retail sellers of alternativefuels, therefore, could rely on theaccuracy of the information provided tothem from gaseous fuel importers,producers, refiners and distributors.

Three comments recommended thatthe Commission not impose suchrequirements on importers andproducers of natural gas because therequirements would be overlyburdensome, and do not reflect currentindustry practice in the distribution ofnatural gas.113 According to thecomments, producers of natural gascurrently adhere to a heating valuespecification as required by theircustomers (i.e., local natural gasdistribution companies and/or naturalgas utilities). Most producers currentlydo not test for or certify the methanecontent of the natural gas they sell.Furthermore, the comments state thatthis information would be of little valueat the retail level because natural gasdistributors (i.e., utilities) purchasenatural gas from a multitude ofproducers, blend it together, test it, anddistribute it for home and industry use,as well as for retail sale.114

Two of the comments recommendedthat the Commission require natural gasdistributors/utilities to comply with thefuel rating determination, certificationand recordkeeping requirements that theCommission proposed for natural gasimporters and producers.115 On theother hand, AGA/NGVC recommendedthat the fuel rating determination and

recordkeeping requirements be imposedonly on CNG retailers since they marketthe fuel to consumers. AGA/NGVCcontended that if a retailer cannot verifythe fuel rating, it can insist in contractswith its suppliers that they determinethe fuel rating. Thus, companiesinterested in profiting from sellingnatural gas to retailers will view thetesting as the cost of doing business andwill decide whether to perform the test.AGA/NGVC also stated, though, that insome cases local utilities will be heavilyinvolved in the marketing and selling ofnatural gas transportation fuel. In thoseinstances, AGA/NGVC recommends thatthe Commission require suchdistributors to determine and certify thefuel rating of the natural gas theysupply.116 Unocal commented that theCommission should permit natural gasretailers to rely on their suppliers(distributors/utilities) for fuel ratingcertifications to substantiate theinformation displayed on the CNGdispenser labels.117

In response, the Commission notesthat information about the methanecontent of natural gas would be usefulto distributors who blend natural gasand transfer it as natural gas vehiclefuel, because they could use suchinformation in determining andthereafter certifying its fuel rating.118

The Commission notes further that, inmost cases, it is necessary to upgradenatural gas to pipeline specifications ina gas processing plant before injecting itinto the transportation and distributionnetwork. In order to assure consistentcombustion behavior, major natural gaspipelines generally imposespecifications on the composition of thegas they will accept for transport. Thesespecifications typically limit thepercentage of propane, butane, andhigher hydrocarbons, and stipulateacceptable ranges for the heating value,and the Wobbe number.119 For example,water and hydrogen sulfide must beremoved to prevent corrosion damage tothe pipeline network, and excessamounts of higher hydrocarbons mustbe removed to prevent them fromcondensing under the high pressures inthe gas transmission network. Thus,although natural gas producers may nothave to adhere to a specific minimummethane pipeline specification, themethane content of the gas likely wouldfall within a fairly narrow range.

After considering the comments on itsSNPR proposal, the Commission

concludes that substantiation,certification, and recordkeepingrequirements for importers, producers,refiners and distributors of gaseousalternative vehicle fuels, andmanufacturers and distributors ofelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systems,and substantiation and recordkeepingrequirements for retail sellers of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuels(including electricity) are necessary toensure that the information posted onlabels on retail fuel dispensers isaccurate. The Commission is notpersuaded that retail sellers of CNG arein a position to be held exclusivelyresponsible for determining theaccuracy of the fuel rating to bedisclosed on the CNG dispenser labels.The Commission believes that the rule’srequirements are consistent with currentindustry practice of conforming naturalgas to minimum specifications fortransport. But, the Commission believesthat the comments from Unocal, APIand AGA/NGVC could be addressed byfurther clarifying that the Commission’srule does not apply to producers ofnatural gas for residential, commercialand industrial purposes. Thus, the rule’sfuel rating determination, certificationand recordkeeping requirements applyto producers of natural gas only whentransferred for use as a vehicle fuel. Inthis regard, the Commission expects thatnatural gas producers may wish to takereasonably prudent precautions toensure that their customers understandthe limited use for which the gas isbeing transferred, if they determine thatthe rule does not apply to them.

(1) Substantiation. The Commission’srule requires labeling disclosures of thetype of non-liquid alternative vehiclefuel (including electricity), and of theminimum molecular percent (a moreaccurate description than volume of thecontent of a gas) of the principalcomponent of each gaseous alternativevehicle fuel and of specific, limitedinformation about the output of theelectric vehicle fuel dispenser system.In accordance with the Commission’sadvertising substantiation doctrine,which requires sellers to have areasonable basis to support material,objective claims,120 the Commission isrequiring that importers, producers, andrefiners of non-liquid alternative vehiclefuel (other than electricity) have areasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, thatsubstantiates the minimum molecularpercent of the principal component thatretailers must disclose on fuel dispenser


121 See final rule § 309.10 infra.122 16 CFR 306.5(b) (1994).123 15 U.S.C. 2822.124 API, I–15, 4.125 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 7 (affording such flexibility

would avoid unnecessary future actions by theCommission to amend its rule each time a new testprocedure is developed).

126 Comm Elec, I–8, 7.127 The Fuel Rating Rule did not require that

specific ASTM test methods be used to satisfy the

Rule’s reasonable basis standard for liquidalternative fuels because existing ASTM testmethods were undergoing verification review todetermine whether they would be appropriate foruse in establishing standards for the liquidalternative fuels. Further, the Commission wasinformed that other test methods were beingdeveloped that might serve equally well as part ofa liquid alternative fuel standard. On the otherhand, the Commission understands that the ASTMtest methods it is requiring as a reasonable basis fordetermining the minimum molecular percentages ofthe principal components of CNG and hydrogenhave been ASTM test methods for many years andhave been recognized as competent and reliableprocedures. Further, the Commission understandsthat no other test methods that could be used tomake these determinations have been proposed tothe California Air Resources Board or are underdevelopment by any standards-settingorganizations. If additional test methods aredeveloped in the future, the Commission willconsider whether to include them among therequired test methods.

128 See further references to California’sspecifications in section III(B)(3)(d) supra.

129 See final rule §§ 309.13(c), 309.15(c) infra.130 See final rule §§ 309.11, 309.13 infra.

labels. The rule further states thatimporters and producers may useprivate facilities for fuel ratingdeterminations. This would beimportant to producers who do not havetesting equipment of their own.121 Theserequirements are consistent with thesubstantiation requirements of the FuelRating Rule,122 which were mandated bythe Petroleum Marketing PracticesAct.123

For the minimum molecular percentcontent of hydrogen (the principalcomponent) in hydrogen gas, theCommission proposed requiring that thereasonable basis be tests conductedaccording to ASTM D 1946–90. For theminimum molecular percent content ofmethane (the principal component) inCNG, the Commission proposedrequiring that the reasonable basis betests conducted according to ASTM D1945–91. Three comments addressedthe CNG testing issue. One commentsupported requiring the use of ASTM D1945–91.124 AGA/NGVC opposedrequiring the use of a specific testmethod. Instead, that commentsuggested that the Commission affordsellers of CNG the flexibility todemonstrate that they possessed areasonable basis consisting of competentand reliable evidence for theirdetermination of the minimum methanecontent of CNG.125 CommercialElectronics commented that other testmethods are being developed tomeasure CNG fuel quality.126

After considering the record, theCommission concludes that it isimportant that sellers base objectivedisclosures on uniform measurementswhen recognized and accepted testmethods are available. Theaforementioned ASTM documentsinclude test procedures, developedthrough the ASTM consensus process,to determine the chemical compositionof hydrogen and CNG, respectively,including the molecular percent ofhydrogen in hydrogen gas and methanein CNG. Because ASTM has issued testprocedures to measure the minimummolecular percent of the principalcomponents of hydrogen and CNG, theCommission is requiring use of theASTM test procedures to substantiatethose disclosures.127

For the minimum molecular percentcontent of any other component thatimporters, producers, or refiners wish tocertify, the rule does not specify the testprocedure that must be used, but onlythat they have a reasonable basis,consisting of competent and reliableevidence, to substantiate the claim. TheCommission’s approach to requiringsubstantiation without specifying aparticular test method for componentsother than the principal component,allows sellers to rely on existingindustry test procedures if they arereasonable and yield accurate results.For example, the Californiaspecifications list specific ASTMprocedures to be used to determine themolecular percent of variouscomponents of CNG and hydrogen, inaddition to the methane content of CNGand the hydrogen content of hydrogengas. Because the Commission has notspecified additional components thatmight be disclosed, it has no basis onthe record to specify test proceduresthat must be used to measure them. TheCommission, therefore, will accept, butnot require, use of the ASTM testprocedures cited in the Californiaspecifications as the required reasonablebasis for voluntary disclosure ofadditional components of CNG andhydrogen that are included in thosespecifications.128

The rule also does not require thatimporters, producers, or refiners meetparticular material specifications orstandards for the common name theyuse to describe the non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity) they distribute, but that theyhave a reasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, tosubstantiate the fuel rating theydetermine and certify to others.

Although the Commission hasdecided not to require that non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels conform to anyspecific material specification, theCommission’s requirement thatmarketers disclose the principalcomponent of each fuel shouldencourage the industry to developuniform material specifications orstandards for these fuels in consensusorganizations to ensure the uniformquality of the fuels in the marketplace.The development of materialspecifications or standards for non-liquid (gaseous) alternative vehicle fuelsshould help facilitate acceptance ofthese fuels.

Similarly, manufacturers of electricvehicle fuel dispenser systems arerequired to have a reasonable basis,consisting of competent and reliableevidence, to substantiate theinformation retail sellers must post onlabels on the electric vehicle fueldispensers. For public electric vehiclefuel dispensing systems, the informationthe Commission requires to be disclosedcan be determined using standardmeasuring devices or procedures.Therefore, accurate measurements madeusing standard electric industryprocedures that are recognized ascompetent and reliable are sufficient toserve as the required reasonable basis.

Distributors and retail sellers may beable to rely on the fuel ratingcertifications they receive, as discussedinfra, so their substantiation burden willbe minimal. Distributors and retailersneed not make the actualdeterminations unless they alter the fuelbefore selling it.129

(2) Certification. The Commission isrequiring that importers, producers,refiners, and distributors of non-liquidalternative fuels (other than electricity),and that manufacturers and distributorsof electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystems certify to others to whom theydistribute the information that retailersmust post on fuel dispensers.130

Importers, producers, and refiners ofnon-liquid alternative fuels (other thanelectricity) are required to certify todistributors their determination of theminimum molecular percent of thefuel’s major component, and of anyadditional component they wish todisclose. Manufacturers of electricvehicle fuel dispensing systems arerequired to certify to distributors and/orretailers the information retailers arerequired to disclose on labels on fueldispensers. Distributors of non-liquidalternative fuels (other than electricity)and of electric vehicle fuel dispensing


131 See final rule § 309.13 infra. If distributorsblend fuels, § 309.13(c) of the rule requires them tosubstantiate the minimum percentage of theprincipal component according to the requirementsof § 309.10, and certify that information to theirnon-consumer customers.

132 See final rule § 309.11 infra.133 See final rule § 309.13 infra.

134 See final rule § 309.11 infra.135 See final rule § 309.13 infra.136 16 CFR 306.6, 306.8 (1994).137 See final rule § 309.12 infra.

138 Id.139 See final rule §§ 309.14, 309.16 infra.140 16 CFR 306.7, 306.9, 306.11 (1994).141 The effective date of the final amendments

adding liquid alternative fuels to the Fuel RatingRule was less than 90 days after publication of thefinal rules in the Federal Register. The final ruleswere published on August 3, 1993. They becameeffective on October 25, 1993, as required by EPA92. 58 FR 41356.

142 The Commission based the SNPR proposal onan analysis of several comments stating that theproposed 90-day time period gave sufficient timefor covered parties to comply with the proposedrequirements. One comment contended, however,that at least six months was necessary. 59 FR 59666,59679.

143 Mobil, I–2, 6.144 See 59 FR 59666, 59679. In contrast, the

effective date for the AFV labeling requirements is180 days after publication in the Federal Register.See discussion in section III(C)(5) infra.

systems are required to certify toretailers consistent with the certificationthey received.131

Importers, producers, and refiners ofnon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) may make thecertification in either of two ways:

(a) By including with each transfer adelivery ticket or other paper (such asan invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale,terminal ticket, delivery ticket or anyother written proof of transfer). Thedelivery ticket or other paper mustcontain at least the importer’s,producer’s, or refiner’s name, the nameof the person to whom the non-liquidalternative fuel is transferred, the date ofthe transfer, the common name of thefuel and the minimum molecularpercent of the fuel’s major component,and of any additional component theimporter, producer or refiner wishes todisclose.

(b) By giving the person to whom thefuel is transferred a letter or writtenstatement, including the date, theimporter’s, producer’s or refiner’s name,the name of the person to whom the fuelis transferred, the common name of thefuel, and the minimum molecularpercent of the fuel’s major component,and of any additional component theimporter, producer or refiner wishes todisclose. The letter or written statementis effective until the importer, producer,or refiner transfers non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel with a lowerpercentage of the major component, orof any other component claimed. At thattime, the importer, producer, or refinerwill have to certify the new informationabout the fuel with a new notice.132

Distributors of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity) arerequired to make the certification ineach transfer to anyone who is not aconsumer. Distributors may make therequired certification in either of twoways:

(a) By using a delivery ticket or otherpaper with each transfer, as outlined forimporters, producers and refiners initem (a), above.

(b) By using a letter of certification, asoutlined for importers, producers, andrefiners in item (b), above.133

Manufacturers of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems are required to makethe certification in each transfer of suchsystems to anyone who is not a

consumer. Manufacturers may do so ineither of two ways:

(a) By including a delivery ticket orother paper with each transfer of an EVfuel dispensing system. It may be aninvoice, bill of lading, bill of sale,delivery ticket, or any other writtenproof of transfer. It is required tocontain at least the manufacturer’sname, the name of the person to whomthe EV fuel dispensing system istransferred, the date of the transfer, themodel number or other identifier of theEV fuel dispensing system, and theinformation required to be disclosed onthe retail fuel dispenser label.

(b) By placing clearly andconspicuously on the EV fueldispensing system a permanent legiblemarking or permanently attached labelthat discloses the manufacturer’s name,the model number or other identifier ofthe EV fuel dispensing system, and theinformation required to be disclosed onthe retail fuel dispenser label. Suchmarking or label is required to belocated where it can be seen afterinstallation of the EV fuel dispensingsystem. The marking or label is deemed‘‘legible,’’ in terms of placement, if it islocated in close proximity to themanufacturer’s identification marking.This marking or label is required to bein addition to, and not as a substitutefor, the label required to be posted onthe public EV fuel dispenser at the pointof retail sale.134

Distributors of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems are required to makethe certification in each transfer toanyone who is not a consumer.Distributors may do so in either of twoways:

(a) By using a delivery ticket or otherpaper with each transfer, as outlined formanufacturers of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems in item (a) above.

(b) By using the permanent markingor label permanently attached to thesystem by the manufacturer, as outlinedfor manufacturers of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems in item (b) above.135

These requirements are consistentwith the certification requirements forsellers of liquid alternative fuels underthe Fuel Rating Rule.136

(3) Recordkeeping. The Commissionis requiring that importers, producers,and refiners of non-liquid alternativefuels (other than electricity) maintainrecords of the tests performed by or forthem, or other data, that they rely uponas their required reasonable basis fortheir certifications.137 The Commission

likewise is requiring that manufacturersof electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystems maintain records of the tests ormeasurements performed by or forthem, or of other data or records, thatthey rely upon as their requiredreasonable basis for theircertifications.138 The Commission alsorequires that distributors and retailers ofnon-liquid alternative fuels (other thanelectricity) maintain records consistingof the certifications they receive fromimporters, producers, refiners, ordistributors of non-liquid alternativefuels (other than electricity), and thatdistributors of electric vehicle fueldispensing systems and retailers ofelectricity maintain records consistingof the certifications they receive frommanufacturers or distributors of thesystems.139 The rule requires that theserecords be kept for one year. Theserequirements are consistent with thosefor sellers of liquid alternative fuelsunder the Fuel Rating Rule.140

c. Effective date. Section 406(a) ofEPA 92 requires the Commission toissue its final labeling rules within oneyear of the NPR’s publication, but doesnot specify when the rules shall becomeeffective. In the SNPR, the Commissionproposed making the non-liquidalternative fuels labeling requirementseffective 90 days after publication of afinal rule in the Federal Register.141 Indeveloping its SNPR proposal, theCommission considered how best tobalance consumers’ needs forcomparative information with industry’sneed for a reasonable period of time tocome into compliance.142 The onecomment on this issue supported theproposed effective date.143 TheCommission, therefore, has determinedto make the non-liquid alternative fuelslabeling requirements effective 90 daysafter publication of a final rule in theFederal Register.144

d. Periodic updating of labels. In theSNPR, the Commission proposed no


145 See discussion of comments of API, CEC, andTVA in the SNPR, 59 FR 59666, 59679.

146 Two of the three other comments were limitedto encouraging metric disclosures on AFV labels.See Mechtly, I–1, Sokol, I–17, discussed infrasection VI. The third comment was limited to theSNPR’s proposal as it related to alternative fuels.Unocal, I–5.

147 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3; Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1;NAFA, I–10, 1, 2; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

148 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993).149 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(6) (Supp. IV 1993) (a

‘‘dedicated vehicle’’ is either a ‘‘dedicatedautomobile,’’ as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(C)(Supp. IV 1993), or a ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ as definedin 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, thatoperates solely on alternative fuel).

150 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(8) (Supp. IV 1993) (a‘‘dual fueled vehicle’’ is either a ‘‘dual fueledautomobile,’’ as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2013(h)(1)(D)(Supp. IV 1993), or a ‘‘motor vehicle,’’ as definedin 42 U.S.C. 7550(2), other than an automobile, thatis capable of operating on alternative fuel and ongasoline or diesel fuel).

151 EPA defines GVWR as a vehicle’s actualweight (including all standard and optionalequipment and fuel) plus 300 pounds. See 40 CFR86.082–2 (1993) (defining ‘‘GVWR,’’ ‘‘loadedvehicle weight,’’ and ‘‘vehicle curb weight’’).

152 See proposed rule § 309.1(f) (defining ‘‘coveredvehicle’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703. The term ‘‘coveredvehicle’’ was derived from the Energy Policy andConservation 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 ofenumerated consumer products); 16 CFR 305.2,305.3 (1994) (same for Commission’s ApplianceLabeling Rule implementing EPCA).

153 Three of EPA 92’s five ‘‘major’’ alternative-fuelprovisions impose minimum vehicle-acquisitionrequirements on designated entities (i.e., theFederal government; alternative fuel providers; andother non-Federal fleets). H. Rep. No. 102–474(I),102d Cong., 2d Sess. 137, reprinted in 1992U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1960. For alternative fuelproviders and other non-Federal fleets, the vehiclescovered by those mandates are ‘‘light duty motorvehicles.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993)(mandatory acquisition requirement for alternativefuel 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 ‘‘lightduty [AFVs],’’ a term not defined in EPA 92, insteadof ‘‘light duty motor vehicles.’’ See 42 U.S.C. 13212(Supp. IV 1993) (mandatory acquisitionrequirement for Federal government). Neither thestatute nor its legislative history suggests that thoseterms have different meanings and the discrepancymay have been inadvertent. In any event, it appearsthat the intent was to tailor the Federal fleet’sacquisition requirement to certain AFVs.

154 42 U.S.C. 13211(11) (Supp. IV 1993) (‘‘Theterm ‘light duty motor vehicle’ means a light dutytruck or light duty vehicle, as such terms aredefined under section 216(7) of the Clean Air Act(42 U.S.C. 7550(7)), of less than or equal to 8,500pounds [GVWR].’’).

155 42 U.S.C. 7550(7) (the terms ‘‘light duty truck’’and ‘‘light duty vehicle’’ ‘‘have the meaningprovided in regulations promulgated by the [EPA]Administrator and in effect as of the enactment ofthe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’).

156 A light duty truck is defined as ‘‘[a]ny motorvehicle rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less whichas (sic) a vehicle curb weight of 6,000 pounds orless and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of45 square feet or less, which is (1) Designedprimarily for purposes of transportation of propertyor is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designedprimarily for transportation of persons and has acapacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Availablewith special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.’’ 40 CFR 86.082–2(1993). A light duty vehicle is defined as ‘‘apassenger car or passenger car derivative capable ofseating 12 passengers or less.’’ Id.

157 Three comments fully supported AAMA’scomment. Chrysler, I–13, 1; Ford, I–4, 2; NGVPA,I–19, 1.

158 AAMA, I–16, cover letter at 1; EMA, I–6, 1–2.

specific timetable for future reviews ofthe final labeling rules, although itrecognized that section 406(a) of EPA 92requires the Commission to update itslabeling requirements ‘‘periodically.’’The Commission determined not tospecify a timetable after analyzingcomments encouraging it to review therule as consensus specifications aredeveloped for alternative fuels, as newalternative fuels enter the marketplaceand as technology develops.145 TheCommission received no commentsaddressing this aspect of its SNPRproposal.

Based on other comments in thisproceeding, and recognizing that itcannot predict when new relevantdevelopments may occur, theCommission has determined not toestablish a specific timetable for futurereviews of the final rule. As required bysection 406(a) of EPA 92, theCommission intends to conduct reviewsto update the rule periodically, asneeded, to take into considerationrelevant developments, such as whenDOE designates new non-liquidalternative fuels. The rule, however,will be reviewed at least once every tenyears pursuant to the Commission’songoing regulatory review project.

C. Labeling Requirements for AFVsTwenty-one of the 24 comments

received in response to the SNPRaddressed some aspect of theCommission’s proposed labelingrequirements for AFVs. Thesecomments addressed either the scope ofthe proposed labeling requirements (i.e.,which vehicles would be covered by thelabeling requirements) or the proposedrule’s disclosures (i.e., what informationwould be required to be displayed onlabels and how that information wouldbe displayed).146 Those comments, andthe Commission’s modifications to theproposed rule in response to thosecomments, are discussed below.

1. Scope of the AFV LabelingRequirement

In its SNPR, the Commissionproposed that the scope of its AFVlabeling requirements be based upon, orderived from, existing pertinent federalregulations. Eleven comments addressedthis aspect of the AFV labelingrequirements. Six other commentsindicated general support for the

Commission’s labeling proposal, but didnot address this specific issue.147 Theremaining five addressed one or moreissues pertaining to the scope of theAFV labeling requirements, as discussedbelow.

a. Covered AFVs. In the SNPR, theCommission considered whether itslabeling requirements should apply toall AFVs, as that term is defined in EPA92, or whether they should apply toonly certain vehicles. As defined by thatstatute, an AFV is either ‘‘a dedicatedvehicle or a dual fueled vehicle.’’ 148 Asfurther defined, a ‘‘dedicated vehicle’’means an automobile (or other self-propelled vehicle), designed fortransporting persons or property on astreet or highway, that operates solelyon alternative fuel.149 Similarly, a ‘‘dualfueled vehicle’’ is an automobile (orother self-propelled vehicle), designedfor transporting persons or property ona street or highway, that is capable ofoperating on alternative fuel and ongasoline or diesel fuel.150 As such, thestatutory scope of an ‘‘AFV’’ is quitewide and includes tour buses, transitbuses, heavy-duty commercial trucks,and large motor homes.

