Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 77766-77770 [2022-27558]
Download as PDF
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
77766
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Commenters using this
method of delivery should contact
Docket Services at 202–366–9826 or
202–366–9317 before delivery to ensure
staff is available to receive the delivery.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name and docket number DOT–
OST–2022–0109 or the Regulatory
Identification Number (RIN 2105–AF10)
for the rulemaking at the beginning of
your comment. All comments received
will be posted without change to
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received in any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). For
information on DOT’s compliance with
the Privacy Act, please visit https://
www.transportation.gov/privacy.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents and
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ryan Patanaphan or Blane Workie,
Office of Aviation Consumer Protection,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20590, 202–366–9342 (phone),
ryan.patanaphan@dot.gov or
blane.workie@dot.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 26, 2022, the Department of
Transportation (Department) publicly
announced and posted to its website a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed several disclosure
requirements to enhance the
transparency of ancillary service fees
that consumers pay for when they
purchase airline tickets. (See 87 FR
63718; October 20, 2022). In the NPRM,
the Department proposed to require U.S.
air carriers, foreign air carriers, and
ticket agents to clearly disclose
passenger-specific or itinerary-specific
baggage fees, change fees, and
cancellation fees to consumers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Dec 19, 2022
Jkt 259001
whenever fare and schedule information
is provided to consumers for flights to,
within, and from the United States. The
Department also proposed requiring
similar disclosures for fees for a child 13
or under to be seated adjacent to an
accompanying adult, as well as the
transactability of such seating fees. The
proposed rule would require carriers to
provide useable, current, and accurate
information regarding fees to ticket
agents that sell or display the carrier’s
fare and schedule information. The
NPRM provided for a comment period
of 60 days after publication of the
NPRM in the Federal Register, i.e.,
December 19, 2022.
Since the publication of the NPRM,
several commenters have requested that
the Department extend the comment
period given the complexity of the
proposals. Airlines for America (A4A)
and International Air Transportation
Association (IATA) filed a joint request
for the Department to extend the
comment period by 60 days given the
expansive scope and complexity of the
NPRM. The Travel Technology
Association, the American Society of
Travel Advisors, and Global Business
Travel Association also filed a joint
request asking for a 60-day extension
primarily because of the complexity of
the issues and noted that developing
fully responsive comments that the
Department will find most useful will
take more time. The National Air Carrier
Association and Sabre Corporation also
separately requested an additional 60
days. Further, on December 8, 2022,
during a public meeting of the Aviation
Consumer Protection Advisory
Committee (ACPAC) to discuss this
rulemaking, the consumer
representative of the ACPAC stated that
he does not oppose the requests for an
extension. A4A and IATA have also
asked for clarification on various issues
in the NPRM. The Department’s
responses to the questions raised by
airlines will be posted in the rulemaking
docket at https://www.regulations.gov,
docket DOT–OST–2022–0109.
The Department has reviewed the
requests for extension of the comment
period and has determined to extend the
comment period for the proposed rule
from December 19, 2022, to January 23,
2023. The Department believes that
granting a 35-day extension of the
original comment period is sufficient to
allow stakeholders to conduct a
thorough and careful consideration of
all potential impacts, including the
Department’s responses to the airlines’
clarification requests, and prepare
comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Signed in Washington, DC, on or about this
13th day of December 2022, under authority
delegated at 49 U.S.C. 1.27(n).
John E. Putnam,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022–27416 Filed 12–19–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 260
RIN 3084–AB15
Guides for the Use of Environmental
Marketing Claims
Federal Trade Commission.
Regulatory review; request for
public comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to its decennial
regulatory review schedule, the Federal
Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or
‘‘Commission’’) requests public
comment on its Guides for the Use of
Environmental Marketing Claims
(‘‘Green Guides’’ or ‘‘Guides’’). The
Commission is soliciting comments
about the efficiency, costs, benefits, and
regulatory impact of the Guides to
determine whether to retain, modify, or
rescind them. All interested persons are
hereby given notice of the opportunity
to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the Guides.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 21, 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 ‘‘Green Guides Review,
Matter No. P954501’’ 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, Suite
CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC
20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hampton Newsome (202–326–2889) or
Julia Solomon Ensor (202–326–2377),
Attorneys, Division of Enforcement,
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. The Green Guides
First issued in 1992 and most recently
revised in 2012, the Commission’s
Guides for Use of Environmental
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Marketing Claims, 16 CFR part 260
(‘‘Green Guides’’ or the ‘‘Guides’’),
address the applicability of section 5 of
the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a) (‘‘section
5’’) to environmental advertising and
labeling claims.1 The Green Guides
outline general principles applicable to
all environmental marketing claims, and
provide specific guidance regarding
many common environmental benefit
claims. For each claim covered, the
Guides: (1) explain how reasonable
consumers likely interpret it; (2)
describe the basic elements necessary to
substantiate it; and (3) present options
for qualifications to avoid deception.2
Although the illustrative
qualifications provide examples for
marketers seeking to make nondeceptive claims, they do not represent
the only permissible approaches. As
administrative interpretations of the
law, the Guides themselves are not
enforceable. In any enforcement action,
the Commission must prove the
challenged act or practice is unfair or
deceptive in violation of section 5.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
II. Regulatory Review of the Green
Guides
The Commission reviews all of its
rules and guides periodically to: (1)
examine their efficacy, costs, and
benefits; and (2) determine whether to
retain, modify, or rescind them. The
Commission completed its most recent
Green Guides review a decade ago (77
FR 62122 (Oct. 11, 2012)). With the
present document, the Commission
commences a new review.
