Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73549 

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.’’ 

2 60 FR 26926 (May 19, 1995). 3Section 309.15(b)(1). 

(7) You may view this material at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, 

visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ 

ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@nara.gov. 

Issued on October 19, 2023. 

Ross Landes, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23517 Filed 10–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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

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). 

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. 

(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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73550 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112, 1130, and 1240 

[CPSC Docket No. 0046] 

Safety Standard for Infant and Infant/ 

Toddler Rockers 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Danny Keysar Child 

Product Safety Notification Act, section 

104 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) to promulgate consumer product 

safety standards for durable infant or 

toddler products. These standards are to 

be substantially the same as applicable 

voluntary standards, or more stringent 

than the voluntary standards if the 

Commission concludes that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. The Commission is 

proposing a safety standard for Infant 

and Infant/Toddler Rockers (rockers). 

The Commission is also proposing to 

amend CPSC’s consumer registration 

requirements to add rockers as 

identified durable infant or toddler 

products and to amend CPSC’s list of 

notice of requirements (NORs) to 

include rockers. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

26, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 

marking, labeling, and instructional 

literature requirements of the proposed 

rule should be directed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, the 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, 

or emailed to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

Other comments, identified by Docket 

No. CPSC–0046, may be submitted 

electronically or in writing: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC typically does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through https://

www.regulations.gov/. CPSC encourages 

you to submit electronic comments by 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

as described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/ 

Confidential Written Submissions: 

Submit comments by mail, hand 

delivery, or courier to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–7479. If you wish to submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public, you 

may submit such comments by mail, 

hand delivery, or courier, or you may 

email them to: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. CPSC may post all comments 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Do not 

submit through this website: 

Confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If you 

wish to submit such information, please 

submit it according to the instructions 

for mail/hand delivery/courier/ 

confidential written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov/, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–0046, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Zachary S. Foster, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850; Telephone 

301–987–2034; email: zfoster@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, 15 U.S.C. 

2056a(b), requires the Commission to: 

(1) examine and assess the effectiveness 

of voluntary consumer product safety 

standards for durable infant or toddler 

products in consultation with 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1