After considering the practicality andappropriateness of including all AFVswithin the scope of its labelingrequirements, the Commission proposedin the SNPR to exclude AFVs with grossvehicle weight ratings (‘‘GVWR’’ 151)over 8,500 lbs. The SNPR included adefinition of ‘‘covered vehicles’’ (i.e., insubstance, AFVs under 8,500 lbs.GVWR), in the proposed rule.152 TheCommission derived that definitionfrom EPA 92’s definition of the term

‘‘light duty motor vehicles,’’ a termgiven special significance by thatstatute.153 EPA 92’s definition of thatterm references two vehicleclassifications used by the Clean Air Act(light duty trucks or light duty vehicles)‘‘of less than or equal to 8,500 pounds[GVWR].’’ 154 The Clean Air Act 155 inturn refers to existing EPA definitions ofboth vehicle classifications.156 Thus, theproposed definition of ‘‘coveredvehicle’’ basically encompassed thesame category of vehicle referenced inEPA 92’s fleet acquisition requirements.

Three comments specificallyaddressed this issue. AAMA 157 andEMA supported excluding AFVs over8,500 lbs. GVWR from the scope of theAFV labeling requirements.158 However,these comments also suggested that oneelement of the SNPR’s definition of‘‘covered vehicle’’ be modified toexclude vehicles configured ‘‘withspecial features enabling off-street or


159 See proposed rule § 309.1(f)(2)(iii), 59 FR59666, 59703; AAMA, I–16, cover letter at 1; EMA,I–6, 2.

160 Chicago, J–2, 2. AAMA and Mobil also madethe general observation that definitions in the AFVlabeling requirements should be consistent withother regulatory plans. AAMA, I–16, 7 (‘‘Thedefinitions used in the regulation must beconsistent with those used by other regulatoryagencies.’’); Mobil, I–2, 8 (‘‘As long as the definitionin this rule is coordinated with DOE, then thisrulemaking will be consistent with forthcomingEPAct rules from DOE.’’). AAMA furthercommented that ‘‘common definitions would alsobe useful.’’ AAMA, I–16, 7. It did not specify,however, how the FTC should determine where‘‘common definitions,’’ as opposed to definitionsused by other agencies, would be more appropriate.

161 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).162 EMA, G–21, 2, 3–4, 7, (Tr.), 123. EMA cited

examples where the considerations relevant toordering a heavy-duty AFV were summarized in anOEM’s 25-page sales brochure and a 400-page truckdata book. EMA (Supp.), G–21, 2–3. See alsoAAMA, G–7, 3–4, (Tr.), 124 (purchasing decision‘‘will already have been made long before[purchaser] walks into the showroom and sees thelabel’’); Flxible (Supp.), G–12, 1–3 (window stickersshould be for vehicles purchased for personal useand from dealer lots, i.e., under 8,500 lbs. GVWR),(Tr.), 134 (rule should be limited to passenger-typevehicles). Chrysler and Ford supported AAMA’sposition that these vehicles should be excludedfrom the scope of the Commission’s AFV labelingrequirements. Chrysler, G–13, 1; Ford, G–14, 1.

163 EPA (Tr.), 122; 40 CFR 600.002–85(4)(iii)(1993).

164 See 40 CFR 600.002–85(4) (defining‘‘automobile’’).

165 42 U.S.C. 7587(c); Emission Standards forClean-Fuel Vehicles and Engines, Requirements forClean-Fuel Vehicle Conversions, and CaliforniaPilot Test Program (‘‘Fleet Standards Rule’’), 59 FR50042, 50061–50062, Sept. 30, 1994.

166 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061.167 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50062.168 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061–

50062.169 Fleet Standards Rule, 59 FR 50042, 50061–

50062, 50064. Given the nature of their liability,EPA noted that ‘‘[k]it manufacturers would bewholly within their rights to require suchindemnification agreements before allowinginstallers to install their kit.’’ Fleet Standards Rule,59 FR 50042, 50062.

170 B–3, inside front cover.171 The CAAA’s acquisition requirements are in

addition to similar requirements, described infrasection III(C)(1)(c), imposed by EPA 92.

172 42 U.S.C. 7587(a).

off-highway operation and use.’’ 159 Itappears that this suggestion may havebeen based upon their belief thatconsumers considering such vehicleswould not likely make choices andcomparisons based upon simple labels.The City of Chicago, however, generallysupported including all AFVs withinthe scope of the AFV labelingrequirements without specificallyaddressing the Commission’sproposal.160

After considering the record, theCommission has determined to issue itsSNPR proposal as to this subject withone modification. As noted previously,the Commission must issue uniformlabeling requirements for AFVs only ‘‘tothe greatest extent practicable.’’ 161

Labeling requirements for all suchvehicles might help educate consumersabout the general availability of AFVs ofall sizes. However, the Commission hasconcluded that consumers consideringvehicles over 8,500 lbs. GVWR wouldnot likely make choices andcomparisons based on the cost-benefitinformation contained in a simplelabel.162 The Commission alsoconsidered including all AFVs(regardless of weight) and developingdifferent label formats tailored to theapparently different needs of light andheavy-duty AFV consumers. This didnot appear to be practical becauseheavier vehicles are typically customordered. While these evaluations maychange in the future, for now at least itseems likely that for consumers

considering such vehicles, disclosuresin a labeling format may not beappropriate, useful, or timely. TheCommission also notes that EPA’s fueleconomy requirements (disclosing fueleconomy information in windowstickers) do not apply to vehicles over8,500 lbs. GVWR.163 As a result, theCommission has determined that, at thepresent time, AFVs over 8,500 lbs.GVWR will not be included within thescope of its AFV labeling requirements.

For similar reasons, the Commissionhas also determined that it shouldmodify its definition of ‘‘coveredvehicle’’ by excluding from its scope‘‘off-street’’ or ‘‘off-highway’’ vehicles.Such vehicles would more likely beacquired for specialized commercialuses, instead of general commercial orindividual use. The Commission alsonotes that EPA’s fuel economyrequirements (disclosing fuel economyinformation in window stickers) do notapply to such vehicles.164 As such, theCommission believes that consumersconsidering such vehicles would notlikely make choices and comparisonsbased on the cost-benefit informationcontained in a simple label.Accordingly, such vehicles are excludedfrom the AFV labeling requirements.

b. AFV Manufacturers and ConversionCompanies. Another facet of theproposal regarding covered AFVsinvolved conversions (i.e., existingconventional-fuel vehicles reconfiguredto permit operation on alternative fuel)and what entity would be responsiblefor compliance. In developing theproposed rule, the Commission tookparticular note of recently-issued EPAregulations addressing this subject.Those regulations implemented aprovision of the 1990 Clean Air ActAmendments (‘‘CAAA’’) deeming that‘‘person[s] who convert conventionalvehicles to clean-fuel vehicles’’ are‘‘manufacturers,’’ and thus responsiblefor complying with some or all of EPA’scertification, production, line testing,in-use testing, warranty, and recallrequirements.165 In the preambleannouncing those regulations, EPAnoted that two entities could beconsidered the ‘‘person who converts’’:the person who installs the conversionkit (i.e., the hardware converting thevehicle to alternative fuel), or the person

who manufactures the conversion kit.166

After considering the advantages anddisadvantages of assigning liability toeither entity, EPA concluded thatassigning liability strictly to eitherentity was not appropriate. Instead, itdetermined it should assign liabilitybased on which party was in the bestposition to be familiar with pertinentvehicle-performance characteristics.

Interpreting its own regulations, EPAdetermined that the entity best suited tocomply with these requirements was theentity (kit installer, manufacturer, orother) who had applied for and receiveda certificate of conformity that thevehicle meets appropriate EPA emissionstandards.167 Based on public commentreceived during that proceeding, EPAanticipated that in most cases the kitmanufacturer would be the certifyingparty because this entity would be inthe best position to perform the requiredcertification testing.168 Accordingly,EPA further expected that its regulationswould encourage certifiers to developoversight programs and enter intoindemnification agreements withinstallers to insure that installationswere performed properly.169

In considering the issue of AFVconversions, the Commission noted thatsection 406 does not address the issueof AFV conversions. The Commission’sintent in considering this topic was toaddress what the Commissionunderstood was a significant segment ofthe AFV industry. DOE has noted that:‘‘Because of the limited availability andselection of [OEM] vehicles, conversionsare providing a transition to the timewhen automakers produce more [AFVs]for public sale.’’ 170

The demand for AFVs is being driven,at least in part, by the acquisitionrequirements for centrally fueled fleetscontained in the 1990 CAAA.171 Thoserequirements ‘‘may be met through theconversion of existing or new gasolineor diesel-powered vehicles to clean-fuelvehicles.’’ 172 Parties affected by thosemandates, as well as others interested inachieving the clean-air benefits ofdriving AFVs, may have an incentive to


173 AFV labeling requirements for used coveredvehicles are discussed infra section III(C)(1)(d).

174 Proposed rule § 309.1(r), 59 FR 59666, 59704.175 Proposed rule § 309.20(a)(1), 59 FR 59666,

59707.176 See proposed rule § 309.1(b) (defining

‘‘aftermarket conversion system’’), 59 FR 59666,59707. This definition was derived from a recently-issued EPA definition of the same term. See 59 FR48472, 48490, to be codified at 40 CFR 85.502(c).

177 See proposed rule § 309.20(a)(2), 59 FR 59666,59707. Specific data proposed to be disclosed onlabels for new covered AFVs is discussed infrasection III(C)(2)(a).

178 See AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G–6 (‘‘We agree withthe FTC and others that vehicles that are convertedprior to being delivered to the first time buyershould be labeled in the same fashion as other ’new’vehicles.’’); ETC, G–24, 4 (‘‘All vehicles that are

considered ‘new’ vehicles, regardless of whetherthey are sold by an original equipmentmanufacturer or a converter or upfitter, should besubject to the labeling requirement.’’). Commentersresponding to the Commission’s ANPR were insimilar agreement. See 59 FR 24014, 24016 nn. 53,54 and accompanying text.

179 AGA/NGVC (Supp.), G–6, 3–4, (Tr.), 231–232;ETC, G–24, 4.

180 DOE, E–10, 3–4 (‘‘It would be more difficult,and perhaps unnecessary, for in-use vehicles(already owned and operated) that are converted touse alternative fuels during their vehicle life tomeet the AFV labeling requirements.’’).

181 Further, as noted, requiring disclosure otherthan in a labeling format may be beyond the scopeof the Commission’s authority under EPA 92. Seesupra section III(A).

182 EPA (Tr.), 220.183 EPA 92 requires that DOE’s information

package ‘‘include information with respect to theconversion of conventional motor vehicles to[AFVs].’’ 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).

184 B–3, 16.185 B–3, 23.186 See proposed rule § 309.20(a)(2) (limiting

labeling requirements for new covered vehicles toconversion systems installed ‘‘prior to suchvehicle’s being acquired by a consumer’’), 59 FR59666, 59707.

187 AAMA, I–16, 7; Mobil, I–2, 8.188 Chicago, J–2, 1, 2, 3; Electro Auto, I–7, 1.189 See, e.g., Boston Edison (Supp.), G–26, 13;

ETC, G–24, 4.

convert existing vehicles to alternativefuel. The Commission therefore believedthat it should address this issue in thisproceeding to the greatest extentpracticable, and thereby help consumerscompare different alternative fuels andconversion systems.

Accordingly, in the SNPR, theCommission proposed that the entityresponsible for complying with thelabeling requirements for new coveredvehicles 173 would be the vehicle’s‘‘manufacturer.’’ The proposed ruledefined ‘‘manufacturer’’ as ‘‘the personwho obtains a certificate of conformitythat the vehicle complies with thestandards and requirements of [EPA’semission and clean-fuel vehicleregulations].’’ 174 Under the proposedrule, manufacturers of new coveredvehicles would be required to affix (orcause to be affixed) new vehicle labelson each such vehicle prior to its beingoffered for acquisition by consumers.175

If, however, an ‘‘aftermarket conversionsystem’’ (i.e., a conversion kit) 176 isinstalled on a vehicle by a person otherthan the manufacturer prior to beingacquired by a consumer, themanufacturer would be responsible forproviding that person with the objectiveinformation regarding that vehiclerequired by the proposed rule.177

The Commission’s intent informulating these definitions was todistinguish between two differentcategories of conversions based onwhether a vehicle was converted toalternative fuel before or after it isdelivered to the first consumer.Conversions performed before a vehicleis delivered to a first consumer bearsimilarities to OEM AFVs because inboth circumstances the vehicles areconfigured to alternative fuel beforedelivery to the first consumer. In theSNPR, the Commission tentativelydetermined that consumers consideringthese converted AFVs would thus haveequal need for comparative informationas consumers considering other ‘‘new’’vehicles.178 It therefore proposed to

include such conversions within thescope of its AFV labeling requirements.

As to the second category, theCommission proposed that companiesperforming conversions after the vehicleis delivered to a consumer (so called‘‘aftermarket conversions’’) should beexcluded from the AFV labelingrequirements because those consumerswould have already been educatedabout the costs and benefits ofalternative fuels.179 The Commissionbased that proposal on its determinationthat consumers considering conversionof existing vehicles would not benefitfrom a ‘‘labeling’’ requirement, and thatthe circumstances surrounding suchconversions may make such arequirement impractical orunnecessary.180 For example, theCommission understood that someconsumers convert their vehiclesthemselves without utilizing theservices of a conversion installationcompany. Further, companiesperforming conversions, at a consumer’srequest, would have nothing to labeluntil the consumer had already decidedto do a conversion, and labeling thevehicle post-conversion would not behelpful,181 as consumers presumablyalready have evaluated alternative fuelsin deciding to have their vehicleconverted. Finally, requiring conversioncompanies to disclose objectiveinformation as to comparative factorswill likely be problematic because suchinformation can vary with the vehicle’scondition.182

In any event, the Commission notedthat DOE has addressed conversions ofexisting vehicles in its consumerinformation brochure.183 Some of theinformation contained in that brochureis general (e.g., electric vehicleconversions ‘‘are available in largermetropolitan areas. Contact OEM dealerfor qualified converter and warranty

information’’),184 while some is morespecific and objective. For example, thebrochure notes that converting anexisting conventional-fueled vehicle toCNG ‘‘costs about $2,700 to $5,000 pervehicle.’’ 185 Given the apparentimpracticalities surrounding arequirement for aftermarket alternative-fuel conversions, and the availability ofpertinent information in DOE’sbrochure, the Commission proposedexcluding from its AFV labelingrequirements situations whereconventional fueled vehicles areconverted to alternative fuel after beingacquired by consumers.186

Four comments addressed this issue.AAMA and Mobil generally observedthat definitions in the AFV labelingrequirements should be consistent withother regulatory plans.187 Regarding thesubstance of the Commission’s proposal,Electro Auto generally supportedexempting aftermarket conversionswhile the City of Chicago opposed suchan exemption because it believed thatfuture buyers of AFVs should haveaccess to the same information as buyersof original equipment.188 Commentspreviously filed agreed that all vehiclesdesigned and assembled by OEMS tooperate on alternative fuel should beincluded within the scope of theCommission’s AFV labelingrequirements.189

After considering the record, theCommission has determined to adoptthe SNPR proposal regarding whichconversions are covered withoutmodification. Because harmonizingregulatory approaches, whenpracticable, is appropriate anddesirable, the Commission has based itsapproach to determining which entitiesare responsible for complying with itsAFV labeling requirements on EPA’sregulations addressing the same issue.The Commission has determined todesignate the certifier as beingresponsible for compliance with theserequirements because that entity will bein the best position to know thevehicle’s performance attributes. TheCommission also expects that certifierswill take steps to insure compliancewith this revised labeling proposal byinstallers, such as developing oversightprograms and entering into


190 See proposed rule §§ 309.20(a)(1) (newcovered vehicles), 309.21(a) (used coveredvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

191 See proposed rule § 309.1(d) (defining‘‘consumer’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

192 AAMA, I–16, 7; Mobil, I–2, 8.193 42 U.S.C. 7602(e) (defining ‘‘person’’).194 For example, EPA 92 requires that, ‘‘The

Federal Government shall acquire at least 5,000light duty [AFVs] in fiscal year 1993.’’ 42 U.S.C.13212(a)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1993).

195 See proposed rule § 309.1(a) (defining‘‘acquisition’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

196 Clean Fuel Fleet Program; Definitions andGeneral Provisions, 58 FR 64679, 64689–64690,Dec. 9, 1993 (defining the phrase ‘‘owned oroperated, leased or otherwise controlled by suchperson’’ as used in section 241(5) of the 1990 CleanAir Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 7581(5)).

197 58 FR 64679, 64689, 64690 (excluding leasesunder 120 days from Clean Fuel Fleet Program).

198 See proposed rule §§ 309.20 (‘‘Labelingrequirements for new covered vehicles’’), 309.21(‘‘Labeling requirements for used coveredvehicles’’), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

199 See proposed rule § 309.1(t) (defining ‘‘newcovered vehicle’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

200 See proposed rule § 309.1(dd) (defining ‘‘usedcovered vehicle’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704. Thisdefinition was derived from the Commission’sdefinition of the term ‘‘used vehicle’’ in its UsedCar Rule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2) (1994).

201 See proposed rule § 309.1(u), 59 FR 59666,59704. This definition was derived from EPA’sdefinition of the term ‘‘dealer,’’ the entityresponsible for maintaining fuel economy labels onnew automobiles. See 40 CFR 600.002–93(a)(18)(1993) (defining ‘‘dealer’’). Under EPA’s regulations,consumers selling used automobiles are notrequired to post or maintain fuel economy labels.In this final rule, the Commission similarly intendsthat individual consumers not be required tocomply with the AFV labeling requirements.

202 See proposed rule § 309.1(ee), 59 FR 59666,59704. This definition was derived from theCommission’s definition of ‘‘dealer’’ in its Used CarRule, 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3) (1994).

203 ETC, G–24, 4; RFA (Tr.), 217.204 See proposed rule § 309.1(v) (defining ‘‘new

vehicle labels’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.205 See proposed rule § 309.1(ff) (defining ‘‘used

vehicle labels’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.206 See proposed rule §§ 309.20(e) (new covered

vehicles) and 309.21(e) (used covered vehicles), 59FR 59666, 59707.

207 EPA (Tr.), 220.208 Id.209 Chicago, J–2, 2 (permanent labeling on all

AFVs would help state and local governmentsenforce regulations pertaining to preferentialparking and other transportation control measures).

indemnification agreements withinstallers to insure that accurate labelsare posted as required.

c. Acquisitions by consumers. In theSNPR, the Commission proposed that itslabeling requirements apply to coveredvehicles offered for ‘‘acquisition’’ toconsumers.190 The intent of thisproposal was to include purchases andlong-term leasing arrangements withinthe scope of the AFV labelingrequirements. The Commission alsoproposed to define the term ‘‘consumer’’to include individuals, corporations,partnerships, associations, States,municipalities, political subdivisions ofStates, and agencies, departments, orinstrumentalities of the United States.191

Responding to this aspect of theCommission’s proposal, AAMA andMobil generally observed thatdefinitions in the AFV labelingrequirements should be consistent withother regulatory plans.192

After considering the record, theCommission has determined to issue itsSNPR proposal as to this subjectwithout modification. As to thedefinition of ‘‘consumer,’’ the proposeddefinition of this term was derived fromsection 302(e) of the 1990 Clean Air ActAmendments 193 and EPA’s regulationimplementing that section, 40 CFR§ 88.302–94 (1993). The Commissionbelieves that this definition properlyincludes within its scope all affectedinterests.

As to leasing arrangements, becauseCongressional mandates will requireconsumers to ‘‘acquire’’ AFVs,194 theCommission has determined that itsAFV labeling requirements shouldinclude such arrangements to thegreatest extent practicable to furtherEPA 92’s legislative purpose. Indetermining what is practicable, theCommission believes that consumersentering into leasing arrangements mayhave different information needsdepending upon the length of thearrangement. For example, consumersentering into long-term leasingarrangements often do so forcommercial purposes, and make leasingchoices based on evaluating factorspertinent to a commercial acquisition.These persons likely would need thesame vehicle information as purchasers

and should be covered by the rule.Consumers entering into short-termarrangements (e.g., weekend rentals tothe general public for non-commercialpurposes) may or may not have similaror equal need for pertinent information,but it seems unlikely that consumersentering into short-term leasingarrangements would make decisionsbased upon information disclosed in alabel. In any event, they may not viewthe vehicle until after it has been leased.As a result, the labels would not helpconsumers make choices andcomparisons. Accordingly, theCommission has determined thatincluding short-term leasingarrangements in the final rule is notnecessary.

The final rule defines an acquisitionas including either of the following: (1)acquiring the beneficial title to acovered vehicle; or (2) acquiring acovered vehicle for transportationpurposes pursuant to a contract orsimilar arrangement for a period of 120days or more.195 This definition wasderived from a recent EPA regulationimplementing aspects of the 1990 CleanAir Act Amendments,196 which used the120 day period as the dividing linebetween short and long-term leases. Inthe preamble announcing thatregulation, EPA determined that the 120day period is slightly longer than acalendar season and that leases of lessthan that period were therefore short-term and temporary.197 The Commissionfinds that the 120 day period reflects areasonable demarcation between short-and long-term rentals, and therefore hasadopted EPA’s determination.

d. Used AFVs. In the SNPR, theCommission tentatively determined thatboth new and used AFVs should beincluded within the scope of its labelingrequirements, but that they should besubject to different requirements. Theproposed rule defined the terms ‘‘newcovered vehicle’’ and ‘‘used coveredvehicle’’ and established labelingrequirements as to each classification.198

Under the proposed rule, a new coveredvehicle was defined as a covered vehiclewhich has not yet been acquired by a

consumer,199 while a used coveredvehicle was defined (in substance) as acovered vehicle which previously hasbeen acquired by a consumer.200 Theproposed rule also defined the terms‘‘new vehicle dealer’’ 201 and ‘‘usedvehicle dealer.’’ 202

Because requiring the disclosure ofcomparative information on used AFVswas deemed problematic,203 theproposed rule established two labelingformats (i.e., new vehicle labels 204 andused vehicle labels 205) disclosingdifferent types of information for newand used covered AFVs.206 For example,because some cost-benefit information isincluded on temporary window stickers(e.g., EPA’s fuel economy rating) or invehicle owner’s manuals, a used AFVdealer may not always possess suchinformation. In any event, somecomparative information (e.g., EPA’sfuel economy rating) could varysignificantly with the vehicle’scondition.207 Requiring disclosure ofinformation based on the vehicle’scondition when new could thereforecreate a risk of misleading consumers.208

To address one problem inherent insuch a disclosure (i.e., the unavailabilityof pertinent information), theCommission has considered requiringthat disclosures be displayed onpermanent vehicle labeling.209 However,this option would not surmount themore basic problem that objectiveinformation may no longer accuratelyreflect the vehicle’s present condition


210 While consumers may expect that usedvehicles will have different performance attributesthan new cars, if the Commission requireddisclosure of specific data on standard labels (basedon the vehicle’s condition when new), it mightcreate the impression with some consumers thatthese disclosures may still be valid.

