|
|---|
|
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Trade Commission Byline: Joel Christie Date: 26 October 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Petroleum
|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73549-73551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23621]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 309
RIN 3084-AB15
Labeling Requirements for Alternative Fuels and Alternative
Fueled Vehicles
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory review; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the Commission's systematic review of all FTC rules
and guides, the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'')
seeks public comment on the overall costs, benefits, necessity, and
regulatory and economic impact of its Labeling Requirements for
Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles (``Alternative Fuels
Rule'' or ``Rule'').
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Regulatory Review for
Alternative Fuels Rule, Matter No. R311002'' on your comment, and file
your comment online at https://www.regulations.gov/, by following the
instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment
on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail
Stop H-144 (Annex F), Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome (202-326-2889),
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20580.
I. Background
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPAct 92'' or ``Act'') established
federal programs to encourage the development of alternative fuels and
alternative fueled vehicles (``AFVs''). Section 406(a) of the Act
directs the Commission to establish uniform labeling requirements for
alternative fuels and AFVs. Under the Act, such labels must provide
``appropriate information with respect to costs and benefits [of
alternative fuels and AFVs], so as to reasonably enable the consumer to
make choices and comparisons.'' The required labels must be ``simple
and, where appropriate, consolidated with other labels providing
information to the consumer.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 13232(a). The law also states: ``In formulating
the rule, the Federal Trade Commission shall give consideration to
the problems associated with developing and publishing useful and
timely cost and benefit information, taking into account lead time,
costs, the frequency of changes in costs and benefits that may
occur, and other relevant factors.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Commission published the Alternative Fuels Rule in
1995.\2\ The Rule requires labels on fuel dispensers for non-liquid
alternative fuels, such as electricity, compressed natural gas, and
hydrogen. The labels for electricity provide the charging system's
kilowatt capacity, voltage, and other related information. The labels
for other non-liquid fuels disclose the fuel's commonly used name and
principal component (expressed as a percentage). The Rule also has
labeling requirements for new alternative fueled vehicles. However, the
Rule does not contain separate label requirements for vehicles and,
instead, incorporates the Environmental Protection Agency's (``EPA'')
fuel economy label rules (40 CFR part 600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 60 FR 26926 (May 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Regulatory Review of the Alternative Fuels Rule
The Commission systematically reviews all its rules and guides to:
(1) examine their efficacy, costs, and benefits; and (2) determine
whether to retain, modify, or rescind them. The Commission completed
its most recent Rule review a decade ago (78 FR 23832 (April 23,
2013)). During that review, the Commission consolidated the Rule's AFV
requirements with fuel economy labels required by EPA and eliminated
labeling requirements for used AFVs. With this publication, the
Commission commences a new review.
As part of this review, the Commission seeks comment on the current
Alternative Fuels Rule. Among other things, commenters should address
the economic impact of, and the continuing need for the Rule; the
Rule's benefits to alternative fuel and AFV purchasers; and burdens the
Rule places on firms subject to its requirements. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on specific issues related to electric vehicle
charging stations (Section III.) and responses to other questions about
the Rule (Section IV.).
III. Specific Questions About Labeling for Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations
Given the proliferation of electric vehicles (``EVs'') in the
marketplace, the Commission specifically seeks comment on the Rule's
labeling requirements for electric vehicle dispensing systems (i.e., EV
charging stations) operated by retailers for consumers. The current
Rule requires a label on all such public EV charging stations that
discloses: (1) the commonly used name of the fuel (e.g., electricity);
(2) the system's kilowatt (``kW'') capacity; (3) voltage; (4) whether
the voltage is alternating current (``ac'') or direct current (``dc'');
amperage; and (5) whether the system is conductive or inductive (e.g.,
``9.6 kW; 240 vac/40 amps; CONDUCTIVE''). Under the current
requirements, retailers must place the label conspicuously on the face
of each dispenser ``so as to be in full view of consumers and as near
as reasonably practical to the price per unit of the non-liquid
alternative vehicle fuel.'' \3\ The Commission seeks comment on the
following questions about the current label for public EV charging
stations and any other issue related to the current label. Commenters
should provide specific information to support their responses,
including examples, where appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 309.15(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Does the Rule's current label for EV charging stations help
consumers make choices and comparisons when they are seeking to charge
their vehicles? Can the label be ``consolidated with other labels
providing information to the consumer?'' If so, which labels?
(2) Is there any research about how consumers understand or
interpret information at EV charging stations, including the FTC label?
Is there evidence of consumer confusion related to the use of charging
stations in the market now, including the use of the FTC label?
(3) Should the Commission make any changes to the content of the
current EV charging station label? If so, what changes should the
Commission make? Is there any information on the label that is
unnecessary? For example, should the Rule continue to require a
disclosure indicating whether the station is conductive or inductive?