The Commission seeks comment on
several general issues, which are
addressed in section III.A. of this
document, including the continuing
need for the Guides, their economic
impact, and their effect on the accuracy
of various environmental claims. section
III.A. also seeks comment on the Guides’
interaction with other environmental
marketing regulations, and whether the
Commission should consider
rulemaking to establish independently
enforceable requirements related to
unfair and deceptive environmental
1 The Commission issued the Green Guides in
1992 (57 FR 36363 (Aug. 13, 1992)), and
subsequently revised them in 1996 (61 FR 53311
(Oct. 11, 1996)), 1998 (63 FR 24240 (May 1, 1998)),
and 2012 (77 FR 62122 (Oct. 11, 2012)). The FTC
administers several other environmental and
energy-related rules and guides. See Guide
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New
Automobiles (16 CFR part 259), Energy Labeling
Rule (16 CFR part 305), Fuel Rating Rule (16 CFR
part 306), Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled
Vehicles Rule (16 CFR part 309), Recycled Oil Rule
(16 CFR part 311), and Labeling and Advertising of
Home Insulation Rule (16 CFR part 460).
2 The Guides do not establish standards for
environmental performance or prescribe testing
protocols.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Dec 19, 2022
Jkt 259001
claims. Since the Commission’s 2012
revisions, increased attention to
environmental concerns, including
climate change and issues driven by the
COVID–19 public health crisis, have
likely encouraged continued
environmental claims related to various
products, packaging, services, and
manufacturing processes. The
Commission notes the proliferation of
environmental benefit claims includes
claims not currently addressed in the
Guides. Accordingly, this review is
important to ensure the Guides reflect
changes in the marketplace over time.
The Commission also seeks to ensure
the Guides appropriately respond to
changes in consumer perception. As the
Commission recognized in 1992, science
and technology in the environmental
area change constantly, and new
developments might affect consumer
perception. Thus, in section III.B., the
Commission solicits specific consumer
survey evidence and consumer
perception data addressing
environmental claims, including claims
not currently covered by the Guides.
III. Issues for Comment
The Commission requests written
comment on the following questions,
including whether the Commission
should initiate a proceeding to consider
a rulemaking relating to environmental
benefit claims under its FTC Act
authority.3 Responses should be as
specific as possible, and reference the
question being answered, as well as
empirical data or other evidence
wherever available and appropriate.
Additionally, the Commission also
invites comments on any issues related
to the Green Guides not specifically
mentioned in the questions below.
A. General Issues
1. Is there a continuing need for the
Guides? Why or why not?
3 Under section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission is authorized to prescribe ‘‘rules
which define with specificity acts or practices
which are unfair or deceptive acts or practices in
or affecting commerce’’ within the meaning of
section 5(a)(1) of the Act. Among other things, the
statute requires that Commission rulemaking
proceedings provide an opportunity for informal
hearings at which interested parties are accorded
limited rights of cross-examination. Before
commencing a rulemaking proceeding, the
Commission must have reason to believe that the
practices to be addressed by the rulemaking are
‘‘prevalent.’’ 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). Once the
Commission has promulgated a trade regulation
rule, anyone who violates the rule ‘‘with actual
knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis
of objective circumstances that such act is unfair or
deceptive and is prohibited by such rule’’ is liable
for civil penalties for each violation. The
Commission obtains such penalties by referring a
suit to the Department of Justice for filing in federal
district court under section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77767
2. What benefits have the Guides
provided to consumers? What evidence
supports the asserted benefits?
3. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Guides to increase their
benefits to consumers?
a. What evidence supports your
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the costs the Guides impose on
businesses, particularly on small
businesses?
c. How would these modifications
affect benefits to consumers?
4. What impact have the Guides had
on the flow of truthful information to
consumers and on the flow of deceptive
information to consumers?
5. What significant costs have the
Guides imposed on consumers and/or
consumer and environmental
organizations? What evidence supports
the asserted costs?
6. What modifications, if any, should
the Commission make to the Guides to
reduce the costs imposed on
consumers?
a. What evidence supports your
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the benefits of the Guides?
7. Please provide any evidence that
has become available since 2012
concerning consumer perception of
environmental claims, including claims
not currently covered by the Guides.
Does this new information indicate the
Guides should be modified? If so, why,
and how? If not, why not?
8. Please provide any evidence that
has become available since 2012
concerning consumer interest in
particular environmental issues. Does
this new information indicate the
Guides should be modified? If so, why,
and how? If not, why not?