211 AAMA, I–16, 7. That comment, however,proposed a different format for used vehicle labels.

212 Electro Auto, I–7, 1. Electro Auto’s objectionmay have been based on a misapprehension thatlabels for used AFVs would require disclosure ofperformance attributes specific to that vehicle. TheSNPR did not propose such disclosures.

213 Mobil, I–2, 8 (‘‘As long as the definition in thisrule is coordinated with DOE, then this rulemakingwill be consistent with forthcoming EPAct rulesfrom DOE.’’).

214 See 42 U.S.C. 13211(3) (Supp. IV 1993)(defining ‘‘AFV’’).

215 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.

216 See AMI (Tr.), 218 (‘‘[T]his is a real problemnow. There are nearly 10,000 [flexible] fuel vehiclesin California alone, and * * * several hundred arebeing offered for sale now to private consumers.’’).See also NAFA (Tr.), 222:

I think one of the things you have to be concernedabout looking down the road with alternative fuelsis that if there is not a resale market for thesevehicles, the program will wither and die * * * Sowe don’t have a procedure to provide informationto that second purchaser. And they have questionsabout alternative fuels. And they don’t know howto go about getting a brochure like this * * * If youdon’t create the resale market, then the first marketdoesn’t really develop.

217 Unocal, I–5, addressed the proposal forlabeling of alternative fuels. Two other comments(Mechtly, I–1, and Sokol, I–17) addressed metricissues. See section VI infra.

218 59 FR 59666, 59684. All nine commentersaddressing that issue supported the Commission’sassessment. 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.

219 Chicago, J–2, 1 (AFV labeling requirementshould target all consumers).

220 59 FR 24014, 24019–24020.

221 Labels for used covered AFVs would notdisclose objective information particular to eachvehicle. See 59 FR 59666, 59688 n.312, 59690n.358.

222 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4, 5–6 (both areuseful to consumers); DOE, J–1, 2.

223 API, I–15, 2. API’s comment did not addressthe Commission’s proposal to require disclosure ofEPA certification level.

224 Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 3, 9–11.225 Chrysler, I–13, 1.226 Ford, I–4, 1.227 AAMA, I–16, 1. AAMA did not, however,

support the ‘‘manner by which this information is[displayed].’’ Id. For used covered vehicles, AAMAstated that labels should ‘‘contain only theinformation necessary to indicate that the vehicleoperates on alternative fuels and to list the fuelsthat can be used in the vehicle.’’ AAMA, I–16, 1.

Continued

(and thus would not form a valid basisupon which to make reasonable choicesand comparisons).210

Three comments addressed this issue.AAMA supported including usedvehicles within the scope of the AFVlabeling requirements.211 Electro Autostated that they should be excluded.212

Mobil stated that definitions in the AFVlabeling requirements should beconsistent with other regulatoryplans.213

After considering the record, theCommission determined to issue itsSNPR proposal as to this subjectwithout modification. The Commissionnotes that EPA 92’s definition of AFVmakes no distinction between new andused vehicles.214 In addition, the recordindicated that consumers would likelyhave the same need for information, andwould consider the same factors,whether they were contemplating a newor used AFV acquisition.215 At theWorkshop, two participants also statedthat used AFVs should be included inthis proceeding at the present timebecause used AFVs are (or will soon be)offered for sale to consumers.216 Thus,the Commission has concluded thatincluding such vehicles within thescope of its AFV labeling requirementsis appropriate. As described more fullybelow, labeling for used covered AFVsdoes not require, however, disclosure ofobjective performance data.

2. Disclosures on AFV LabelingAs discussed below, 21 of the 24

commenters addressed the substance ofthe Commission’s proposed AFVlabeling requirements (i.e., theinformation to be disclosed on AFVlabels).217 Pursuant to EPA 92’smandate, the Commission developedthis aspect of the final rule based on twosets of considerations. First, theCommission determined the type ofinformation consumers would find mostappropriate, useful, and timely inmaking AFV choices and comparisons.For example, the Commission stated inthe SNPR that consumers would requiredisclosure of more comparativeinformation when considering an AFVpurchase than when refueling.218 As aresult, the Commission proposed thatAFV labels disclose morecomprehensive cost-benefit informationto consumers than labels for alternativefuels. The Commission also stated thatbecause few consumers have extensiveexperience with AFVs, its labelingproposal should be designed to beuseful to a general consumeraudience.219 Finally, the Commissionconcluded that, because DOE wasrequired to prepare and distribute aninformation package for consumers,there was less need to attempt to presentcomplex information in the constrainedformat of an AFV label.

After determining what would likelybe appropriate, useful, and timely toconsumers, the Commission analyzedthe problems associated withdeveloping and publishing such cost-benefit information. For example, theCommission considered the extent towhich balanced, accurate informationfor pertinent comparative factors couldbe conveyed on the ‘‘simple’’ labelenvisioned by Congress. It alsoconsidered whether appropriatetechnical standards existed to comparesome factors, and whether providing thesame information required on labels byother government agencies (in differentformats) could confuse consumers.

After evaluating those issues, theCommission proposed in the SNPR anAFV label disclosing a combination ofinformation in a three-part format,220

concluding this would be most useful to

consumers making choices andcomparisons. The first part woulddisclose objective informationpertaining to each particular AFV, whilethe second and third parts woulddisclose information pertaining to AFVsin general. This final rule is the resultof the Commission’s analysis of allpertinent considerations, therulemaking record and recentdevelopments. As described in moredetail below, the Commission continuesto find that a combination of objectiveand descriptive information will bestmeet consumers’ needs for comparativecost-benefit information. TheCommission also concludes that thisformat will best address the problemsassociated with developing andpublishing such information.

a. Specific data disclosures. In theSNPR the Commission proposed thatlabels for new covered AFVs disclosetwo types of objective informationparticular to each AFV: cruising rangeand EPA certification level.221 Sevencomments addressed theappropriateness of including objectiveinformation to consumers as to thosefactors. Boston Edison/EEI and DOEsupported disclosures as to bothfactors.222 API stated that a disclosurefor cruising range would be a usefulmeasure for consumer comparisons.223

Mobil appeared to support requiringdisclosure of cruising range, but statedthat EPA certification levels weregenerally not relevant to EPA 92.224

Chrysler supported requiring disclosureof EPA certification levels, but appearedto oppose disclosure of vehicle cruisingrange.225 Ford stated that ‘‘most of theinformation meeting [EPA 92’s mandate]is already included on existing motorvehicle labels.’’ 226 AAMA stated that it‘‘support[ed] the intent of the FTCproposal’’ and that ‘‘the specificinformation proposed is appropriatewith respect to costs and benefits, so asto reasonably enable the consumer tomake choices and comparisons.’ ’’ 227


As noted previously, three comments fullysupported AAMA’s comment. Chrysler, I–13, 1;Ford, I–4, 2; NGVPA, I–19, 1.

228 The Commission did not propose requiringdisclosure of this information on labels for usedcovered AFVs because that information could varysignificantly with a vehicle’s condition. Requiringdisclosure of cruising range information on usedvehicles could therefore mislead consumers.

229 See proposed rule § 309.1(g) (defining‘‘dedicated’’), 59 FR 59666, 59703.

230 See proposed rules §§ 309.1(o) (defining‘‘estimated cruising range’’), 309.20(e)(2)(i)(requiring disclosure of estimated cruising range fordedicated vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59704, 59707.

231 See proposed rule § 309.1(i) (defining ‘‘dualfueled’’), 59 FR 59666, 59704.

232 See proposed rule § 309.20(e)(2)(ii) (requiringdisclosure of estimated cruising range for dual-fueled vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

233 EPA’s fuel economy labels contain a similarstatement. 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 SNPR Figures 4 and 5, 59FR 59666, 59710–59711.

234 See 40 CFR part 600 (1993) (‘‘Fuel economy ofmotor vehicles’’).

235 Numerous commenters suggested that cruisingrange values could be so calculated. See, e.g.,AAMA (Supp.), G–7, 3 (‘‘Combining MPG with tankcapacity can give the customer a reasonableestimation of driving range.’’); AMI (Tr.), 141; CAS(Supp.), G–17, 1–2; EPA (Tr.), 144; RFA (Tr.), 148.

236 See proposed rule § 309.22(a)(1)(i), 59 FR59666, 59708.

237 See proposed rule § 309.22(a)(1)(ii), 59 FR59666, 59708.

238 59 FR 39638, 39639 (announcing fuel-economytest labeling requirements for methanol and CNGvehicles). One comment suggested that theCommission encourage EPA to develop further fueleconomy regulations. ETC, I–9, 1. The Commissiondoes not believe that is necessary because EPA isunder a legal obligation to issue such regulations.

239 SAE’s ‘‘Electric Vehicle Energy Consumptionand Range Test Procedure,’’ J1634, was issued inMay 1993. B–33. This procedure is based in part onEPA’s pertinent test procedures. B–33, 1, 9–10.Boston Edison stated that fuel economy ‘‘can be[calculated] in a manner that is procedurallyidentical to gasoline vehicles’’ by relying on SAEJ1634. Boston Edison (Supp.), G–26, 5.

240 59 FR 59666, 59688.241 See proposed rules §§ 309.22(a)(2) (for

dedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(2) (for dual-fueledvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59708.

242 See, e.g., Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306.5(b)(1994) (‘‘To determine automotive fuel ratings foralternative liquid automotive fuels, you mustpossess a reasonable basis, consisting of competentand reliable evidence, for the percentage by volumeof the principal component of the [fuel] that youmust disclose.’’); Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR423.6(c)(1)–(6) (1994) (‘‘reasonable basis’’ based on‘‘reliable evidence’’); R-value Rule, 16 CFR460.19(a) (1994) (‘‘If you say or imply in your ads,labels, or other promotional materials thatinsulation can cut fuel bills or fuel use, you musthave a reasonable basis for the claim.’’).

243 See proposed rules §§ 309.22(a)(3) (fordedicated vehicles), 309.22(b)(3) (for dual-fueledvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 50708.

244 The Commission encourages DOE, as part ofits ‘‘technical assistance,’’ to direct the developmentof such transition specifications. See 42 U.S.C.13232(b) (Supp. IV 1993) (DOE ‘‘shall providetechnical assistance’’ to the Commission andcoordinate that assistance with its development ofa consumer information brochure).

The Commission’s SNPR proposal as toboth disclosures, and the commentsaddressing those issues, are described inmore detail below.

(1) Cruising range. In the SNPR, theCommission proposed that cruisingrange should be disclosed on labels fornew covered AFVs.228 Under theCommission’s revised proposal, cruisingrange would be displayed on AFV labelsin two formats. The first labeling formatwould be for dedicated covered AFVs(i.e., covered AFVs designed to operatesolely on alternative fuel).229 Labels forthese vehicles would disclose themanufacturer’s ‘‘estimated cruisingrange’’ for that vehicle (i.e., themanufacturer’s reasonable estimate ofthe number of miles a covered vehiclewill travel between refueling orrecharging), expressed as a lowerestimate and an upper estimate.230

The second labeling format would befor dual-fueled covered AFVs (i.e.,vehicles capable of being powered bothby an alternative fuel and aconventional fuel).231 Labels for thesevehicles would disclose two sets ofvalues: the manufacturer’s reasonableestimate of (a) the minimum andmaximum number of miles the vehiclewill travel between refuelings orrechargings when operated exclusivelyon alternative fuel, and (b) theminimum and maximum number ofmiles the vehicle will travel betweenrefuelings or rechargings when operatedexclusively on conventional fuel.232

Because the disclosure would relatesolely to the manufacturer’s estimated(and not actual) cruising range, bothlabel formats would include a statementadvising consumers that their actualcruising range will vary with options,driving conditions, driving habits andthe AFV’s condition.233

Cruising range values would beexpressed in whole numbers andcalculated in one of three ways. Forvehicles required to comply with EPA’sfuel economy labeling provisions,234

cruising range values would becalculated by reference to the vehicle’sestimated fuel economy rating.235 Forexample, the lower range value wouldbe determined by multiplying thevehicle’s estimated city fuel economy byits fuel tank or battery capacity, thenrounding to the next lower integervalue.236 Conversely, the upper rangevalue would be determined bymultiplying the vehicle’s estimatedhighway fuel economy by its fuel tankcapacity, then rounding to the nexthigher integer value.237

As noted previously, EPA is requiredto include AFVs powered by allalternative fuels within its fuel-economylabeling program, but has not yetannounced a timetable for doing so.238

During the transition to that next phase,the Commission therefore proposed adifferent approach for vehicles not yetrequired to comply with EPA’s fuel-economy labeling provisions. For EVs,the Commission noted that the Societyof Automotive Engineers (‘‘SAE’’), aconsensus standard-setting organization,has issued a ‘‘Recommended Practice’’establishing uniform procedures tocalculate cruising range for EVs (‘‘SAEJ1634’’).239 The Commission believedthat reliance on uniform standardswould facilitate comparability.240

Accordingly, the proposed rule requiresthat cruising range values for EV’s becalculated in accordance with thatstandard.241

For other vehicles not yet required tobe labeled with EPA’s fuel economystickers, the Commission knew of nocomparable consensus procedure thatcould yield cruising range values in theproposed ‘‘minimum-maximum’’format. As a result, the Commission didnot propose that manufacturers use aspecific standard to determine cruisingrange. In similar situations (i.e., wherethe Commission has required thedisclosure of specific information, butno consensus standards exist to measuresuch information), the Commission hasrequired that manufacturers have a‘‘reasonable basis’’ for suchdisclosures.242 Accordingly, for thosevehicles, the Commission proposed thatmanufacturers be required to possess areasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, of theminimum and maximum number ofmiles the vehicle will travel betweenrefuelings or rechargings.243

The SNPR also stated that during thistransition (i.e., while EPA is developingfuel-economy labeling requirements),the Commission would considerwhether any new consensus testmethods for determining cruising rangeconstitute a reasonable basis.244 TheCommission expected that industrycompliance with this AFV labeling rule,in conjunction with the need to avoiduncertainty about whether particulartest methods or calculations constitute areasonable basis, will encouragedevelopment of standardized testmethods and specifications. This, inturn, could facilitate widespreadacceptance of AFVs.

Fourteen comments addressedrequiring disclosure of cruising range asproposed in the SNPR. Five of thefourteen comments supported theCommission’s proposal because of itsusefulness to consumers in making


245 Five other comments generally supported theCommission’s AFV labeling requirements withoutaddressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3;Chicago, J–2, 1; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD,J–4, 1; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

246 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 4.247 CAS, I–12, 1; NAFA, I–10, 2. DOE and Mobil

also supported a disclosure of this information.DOE, J–1, 2; Mobil, I–2, 9–10, cover letter at 1.

NAFA further suggested that the Commissionspecify that no information ‘‘be presented at thetime an AFV is offered for sale that conflicts withinformation provided on the AFV label, such ascruising range.’’ NAFA, I–10, 2. The Commissionexpects that requiring disclosure of cruising rangeinformation could encourage affectedmanufacturers and dealers generally to provideadditional information to meet consumers’expectations and needs. See AGA/NGVC, G–6, 12(‘‘[F]uel retailers, vehicle manufacturers and tradeassociations can target and educate specialtymarkets and their consumers.’’); Boston Edison, D–11, 13 (‘‘[O]ver time, market forces will createincentives for sellers to identify and respond toconsumer demands for information, much asgasoline sellers supplement the information thatthey are required to provide under theCommission’s Octane Rule.’’). The Commissionconcludes that it is not necessary to address thisissue here, because section 5 of the FTC Act (15U.S.C. 45) authorizes the Commission to seekcorrective action if, after investigation, it has reasonto believe that advertising or marketing falls withinthe scope of conduct declared unlawful by thestatute.

248 A fourth comment, from DOT/NHTSA, notedthat NHTSA recently proposed gallon equivalentmeasurements for five gaseous fuels: CNG, LNG,LPG, Hydrogen, and Hythane. DOT/NHTSA, J–5, 1.

249 API, I–15, 5.250 Toyota, I–11, 2. As a result, Toyota

recommended that the Commission require that‘‘The range shall be actual driving range determinedin accordance with test methods set forth in thelatest SAE J1634 ‘‘Electric Vehicle EnergyConsumption and [R]ange Procedure.’’ Id. at 3.

251 CARB, J–3, 2.252 AAMA, I–16, 2.253 Electro Auto, I–7, 2.254 Ford, I–4, 2. See also AAMA, I–16, 2 (‘‘[W]e

have been unable to adequately develop a valuewhich would be consistent across fuels andmanufacturers or useful to customers at this time.’’);Electro Auto, I–7, 2 (range is ‘‘a difficult number topin down with any consistency’’); ETC, I–9, 2(Commission should defer requiring disclosure‘‘until industry-wide accepted methodologies forrange measurement are available’’).

255 AAMA, I–16, 6 (‘‘The disclosure of vehiclerange should not be provided until the standardsand adjustment factors, as described above, can bedeveloped.’’).

256 The lack of commercial fuel specifications‘‘results in highly variable fuel energy contentwhich could greatly affect in-use driving range.’’AAMA, Att. II at 1.

257 AAMA, I–16, 2, 3, Att. II at 1, 2. Chrysler,however, supported disclosure of fuel tank capacityand noted that that information was ‘‘currentlyprovided.’’ Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.

258 AAMA, I–16, 3.259 Id.

260 AAMA, I–16, Att. II at 1. AAMA notes,however, that the SAE procedure is ‘‘currentlybeing modified to measure city and highway energyconsumption,’’ and that the new procedure will beapproved ‘‘some time in 1995.’’ Id.

261 AAMA, I–16, Att. II at 2.262 Id.263 Id.264 AAMA, I–16, 3.265 See, e.g., CAS (Tr.), 156 (range gives

consumers ‘‘the ability to compare in the showrooma very visible number that you can go from car tocar to car and compare.’’); (Supp.), G–17, 1.

266 AAMA, G–7, 2. See also AMI (Tr.), 141 (rangeis one of the most important factors); NAFA (Tr.),147 (same); Boston Edison (Supp.), G–26, 9; (Tr.),142 (range is most important concern of peopleconsidering an EV purchase).

choices and comparisons.245 Forexample, survey data cited by BostonEdison/EEI ‘‘indicated that the distancethat an electric car can travel is thehighest ranking concern ofconsumers.’’ 246 Similarly, CASsupported requiring disclosure of this‘‘extremely useful’’ information andNAFA stated that fleet managers ‘‘haveidentified cruising range as one of themost important factors when making adecision to purchase AFVs.’’ 247

Three of the fourteen comments madesuggestions directed at specific issueswithout specifically supporting oropposing the Commission’s SNPRproposal.248 For example, API noted thatcruising range was ‘‘a useful measure forconsumer comparison’’ but suggestedthat the information be expressed interms of fuel tank capacity ‘‘and milesper gallon or gallon equivalent.’’ 249 Thefinal two of those three comments weredirected at the Commission’s proposalregarding how cruising range would becalculated for EVs. Toyota supportedthe Commission’s proposal to basecalculation of cruising range values forEVs on SAE J1634, but stated thatprocedure did not yield an upper andlower limit of the vehicle’s range.250

CARB stated that it ‘‘has a number ofconcerns’’ with SAE J1634, includingthat it may allow for inflated rangeestimates and that its treatment of EVsequipped with air conditioning was notsufficiently precise.251

Comments from domestic automakerssupported the Commission’sdetermination that cruising range wouldbe ‘‘useful’’ 252 and ‘‘important’’ 253

information for consumers. However,those commenters strongly opposedrequiring a disclosure as to that factorbecause cruising range ‘‘cannot, at thistime, be provided in a manner whichwould be useful to the consumer.’’ 254

The automakers based their oppositionon their belief that sufficient ‘‘standardsand adjustment factors’’ had not yetbeen developed to account fordifferences in AFV technology.255

For example, according to AAMA,without standard fuel specifications,256

EPA test procedures, and a definition offuel tank capacity for all AFVs, a rangeof estimates would result based onvarying assumptions which would inturn generate inconsistent andunhelpful estimates of vehicle range.257

The expected use of AFVs by fleetoperators, with different in-use drivingcycles and vehicle maintenancepractices than those used in EPA’s fueleconomy determinations, ‘‘can [also]significantly affect range.’’ 258 And‘‘inconsistencies and confusion’’ existbetween range estimates for flexible fuelvehicles (i.e., AFVs capable of operatingon an alternative and conventional fuelin a single fuel tank) and bi-fuelvehicles (i.e., AFVs equipped withseparate fuel tanks for alternative andconventional fuels).259

AAMA suggested that additionalproblems exist regarding calculatingfuel economy values for EVs. For

example, the SAE J1634 procedure forcalculating EV fuel-economy valuescurrently measures only a combinedmetro-highway fuel economy and isthus ‘‘inadequate for thesecalculations.’’ 260 That RecommendedProcedure also does not apply to hybridEVs (i.e., vehicles capable of operatingon electricity and conventional fuels atthe same time).261 Battery capacity forEVs also ‘‘may vary with usage, age,temperature * * * and otherfactors.’’ 262 Accordingly, ‘‘[f]urtherexperience with these vehicles isnecessary to provide an adequateprediction of the range that a consumermay achieve in-use.’’ 263 More generally,AAMA concluded that

[A]ny requirement that manufacturerscalculate and label vehicles with rangeestimates must resolve the above issues,or least be deferred until these issuescan be resolved * * * These estimatesnot only fail to provide valuableinformation to customers, but may alsoresult in failure to meet customerexpectations leading to customerdissatisfaction with [AFVs].264

After considering the record relatingto the threshold issue (i.e., whethercruising range should be disclosed onAFV labels), the Commission hasconcluded that such information isappropriate and will help consumersmake reasonable choices andcomparisons.265 It is also one of themost important facts consumers needregarding whether and which AFV toacquire; as AAMA noted: ‘‘Thisinformation (i.e., range) is vital for theconsumer when deciding betweenvarious alternative fuels * * * .’’ 266

Because cruising ranges for AFVs candiffer significantly from cruising rangesfor conventional fuel vehicles, withwhich consumers are most familiar,consumers also have a practical need forcruising range disclosures on AFVlabels. As a Workshop participantstated,

[I]f I was leaving on a 50 or 60-miletrip and my cruising range could be aslow as 30, I’d like to know that. So I


267 RFA (Tr.), 149. See also RFA (Tr.), 153,(Supp.), G–5, 2 (‘‘[G]iven the sparsity and distancebetween alternative fuel refueling stations, vehicleowners need to be aware of approximate range.’’).

268 AMI (Tr.), 155 (consumers understand that‘‘basic information’’ on the label is not going to beprecise).

269 The Commission described these claims andtheir prevalence in detail in the SNPR. 59 FR 59666,59687–59688. Automakers responding to the SNPRdid not address this issue.