Is there any other information not covered
[[Page 73550]]
by the current label that would be useful to communicate to consumers?
(4) Should the Rule require the disclosure of kilowatt capacity in
a different way on the label (e.g., charging level)?
(5) Should the label include information about the station's
connectors (i.e., plugs)?
(6) Should the Commission consider a different format for the
label? For instance, should the Commission adopt a labeling format
consistent with the FTC's Lighting Facts label for light bulbs (16 CFR
part 305) or the Food and Drug Administration's ``Nutrition Facts''
label (21 CFR part 101) (e.g., ``Charger Facts'')? Should the label be
simpler? For example, should the Rule require conspicuous disclosures
limited to kilowatt capacity (or charging level) and connector without
a specific label size or format?
(7) Should the Rule specifically allow the label to appear on the
charging station's screen? If so, what requirements should the Rule
include to ensure the label is visible to consumers using the station?
IV. Other Issues for Comment
The Commission solicits comment on the following questions related
to the Rule:
(1) Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently
promulgated? Why or why not?
(2) What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence
supports the asserted benefits?
(3) What modifications, if any, should the Commission make to the
Rule to increase its benefits to consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses?
(4) What impact, if any, has the Rule had on the flow of
appropriate information to consumers about alternative fuels?
(5) What significant costs has the Rule imposed on consumers? What
evidence supports the asserted costs?
(6) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to
reduce the costs imposed on consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for businesses, particularly small businesses?
(7) Please provide any evidence that has become available since the
last review concerning consumer perception of non-liquid alternative
fuel labeling. Does this new information indicate that the Rule should
be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(8) Please provide any evidence that has become available since the
last review concerning consumer interest in alternative fuel. Does this
new information indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so, why,
and how? If not, why not?
(9) What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, and
in particular to small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted
benefits?
(10) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to
increase its benefits to businesses, and particularly to small
businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for businesses?
(11) What significant costs, including costs of compliance, has the
Rule imposed on businesses, particularly small businesses? What
evidence supports the asserted costs?
(12) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to
reduce the costs imposed on businesses, particularly on small
businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for businesses?
(13) What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry
compliance with the Rule? Does this evidence indicate that the Rule
should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(14) Are any of the Rule's requirements no longer needed? If so,
explain. Please provide supporting evidence.
(15) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to
account for changes in relevant technology, including development of
new alternative fuels, or economic conditions?
(a) What evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses?
(16) Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state,
or local laws or regulations? If so, how?
(a) What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
(b) With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be
modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(c) Is there evidence concerning whether the Rule has assisted in
promoting national uniformity with respect to rating, certifying, and
posting the rating of non-liquid alternative fuels? If so, please
provide that evidence.
(17) Are there foreign or international laws, regulations, or
standards with respect to rating, certifying, and posting the rating of
non-liquid alternative fuels that the Commission should consider as it
reviews the Rule? If so, what are they?
(a) Should the Rule be modified to harmonize with these foreign or
international laws, regulations, or standards? If so, why, and how? If
not, why not?
(b) How would such harmonization affect the costs and benefits of
the Rule for consumers and businesses, particularly small businesses?
(18) Are there any specific changes that should be made to the
hydrogen label?
(19) Should the Commission revisit its 2013 decision to consolidate
FTC labels for AFVs with the fuel economy labels required by EPA? If
so, what Rule changes should the Commission consider?
V. Instructions for Submitting Comments
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider
your comment, we must receive it on or before December 26, 2023. Write
``Regulatory Review for Alternative Fuels Rule, Matter No. R311002'' on
your comment.
Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail
addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. As a result, we
strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through
www.regulations.gov. To ensure the Commission considers your online
comment, please follow the instructions on the web-based form. Your
comment_including your name and your state_will be placed on the
public record of this proceeding, including the www.regulations.gov
website. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove
individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them
on the www.regulations.gov site.
[[Page 73551]]
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Regulatory Review for
Alternative Fuels Rule, Matter No. R311002'' on your comment and on the
envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail
Stop H-144 (Annex F), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible
website at www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making
sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential
information. In particular, your comment should not include any
sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social
Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number;
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial
information which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided by
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2),
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including, in particular, competitively sensitive
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas,
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form, clearly labeled
``Confidential,'' and comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In
particular, the written request for confidential treatment that
accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for
the request, and identify the specific portions of the comment to be
withheld from the public record. See id. Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in
accordance with the law and public interest. Once your comment has been
posted publicly at www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact or remove your
comment unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the
requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General
Counsel grants that request.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit
the collection of public comments to consider and use in this
proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and
responsive public comments that it receives on or before December 26,
2023. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.
By direction of the Commission.
Joel Christie,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23621 Filed 10-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P