FOR RELEASE: MARCH 26, 1993
FTC PROPOSES CERTIFICATION, POSTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE AUTOMOTIVE FUELS AND DIESEL FUEL
The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it is
seeking public comment on four options for establishing certi-
fication and posting requirements for alternative liquid automo-
tive fuels, including methanol and ethanol. At the same time,
the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to require the automo-
tive fuel industry to certify and post on fuel pumps the cetane
rating of diesel fuel. Cetane rating is a measure of the igni-
tion quality of diesel fuel. The proposed regulations would
amend the Commission's Octane Rule, which requires the octane
rating of gasoline to be certified throughout the distribution
chain and then posted in bright yellow stickers on gas pumps.
The Commission's action is in response to a directive in the
Energy Policy Act of 1992, which establishes a comprehensive
energy policy that includes programs to encourage the development
of alternative fuels and vehicles that use them. Under the Act,
the FTC is required to amend its Octane Rule by July 21, 1993, to
establish certification and posting requirements for all liquid
automotive fuels, including liquid alternative fuels, and, if the
FTC finds it appropriate, for diesel fuels.
The Commission seeks comment on four options for establish-
ing certification and posting requirements for at least the
following six alternative liquid-automotive fuels: methanol;
denatured ethanol; M-85 (a mixture of 85 percent methanol and 15
percent gasoline); E-85 (a mixture of 85 percent denatured
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline); liquefied propane gas (LPG);
and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Commission seeks comment on
- more -
(Alt. fuels--03/26/93)
which of the four ratings, combination of ratings, or ratings not
yet proposed would be appropriate.
Option 1 would require the octane rating to be certified and
posted for these fuels. This option would assign an appropriate
octane rating to each alternative liquid fuel, and require that
rating to be certified throughout the distribution chain and
posted at the pump. According to the Commission, however, octane
ratings are not expected to vary greatly within specific classes
of alternative liquid fuels, and there is no established method
for determining their octane ratings. Also, the octane ratings
of the alternative fuels are higher than the octane ratings of
gasoline. Among several questions, the Commission asked whether
it should require the posting and certification of octane ratings
for alternative fuels and whether this proposal is likely to lead
consumers into the erroneous perception that high octane in all
fuels, including gasoline, will result in more overall benefits
to their vehicles.
Option 2 could help consumers to compare the same types of
alternative liquid fuels by requiring the certification and
posting of the following fuel composition ratings:
-- the range of hydrocarbon content (which relates to the
cold start capability of alcohol fuels) for methanol,
ethanol, M-85 methanol and E-85 ethanol;
-- the minimum propane content for LPG; and
-- the minimum methane content for LNG.
With regard to this option, the Commission seeks comment on
the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed disclosures.
Option 3 would require the posting of labels that would
compare the alternative fuel to gasoline in terms of the approxi-
mate mileage one would obtain by using an equivalent volume of
each fuel. The labels would be based on the heating value, or
energy content, of the alternative fuels and gasoline. The
Commission seeks comment on whether there is agreement about the
heating values of alternative liquid fuels, as well as on two
alternative label formats for this option.
Option 4 would establish descriptors for alternative liquid
fuels based on specifications proposed by the California Air
Resources Board. This option would require certification and
posting of the identity of the fuels using these descriptors and
minimum specifications for each fuel. It would assure consumers
that they are purchasing a product that meets certain content
requirements. The FTC asked for comment on what specifications
should be adopted now and whether it should adopt interim speci-
fications for the fuels until industry-wide specifications are
developed.
(Alt. fuels--03/26/93)
The proposal also seeks comment on whether to extend the
Octane Rule's certification and posting requirements to cover the
marketing of diesel fuel for vehicular use. Under the proposal,
refiners would have to determine the cetane rating of diesel fuel
and, along with distributors, would have to certify the rating
through the chain of distribution to the retail level. Retailers
would be required to post the cetane rating using yellow labels
on diesel pumps that are similar to the ones used for posting
octane ratings of gasoline. The proposal also would extend
various recordkeeping requirements to refiners, distributors and
retailers of diesel fuel.
Finally, the Commission seeks public comment on the costs
and benefits of the existing Octane Rule, as part of the agency's
10-year regulatory-review plan.
The proposed regulations, questions for commenters, and the
request for comments on the Octane Rule are published in today's
Federal Register. Comments will be accepted for 30 days, until
April 26, and should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the
Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. Requests for a public hearing on the proposed
amendments should be sent to the same address by April 16.
Copies of the Federal Register notices are available from
the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, same address as
above; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261.
# # #
MEDIA CONTACT: Howard Shapiro, Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2176
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Blickman (202-326-3038) or James Mills
(202-326-3035), Bureau of Consumer Protection
(FTC Matter No. R811005)
(altfuel)