270 For example, at a May 11, 1993, congressionalhearing, representatives from Chrysler, Ford, andGM all made cruising range claims for their EVs.See Status of Domestic Electric VehicleDevelopment, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993)(statement of Doran K. Samples, ProgramManagement Executive of the Electric MinivanProject, Chrysler, at 52, 56; Roberta J. Nichols,Electric Vehicle External Strategy Manager, Ford, at60, 64, 66; and Kenneth R. Baker, Vice President,GM, at 76).

271 See GM, Progress Report, B–5, front, Spring/Summer 1993 (GM’s Impact 4 EV has ‘‘a drivingrange of 70 miles in the city and 90 miles in normalhighway driving.’’); GM, GM’s ‘‘Impact’’ Show Carand New Pre-Production Electric Vehicle Lead the104th Tournament of Roses, B–6, at 2, Dec. 29, 1992(‘‘The Impact and the pre-production car . . . havea useful range of 100 miles . . .’’); GM, GeneralMotors Electric Vehicles Fit Most Drivers’ Lifestyles,B–7, at 1, Oct. 20, 1992 (‘‘GM’s ‘Impact’ prototypehas a highway range of 100 miles.’’).

272 Chrysler 1994 Dodge Caravan/PlymouthVoyager, B–8, back, May 7, 1993; Chrysler 1994Dodge 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 80miles per charge.’’).

273 AAMA (Supp.), G–7, 1994 Dodge SpiritOwner’s Manual at 105 (‘‘Cruising Range: M–85produces 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 ofgasoline in the fuel tank increases.’’).

274 AAMA (Supp.), G–17, 1993 Chevrolet LuminaOwner’s Manual—Ethanol Supplement, at 4(‘‘When using an E–85 mixture of fuel, your Luminahas a range of 250–300 miles (400–480 km).’’); 1992Chevrolet Lumina Owner’s Manual—MethanolSupplement, at 5 (‘‘When using an M–85 mixtureof fuel, your Lumina has a range of 200–250 miles(320–400 km).’’).

275 PSA 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 and 110 kmcity, and car continuously displays remainingrange; Peugeot 405 Station Wagon has battery rangeof 72 km at 40 kph and highway range of 750 kmat 100 kph).

276 Dreisbach ElectroMotive, Inc., API DemiMotorola Saturn, B–14, front, undated (range from140 to 518 miles depending on batteryconfiguration); Electro Automotive, ElectroAutomotive Makes Electric Cars Easy With TheVoltsrabbit(tm) Kit, B–15, front, undated (range: 60–80 miles); Solar Car Corporation, Specifications forChevy 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 drivingconditions.’’).

277 Arizona Public Service Company, ElectricVehicle Program, B–17, at first upper panel,undated (‘‘Today’s batteries give Evs a range of 30to 100 miles on a single charge.’’); Electric PowerResearch Institute, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure:How Far Will My Electric Vehicle Take Me?, B–18,front, 1992 (‘‘[T]oday’s EV models . . . offer adriving range of 60 to 100 miles. . . .’’); VirginiaPower, The Electric Vehicle: Clean, Quiet andEfficient (CO 923–VA/EE 93084), B–19, front,undated (Solectria Force has range of 70–90 miles);Potomac Electric Power Company, Questions andAnswers About the Solectria Force, B–20, front,Dec. 1992 (Solectria Force has driving range of ‘‘60miles if the batteries are fully charged . . . Theeffective range of the Force using current off-the-shelf battery technology is approximately 35 to 40miles on a charge.’’).

278 Blue Bird Body Company, ProductSpecifications 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 mileswith 3 tanks’’); Ford, Crown Victoria dedicatedCNG, B–22, front, March 3, 1993 (‘‘The drivingrange for these demonstration units isapproximately 200 miles.’’).

279 Mazda, Mazda Takes Action To AddressGlobal 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.’’).

280 Clean Fuels Task Force of Western Liquid GasAssociation, LPG: An Alternate Clean Air MotorFuel With Significant Environmental and EconomicAdvantages, B–24, 7, May 1992 (‘‘LPG offers thebest range per gallon of the four non-gasoline cleanfuels.’’); NPGA, LP-Gas Is Moving America’s Fleets,B–25, 6, 1991 (chart comparing driving ranges for

‘‘identical vehicles, optimized for their specificfuel.’’).

281 Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV (usinggasoline or M85), B–26, front, March 4, 1993(‘‘Highway driving range is approximately 350miles when using M85.’’); Ford, Ford AnnouncesProduction of 1993 Taurus FFV, B–27, at 1, Dec. 16,1992 (‘‘By increasing the size of the fuel tank to 20.7gallons, the driving range of the Taurus FFV whenfueled with M85 is similar to a non-FFV Taurus.’’);Ford, Econoline van and Club Wagon FFV (usinggasoline and M85), B–28, front, March 4, 1993(‘‘The highway driving range is approximately 400miles when using M85.’’).

282 Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2 (fuel tank capacity and fueleconomy values are ‘‘currently provided’’).

283 See, e.g., Ford, G–14, 1–2, (Tr.), 145(consumers could use fuel tank capacity and EPA’sfuel economy estimates to determine approximatecruising range).

284 B–33, 1 (emphasis added). See also B–33, 10(‘‘The purpose of this test is to determine theoverall range of an electric vehicle when operatedon a dynamometer over repeated driving cycles.’’).

285 59 FR 5336, Feb. 4, 1994.286 Standard procedures regarding battery

capacity for EVs are contained in SAE J1634.

think I would like to know the low endof it even if there is a broad, you know,number that’s not very well defined. Ithink it’s still beneficial to know whatthe minimum, certainly the minimumsare, because you have to be able to makeit to the next fueling point.267

Displaying cruising-range values in ameaningful way to consumers also isfeasible. Statements accompanying thecruising range values identify thedisclosure as being a ‘‘manufacturer’sestimate,’’ and advise consumers thatactual cruising range ‘‘will vary withoptions, driving conditions, drivinghabits and the vehicle’s condition.’’Consumers are further cautioned thatthe labels are for comparison purposesand ‘‘may not reflect actual drivingrange.’’ A disclosure displayed in thisformat is not likely to pose problems toconsumers accustomed to estimates.268

The Commission has also determinedthat calculating cruising range values isfeasible, as shown by the prominencewith which this factor appears inmarketing and advertising claimspromoting AFV use.269 For example,Chrysler, GM and Ford have all madecruising range claims regarding theirEVs in congressional testimony,270

promotional material 271 and productspecification sheets.272 Chrysler and GMalso address cruising range in owner’s

manuals for the 1994 Dodge Spirit 273

and 1993 Chevrolet Lumina.274 Peugeothas made similar claims in itspromotional material.275 Companiesconverting cars to run on electricity 276

and electricity utilities 277 are alsomaking cruising range claims for EVs.Similar claims are also being made forAFVs powered in whole or in part byCNG,278 hydrogen,279 LPG,280 and

methanol.281 Accordingly theCommission has determined to issue itsSNPR proposal regarding methods forcalculating cruising range values (butwith four modifications describedbelow) because those methods generatecomparable cruising-range estimates.

For example, calculating suchestimates for vehicles required tocomply with EPA’s fuel-economyregulations should not be a problem,because the data yielding the estimates(the vehicle’s fuel economy estimateand fuel tank capacity) are readilydeterminable.282 For those vehicles, theestimates would simply be derived bymultiplying two known values.283

Similarly, the Commission hasconcluded that relying on SAE’s J1634Recommended Practice is appropriatefor calculating cruising range values forEVs. The J1634 test establishes ‘‘uniformprocedures for testing electric battery-powered vehicles * * * [using]standard tests which will allow fordetermination of * * * [cruising]range.’’ 284 The Commission also notesthat DOE has proposed requiring the useof SAE J1634 to determine equivalentpetroleum-based fuel economies ofEVs.285 Thus, for those vehicles, thefinal rule requires that cruising range becalculated using SAE J1634.

As noted, however, the Commissionhas modified the proposed rule in fourways in response to the comments.First, the proposed rule is modified byincluding a definition of fuel tankcapacity for vehicles powered bygaseous and liquid fuels.286 Thismodification will promote consistencyof cruising range estimates where thecalculations are based on fuel economyand tank capacity data. The final rulethus includes a definition for ‘‘vehicle


287 See Final Rule § 309.1(gg).288 The Commission understands that a revision

to SAE J1634 under consideration by SAE wouldyield cruising range values in a minimum-maximum format. The Commission will monitorSAE’s review of this revision and consider changesto this Final Rule as appropriate.

289 See Final Rule § 309.1(k).290 Flexible fuel vehicles (i.e., vehicles with one

tank capable of operating on either fuel, or anymixture of the two, at the same time) are notaffected by this modification. As noted previously,the Commission proposed that labels for dualfueled vehicles dislose two sets of cruising rangeestimates: one representing the vehicle’s cruisingrange when operating exclusively on alternativefuel and one representing cruising range when thevehicle operates exclusively on conventional fuel.As a result, the SNPR’s proposal accurately conveysthe effective cruising range for these single tankAFVs.

291 See proposed rule § 309.23, 59 FR 59666,59708.

292 59 FR 59666, 59690. See text accompanyingnotes 320–322.

293 EPA has not yet issued emission standards andcertification test procedures for certain fuels (e.g.,electricity and hydrogen).

294 Four other comments indicated generalsupport for the Commission’s labeling proposal butdid not address this specific issue. Chicago, J–2, 1;Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

295 NAFA, I–10, 3.296 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 5. See also NAFA, I–

10, 3 (proposed format is ‘‘simple,’’ ‘‘easy formanufacturers to provide,’’ ‘‘appropriate,’’ and willhelp consumers), CAS, I–12, 1 (graphic will provideconsumers with at least a minimum ofenvironmental information, but should also identifyrating for comparable gasoline-fueled vehicle). DOEalso specifically supported a disclosure as to thisfactor. DOE, J–1, 2.

297 NAFA, I–10, 3.298 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 6. A similar

disclosure on EPA’s fuel economy labels ‘‘appearsto be effective in conveying to consumers that therating provides a basis of comparison, not aguarantee of performance.’’ Id.

299 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3, 4. The Commission hadproposed that that statement read as follows: ‘‘Theoverall environmental impact of driving this vehicleincludes many factors not measured by thesestandards.’’

300 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3, 4.301 Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.302 Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 3, 10.303 Two comments from automakers, however,

raised no objection to this disclosure. ETC, I–9(membership includes domestic automakers);Toyota, I–11.

304 AAMA, I–16, 3, 6. In the alternative, AAMAsuggested that the Commission not requiredisclosure of this information under its labeling

Continued

fuel tank capacity’’ derived from a DOTdefinition of the same term.287 Second,the final rule requires that cruisingrange values for EVs be disclosed in theformat generated by the SAERecommended Practice (i.e., in a single‘‘combined’’ city-highway range). As aresult, cruising ranges for these vehicleswill be displayed as a single figure (e.g.,‘‘450 miles’’) instead of in a minimum-maximum format (e.g., ‘‘400–500miles’’).288

Third, because the SAE J1634 testprocedures do not apply to hybrid EVs,that Recommended Practice will notgenerate cruising range values for thosevehicles. Accordingly, the Commissionhas modified the definition of ‘‘electricvehicle’’ to clarify that only vehiclespowered exclusively by electricity arerequired to calculate cruising rangevalues by reference to SAE J1634.289 Forhybrid EVs, then, cruising range valueswould be calculated by reference to the‘‘reasonable basis’’ test.

Finally, the SNPR’s treatment of bi-fuel vehicles is modified to reflect thefact that those vehicles have two tanksholding separate fuels, operating on onefuel or the other.290 With two separatetanks, the effective cruising range forsuch vehicles could be the sum of thecruising range for either fuel.Accordingly, the statementaccompanying that disclosure willadvise consumers that, ‘‘The totalpossible cruising range of this vehicle isthe sum of the alternative fuel range andthe conventional fuel range.’’

The proposed rule also included aprovision requiring that manufacturersmaintain records for three yearsdemonstrating compliance with theproposed rule.291 While EPA 92 doesnot expressly address this issue, theCommission believed that a reasonablerecordkeeping requirement is necessaryto ensure the accuracy of disclosuresmade pursuant to these labeling

requirements. No comments addressedthis issue. The Commission hasconcluded that the recordkeepingprovision is simple, easy to complywith, and allows it to verify compliance.Accordingly, the Commission has notmodified that requirement in the finalrule.

(2) Environmental impact. In theSNPR, the Commission proposed thatlabels for new covered AFVs discloseinformation regarding a vehicle’senvironmental performance, expressedin terms of the EPA emissions standardto which the vehicle had beencertified.292 For vehicles which had notbeen so certified, manufacturers wouldplace a mark in the box indicating thatfact.293 For those vehicles which hadbeen certified as meeting an emissionsstandard, manufacturers would place amark in the appropriate box indicatingthat fact, and then indicate on a graphicthe standard to which the vehicle hadbeen certified. The graphic woulddepict seven EPA emissions standards.Prior to being offered for acquisition toconsumers, manufacturers of suchvehicles would identify the emissionscertification standard on that graphic byplacing a caret above the applicablestandard. The label would also containa statement advising consumers that,‘‘The overall environmental impact ofdriving this vehicle includes manyfactors not measured by thesestandards.’’

Ten comments addressed this aspectof the Commission’s SNPR proposal.294

Four comments supported includingthis information on new AFV labelsbecause the information was ‘‘animportant factor’’ 295 for consumers andthe proposed graphic conveys this‘‘critical information to consumers in ahighly effective manner.’’ 296 Oneadvantage of this disclosure was thatconsumers would not ‘‘be dependent onmarketing claims and other assertionsthat a vehicle [was] ‘cleaner’ or that thevehicle ‘meets all the requirements of

the Clean Air Act.’ ’’ 297 The writtendisclosure accompanying the graphicalso ‘‘should provide consumers withsufficient information to understand thelimits of the information conveyed bythe graphic.’’ 298

Two comments supported the conceptof disclosing a vehicle’s emissionscertification standard but suggested thatthe information be displayed in adifferent format. AGA/NGVC suggestedthat the statement accompanying thedisclosure state that, ‘‘The overallenvironmental impact of driving [any]vehicle includes many factors not[currently] measured by [existingvehicle emission] standards.’’ 299 (Themodifications are shown in brackets.)That comment further suggested that thegraphic for this factor identify thestandard to which the conventionally-fueled version of that vehicle wascertified.300 Chrysler specificallysupported labeling AFVs with eachvehicle’s emissions certificationstandard, but generally opposed theCommission’s proposed labelingformat.301

Four other comments opposedrequiring this disclosure on AFV labels.Mobil stated that emissions standardshave no relevance in EPA 92, that fleetoperators (who are concerned aboutemissions certifications) do not rely onwindow stickers in making purchasingdecisions, and that the ‘‘vast majority’’of the general public ‘‘are not aware ofthe differing classifications’’ and are notrequired to acquire AFVs. ‘‘Therefore,labeling of the vehicle emissionscertification will not provide anymeaningful information to the majorityof consumers.’’ 302

Three comments from automakerssimilarly opposed requiring thisdisclosure.303 AAMA suggested that thisdisclosure be deferred until EPA hadestablished certification standards forall alternative fuels and AFVs.304 Electro


requirements, and instead defer to EPA. AAMA, I–16, 6.

305 Electro Auto, I–7, 2. This comment apparentlymisapprehended the Commission’s proposal asrequiring disclosure of ‘‘complete environmentalimpact data.’’

306 Ford, I–4, 2. This comment did not furtheraddress or explain why this information should notbe required to be disclosed.

307 See proposed rule § 309.23, 59 FR 59666,59708.

308 H. Rep. No. 102–474(I), 102d Cong., 2d Sess.133, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1954, 1956. Thedrafters also sought, inter alia, ‘‘to promote cleaneralternative automotive fuels.’’ Id.

309 For example, the drafters of EPA 92 noted thatall alternative fuels ‘‘have different strengths,weaknesses, prices, emissions, and regional niches* * * .’’ H. Rep. No. 102–474(I), 102d Cong., 2dSess. 136, reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1953,1959 (emphasis added). Environmentalperformance also is listed first in the list of factorsto be addressed by DOE’s information package. 42U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).

310 See 59 FR 24014, 24016–24017 n.62, 79, 91,98 and accompanying text (responding to ANPR).

311 B–3, 15. That statement is repeated in thesection devoted to each of the featured fuels.

312 See, e.g., Chrysler, Plymouth Acclaim andDodge Spirit FFV (no model year listed), B–29,back, undated (‘‘[R]educes smog-forming emissionsby at least 30 percent, and in many cases by asmuch as 50 percent, compared to gasoline runcounterparts. In addition, toxic emissions can bereduced by as much as 50 percent.’’); Chrysler,Chrysler Corporation’s [CNG] Vans & Wagons (nomodel year listed), B–30, inside front cover,undated (‘‘Dodge [CNG] Vehicles will meet or beatall applicable emission standards up to andincluding California’s requirements for Ultra LowEmission Vehicles (ULEV). CNG fueled Dodge vansand wagons produce significantly less emissions ofnonmethane hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide andoxides of nitrogen than similar gasoline poweredvehicles.’’); Ford, Taurus passenger car FFV, B–26,front, March 4, 1993 (‘‘Emission Levels: Comparedto gasoline vehicles, an ozone benefit of 30% isprojected for an FFV when operating on M85.’’).

See also Clean Fuels Task Force of WesternLiquid Gas Association, LPG: An Alternate CleanAir Motor Fuel With Significant Environmental andEconomic Advantages, B–24, 2, May 1992 (‘‘Use ofLPG as a motor fuel virtually ELIMINATESPARTICULATES, the gasoline and diesel carbonresidue that makes up 25 percent of the ‘browncloud.’ * * * An [EPA] test of a LPG-fueled FordV8 full size sedan showed hydrocarbon emissions29 percent cleaner than the accepted standard.Nitrogen oxides were down 57 percent, and carbonmonoxide emissions 93% better than the thenFederal standard.’’).

313 In sunlight, HC combines with nitrogen oxidesto form ozone (a major component of smog).According to EPA, ‘‘[o]zone irritates the eyes,damages the lungs, and aggravates respiratoryproblems. It is our most widespread and intractableurban air pollution problem. A number of exhausthydrocarbons are also toxic, with the potential tocause cancer.’’ B–31, 2.

314 CO ‘‘reduces the flow of oxygen in thebloodstream and is particularly dangerous topersons with heart disease.’’ Id.

315 NOx are ‘‘precursors to the formation of smog.’’Id.

316 PM is a general term for soot, dust, smoke, andother tiny bits of solid material released into the air.It can cause eye, nose, and throat irritation andother health problems. B–32, 22.

317 See, e.g., 40 CFR 86.091–30 (1993)(certification procedures for 1991 model year).

318 Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990).319 See 40 CFR Part 88 (1993) (‘‘Clean-Fuel

Vehicles’’).320 According to EPA, a vehicle certified as

meeting the requirements of both the ULEV andILEV standards have lower combined exhaust andevaporative emissions than an ILEV certifiedvehicle.

321 The California Pilot Test Program requires thatvehicle manufacturers in California produce andsell specified minimum numbers of clean fuelvehicles. The Clean Fuel Fleet Program requiresthat a percentage of new vehicles acquired bycertain fleet owners located in covered areas meet‘‘clean-fuel fleet vehicle emission standards.’’ FleetStandards Rule, 59 FR 50042, Sept. 30, 1994.

322 Boston Edison (Supp.), G–17, 8; CAS (Supp.),G–17, 2; NAFA (Tr.), 186–87.

323 CAS (Supp.), G–17, 2; DOE (Tr.), 172; NAFA(Tr.), 170–71.

Auto stated that AFVs should not berequired to meet more stringent labelingstandards than conventional fueledvehicles and that ‘‘completeenvironmental impact data’’ is‘‘impractical for a simple consumerlabel’’ and ‘‘misleading.’’ 305 Ford statedthat the proposed disclosures ‘‘cannot,at this time, be provided in a mannerwhich would be useful to theconsumer.’’ 306

The SNPR also proposed thatmanufacturers be required to maintainrecords for three years demonstratingcompliance with the proposed rule.307

The Commission tentatively hadconcluded that such a provision was areasonable means to ensure compliancewith this provision. No commentsaddressed this issue.

After considering the record, theCommission has now concluded thatrequiring disclosure of EPA certificationstandards is appropriate and would beuseful to consumers. Incorporatingenvironmental considerations intonational energy policy was a key goal ofEPA 92, and ‘‘improv[ing] ourenvironment’’ was a ‘‘principalpurpose’’ of that statute.308 EPA 92 alsogives special attention to the fact thatthe environmental performance ofalternative fuels differs, and that thosedifferences need to be explained toconsumers.309

The record also indicates thatcomparative information regardingalternative fuels will be helpful forconsumers considering AFVacquisitions. Numerous commentsidentified information aboutenvironmental performance as beingimportant to consumers consideringAFV acquisitions.310 DOE’s informationbrochure does not compare theenvironmental performance of different

alternative fuels. Instead, the brochurestates: ‘‘Generally speaking, allalternative fuels produce lower amountsof air toxics and ozone-formingemissions than does gasoline.’’ 311 TheCommission notes that environmentalperformance (as measured by emissionsstandards) is cited by AFVmanufacturers and other interestedparties in specification sheets and otherpromotional material in a manner noteasily amenable to comparisons.312

Disclosure of information regardingenvironmental impact in a simple labelformat is also feasible. For several years,EPA has promulgated emissionsclassification standards as part of itsFederal Motor Vehicle Control Program,which establishes pollution limits for‘‘criteria air pollutants’’ (i.e.,hydrocarbons (‘‘HC’’),313 carbonmonoxide (‘‘CO’’),314 nitrogen oxides(‘‘NOx’’),315 and particulate matter(‘‘PM’’)).316 The standards apply to newmotor vehicles manufactured in

specified model years. Aftermanufacturers submit appropriate testreports and data, the EPA Administratorissues a ‘‘certificate of conformity’’ tothose vehicle manufacturersdemonstrating compliance with theapplicable emissions standards.317

Pursuant to its authority under the1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,318

EPA began issuing stricter emissionsstandards for each model year as a wayof reducing levels of the criteria airpollutants. One set establishes five newstandards as part of a ‘‘clean-fuelvehicles’’ program.319 To qualify as aclean-fuel vehicle, a vehicle must meetone of five sets of increasingly stringentstandards. These standards aredenominated, in increasing order ofstringency, TLEV (‘‘Transitional LowEmission Vehicle’’), LEV (‘‘LowEmission Vehicle’’), ULEV (‘‘Ultra LowEmission Vehicle’’), ILEV (‘‘InherentlyLow Emission Vehicle’’), and ZEV(‘‘Zero Emission Vehicle’’).320 Standardsfor ‘‘clean-fuel vehicles’’ are mandatedfor use, at present, in two EPAprograms: the California Pilot Testprogram and Clean Fuel FleetProgram.321 EPA staff has informed theCommission, however, that it expectsthat vehicles meeting these standardswill not be restricted to these programs(e.g., some state programs requireacquisition of clean fuel vehicles).

In the SNPR, the Commission notedthat consumers could makecomparisons among vehicles byreference to EPA’s classification system.Specifically, because AFVs will becertified to a specific classification,certification levels provide a simple wayof comparing different AFVs.322 Theinformation also could be useful andimportant to some consumers likely toconsider AFV acquisitions (e.g., fleetoperators and environmentally-concerned consumers).323 Requiringdisclosure of objective data allows


324 CAS (Supp.), G–17, 2; NAFA, G–20, 4–5. Adisclosure as to this factor also will not subjectAFVs to an unfair labeling standard (as comparedto conventional fueled vehicles) because, as AAMAnotes, ‘‘[e]missions certification information isavailable for all vehicles.’’ AAMA (Supp.), G–7, 1.See also AAMA (Supp.), G–7, 2 (same).

325 The proposed label formats and SNPR textmade this point clear, but the proposed rulelanguage may have allowed for an erroneousinterpretation. See, e.g., AAMA, I–16, 3 (opposingthis disclosure in part based on belief that theCommission’s proposal would require disclosuresbased on ‘‘reasonable assessments’’ in the absenceof EPA standards).

326 See, e.g., Mobil, D–16, 3 (‘‘The fuel and vehicleare a system. Benefits that may be portrayed asbeing associated with a particular vehicle are reallya function of the combination of the fuel and thevehicle.’’).

327 AAMA (Tr.), 164–65 (‘‘[W]e feel there is anenormous amount of information that a consumerhas to know about . . . [AFVs] including electricvehicles, and if any attempt is made to put everyfactor on the label it’s going to end up informationoverload and do nothing but confuse theconsumer.’’); Ford (Tr.), 175–76 (sticker is notappropriate place to provide detailed information;consumers need information before they get to thedealership).

328 CAS, G–17, 3, (Tr.), 166, (Supp.), 3. EPA’s fueleconomy label discloses the vehicle’s annual fuelcosts, but that figure does not include otheroperating costs. EPA (Tr.), 166.

329 Id.330 59 FR 59666, 59691–59692.

331 Boston Edison, I–14, 7; (Supp.), G–26, 9–11,12; (Tr.), 202; RFA, G–5, 5; UCS (Tr.), 201–2, 208.

332 H. Rep. No. 102–474(1), 102d Cong., 2d Sess.132.

333 AMI (Tr.), 206; API (Tr.), 201; NPGA (Tr.), 203.334 NPGA (Tr.), 203.335 Boston Edison stated DOE’s Energy

Information Administration (‘‘EIA’’) publishes thedata necessary to determine the domestic content ofmotor vehicle fuel. Boston Edison (Supp.), G–26,11. EIA’s reports, however, do not cover all thealternative fuels. See Boston Edison (Supp.), Exhibit4 (no data for ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, or LPG).

336 RFA generally supported a disclosure as to thisfactor 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 addedenough stuff now that it’s really a scroll * * * Butperhaps maybe the reference to the brochure andthen maybe the DOE since they would have accessto the EIA information readily available, maybe itshould go into the information brochure. . . I thinkit would be too difficult to keep it up in the contextof a label.

RFA (Tr.), 207–08.

consumers to evaluate competitiveadvertising and marketing claimsregarding an AFV’s environmentalperformance.324 Finally, therecordkeeping provision is simple, easyto comply with, and allows theCommission to verify compliance withthe Rule.

For the reasons described above, theCommission has determined to issue itsSNPR proposal as to this subject, butwith two modifications. First, the finalrule specifies that if a vehicle has notbeen certified as meeting an EPAemissions standard, manufacturers mustindicate that fact by placing a markwhere appropriate on the labelformats.325 Second, the Commissionagrees with AGA/NGVC’s commentproposing a modification of thestatement accompanying the graphic tomore precisely reflect the limitations ofthe disclosure. Accordingly, the finalrule requires that the disclosure statethat, ‘‘The overall environmental impactof driving any vehicle includes manyfactors not currently measured byexisting vehicle emissions standards.’’

The Commission also has concludedthat one other suggestion (i.e., requiringdisclosure of the emissions standard towhich the conventionally-fueled versionof a vehicle was certified) may not bepracticable. All vehicles (conventionaland AFVs) are designed and configuredto be powered by specific fuels.326 As aresult, the performance characteristicsof vehicles configured to be powered byone fuel may differ from vehiclesbearing the same model name butconfigured to be powered by a differentfuel. Comparisons between suchvehicles may therefore be misleading.

b. Specific data disclosuresconsidered but not proposed. As notedpreviously, EPA 92 directs theCommission to issue labelingrequirements only ‘‘to the greatestextent practicable,’’ taking into accountthe problems associated withdeveloping and publishing such

information and the simple label format.Accordingly, in developing this finalrule, the Commission assessed thepracticality of requiring disclosure ofinformation pertaining to all the factorscited in the comments. As to thefollowing factors, the Commission hasdetermined that the level of detailnecessary to convey balanced, accurate,objective information to consumers (i.e.,by reference to some rating or empiricalvalue) cannot be contained on the‘‘simple’’ label envisioned by Congress.Information overload considerations,327

the lack of standards upon which tobase required disclosures, and the easyavailability of such information throughother sources, led the Commission toreject including additional factors onthe label.

(1) Operating costs. For example,earlier in the proceeding CAS proposedthat the Commission require thatoperating costs be disclosed on AFVlabels so that consumers will be aware‘‘if operating costs of an AFV will besignificantly different than a comparableconventional vehicle.’’ 328 Under itsproposal, the AFV labels would state,‘‘Operating costs of this vehicle areexpected to be at least 25% higher (orlower) than gasoline powered vehiclesin its size class.’’ 329 Because expressingthis information objectively (e.g.,‘‘operating this AFV costs 18 cents/mile’’) or comparatively (e.g., ‘‘operatingthis AFV costs 10% more than acomparable conventional-fueledvehicle’’) could help consumers makereasonable choices and comparisons, inpreparing its SNPR proposal theCommission considered whetherbalanced, accurate information aboutthat factor could be contained on asimple label.

After considering the record,however, the Commission determinedthat requiring disclosure of specific dataas to this factor is not practicable at thistime.330 The Commission received noadditional comments supporting adisclosure as to this factor, and finds nobasis to modify its prior determination.Accordingly, as described in section

III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, the Commissionconcludes that for purposes of thislabeling rule, it is appropriate to adviseconsumers to consider costs whenevaluating AFVs, without providingspecific data on this factor.

(2) Domestic content of the fuel.Because information on the domesticcontent of fuel might be of interest tosome consumers interested in thesocietal benefit of promoting domesticindustries, the Commission hasconsidered the propriety of requiringdisclosure of such information on AFVlabels. Several commenters suggestedthat the AFV label indicate the extent towhich the alternative fuel powering aparticular AFV was produceddomestically.331 Such a disclosurewould help promote energyindependence and energy security, keygoals underlying EPA 92.332 Othersopposed such a disclosure because itwould not be practicable.333

After considering the record, theCommission has determined that it isnot practicable to require disclosure ofobjective information as to this factor onthe AFV label. The Commission isaware of no consensus standards forestimating the domestic content oftransportation fuels 334 and governmentreports addressing this topic do notcover all alternative fuels.335 In anyevent, the Commission concludes that adisclosure as to this factor, even ifpracticable, is not feasible because ofthe constraints of the label format.336

The Commission notes, however, thatDOE’s information brochure includes ageneral discussion of domestic contentfor each of the featured fuels. Forexample, the brochure states thatethanol’s domestic content is‘‘[c]urrently as high as 100% for pureethanol, depending on world market


337 B–3, 18.338 In its initial comment Boston Edison stated

that energy efficiency could be expressed as‘‘efficiency per BTU’’ or ‘‘efficiency per mile,’’ butdid not otherwise define a basis for thesedisclosures. Boston Edison, G–26, 3–4. See alsoBoston Edison (Supp.), G–26, 5–7. Although notstated, it appears that this suggestion was limitedto labeling for electric vehicles. At the Workshop,CAS supported a disclosure for this factor, CAS(Tr.), 194, but later indicated that it was satisfiedthat EPA fuel economy labels will give consumerssufficient information on the comparative energyefficiency of competing vehicles during driving.CAS (Supp.), G–17, 3.

339 EPA, H–4, 1, 3.340 API, G–25, 5.341 CAS, G–17, 3. AGA/NGVC stated that the

AGA’s manual of available CNG fueling stationsshould be ‘‘referenced,’’ but did not indicatewhether that should be on the AFV label or in theDOE brochure. AGA/NGVC (Tr.), 195. TheCommission notes that the DOE brochure lists AGAand NGVC as sources for additional informationabout CNG-powered AFVs. See B–3, 23.

342 MC-MD, H–7, 2. See also NACAA (Tr.), 196 (tothe extent there are different grades, ‘‘we don’tknow all the fuels out there’’).

343 DOE, H–10, 6; (Tr.), 172–73.

344 See B–3, 16 (electricity), 18 (ethanol), 20(methanol), 22 (CNG), 24 (propane).

345 See 16 CFR 306.10(a) (1994) (requiringretailers to post automotive fuel ratings).

346 59 FR 59666, 59693–59695.347 Labels for used covered vehicles, which would

not require disclosure of specific data disclosures,would simply disclose the descriptive information.

348 59 FR 59666, 59693.349 59 FR 59666, 59694.350 For performance/convenience, the labels

would state that vehicles powered by different fuelsdiffer in their cold-start capabilities (i.e., ability tostart a cold engine), refueling and/or rechargingtime (i.e., how long it takes to refill the vehicle’stank to full capacity), acceleration rates, andrefueling methods.

351 For fuel availability, the labels would adviseconsumers to determine whether refueling and/orrecharging facilities that meet their driving needshave been developed for this vehicle and will bereadily available in their area.

352 For energy security/domestic content of fuel,the labels would state that alternative fuels canreduce U.S. reliance on imported oil, especially ifall of the fuel’s components are produced in thiscountry. Consumers are then advised to considerwhether the fuel powering this vehicle is typicallyproduced domestically or is imported.

353 Fuel type, operating costs, fuel availability,and energy security/domestic content of fuel.

price.’’ 337 Accordingly, as described insection III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra, theCommission concludes that consumersshould be advised to consider this factorwhen evaluating AFVs, but that labelsshould not include specific data on thisfactor.

(3) Fuel economy/energy efficiency.In developing this final rule theCommission has considered whetherrequiring disclosure of fuel economy orenergy efficiency information would beuseful to consumers.338 However, EPA,which is responsible for compiling fueleconomy information for the federalfuel-economy labeling program, hasplans to establish labeling requirementsfor AFVs powered by all alternativefuels.339 Therefore, the Commissionconcludes that requiring fuel economyinformation on its labels would beduplicative, and possibly confusing. Ithas thus determined that suchinformation should not be disclosed onits AFV labels.

(4) Appropriate fuel, fuel availability,fuel grade, and refueling time. TheCommission received commentssuggesting that disclosure of otherinformation (e.g., appropriate fuel forthe vehicle,340 fuel availability,341 fuelgrade,342 and refueling time 343) shouldbe required on AFV labels. TheCommission notes that the fuel to beused in the vehicle will be easilyascertainable (either from EPA’s fueleconomy labels or informationvoluntarily supplied by AFVmanufacturers). However, someconsumers may not be familiar with theavailability of AFVs powered bydifferent alternative fuels. Accordingly,the Commission finds that whilerequiring disclosure of fuel type is not

necessary for AFV labels, as describedin section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra,consumers should be advised toconsider this factor when evaluatingAFVs. As to the remaining factors, theCommission believes that disclosuresare impractical because all usefulinformation simply cannot fit in asimple label. The Commission also isnot aware of a standard methodology orestablished practice for calculating anyof those factors, and no commenteraddressed that subject.

The Commission notes, however, thatfuel availability and refueling methods,two topics proposed by comments forthe labels (including refueling time forelectricity and CNG) are addressed inthe DOE brochure.344 Accordingly, asdescribed in section III(C)(2)(c)(1), infra,the Commission concludes thatconsumers should be advised, as ageneral matter, to consider those factorswhen evaluating AFVs. In addition,because the Commission hasdetermined that consumers need basiccomparative information whilerefueling, the principal component ofalternative fuels is required to bedisclosed by the Commission’s FuelRating Rule 345 and this final rule.

c. Descriptive Disclosures on AFVLabeling. In the SNPR, the Commissionproposed that the specific datadisclosures on labels for new coveredvehicles (i.e., cruising range and EPAcertification level) be supplementedwith general, descriptive informationpertinent to all consumers consideringan AFV purchase.346 These descriptivedisclosures would comprise the secondand third parts of the AFV label.347 Thesecond part of the AFV label wouldcontain a list of factors consumersshould consider before acquiring anAFV. The third part would adviseconsumers of toll-free telephonenumbers they could call to obtainfurther pertinent information from thefederal government. The Commission’sproposals as to these two parts, and thecomments addressing those proposals,are described below.

(1) List of comparative factors. TheCommission believed that requiring alist of factors consumers could use toconsider and compare AFVs wouldencourage AFV manufacturers,conversion companies, and dealers toprovide additional information to meet

consumers’ expectations and needs.348

The Commission also believed that a listof comparative factors could helpconsumers evaluate informationdisclosed on other labels, in advertising,and from other sources. Accordingly,the SNPR proposed that labels for newcovered vehicles contain a sectionunder a standard heading, stating,‘‘Before selecting an Alternative FuelVehicle (AFV) make sure youconsider:.’’ The labels would then listthe following five factors consumersshould consider before purchasing anAFV: fuel type (i.e., the fuel or fuels thatpower the vehicle); operating costs;performance/convenience (i.e., coldstart capability, refueling/rechargingtime, acceleration rates, and refuelingmethods); fuel availability; and energysecurity/domestic content of fuel.349

Each factor would be supplementedwith a brief explanation of how it isrelevant to an AFV purchase. Forexample, for fuel type, the label wouldcontain a statement that consumersshould be aware of which fuel(s) powersthat particular AFV. For operating costs,the label would state that fuel andmaintenance costs for AFVs differ fromgasoline or diesel-fueled vehicles andcan vary considerably. A similar formatwas proposed for the three othercomparative purchasing factors (i.e.,performance/convenience,350 fuelavailability,351 energy security/domesticcontent of fuel.352

The Commission proposed a nearlyidentical format for used coveredvehicles. For those labels, the SNPRproposed that the labels contain thesame standard heading followed by alist of factors. Four of the factors on thatlist would be displayed identically tothe list for new covered vehicles.353 Thedescription of one factor (performance/convenience) would be modifiedslightly, by adding a reference tocruising range differences between


354 On this label, consumers would be advisedthat vehicles powered by different fuels differ interms of their cruising range (i.e., how many milesthe vehicle will go on a full supply of fuel).

355 Six other comments generally supported theentirety of the Commission’s SNPR proposal. AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3; Chicago, J–2, 1; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1; NAFA, I–10, 1, 2; RFA,I–3, 1–2.

356 AAMA, I–16, 2, 6. As noted previously, threecomments fully supported AAMA’s comment.Chrysler, I–13, 1; Ford, I–4, 2; NGVPA, I–19, 1.

357 Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.358 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 6–7.359 Mobil, I–2, 11, cover letter at 1.360 API, I–15, cover letter at 2. API also stated that

references to domestic products should agree withthe treatment given that topic under EPA 92 and theNorth American Free Trade Agreement, under

which ‘‘domestic products are defined much morebroadly.’’ Id. at 3.

361 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 7. This commentacknowledged, however, that EIA does not publishappropriate data for all alternative fuels. In thosecircumstances, Boston Edison/EEI suggested thatthe labels simply note that ‘‘information is not yetavailable for those fuels.’’ Id.

362 Mobil,I–2 (cover letter at 2–3, 7–8) (‘‘Checkwith [EIA] or request a copy of their Annual EnergyOutlook to determine what percentage of the fuelpowering this vehicle is from domestic or foreignsources.’’).

363 DOE, J–1, 2.364 CAS, I–12, 2 (E.g., ‘‘For information on

operating costs, contact DOE at the number listedbelow.). Electro Auto also addressed the operatingcosts factor; this comment may havemisapprehended the SNPR as proposing that actualoperating costs be disclosed on AFV labels. ElectroAuto, I–7, 2 (supports requiring disclosure ofcomprehensive operating costs for AFVs only ifconventional vehicles are required to disclosecomparable information).

365 The Commission reached a similar conclusionwhen it issued warranty labeling requirements forused motor vehicles. Those requirements aredesigned to help consumers evaluate and comparewarranty coverage and counteract dealermisrepresentations. In that proceeding, theCommission determined that requiring disclosure ofa standard list of major defects that can occur inused motor vehicles could convey usefulinformation to consumers. See Used Motor VehicleTrade Regulation Rule, Statement of Basis andPurpose, 49 FR 45692, 45706, Nov. 19, 1984 (listof major defects that can occur in used motorvehicles provides consumers with a framework forevaluating and comparing warranty coverage andcounteracts dealer misrepresentations).

366 See supra section III(C)(2)(b)(2).367 See 59 FR 24014, 24016 nn.68, 70, 75, 79 and

24017 nn.83, 87, 89, 97, 101, 102, 106 andaccompanying text (ANPR commenters identifyingthose factors as being important to consumers).

368 EPA fuel-economy labels also discloseinformation regarding fuel type and operating costs.But those labels are not yet required for AFVspowered by all alternative fuels. 59 FR 39638,39639.

different fuels.354 This reference wasadded to account for the fact that labelsfor used covered vehicles would notdisclose the vehicle’s cruising range.Finally, a new factor—environmentalimpact—was added to the list toaccount for the fact that labels for usedcovered vehicles would not disclose anyobjective information as to that factor.The description for this factor wouldadvise consumers that all vehicles(conventional and AFVs) affect theenvironment directly (e.g., tailpipeemissions) and indirectly (e.g., how thefuel is produced and brought to market).Consumers would then be advised tocompare the environmental costs ofdriving an AFV with a gasoline-poweredvehicle.

Four comments offered generalcomments regarding this aspect of theCommission’s proposal.355 Threecomments opposed including a standardlist of factors on AFV labels. AAMAstated that requiring disclosure of thelist exceeded the Commission’sstatutory mandate (because theinformation ‘‘is neither cost nor benefitinformation’’), is redundant withinformation required to be disclosed byDOE, and may discourage consumersinterested in AFVs because of its‘‘cautionary tone.’’356 Two othercomments characterized the list as‘‘unnecessary, [and] uninformative’’ 357

and of ‘‘minimal value.’’358 Mobil,however, supported including the‘‘fairly comprehensive’’ list of factorsbecause it provided a framework forevaluating issues relevant to AFVs ingeneral.359

Other comments were directed tospecific factors on the comparative list.For example, four comments addressedthe factor concerning energy security/domestic content of fuel. API stated thatthe proposed language ‘‘may be strongerthan the FTC can continue to defend’’because future alternative-energydemands may not be met by domesticsources.360 One comment suggested that

this factor be replaced with a specificdata disclosure on the subject, based ondata supplied by EIA.361 Mobilsuggested that the factor’s description berevised so that consumers were advisedthat information as to this subject wasavailable from EIA.362 DOE, however,supported the Commission’s proposalregarding this topic.363 In addition, CASsuggested that the explanation regardingtwo of the factors on the list—fuelavailability and operating costs—shouldstate specifically that furtherinformation as to those factors isavailable from DOE.364

After considering the record, theCommission has determined to issue itsSNPR proposal as to this subject withone modification. As to the thresholdissue of whether AFV labels shouldinclude a list of comparative factors, theCommission notes that the standard listof factors for comparisons proposed inthe NPR (and again in the SNPR) doesnot, by itself, disclose comparative cost-benefit information. Thus, in developingthis final rule the Commission hasconsidered whether including such alist on AFV labels would constitute‘‘appropriate information with respectto costs and benefits’’ (as that phrase isused in section 406(a)), and would beuseful to consumers in undertaking acost-benefit analysis regarding whetherto acquire an AFV or what type of AFV.As noted, numerous commentersindicated that this approach wouldprovide consumers with usefulinformation. In addition, theCommission cannot, as a practicalmatter, require disclosure ofcomparative information as to everyrelevant factor given the constraints ofa simple label format. Accordingly, theCommission has concluded that theAFV labels should contain a standard

list of factors consumers shouldconsider before acquiring an AFV.365

The Commission has concluded,however, that one factor on the list—energy security/domestic content—should be modified to reflect concernsraised in the comments. As notedpreviously, the final rule does notrequire an objective disclosure as todomestic content because it cannotfeasibly be displayed on a label.366 TheCommission further agrees that theeffective meaning of the ‘‘domestic’’content of fuels will likely change as aresult of international free-tradeagreements such as the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement. As a result,identifying the country of origin of agiven fuel will not always be usefulinformation to consumers.

In its place, the final rule defines thisfactor in terms of consumers’ interest inensuring long-term fuel availability at areasonable price from secure sourcecountries. Accordingly, that factor isdenominated ‘‘energy security/renewability’’ in the final rule, and theexplanatory statement advisesconsumers, ‘‘Consider where and howthe fuel powering this vehicle istypically produced.’’ Labeling for usedcovered vehicles will follow anidentical format.

The final rule retains the remainingfactors because all will likely beimportant for consumers to considerbefore purchasing an AFV.367

Information about the AFV’s fuel typewill be available directly from thedealer; and the other factors areaddressed in DOE’s informationbrochure.368 The Commission hasconsidered but decided againstmodifying the explanations for fuelavailability and operating costs (to stateexplicitly that further information is


369 See Figure 6 (new covered vehicles) and 8(used covered vehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59712, 59714.

370 Two other comments made general referenceto this issue. AAMA did not address the issue inits written comment but included the referralinformation in its proposed AFV label. AAMA, I–16, Att. III. In an earlier comment filed in thisproceeding, AAMA indicated support for labelswhich disclosed ‘‘instructions on where to obtainadditional information (e.g., DOE’s [informationbrochure]).’’ AAMA, G–7, 1. RFA’s comment was to‘‘encourage some formal review process of the DOEbrochure’’ by industry. RFA, I–3, 2.

371 Chrysler, I–13, 1. Chrysler also statedgenerally that the information proposed for the backside of the AFV labels was ‘‘unnecessary,uninformative, and due to its location, unreadableunder many circumstances.’’ Id. at 2.

372 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 7 (‘‘providesconsumers with valuable information directlypertinent to purchasing decisions’’); DOE, J–1, 2(supports reference to DOE’s Hotline andinformation brochure); DOT/NHTSA, J–5, 2(supports reference to NHTSA’s vehicle safetyhotline); Mobil, I–2, 11 (supports generally andwants DOE brochure to be ‘‘peer and technicallyreviewed’’ before publication of updates andrevisions).

373 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).374 DOT/NHTSA, H–1, 1.

375 Seven other comments indicated generalsupport with the Commission’s AFV labelingproposal without addressing this particular issue.AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3; Boston Edison, I–14, 4;Chicago, J–2, 1; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD,J–4, 1; NAFA, I–10, 1, 2; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

376 Mobil, I–2, 12.377 Chrysler, I–13, 1, 2.378 AAMA, I–16, 2, 5.

available from DOE) because it believesthat the label’s format alreadyadequately conveys that information.

(2) Referral to other sources ofinformation. In the SNPR, theCommission tentatively determined thata precise reference to DOE’s consumerinformation brochure and NHTSA’svehicle safety hotline was appropriateon labeling for new and used coveredAFVs. Accordingly, the Commissionproposed that label formats for new andused covered vehicles include standardstatements informing consumers thatthey can obtain (1) copies of a freeconsumer-information brochure andgeneral information about AFVs bycalling the toll-free telephone numberfor DOE’s National Alternative FuelsHotline, and (2) vehicle safetyinformation by calling the toll-freetelephone number for DOT/NHTSA’sAuto Safety Hotline.369

Five comments addressed thisissue.370 Chrysler opposed requiringdisclosure of referral information basedon its belief that the labels shoulddisclose information pertinent tospecific AFVs.371 The remaining fourcomments supported reference to one orboth of the toll-free hotlines.372

The referral statement proposed in theSNPR does not, by itself, discloseobjective cost-benefit information. Indeveloping this final rule, theCommission has thus consideredwhether including the proposedstatement on AFV labels would helpconsumers make reasonable choices andcomparisons. The Commission alsoconsidered whether including such astatement was feasible, given theconstraints of a simple label format.

After considering the record, theCommission concludes that including a

standard statement referring consumersto pertinent sources of governmentinformation is consistent with section406(a)’s legislative purpose. As noted,comments indicated that a referral toobjective information sources would beuseful to consumers. In addition, whileEPA 92 directed DOE to ‘‘produce andmake available’’ an informationpackage, the statute does not requireAFV manufacturers or dealers toprovide consumers with copies of theinformation package or to notify them ofits availability.373 To address thatapparent omission, AFV labels wouldcontain a statement informingconsumers that further informationabout AFVs is available from DOE. Thelabels also would inform consumers thatinformation about another pertinentfactor—vehicle safety—is available fromthe federal agency responsible forregulating the safe performance of motorvehicles.374

Given the nature of the disclosure, theCommission believes that consumersconsidering either new or used AFVswould find it equally relevant.Accordingly, the Commission hasdetermined that label formats for newand used covered vehicles will includereferences to DOE’s National AlternativeFuels Hotline and DOT/NHTSA’s AutoSafety Hotline, as proposed in theSNPR.

3. ConsolidationAs noted previously, EPA 92 requires

the Commission to consolidate its AFVlabels with other labels providinginformation to consumers ‘‘whereappropriate.’’ In developing the SNPR,the Commission thus consideredwhether the information theCommission will require for AFVs couldbe incorporated into existing labels (e.g.,EPA’s fuel economy label or theCommission’s used car Buyers Guide),or whether existing label informationcould be incorporated into its AFVlabels. For both options, theCommission noted that consolidationcould help consumers by collectingpertinent information in a centrallocation. Industries affected by thelabeling requirements could also benefitby possibly reducing their compliancecosts. However, disturbing labelingformats with which consumers arefamiliar could create confusion.Attempting to fit additional disclosuresinto existing labels also raises thepossibility that the label will overloadconsumers with excessive amounts ofinformation. Accordingly, theCommission tentatively concluded that

consolidating the information proposedto be disclosed with other labelsproviding information to consumers wasnot appropriate.

Three comments addressed theCommission’s SNPR proposal as toconsolidation.375 Mobil stated that thisissue could best be answered by vehiclemanufacturers.376 Comments fromAAMA and Chrysler opposed theCommission’s proposal. Chrysler statedthat manufacturers should haveflexibility to determine how best to labelvehicles to provide the requiredinformation, either by issuing a separatelabel or combining it with another labelas appropriate for the vehicle beinglabeled.377 AAMA supported theCommission’s proposal not toconsolidate the new disclosures onEPA’s fuel economy label, but statedthat manufacturers ‘‘must be given theflexibility to incorporate the additionalinformation required by the FTC onexisting labels.’’ 378

After considering the record, theCommission has determined thatconsolidating new AFV disclosures withother labels providing information tothe consumer is not appropriate.Consolidation as required by EPA 92could be undertaken in one of two ways:incorporating existing disclosures intonew AFV labels, or new AFVdisclosures into existing labels. As tothe first category, the Commission notesthat no comment responding to theSNPR supported such incorporation.The Commission also believes thatproviding the information alreadydisplayed on other labels on its AFVlabels (in a different format) couldconfuse consumers and is thereforeunnecessary.

As to the second category,consolidating information required bythe Commission into existing labelswould not be appropriate because thoselabels do not have sufficient extra spaceto accommodate new AFV disclosures.For example, EPA stated that new AFVinformation could not reasonably beincorporated into its fuel economy labelbecause that label already is


379 EPA (Tr.), 211 (‘‘Everybody saw how crowdedthis (i.e., the EPA label) already was. I guess itdepends on what type of information ultimatelyends up whether we would have difficulties withconsolidating the EPA’s label. But we’re looking atinformation overload right now.’’). DOE, in acomment responding to the Commission’s ANPR,stated further that, ‘‘Survey work has indicated thatthe fuel economy label already contains too muchinformation * * *’’). DOE, E–10, 4.

380 See infra section III(C)(4).381 See proposed rule §§ 309.20(b) (for new

covered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used coveredvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

382 See proposed rule §§ 309.20(e) (for newcovered vehicles), 309.21(e) (for used coveredvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

383 See proposed rule §§ 309.20(b) (for newcovered vehicles), 309.21(b) (for used coveredvehicles), 59 FR 59666, 59707.

384 Six additional comments indicated generalsupport for the Commission’s labeling proposal butdid not address this specific issue. AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1;Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 2; 6; NAFA, I–10, 1, 2;RFA, I–3, 1–2. Mobil also stated that this issuecould best be answered by vehicle manufacturers,and Toyota misapprehended the Commission’sSNPR proposal as requiring the posting ofalternative fuels labeling on vehicles. Mobil, I–2,12; Toyota, I–11, 1.

385 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 6 (‘‘The graphicchosen by the Commission to display emissionstandard certifications conveys this criticalinformation to consumers in a highly effectivemanner.’’); CAS, I–12, 1 (‘‘The proposed labelformat [for cruising range] will adequately conveythis important information to consumers.’’).

386 Chicago, J–2, 2, 3 (permanent labeling willpromote AFVs and alternative fuels, provide publiceducation and increase public awareness, and assistin implementing traffic control programs for AFVssuch as preferential parking).

387 AAMA, I–16, cover letter at 1. See alsoChrysler, I–13, 1, 2 (manufacturers should haveflexibility to determine whether to issue a separatelabel or combine it with another).

388 AAMA, I–16, 2. See also Ford, I–4, 2(proposed format overemphasizes importance of therequired information as decision criteria).

389 AAMA, I–16, 4 (‘‘Due to the layout and largefont, the label does not have extra space. Ifadditional information were required in the future,the label would have to be reformatted toaccommodate added text. This would be costly andrequire lead time.’’).

390 AAMA, I–16, 4 (‘‘[M]anufacturers are facedwith several existing and forthcoming labelingrequirements. On many vehicles, they are simplyrunning out of room to place new labels, especiallyone of the size proposed by FTC.’’). See also Ford,I–4, 2 (the proposed size promotes informationoverload, because ‘‘it establishes yet another labelon an already crowded vehicle which the consumermust read to gather pertinent information.’’).

391 AAMA, I–16, 4, 5, 6 (two-sided label will bedifficult to read, and consumers will quickly forget

phone numbers on the back if they do not copythem down). See also Ford, I–4, 2 (opposes two-sided label).

392 In fact, comments from the groupsrepresenting the natural gas and ethanol industriessupported the proposed label formats. AGA/NGVC,I–18, 2, 3; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

393 59 FR 59666, 59697.

‘‘crowded.’’ 379 As discussed below,380

the Commission also believes thatallowing manufacturers the option ofdetermining where the requireddisclosures would be displayed issimilarly not appropriate.

4. Label Size and Format

In the SNPR, the Commissionproposed that AFV labels be reducedfrom the size proposed in the NPR andmeasure 7 inches wide by 51⁄2 incheshigh.381 The Commission furtherproposed that information required tobe disclosed by its AFV labelingrequirements be displayed on a visiblewindow surface in three label formats.The first label format would be for newcovered AFVs designed to operate solelyon alternative fuel. Figures 4 and 6 inthe SNPR illustrated samples of thisformat; figure 4 (containing objectiveinformation particular to that vehicle)would appear on the front of the label,and figure 6 (containing generalinformation) would appear on the back.

The second label format would be fornew covered vehicles capable ofoperating on alternative fuel and onconventional fuel. Figures 5 and 6 of theSNPR illustrated samples of this format;figure 5 (containing objectiveinformation particular to that vehicle)would appear on the front, and figure 6again would appear on the back. Thethird label format would be for usedcovered AFVs. Figures 7 and 8 of theSNPR illustrated samples of this format;figure 7 would appear on the front, andfigure 8 would appear on the back.

The proposed rule also addressedgeneral format issues common to allthree labeling formats. For example,headlines and text for all labels werestandard as illustrated in the samplelabels.382 In addition, no marks orinformation other than that specified inthe proposed labeling requirementswould appear on any of the labels.383

Six comments addressed theCommission’s SNPR proposal regarding

AFV label size and format.384 Commentsfrom Boston Edison/EEI and CASsupported the proposed label’s displayof information concerning cruisingrange and EPA certification standard.385

Comments from the City of Chicago didnot address the specifics of theCommission’s proposal, but insteadsuggested that cost-benefit labels bepermanently affixed to AFVs.386

The remaining three comments fromsome domestic automakers, however,objected to the size and format of theproposed AFV labels. For example,AAMA opposed a standard label formatand stated that manufacturers shouldhave the option of placing new requiredinformation on existing labels.387

AAMA also stated that the proposedformat was ‘‘unintentionallymisleading’’ because it ‘‘yielded theimpression * * * that thecharacteristics described are the mostimportant to consider when purchasingan AFV.’’ 388 In addition, AAMA statedthat the proposed label formats lackedsufficient extra space,389 were toolarge,390 and should be limited to oneside.391

As noted, required labeling under theCommission’s AFV labelingrequirements must be ‘‘simple.’’Accordingly, in developing this finalrule the Commission has assessed howbest to meet consumers’ informationneeds, and the practical constraints ofvehicle labeling. To that end, theCommission has considered whetherallowing manufacturers the option ofdetermining where the requireddisclosures would be displayed wouldpromote simple labeling useful toconsumers.

The Commission notes thatconsumers generally have littlefamiliarity with competing alternative-fuel options or AFV technology, or howthose options and technology comparewith conventional fuels or vehicles. TheCommission also notes that consumersneed pertinent information to help themmake comparisons between thecompeting fuel options andtechnologies. The Commission thereforebelieves that consumers would best beserved if the information to be disclosedis displayed on labels in a standard,uniform format. The Commission alsobelieves that the proposed label formatsdisclose information in a fair andbalanced manner.392

After considering the record,however, the Commission hasdetermined that it should modify twoaspects of its SNPR proposal to addresspractical concerns raised by thedomestic automakers. First, the finalrule removes the SNPR requirement thatAFV labels be posted on visible‘‘window’’ surfaces. As a result,conspicuous posting of the label on anyvisible surface constitutes compliancewith the final rule. Second, the finalrule removes the requirement that AFVlabels appear in a two-sided format.Under this revision, the labels can eitherbe displayed immediately adjacent toeach other (on two sheets), or in thetwo-sided format proposed in the SNPR,at the discretion of the manufacturer.

5. Effective DateIn the SNPR the Commission

proposed that its AFV labelingrequirements be effective ninety daysafter publication of a final rule in theFederal Register, and sought commenton that proposed effective date.393

AAMA and Chrysler addressed thisissue, and both contended that


394 A third commenter stated that this issue couldbest be answered by vehicle manufacturers. Mobil,I–2, 12–13. Eight other comments indicated generalsupport for the Commission’s AFV labelingproposal without addressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2,3; Boston Edison, I–14, 1; Chicago,J–2, 1; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU–ISD, J–4, 1;Mobil, I–2, cover letter at 2; 6; NAFA, I–10, 1, 2;RFA, I–3, 1–2.

395 AAMA, I–16, 3–4, 6.396 AAMA, I–16, 6.397 Chrysler, I–13, 2.398 42 U.S.C. 13212 (Supp. IV 1993).399 42 U.S.C. 13251 (Supp. IV 1993). Acquisition

requirements for private fleet operators begin inmodel year 1999. 42 U.S.C. 13257 (Supp. IV 1993).

400 See Final Rule § 309.203(e) (content of labelsfor used covered vehicles).

401 42 U.S.C. 13232(a) (Supp. IV 1993).402 42 U.S.C. 13231 (Supp. IV 1993).403 59 FR 59666, 59697.404 Six other comments generally supported the

Commission’s AFV labeling proposal withoutaddressing this issue. AGA/NGVC, I–18, 2, 3;Chicago, J–2, 1; Comm Elec, I–8, 8; EIA/EEU-ISD,J–4, 1; NAFA, I–10, 1, 2; RFA, I–3, 1–2.

405 Boston Edison/EEI, I–14, 8. They alsosuggested that the Commission monitor thestandards upon which its disclosures are based, to‘‘avoid inadvertent reliance upon inappropriate oroutmoded performance criteria.’’ Id. at 3.

406 Mobil, I–2, 13. Mobil noted that frequent labelchanges during a single model year ‘‘may causeconfusion . . . and detract from the rule’s intendedpurpose of informing the consumer. Truly pertinentand important information should be the onlyreason for a label change more frequently than onetime per model year.’’ Id.

407 This appears to be a reference to EPA’smanagement structure. The Commission is anindependent administrative agency composed offive members appointed by the President andconfirmed by the Senate for terms of seven years.16 CFR 0.1 (1994). It has no ‘‘Administrator.’’

408 AAMA, I–16, 4.409 59 FR 39638, 39639.410 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 605(b).

manufacturers would require additionallead time to comply with the newlabeling requirements.394 AAMAexplained that the Commission’slabeling requirements would requiremanufacturers to design, order, produce,deliver, and integrate new labels intothe vehicle production process. For newcovered vehicles, the system would alsoneed to accommodate internal codingand tracking data, to account for the factthat the labels would discloseinformation specific to each vehicle.AAMA also stated that the two-sidedformat for those labels created evengreater complications with printing andapplication.395 As a result, ninety daysdid not allow adequate time forcompliance. AAMA suggested that theAFV labeling requirements be effectiveat least 180 days after publication ‘‘ifmanufacturers are given the option touse existing labels. Otherwise, werecommend that the FTC allow at least9 months lead time.’’ 396 Chrysler statedthat it would need 180 days toimplement the introduction of a newlabel.397

EPA 92 does not address when theCommission’s AFV labelingrequirements must be effective. Indeveloping this final rule theCommission has thus considered howbest to balance consumers’ needs forcomparative information with industry’sneed for a reasonable period of time tocome into compliance. For consumersconsidering those vehicles, theCommission notes that some consumersmay need comparative informationshortly after this notice’s publicationdate, because EPA 92’s fleet acquisitionmandates begin with fiscal year 1996 forthe federal fleet 398 and model year 1996for alternative fuel providers.399

However, it is not clear that theseconsumers (i.e., the ones most likely tobe affected by a longer effective date)would make purchasing decisions basedon a vehicle label: the federalgovernment, because of its purchasingpower, and the fuel providers, becauseof their own experience and expertise.

The Commission also notes that forused covered AFVs, the final rulerequires disclosure of standardinformation in a uniform format.400

Implementation of that requirementwould thus simply require obtainingcopies of the required label format andarranging for posting on affectedvehicles. Because the market for usedvehicles powered by alternative fuels isnot extensive at this time, allowingsellers additional time to comply withthe labeling requirements will not resultin undue hardship to consumers.

After considering the comments, theCommission concludes that theproposed effective date (i.e., ninety daysafter publication in the FederalRegister) will not provide AFVmanufacturers and dealers withsufficient time to prepare to complywith the new labeling requirements.Instead, the final rule requirescompliance within 180 days afterpublication in the Federal Register, aperiod that is reasonable and consistentwith EPA 92’s legislative program. Thefinal rule, however, does not precludeAFV manufacturers and dealers andused AFV sellers from posting therequired labels before the rule’s effectivedate. Further, consumers will be able toobtain information about AFVs fromDOE before (as well as after) these labelsare required.

6. Updating AFV Labeling RequirementsAs noted previously, EPA 92 directs

the Commission to update its labelingrequirements ‘‘periodically’’ (a durationnot otherwise defined in the statute) ‘‘toreflect the most recent availableinformation.’’ 401 This requirementcontrasts with EPA 92’s direction toDOE to update its consumer informationpackage ‘‘annually.’’ 402 In the SNPR,the Commission proposed to keepapprised of pertinent technologicaladvances, monitor the extent to whichother governmental agencies imposelabeling requirements, and then updateits AFV labeling requirements asappropriate.403

Three comments addressed thisissue.404 Boston Edison/EEI ‘‘stronglysupport[ed]’’ the Commission’s proposalbecause regular updates on a fixedschedule ‘‘might result in an arbitrarymaintenance of problematic or

outmoded rule provisions.’’ 405 Mobilgenerally supported the Commission’sproposal ‘‘as long as the prerogative isnot abused through excessive use.’’ 406

AAMA suggested that the Commission’slabel formats were ‘‘relativelyinflexible’’ and, as a result, ‘‘theAdministrator 407 should have thediscretional authority to be able toapprove alternative labeling formats,upon the request of automotivemanufacturers, without requiredadditional rulemaking.’’ 408

After considering the record, theCommission has determined that itshould update its AFV labelingrequirements as proposed in the SNPR.Given the irregular pace of technologicaldevelopment and regulatory activity, theCommission finds that a flexibleapproach will best meet consumers’needs. For example, although theCommission understands that EPA willpromulgate rules that require fueleconomy labeling for vehicles poweredby LPG, hydrogen, electricity and otheralternative fuels,409 the Commissioncannot predict when those standardswill be adopted. At a minimum, areview of the Rule will be conductedonce every ten years, pursuant to theCommission’s ongoing program toreview all its rules and guides at leastonce every ten years. Accordingly, thefinal rule will be updated as appropriatebased on the Commission’s ongoingreview of all pertinent developments.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility ActThe Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’) requires agencies to prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis whenpublishing a proposed rule unless theproposed rule, if promulgated, wouldnot have a ‘‘significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.’’ 410 In the SNPR, to ensure theaccuracy of the required dispenserlabels, the Commission proposedsubstantiation, certification, and


411 5 U.S.C. 601(6).412 13 CFR Part 121 (1994).

413 This analysis and conclusion was consistentwith Commission’s analysis and conclusion in itsStatement of Basis and Purpose (‘‘SBP’’) for theliquid alternative fuels amendments to the FuelRating Rule. In that SBP, the Commission certifiedthat the Fuel Rating Rule’s similar requirementswould not have a significant impact. 58 FR 41356,41369–41370.

414 AGA/NGVC, I–18, 3–6; API, I–15, 1–5; Unocal,I–5, 2.

415 59 FR 59666, 59698.

416 5 U.S.C. 605(b).417 RFA, I–3, 2.

recordkeeping requirements forimporters, producers, refiners anddistributors of gaseous alternative fuels,and manufacturers and distributors ofelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systems.The Commission also proposedsubstantiation, recordkeeping anddisclosure requirements for retail sellersof the three non-liquid alternativevehicle fuels. In addition, theCommission proposed requiring thatAFV manufacturers determine anddisclose on labels certain product-specific information, and maintainrecords to substantiate the two product-specific disclosures that must beincluded on labels.

The Commission preliminarilyconcluded that the proposed rule, ifenacted, would have a minimal effect onall business entities within the affectedindustries, regardless of their size.Available information suggested thatapproximately 1,000 companies import,produce, refine, distribute, or retail CNGto consumers. Further, onlyapproximately 50 companiesmanufacture or distribute electricvehicle fuel dispensing systems, and nomore than 250 retail companies sellelectricity to consumers through suchsystems for the purpose of rechargingelectric vehicle batteries. Informationthe Commission possessed alsoindicated that relatively few companiescurrently manufacture, convert, or sellAFVs. Except for those companies thatsell non-liquid alternative fuel(including electricity) to consumers, theCommission stated that most of theaforementioned industry members,including those that manufacture or sellAFVs, are not ‘‘small entities’’ as thatterm is defined in section 601 of theRFA 411 and in the regulations of theSmall Business Administration.412

The Commission also stated thatalthough there may be some ‘‘smallentities’’ among retail sellers of non-liquid alternative fuels (includingelectricity), the labeling rules proposedwould likely have only a minimalimpact on these small entities. Any suchimpact would likely consist of minimaladditional recordkeeping and ofretailers placing labels on fueldispensers (to the extent this is not doneby distributors for their retailercustomers). The impact on smallentities, therefore, appeared to be deminimis and not significant.

In light of these factors, in the SNPRthe Commission certified under the RFAthat the rule proposed would not, ifpromulgated, have a significant impacton a substantial number of small

entities, and, therefore, that a regulatoryanalysis was not necessary.413 To ensurethe accuracy of this certification,however, the Commission requestedcomments on whether the proposed rulewould have a significant impact on asubstantial number of small entities,including specific information on thenumber of entities in each category thatwould be covered by the proposed rule,the number of these companies that are‘‘small entities,’’ and the average annualburden for each entity.

No comments specifically addressedthis aspect of the Commission’s SNPRproposal. The Commission, however,received three comments thattangentially addressed this issue. Thesecomments stated that the requirementsthat producers and importers of naturalgas comply with the proposed rule’sCNG fuel rating determination,certification and recordkeepingrequirements, which includesdetermining and certifying theminimum percentage of methane innatural gas, would be overlyburdensome. These comments statedthat most producers currently do notsell natural gas vehicle fuel, and,therefore, do not test for or certify themethane content of the natural gas theysell.414

The statements by Unocal, API andAGA/NGVC do not persuade theCommission that the requirements it hasadopted will impose a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. First, none ofthe comments cited specific cost orburden estimates or submittedsupporting data concerning the specificburden on any parties. Second, theburden of determining and certifyingfuel ratings falls on producers of naturalgas only if the fuel is transferred for useas a vehicle fuel. Further, nocommenters submitted information tocontradict the Commission’s belief,which was stated in the SNPR, that mostof these industry members are not‘‘small entities,’’ as that term is definedeither in section 601 of the RFA orapplicable regulations of the SmallBusiness Administration.415 In addition,the rule adopted by the Commissiondoes not require natural gas producersto conduct tests themselves todetermine the fuel rating of natural gas.

For example, they may use privatefacilities for fuel rating determinations,thus obviating the need to have testingequipment of their own. The rule alsodoes not require producers to certify thefuel rating of CNG with each transfer ofthe fuel. The rule permits producers togive the person to whom the fuel istransferred a letter or written statement,including the fuel rating. The letter orwritten statement is effective until theproducer transfers non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity) with a lower percentage ofthe major component, or of any othercomponent claimed. Therefore, theCommission believes that the fuel ratingdetermination and certificationrequirements it has adopted willminimize burdens on even smallbusinesses.

On the basis of all the informationnow before it, the Commission hasdetermined that the rule will not havea significant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Consequently,the Commission concludes that aregulatory flexibility analysis is notrequired. In light of the above, theCommission certifies, under section 605of the RFA,416 that the rule it hasadopted will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities.

IV. Regulatory ReviewThe Commission has implemented a

program to review all of its current andproposed rules and guides. One purposeof the review is to minimize theeconomic impact of new regulatoryactions. As part of that overallregulatory review, the Commissionsolicited comments in the SNPR onquestions concerning benefits andsignificant burdens and costs of theproposed rule and alternatives to theproposals that would increase benefitsto purchasers and minimize the costsand other burdens to firms subject to therule’s requirements. Only one commentraised an issue not previously coveredin other parts of this notice.Specifically, RFA urged the Commissionto preclude localities from creating morestringent labeling requirements foralternative fuels so that alternative fuellabeling will be consistent nationwideand consumer confusion could beavoided.417

The Commission is not persuadedthat any reduction in consumerconfusion that could result from thenarrow standard suggested by RFAwould outweigh the benefits of thepreemption standard proposed in the


418 See final rule § 309.104 infra. This preemptionstandard is different from the standard in the FuelRating Rule. Under § 306.4 of the Fuel Rating Rule,‘‘no State or any political subdivision thereof mayadopt or continue in effect, except as provided insubsection (b), any provision of law or regulationwith respect to such act or omission, unless suchprovision of such law or regulation is the same asthe applicable provision of this title.’’ 16 CFR 306.4(1994). The preemption provision in the Fuel RatingRule is specified by § 204 of the PetroleumMarketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2824. There isno similar provision that applies to this rule.

419 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.420 5 CFR 1320.7(c).

421 58 FR 41356, 41370–41371.422 Section 1320.7(b)(1) of the regulations

implementing the PRA, 5 CFR 1320.7(b)(1) (1994),states:

The time and financial resources necessary tocomply with a collection of information that wouldbe incurred by persons in the normal course of theiractivities (e.g., in compiling and maintainingbusiness records) will be excluded from the‘‘burden’’ if the agency demonstrates that thereporting or recordkeeping activities needed tocomply are usual and customary.

423 40 CFR Parts 86 and 88 (1994).424 40 CFR Part 600 (1994).

SNPR. This proposed standard wouldallow state and local jurisdictions thelatitude to establish and enforceregulations that best suit the needs oftheir particular regions, provided theregulations do not frustrate the purposesof the rule. The Commission, therefore,is adopting the proposed preemptionstandard, which is substantially thesame standard it has used in otherCommission rules. Under this standard,the rule supersedes only state and locallaws and regulations that would beinconsistent with the requirements ofthe rule in a manner that wouldfrustrate its purposes.418

V. Paperwork Reduction ActThe Paperwork Reduction Act

(‘‘PRA’’),419 and regulations of the Officeof Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 420

implementing the PRA, require agenciesto obtain clearance for regulations thatinvolve the ‘‘collection of information,’’which includes both reporting andrecordkeeping requirements. In theSNPR, consistent with the Fuel RatingRule’s requirements for sellers of liquidalternative fuels, the Commissionproposed requiring that producers,importers, refiners, and distributors ofCNG and hydrogen, retailers of CNG,hydrogen and electricity, andmanufacturers and distributors ofelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systemsmaintain records to substantiate theproduct-specific disclosures that wouldbe required on fuel dispenser labels. Inaddition, the Commission proposedrequiring that AFV manufacturersmaintain records to substantiate twoproduct-specific disclosures that wouldbe required on AFV labels.

The proposed recordkeepingrequirements are ‘‘collections ofinformation’’ as defined by the OMBregulations implementing the PRA. Theproposed requirements, therefore, weresubmitted to OMB for review under thePRA. In the SNPR, the Commissionstated it believed that the proposedrecordkeeping requirements, if enacted,would impose a minimal annual‘‘collection of information’’ burden oneach covered party within the affectedindustries.

The Commission also stated that itexpected certifications for non-liquidalternative fuels (other than electricity)will be noted on documents (shippingreceipts, etc.) already in use, or will beaccomplished with a one-time letter ofcertification, consistent with currentprocedures for gasoline and liquidalternative fuel suppliers covered by theFuel Rating Rule. Producers, importers,refiners, and distributors of non-liquidalternative fuels (other than electricity),and retailers of non-liquid alternativefuels (including electricity) need merelyfile and retain these certifications as therequired recordkeeping.

Further, the Commission stated itexpected that manufacturers of electricvehicle fuel dispensing systems willpermanently mark the requireddisclosures on the equipment orsystems, or will note that informationon documents (shipping receipts, etc.)already in use. Manufacturers needmerely file and retain recordsdemonstrating substantiation for theproposed labeling disclosures.Distributors and retailers need merelyfile the documents provided to them bythe manufacturers or distributors. If thesystems are permanently marked by themanufacturers, distributors and retailersmay rely on the permanent markings asthe required recordkeeping.

In the SNPR, the Commission statedit believed that the burden per coveredindustry member that the Commissionestimated for the Fuel Rating Rule alsowas appropriate in this proceeding. Inthe liquid alternative fuel amendmentsto the Fuel Rating Rule, the Commissionestimated that the informationcollection burden associated with thatrule’s recordkeeping requirements wassix minutes per year per industrymember.421 This estimate was smallbecause the records at issue were likelyto be retained by the industry during thenormal course of business, and the‘‘burden,’’ for OMB purposes, is definedto exclude effort that would beexpended in any event.422 Based onthese figures, the Commission estimatedthat the total yearly informationcollection burden of the proposed ruleon these industry members would be

130 hours (six minutes per year times1,300 industry members).

In the SNPR, the Commission alsoproposed requiring that AFVmanufacturers maintain records tosubstantiate the tailpipe emissionstandard to which the vehicle has beencertified pursuant to applicable EPAregulations,423 and their estimates ofeach vehicle’s cruising range. Pursuantto the proposed rule, manufacturerswould calculate cruising range values inone of three ways. For vehicles requiredto comply with EPA’s fuel-economylabeling provisions, cruising rangewould be calculated using the vehicle’sestimated fuel-economy rating inconjunction with the fuel tank capacityof the vehicle.424 For electric vehicles,cruising range would be calculated inaccordance with the Society ofAutomotive Engineers’ ‘‘RecommendedPractice,’’ J1634. For other vehicles notyet required to be labeled with EPA’sfuel economy stickers, the Commissionproposed that manufacturers possess areasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, for thecruising range values disclosed. TheCommission estimated that theinformation collection burdenassociated with the proposedrecordkeeping requirements for AFVmanufacturers would be thirty minutesper year per manufacturer. This was anaverage burden estimate developed afterconsidering that the overall burdenassociated with complying with therule’s recordkeeping requirementswould be much greater, for example, forAFV manufacturers who must disclosecruising range figures on vehicles notyet required to be labeled with EPA fueleconomy stickers.

Although under the proposed rulemanufacturers would be required todetermine cruising ranges and emissionstandards for different models ofvehicles, the burden estimate (i.e., thirtyminutes) also was small because theCommission believed the records atissue were likely to be developed andretained by the industry during thenormal course of business. TheCommission estimated thatapproximately 58 industry memberswould be covered by the proposed rule’scruising range and emission standardrecordkeeping requirements. Thisestimate of the number of affectedindustry members was based on similarestimates EPA made in connection withits emission standards recordkeepingrequirements contained in a final ruleestablishing two clean-fuel vehicle


425 The information collection requirements inEPA’s rule were submitted to OMB by EPA anddiscussed in ICR No. 1694. Fleet Standards Rule, 59FR 50042, 50072, Sept. 30, 1994. Under EPA’sClean Fuel Fleet Program, a percentage of newvehicles acquired by certain fleet owners located incovered areas will be required to meet clean-fuelfleet vehicle emission standards. The CaliforniaPilot Test Program requires manufacturers to selllight-duty clean-fuel vehicles in California.

426 Notice of OMB Action to the FTC (Dec. 30,1994).

427 15 U.S.C. 205b. See also Exec. Order No.12,770, 56 FR 35801, July 21, 1991 (implementingsection 205b).

428 Id.429 See proposed rule §§ 309.20, 309.22, 59 FR

59666, 59707–59708.430 Mechtly, I–1, 1; Sokol, I–17, 1.

programs.425 Based on these figures, theCommission estimated that the currenttotal yearly burden of the proposed ruleon the 58 industry members would be29 hours (thirty minutes per year times58 industry members).

Consequently, the Commissionestimated that the total burdenassociated with complying with theRule’s recordkeeping requirements forAFVs and non-liquid alternative fuels(including electricity) would be a totalof approximately 159 hours per year forall affected industry members. Toensure the accuracy of these burdenestimates, however, the Commissionsolicited comment on the paperworkburden that the proposed requirementsmay impose to ensure that no additionalburden had been overlooked.

No comments addressed thepaperwork burden projections theCommission made in the SNPR.Nevertheless, the Commissionconsidered reducing slightly the overallregulatory burden of complying with therule by eliminating AFV manufacturers’recordkeeping requirements associatedwith substantiating tailpipe emissionstandards based on verifiable EPAcertifications, and cruising range valuesbased, in part, on verifiable EPAestimated fuel-economy ratings. Theinformation collection requirements theCommission is adopting for such AFVmanufacturers, however, includesmaintenance of records only, notreporting requirements. Further, AFVmanufacturers must have theaforementioned information (the EPAcertifications for emissions and the EPAestimated fuel economy ratings) tosubstantiate the disclosures they mustmake under the Commission’s labelingrules. The Commission expects thatmanufacturers normally will maintainrecords showing this information in thenormal course of prudent businesspractice. Minimal additional burden,therefore, is created by a requirement inthe Commission’s rule that thesesubstantiating records be maintained,and eliminating these recordkeepingrequirements would not significantlyreduce the overall regulatory burden onAFV manufacturers. On balance,therefore, the Commission sees noreason to revise its projections of burdenper year per covered industry member,

or modify the recordkeepingrequirements in the proposed rule.

Because the aforementionedrequirements would involve the‘‘collection of information’’ as definedby the regulations of OMB, theCommission was required to submit theproposed requirements to OMB forclearance, 5 CFR 1320.13, and did so aspart of this proceeding. OMB approvedthe request, and assigned controlnumber 3084–0094 to the informationcollection requirements.426 Thisapproval will expire on November 30,1997, unless it has been extended beforethat date.

VI. Metric UsageThe metric measurement system is the

preferred system of weights andmeasures for United States trade andcommerce.427 Federal law requiresfederal agencies to use the metricmeasurement system in allprocurements, grants and otherbusiness-related activities (includingrulemakings), except to the extent thatsuch use is impractical or likely to causesignificant inefficiencies or loss ofmarkets to U.S. firms.428 In the SNPR,the Commission identified the proposalthat AFV labels disclose cruising rangein miles 429 as having a potential for theuse of metric terms. The Commissionthus sought comment on whether torequire metric or dual (i.e., metric andnon-metric) units for this disclosure.

Two comments addressed this aspectof the Commission’s SNPR proposal,and both urged the Commission torequire metric and non-metric units forthe cruising range disclosure.430 TheCommission is not persuaded, however,that requiring metric equivalents onAFV labels would be appropriate at thistime. The Commission’s AFV labelswere designed to be consistent withEPA’s fuel economy labels, which donot utilize metric disclosures. Further,according to section 406(a) of EPA 92,the Commission’s required labels mustbe simple. Given the amount ofinformation the Commission’s AFVlabels will contain, the Commissiondoes not believe that it would bepractical to require metric equivalents atthis time. The marginal increase in thepublic’s understanding of the metricsystem that might result from disclosureof metric equivalents does not appear to

offset the practicality problems andpotential for confusion that theadditional metric terms would create.The Commission, therefore, is notrequiring disclosure of cruising range inmetric (i.e., kilometers) as well as inch-pound measurements (i.e., miles).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 309Alternative fuel, Alternative fueled

vehicle, Energy conservation,Incorporation by reference, Labeling,Reporting and recordkeeping, Tradepractices.

VII. Text of RuleAccordingly, the Commission amends

16 CFR Chapter I by adding a new part309 to Subchapter C to read as follows:

PART 309—LABELINGREQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVEFUELS AND ALTERNATIVE FUELEDVEHICLES

Subpart A—GeneralSec.309.1 Definitions.309.2 What this part does.309.3 Stayed or invalid portions.309.4 Preemption.

Subpart B—Requirements for AlternativeFuels

Duties of Importers, Producers, and Refinersof Non-Liquid Alternative Vehicle Fuels(other than electricity) and of Manufacturersof Electric Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems309.10 Alternative vehicle fuel rating.309.11 Certification.309.12 Recordkeeping.

Duties of Distributors of Non-LiquidAlternative Vehicle Fuels (other thanelectricity) and of Electric Vehicle FuelDispensing Systems309.13 Certification.309.14 Recordkeeping.

Duties of Retailers

309.15 Posting of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel rating.

309.16 Recordkeeping.

Label Specifications

309.17 Labels.

Subpart C—Requirements for AlternativeFueled Vehicles309.20 Labeling requirements for new

covered vehicles.309.21 Labeling requirements for used

covered vehicles.309.22 Determining estimated cruising

range.309.23 Recordkeeping.

Appendix A—Figures for Part 309Authority: 42 U.S.C. 13232(a).

Subpart A—General

§ 309.1 Definitions.As used in subparts B and C of this

part:


(a) Acquisition includes either of thefollowing:

(1) Acquiring the beneficial title to acovered vehicle; or

(2) Acquiring a covered vehicle fortransportation purposes pursuant to acontract or similar arrangement for aperiod of 120 days or more.

(b) Aftermarket conversion systemmeans any combination of hardwarewhich allows a vehicle or engine tooperate on a fuel other than the fuelwhich the vehicle or engine wasoriginally 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, denaturedethanol, and/or other alcohols (or suchother percentage, but not less than 70percent, as determined by the Secretary,by rule, to provide for requirementsrelating to cold start, safety, or vehiclefunctions), 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); and(9) Any other fuel the Secretary

determines, by rule, is substantially notpetroleum and would yield substantialenergy security benefits and substantialenvironmental benefits.

(d)(1) Consumer in subpart C meansan individual, corporation, partnership,association, State, municipality,political subdivision of a State, and anyagency, department, or instrumentalityof the United States.

(2) Consumer or ultimate purchaser insubpart B means, with respect to anynon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(including electricity), the first personwho purchases such fuel for purposesother than resale.

(e) Conventional fuel means gasolineor diesel fuel.

(f) Covered vehicle means either of thefollowing:

(1) A dedicated or dual fueledpassenger car (or passenger carderivative) capable of seating 12passengers or less; or

(2) A dedicated or dual fueled motorvehicle (other than a passenger car orpassenger car derivative) with a grossvehicle weight rating less than 8,500pounds which has a vehicle curb weightof less than 6,000 pounds and whichhas a basic vehicle frontal area of lessthan 45 square feet, which is:

(i) Designed primarily for purposes oftransportation of property or is aderivation of such a vehicle; or

(ii) Designed primarily fortransportation of persons and has acapacity of more than 12 persons.

(g) Dedicated means designed tooperate solely on alternative fuel.

(h) Distributor means any person,except a common carrier, who receivesnon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) and distributessuch fuel to another person other thanthe consumer. It also means any person,except a common carrier, who receivesan electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem and distributes such system to aretailer.

(i) Dual fueled means capable ofoperating on alternative fuel andcapable of operating on conventionalfuel.

(j) Electric charging system equipmentmeans equipment that includes anelectric battery charger and is used fordispensing electricity to consumers forthe purpose of recharging batteries in anelectric vehicle.

(k) Electric vehicle (‘‘EV’’) means avehicle designed to operate exclusivelyon electricity stored in a rechargeablebattery, multiple batteries, or batterypack.

(l) Electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem means electric charging systemequipment or an electrical energydispensing system.

(m) Electrical energy dispensingsystem means equipment that does notinclude an electric charger and is usedfor dispensing electricity to consumersfor the purpose of recharging batteries inan electric vehicle that contains an on-board electric battery charger.

(n) Emission certification standardmeans the emission standard to whicha covered vehicle has been certifiedpursuant to 40 CFR parts 86 and 88.

(o) Estimated cruising range for non-EVs means a manufacturer’s reasonableestimate of the number of miles a newcovered vehicle will travel betweenrefueling, expressed as a lower estimate(i.e., minimum estimated cruising range)and an upper estimate (i.e., maximumestimated cruising range), as determinedby § 309.22. Estimated cruising range forEVs means a manufacturer’s reasonableestimate of the number of miles a newcovered EV will travel betweenrecharging, expressed as a singleestimate, as determined by § 309.22.

(p) Fuel dispenser means:(1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle

fuels (other than electricity), thedispenser through which a retailer sellsthe fuel to consumers.

(2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystems, the dispenser through which aretailer dispenses electricity toconsumers for the purpose of rechargingbatteries in an electric vehicle.

(q) Fuel rating means:(1) For non-liquid alternative vehicle

fuels (other than electricity), including,but not limited to, compressed naturalgas and hydrogen gas, the commonlyused name of the fuel with a disclosureof the amount, expressed as a minimummolecular percentage, of the principalcomponent of the fuel. A disclosure ofother components, expressed as aminimum molecular percentage, may beincluded, if desired.

(2) For electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystems, a common identifier (such as,but not limited to, ‘‘electricity,’’‘‘electric charging system,’’ ‘‘electriccharging station’’) with a disclosure ofthe system’s kilowatt (‘‘kW’’) capacity,voltage, whether the voltage isalternating current (‘‘ac’’) or directcurrent (‘‘dc’’), amperage, and whetherthe system is conductive or inductive.

(r) Manufacturer means the personwho obtains a certificate of conformitythat the vehicle complies with thestandards and requirements of 40 CFRparts 86 and 88.

(s) Manufacturer of an electric vehiclefuel dispensing system means anyperson who manufactures or assemblesan electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem that is distributed specificallyfor use by retailers in dispensingelectricity to consumers for the purposeof recharging batteries in an electricvehicle.

(t) New covered vehicle means acovered vehicle which has not beenacquired by a consumer.

(u) New vehicle dealer means a personwho is engaged in the sale or leasing ofnew covered vehicles.

(v) New vehicle label means a windowsticker containing the informationrequired by § 309.20(e).

(w) Non-liquid alternative fueledvehicle means a vehicle capable ofoperating on a non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel.

(x) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuelmeans alternative fuel used for thepurpose of powering a non-liquidalternative fueled vehicle, including,but not limited to, compressed naturalgas (‘‘CNG’’), hydrogen gas(‘‘hydrogen’’), electricity, and any othernon-liquid vehicle fuel the Secretarydetermines, by rule, is substantially notpetroleum and would yield substantialenergy benefits and substantialenvironmental benefits.

(y) Person means an individual,partnership, corporation, or any otherbusiness organization.

(z) Producer means any person whopurchases component elements andcombines them to produce and marketnon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity).


(aa) Refiner means any personengaged in the production orimportation of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity).

(bb) Retailer means any person whooffers for sale, sells, or distributes non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (includingelectricity) to consumers.

(cc) Secretary means the Secretary ofthe United States Department of Energy.

(dd) Used covered vehicle means acovered vehicle which has beenacquired by a consumer, but does notinclude any vehicle sold only for scrapor parts (title documents surrendered tothe State and a salvage certificateissued).

(ee) Used vehicle dealer means aperson engaged in the sale or leasing ofused covered vehicles who has sold orleased five or more used coveredvehicles in the previous twelve months,but does not include a bank or financialinstitution, a business selling or leasingused covered vehicles to an employee ofthat business, or a lessor selling orleasing a leased vehicle by or to thatvehicle’s lessee or to an employee of thelessee.

(ff) Used vehicle label means awindow sticker containing theinformation required by § 309.21(e).

(gg) Vehicle fuel tank capacity meansthe tank’s usable capacity (i.e., thevolume of fuel that can be pumped intothe tank through the filler pipe with thevehicle on a level surface and with theunusable capacity already in the tank).The term does not include unusablecapacity (i.e., the volume of fuel left atthe bottom of the tank when thevehicle’s fuel pump can no longer drawfuel from the tank), the vapor volume ofthe tank (i.e., the space above the fueltank filler neck), or the volume of thefuel tank filler neck.

§ 309.2 What this part does.

This part establishes labelingrequirements for non-liquid alternativevehicle fuels, and for certain vehiclespowered in whole or in part byalternative fuels.

§ 309.3 Stayed or invalid portions.

If any portion of this part is stayed orheld invalid, the rest of it will stay inforce.

§ 309.4 Preemption.

Inconsistent state and localregulations are preempted to the extentthey would frustrate the purposes of thispart.

Subpart B—Requirements forAlternative Fuels

Duties of Importers, Producers, andRefiners of Non-Liquid AlternativeVehicle Fuels (other than electricity)and of Manufacturers of ElectricVehicle Fuel Dispensing Systems

§ 309.10 Alternative vehicle fuel rating.(a) If you are an importer, producer,

or refiner of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity), youmust determine the fuel rating of allnon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) before youtransfer it. You can do that yourself orthrough a testing lab. To determine fuelratings, you must possess a reasonablebasis, consisting of competent andreliable evidence, for the minimumpercentage of the principal componentof the non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) that you mustdisclose, and for the minimumpercentages of other components thatyou choose to disclose. For the purposesof this section, fuel ratings for theminimum percentage of the principalcomponent of compressed natural gasare to be determined in accordance withtest methods set forth in AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials(‘‘ASTM’’) D 1945–91, ‘‘Standard TestMethod for Analysis of Natural Gas byGas Chromatography.’’ For the purposesof this section, fuel ratings for theminimum percentage of the principalcomponent of hydrogen gas are to bedetermined in accordance with testmethods set forth in ASTM D 1946–90,‘‘Standard Practice for Analysis ofReformed Gas by Gas Chromatography.’’This incorporation by reference wasapproved by the Director of the FederalRegister in accordance with 5 U.S.C.552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of D1945–91 and D 1946–90 may beobtained from the American Society forTesting and Materials, 1916 Race Street,Philadelphia, PA 19103, or may beinspected at the Federal TradeCommission, Public Reference Room,room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Washington, DC, or at the Office ofthe Federal Register, 800 North CapitolStreet NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

(b) If you are a manufacturer ofelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systems,you must determine the fuel rating ofthe electric charge delivered by theelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systembefore you transfer such systems. Todetermine the fuel rating of the electricvehicle fuel dispensing system, youmust possess a reasonable basis,consisting of competent and reliableevidence, for the following outputinformation you must disclose: kilowatt

(‘‘kW’’) capacity, voltage, whether thevoltage is alternating current (‘‘ac’’) ordirect current (‘‘dc’’), amperage, andwhether the system is conductive orinductive.

§ 309.11 Certification.(a) For non-liquid alternative vehicle

fuel (other than electricity), in eachtransfer you make to anyone who is nota consumer, you must certify the fuelrating of the non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity)consistent with your determination. Youcan do this in either of two ways:

(1) Include a delivery ticket or otherpaper with each transfer of non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity). It may be an invoice, bill oflading, bill of sale, terminal ticket,delivery ticket, or any other writtenproof of transfer. It must contain at leastthese 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; and(iv) The fuel rating.(2) Give the person a letter or written

statement. This letter must include thedate, your name, the other person’sname, and the fuel rating of any non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel (otherthan electricity) you will transfer to thatperson from the date of the letteronwards. This letter of certification willbe good until you transfer non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity) with a lower percentage ofthe principal component, or of any othercomponent disclosed in thecertification. When this happens, youmust certify the fuel rating of the newnon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) either with adelivery ticket or by sending a newletter of certification.

(b) For electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystems, in each transfer you make toanyone who is not a consumer, youmust certify the fuel rating of theelectric vehicle fuel dispensing systemconsistent with your determination. Youcan do this in either of two ways:

(1) Include a delivery ticket or otherpaper with each transfer of an electricvehicle fuel dispensing system. It maybe an invoice, bill of lading, bill of sale,delivery ticket, or any other writtenproof of transfer. It must contain at leastthese five items:

(i) Your name;(ii) The name of the person to whom

the electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem is transferred;

(iii) The date of the transfer;(iv) The model number, serial

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 onthe electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem a permanent legible marking orpermanently attached label thatdiscloses the manufacturer’s name, themodel number, serial number, or otheridentifier of the system, and the fuelrating. Such marking or label must belocated where it can be seen afterinstallation of the system. The markingor label will be deemed ‘‘legible,’’ interms of placement, if it is located inclose proximity to the manufacturer’sidentification marking. This marking orlabel must be in addition to, and not asubstitute for, the label required to beposted on the electric vehicle fueldispensing system by the retailer.

(c) When you transfer non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity), or an electric vehicle fueldispensing system, to a common carrier,you must certify the fuel rating of thenon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) or electricvehicle fuel dispensing system to thecommon carrier, either by letter or onthe delivery ticket or other paper, or bya permanent marking or label attachedto the electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem by the manufacturer.

§ 309.12 Recordkeeping.You must keep for one year records of

how you determined fuel ratings. Therecords must be available for inspectionby Federal Trade Commission staffmembers, or by people authorized byFTC.

Duties of Distributors of Non-LiquidAlternative Vehicle Fuels (other thanelectricity) and of Electric Vehicle FuelDispensing Systems

§ 309.13 Certification.(a) If you are a distributor of non-

liquid alternative vehicle fuel (otherthan electricity), you must certify thefuel rating of the fuel in each transferyou make to anyone who is not aconsumer. You may certify either byusing a delivery ticket or other paperwith each transfer of fuel, as outlined in§ 309.11(a)(1), or by using a letter ofcertification, as outlined in§ 309.11(a)(2).

(b) If you are a distributor of electricvehicle fuel dispensing systems, youmust certify the fuel rating of the systemin each transfer you make to anyonewho is not a consumer. You may certifyby using a delivery ticket or other paperwith each transfer, as outlined in§ 309.11(b)(1), or by using thepermanent marking or permanent label

attached to the system by themanufacturer, as outlined in§ 309.11(b)(2).

(c) If you do not blend non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels (other thanelectricity), you must certify consistentwith the fuel rating certified to you. Ifyou blend non-liquid alternative vehiclefuel (other than electricity), you mustpossess a reasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, asrequired by § 309.10(a), for the fuelrating that you certify for the blend.

(d) When you transfer non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity), or an electric vehicle fueldispensing system, to a common carrier,you must certify the fuel rating of thenon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) or electricvehicle fuel dispensing system to thecommon carrier, either by letter or onthe delivery ticket or other paper, or bya permanent marking or label attachedto the electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem by the manufacturer. When youreceive non-liquid alternative vehiclefuel (other than electricity), or anelectric vehicle fuel dispensing system,from a common carrier, you also mustreceive from the common carrier acertification of the fuel rating of thenon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) or electricvehicle fuel dispensing system, eitherby letter or on the delivery ticket orother paper, or by a permanent markingor label attached to the electric vehiclefuel dispensing system by themanufacturer.

§ 309.14 Recordkeeping.You must keep for one year any

delivery tickets, letters of certification,or other paper on which you based yourfuel rating certifications for non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels (other thanelectricity) and for electric vehicle fueldispensing systems. You also must keepfor one year records of any fuel ratingdeterminations you made according to§ 309.10. If you rely for yourcertification on a permanent marking orpermanent label attached to the electricvehicle fuel dispensing system by themanufacturer, you must not remove ordeface the permanent marking or label.The records must be available forinspection by Federal TradeCommission staff members, or bypersons authorized by FTC.

Duties of Retailers

§ 309.15 Posting of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel rating.

(a) If you are a retailer who offers forsale or sells non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity) toconsumers, you must post the fuel

rating of each non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel. If you are a retailer whooffers for sale or sells electricity toconsumers through an electric vehiclefuel dispensing system, you must postthe fuel rating of the electric vehicle fueldispensing system you use. You mustdo this by putting at least one label onthe face of each fuel dispenser throughwhich you sell non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel. If you are selling two ormore kinds of non-liquid alternativevehicle fuels with different fuel ratingsfrom a single fuel dispenser, you mustput separate labels for each kind of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel on theface of the fuel dispenser.

(b)(1) The label, or labels, must beplaced conspicuously on the fueldispenser so as to be in full view ofconsumers and as near as reasonablypractical to the price per unit of thenon-liquid alternative vehicle fuel.

(2) You may petition for an exemptionfrom the placement requirements bywriting the Secretary of the FederalTrade Commission, Washington, DC20580. You must state the reasons thatyou want the exemption.

(c) If you do not blend non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels (other thanelectricity), you must post consistentwith the fuel rating certified to you. Ifyou blend non-liquid alternative vehiclefuel (other than electricity), you mustpossess a reasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, asrequired by § 309.10(a), for the fuelrating that you post for the blend.

(d)(1) You must maintain and replacelabels as needed to make sureconsumers can easily see and read them.

(2) If the labels you have aredestroyed or are unusable or unreadablefor some unexpected reason, you maysatisfy this part by posting a temporarylabel as much like the required label aspossible. You must still get and post therequired label without delay.

(e) The following examples of fuelrating disclosures for CNG andhydrogen are meant to serve asillustrations of compliance with thispart, but do not limit the rule’s coverageto only the mentioned non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels (other thanelectricity):(1) ‘‘CNG’’

‘‘Minimum’’‘‘XXX%’’‘‘Methane’’

(2) ‘‘Hydrogen’’‘‘Minimum’’‘‘XXX%’’‘‘Hydrogen’’

(f) The following example of fuelrating disclosures for electric vehiclefuel dispensing systems is meant to


serve as an illustration of compliancewith this part:‘‘Electricity’’‘‘XX kW’’‘‘XXX vac/XX amps’’‘‘Inductive’’

(g) When you receive non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (other thanelectricity), or an electric vehicle fueldispensing system, from a commoncarrier, you also must receive from thecommon carrier a certification of thefuel rating of the non-liquid alternativevehicle fuel (other than electricity) orelectric vehicle fuel dispensing system,either by letter or on the delivery ticketor other paper, or by a permanentmarking or label attached to the electricvehicle fuel dispensing system by themanufacturer.

§ 309.16 Recordkeeping.You must keep for one year any

delivery tickets, letters of certification,or other paper on which you based yourposting of fuel ratings for non-liquidalternative vehicle fuels. You also mustkeep for one year records of any fuelrating determinations you madeaccording to § 309.10. If you rely foryour posting on a permanent marking orpermanent label attached to the electricvehicle fuel dispensing system by themanufacturer, you must not remove ordeface the permanent marking or label.The required records, other than thepermanent marking or label on theelectric vehicle fuel dispensing system,may be kept at the retail outlet or at areasonably close location. The records,including the permanent marking orlabel on each electric vehicle fueldispensing system, must be available forinspection by Federal TradeCommission staff members or bypersons authorized by FTC.

Label Specifications

§ 309.17 Labels.All labels must meet the following

specifications:(a) Layout:(1) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel

(other than electricity) labels withdisclosure of principal component only.The label is 3′′ (7.62 cm) wide x 21⁄2′′(6.35 cm) long. ‘‘Helvetica black’’ type isused throughout. All type is centered.The band at the top of the label containsthe name of the fuel. This band shouldmeasure 1′′ (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing ofthe fuel name is 1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) from thetop of the label and 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) fromthe bottom of the black band, centeredhorizontally within the black band. Thefirst line of type beneath the black bandis 1⁄8′′ (.32 cm) from the bottom of theblack band. All type below the black

band is centered horizontally, with 1⁄8′′(.32 cm) between lines. The bottom lineof type is 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the bottomof the label. All type should fall nocloser than 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the sideedges of the label. If you wish to changethe format of this single componentlabel, you must petition the FederalTrade Commission. You can do this bywriting to the Secretary of the FederalTrade Commission, Washington, DC20580. You must state the size andcontents of the label that you wish touse, and the reasons that you want touse it.

(2) Non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel(other than electricity) labels withdisclosure of two components. The labelis 3′′ (7.62 cm) wide x 21⁄2′′ (6.35 cm)long. ‘‘Helvetica black’’ type is usedthroughout. All type is centered. Theband at the top of the label contains thename of the fuel. This band shouldmeasure 1′′ (2.54 cm) deep. Spacing ofthe fuel name is 1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) from thetop of the label and 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) fromthe bottom of the black band, centeredhorizontally within the black band. Thefirst line of type beneath the black bandis 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the bottom of theblack band. All type below the blackband is centered horizontally, with 1⁄8′′(.32 cm) between lines. The bottom lineof type is 1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) from the bottomof the label. All type should fall nocloser than 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the sideedges of the label. If you wish to changethe format of this two component label,you must petition the Federal TradeCommission. You can do this by writingto the Secretary of the Federal TradeCommission, Washington, DC 20580.You must state the size and contents ofthe label that you wish to use, and thereasons that you want to use it.

(3) Electric vehicle fuel dispensingsystem labels. The label is 3′′ (7.62 cm)wide x 21⁄2′′ (6.35 cm) long. ‘‘Helveticablack’’ type is used throughout. All typeis centered. The band at the top of thelabel contains the common identifier ofthe fuel. This band should measure 1′′(2.54 cm) deep. Spacing of the commonidentifier is 1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) from the top ofthe label and 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from thebottom of the black band, centeredhorizontally within the black band. Thefirst line of type beneath the black bandis 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the bottom of theblack band. All type below the blackband is centered horizontally, with 1⁄8′′(.32 cm) between lines. The bottom lineof type is 1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) from the bottomof the label. All type should fall nocloser than 3⁄16′′ (.48 cm) from the sideedges of the label.

(b) Type size and setting:(1) Labels for non-liquid alternative

vehicle fuels (other than electricity)

with disclosure of principal componentonly. All type should be set in uppercase (all caps) ‘‘Helvetica Black’’throughout. Helvetica Black is availablein a variety of computer desk-top andphoto-typesetting systems. Its name mayvary, but the type must conform in styleand thickness to the sample providedhere. The spacing between letters andwords should be set as ‘‘normal.’’ Thetype for the fuel name is 50 point (1⁄2′′(1.27 cm) cap height) knocked out of a1′′ (2.54 cm) deep band. The type for thewords ‘‘MINIMUM’’ and the principalcomponent is 24 pt. (1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) capheight). The type for percentage is 36 pt.(3⁄8′′ (.96 cm) cap height).

(2) Labels for non-liquid alternativevehicle fuels (other than electricity)with disclosure of two components. Alltype should be set in upper case (allcaps) ‘‘Helvetica Black’’ throughout.Helvetica Black is available in a varietyof computer desk-top and photo-typesetting systems. Its name may vary,but the type must conform in style andthickness to the sample provided here.The spacing between letters and wordsshould be set as ‘‘normal.’’ The type forthe fuel name is 50 point (1⁄2′′ 1.27 cm)cap height) knocked out of a 1′′ (2.54cm) deep band. All other type is 24 pt.(1⁄4′′ (.64 cm) cap height).

(3) Labels for electric vehicle fueldispensing systems. All type should beset in upper case (all caps) ‘‘HelveticaBlack’’ throughout. Helvetica Black isavailable in a variety of computer desk-top and photo-typesetting systems. Itsname may vary, but the type mustconform in style and thickness to thesample provided here. The spacingbetween letters and words should be setas ‘‘normal.’’ The type for the commonidentifier is 50 point (1⁄2′′ 1.27 cm) capheight) knocked out of a 1′′ (2.54 cm)deep band. All other type is 24 pt. (1⁄4′′(.64 cm) cap height).

(c) Colors: The background color onthe labels for all non-liquid alternativevehicle fuels (including electricity), andthe color of the knock-out type withinthe black band, is Orange: PMS 1495.All other type is process black. Allborders are process black. All colorsmust be non-fade.

(d) Contents. Examples of the contentsare shown in Figures 1 through 3. Theproper fuel rating for each non-liquidalternative vehicle fuel (includingelectricity) must be shown. No marks orinformation other than that called for bythis part may appear on the labels.

(e) Special label protection. All labelsmust be capable of withstandingextremes of weather conditions for aperiod of at least one year. They mustbe resistant to vehicle fuel, oil, grease,solvents, detergents, and water.


(f) Illustrations of labels. Labels mustmeet the specifications in this sectionand look like Figures 1 through 3 ofAppendix A, except the black printshould be on the appropriately coloredbackground.

Subpart C—Requirements forAlternative Fueled Vehicles

§ 309.20 Labeling requirements for newcovered vehicles.

(a) Affixing and maintaining labels(1) Before offering a new covered

vehicle for acquisition to consumers,manufacturers shall affix or cause to beaffixed, and new vehicle dealers shallmaintain or cause to be maintained, anew vehicle label on a visible surface ofeach such vehicle.

(2) If an aftermarket conversionsystem is installed on a vehicle by aperson other than the manufacturerprior to such vehicle’s being acquired bya consumer, the manufacturer shallprovide that person with the vehicle’sestimated cruising range (as determinedby § 309.22(a) for dedicated vehiclesand § 309.22(b) for dual fueled vehicles)and emission certification standard andensure that new vehicle labels areaffixed to such vehicles as required byparagraph (a) of this section.

(b) Layout. Figures 4 through 6 ofAppendix A are prototype labels thatdemonstrate the proper layout. Allpositioning, spacing, type size, and linewidths shall be similar to and consistentwith the prototype labels. Labelsrequired by this section are two-sidedand rectangular in shape measuring 7inches (17.5 cm) wide and 5–1/2 inches(13.75 cm) long. Figure 4 of AppendixA represents the prototype for the frontside of the labels for dedicated vehicles.Figures 5 and 5.1 of Appendix Arepresent the prototype of the front sideof the labels for dual-fueled vehicles;Figure 5 of Appendix A represents theprototype for vehicles with one fueltank and Figure 5.1 of Appendix Arepresents the prototype for vehicleswith two fuel tanks. Figure 6 ofAppendix A represents the prototype ofthe back side of the labels for bothdedicated and dual-fueled vehicles.Manufacturers may, at their discretion,display the appropriate front labelformat and back label formatimmediately adjacent to each other onthe same visible surface. No marks orinformation other than that specified inthis subpart shall appear on this label.

(c) Type size and setting. TheHelvetica Condensed and Helveticafamily typefaces or equivalent shall beused exclusively on the label. Specifictype sizes and faces to be used areindicated on the prototype labels

(Figures 4, 5, 5.1, and 6 of Appendix A).No hyphenation should be used insetting headline or text copy.Positioning and spacing should followthe prototypes closely.

(d) Colors and Paper Stock. All labelsshall be printed in process black ink onHammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or equivalent) paper.Follow label prototypes for percentagesof screen tints in Exhaust Emissionschart.

(e) Content(1) Headlines and text, as illustrated

in Figures 4, 5, 5.1, and 6 of AppendixA, are standard for all labels.

(2) Estimated cruising range. (i) Fordedicated vehicles, determined inaccordance with § 309.22(a).

(ii) For dual fueled vehicles,determined in accordance with§ 309.22(b).

(3) Emission certification standard.(i) For vehicles not certified as

meeting an EPA emissions standard,indicated by placing a mark in theappropriate box indicating that fact.

(ii) For vehicles certified as meetingan EPA emissions standard, indicatedby placing a mark in the appropriate boxindicating that fact and by placing acaret above the standard to which thatvehicle has been certified.

§ 309.21 Labeling requirements for usedcovered vehicles.

(a) Affixing and maintaining labels.Before offering a used covered vehiclefor acquisition to consumers, usedvehicle dealers shall affix and maintain,or cause to be affixed and maintained,a used vehicle label on a visible surfaceof each such vehicle.

(b) Layout. Figures 7 and 8 ofAppendix A are prototype labels thatdemonstrate the proper layout. Allpositioning, spacing, type size, and linewidths should be similar to andconsistent with the prototype labels.Labels required by this section are two-sided and rectangular in shapemeasuring 7 inches (17.5 cm) in widthand 5–1/2 inches (13.75 cm) in height.Figure 7 represents the prototype of thefront side of the labels for used coveredvehicles. Figure 8 represents the backside of the labels for used coveredvehicles. Manufacturers may, at theirdiscretion, display the appropriate frontlabel format and back label formatimmediately adjacent to each other onthe same visible surface. No marks orinformation other than that specified inthis subpart shall appear on this label.

(c) Type size and setting. TheHelvetica Condensed and Helveticafamily typefaces or equivalent shall beused exclusively on the label. Specifictype sizes and faces to be used are

indicated on the prototype labels(Figures 7 and 8 of Appendix A). Nohyphenation should be used in settingheadline or text copy. Positioning andspacing should follow the prototypesclosely.

(d) Colors and Paper Stock. All labelsshall be printed in process black ink onHammermill Offset Opaque Vellum/S.70 Sky Blue (or equivalent) paper.

(e) Contents. Headlines and text, asillustrated in Figures 7 and 8 ofAppendix A, are standard for all labels.

§ 309.22 Determining estimated cruisingrange.

(a) Dedicated vehicles.(1) Estimated cruising range values for

dedicated vehicles required to complywith the provisions of 40 CFR Part 600are to be calculated in accordance withthe following:

(i) The lower range value shall bedetermined by multiplying the vehicle’sestimated city fuel-economy by its fueltank capacity, then rounding to the nextlower integer value.

(ii) The upper range value shall bedetermined by multiplying the vehicle’sestimated highway fuel-economy by itsfuel tank capacity, then rounding to thenext higher integer value.

(2) Estimated cruising range for an EVis the actual vehicle range determinedin accordance with test methods setforth in Society of AutomotiveEngineers (‘‘SAE’’) Surface VehicleRecommended Practice SAE J1634–1993–05–20, ‘‘Electric Vehicle EnergyConsumption and Range TestProcedure.’’ This incorporation byreference was approved by the Directorof the Federal Register in accordancewith 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.Copies of SAE J1634–1993–05–20 maybe obtained from the Society ofAutomotive Engineers, 400Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA,15096–0001, or may be inspected at theFederal Trade Commission, PublicReference Room, room 130, 600Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,DC, or at the Office of the FederalRegister, 800 North Capitol Street, NW,suite 700, Washington, DC.

(3) To determine the estimatedcruising range values for dedicatedvehicles not required to comply withthe provisions of 40 CFR Part 600 (otherthan electric vehicles), you must possessa reasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence thatsubstantiates the minimum andmaximum number of miles the vehiclewill travel between refuelings orrechargings 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 600are to be calculated in accordance withthe following:

(i) The lower range value for thevehicle while operating exclusively onalternative fuel shall be determined bymultiplying the vehicle’s estimated cityfuel-economy by its alternative-fuel tankcapacity, then rounding to the nextlower integer value.

(ii) The upper range value for thevehicle while operating exclusively onalternative fuel shall be determined bymultiplying the vehicle’s estimatedhighway fuel-economy by itsalternative-fuel tank capacity, thenrounding to the next higher integervalue.

(iii) The lower range value for thevehicle while operating exclusively onconventional fuel shall be determinedby multiplying the vehicle’s estimated

city fuel-economy by its conventional-fuel tank capacity, then rounding to thenext lower integer value.

(iv) The upper range value for thevehicle while operating exclusively onconventional fuel shall be determinedby multiplying the vehicle’s estimatedhighway fuel-economy by itsconventional-fuel tank capacity, thenrounding to the next higher integervalue.

(2) [Reserved](3) To determine the estimated

cruising range values for dual-fueledvehicles not required to comply withthe provisions of 40 CFR part 600 (otherthan electric vehicles), you must possessa reasonable basis, consisting ofcompetent and reliable evidence, of:

(i) The minimum and maximumnumber of miles the vehicle will travelbetween refuelings or rechargings when

operated exclusively on alternative fuel,and

(ii) The minimum and maximumnumber of miles the vehicle will travelbetween refuelings or rechargings whenoperated exclusively on conventionalfuel.

§ 309.23 Recordkeeping.

Manufacturers required to complythis subpart shall establish, maintain,and retain copies of all data, reports,records, and procedures used to meetthe requirements of this subpart forthree years after the end of the modelyear to which they relate. They must beavailable for inspection by FederalTrade Commission staff members, or bypeople authorized by the Federal TradeCommission.BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

Appendix A—Figures for Part 309


BILLING CODE 6750–01–C

By direction of the Commission, ChairmanPitofsky not participating, and CommissionerAzcuenaga concurring in part and dissentingin part.Donald S. Clark,Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Mary L.Azcuenaga Concurring in Part andDissenting in Part

Label Requirements for Alternative Fuels,Matter No. R311002

Today, the Commission issues a final rulepursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992

(‘‘EPA 92’’) that imposes certification,substantiation, and recordkeepingrequirements in connection with the labelingof non-liquid alternative fuels and alternativefueled vehicles. EPA 92, however, onlydirects the Commission to prescribe ‘‘labelingrequirements,’’ 42 U.S.C. § 13232(a); it doesnot indicate that Congress also intended togive the Commission the authority to imposecertification, substantiation, andrecordkeeping requirements. The legislativehistory of EPA 92 also fails to show thatCongress intended to give the Commissionsuch authority. Although certification,substantiation, and recordkeeping

requirements may all be beneficial, in theabsence of any statutory language orlegislative history indicating that Congressintended to give the Commission latitude toimpose such requirements, I believe that theCommission has no authority to do so. Itherefore dissent from the final rule to theextent that it imposes certification,substantiation, and recordkeepingrequirements in connection with the labelingof non-liquid alternative fuels and alternativefueled vehicles.

[FR Doc. 95–12160 Filed 5–18–95; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

May 19, 1995 federal register - Federal Trade Commission...Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 97/Friday,...

Documents

Transcript of May 19, 1995 federal register - Federal Trade Commission...Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 97/Friday,...