9. What benefits, if any, have the
Guides provided to businesses,
particularly to small businesses? What
evidence supports the asserted benefits?
10. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Guides to increase their
benefits to businesses, particularly to
small businesses?
a. What evidence supports your
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the costs the Guides impose on
businesses, particularly small
businesses?
c. How would these modifications
affect the consumer benefits?
11. What significant costs, including
costs of compliance, have the Guides
imposed on businesses, particularly on
small businesses? What evidence
supports the asserted costs?
12. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Guides to reduce the
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
77768
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2022 / Proposed Rules
costs imposed on businesses,
particularly on small businesses?
a. What evidence supports your
proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications
affect the consumer benefits provided
by the Guides?
13. What evidence is available
concerning the degree of industry
compliance with the Guides?
a. To what extent has there been a
reduction in deceptive environmental
claims since the Guides were issued?
Please provide any supporting evidence.
Does this evidence indicate the Guides
should be modified? If so, why, and
how? If not, why not?
b. To what extent have the Guides
reduced marketers’ uncertainty about
which claims might lead to FTC law
enforcement actions? Please provide any
supporting evidence. Does this evidence
indicate the Guides should be modified?
If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
14. Are there claims addressed in the
Guides on which guidance is no longer
needed? If so, explain. Please provide
supporting evidence.
15. What potentially unfair or
deceptive environmental marketing
claims, if any, are not covered by the
Guides?
a. What evidence demonstrates the
existence of such claims?
b. With reference to such claims,
should the Guides be modified? If so,
why, and how? If not, why not?
16. What modifications, if any, should
be made to the Guides to account for
changes in relevant technology or
economic conditions? What evidence
supports the proposed modifications?
17. Do the Guides 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 Guides be
modified? If so, why, and how? If not,
why not?
c. Is there evidence concerning
whether the Guides have assisted in
promoting national consistency with
respect to the regulation of
environmental claims? If so, please
provide that evidence.
18. Are there international laws,
regulations, or standards with respect to
environmental marketing claims the
Commission should consider as it
reviews the Guides? If so, what are they?
Should the Guides be modified to
harmonize with these international
laws, regulations, or standards? If so,
why, and how? If not, why not?
19. Should the Commission initiate a
proceeding to consider a rulemaking
under the FTC Act related to deceptive
or unfair environmental claims?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Dec 19, 2022
Jkt 259001
a. If so, which principles set out in the
Green Guides should be incorporated
into a rule? For each suggested
provision, explain why and provide any
evidence that supports your proposal.
b. Are there additional principles
related to environmental claims not
currently covered by the Guides that
should be incorporated into a rule? For
each suggested provision, explain why
and provide any evidence that supports
your proposal.
B. Specific Claims
The Commission seeks comments on
specific issues that have generated
increased attention and interest over the
last several years. The following
questions are designed to facilitate
comment on those issues, and the
inclusion or exclusion of any topic does
not indicate that specific modifications
to the Guides are currently under
consideration.
1. Carbon Offsets and Climate Change,
16 CFR 260.5. The Guides currently
include guidance relating to carbon
offsets. Should the Commission
consider revising this section or provide
additional guidance addressing other
types of advertising claims related to
carbon offsets and/or climate change?
a. Are there any specific claims
related to carbon offsets not currently
addressed by the Green Guides that are
appropriate for further consideration
during the review?
b. What, if any, evidence is there of
deceptive claims related to climate
change in the market?
c. If such evidence exists, what
specific guidance should the FTC
provide to help marketers avoid
deceptive claims?
d. Is there any consumer research
available regarding consumer
perception of climate change-related
claims such as ‘‘net zero,’’ ‘‘carbon
neutral,’’ ‘‘low carbon,’’ or ‘‘carbon
negative’’?
e. Are there any specific deceptive
claims related to climate change
prevalent in the market?
f. If evidence of deception exists, what
specific guidance should the FTC
provide to help marketers avoid
deceptive claims? What evidence
supports your proposed revision?
2. Compostable, 16 CFR 260.7. The
Guides currently advise marketers
claiming products are ‘‘compostable’’ in
municipal or institutional facilities that
they should qualify such claims if
appropriate facilities are not available to
a substantial majority of consumers or
communities where the item is sold.
Should this guidance be revised to
define ‘‘substantial majority’’ consistent
with the ‘‘recyclable’’ section? If so,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
why, and what guidance should be
provided? If not, why not? What
evidence supports your proposed
revision(s)?
3. Degradable, 16 CFR 260.8. The
Guides provide that an unqualified
claim indicating a product or package is
degradable, biodegradable, oxodegradable, oxo-biodegradable, or
photodegradable should be
substantiated by competent and reliable
scientific evidence demonstrating the
entire item will completely break down
and return to nature within a reasonably
short period of time after customary
disposal. For products customarily
disposed in a landfill, ‘‘reasonably short
period of time’’ is defined as one year.
a. Should the Commission revise the
Guides to provide an alternative
timeframe for product decomposition
for all or any category of products? Does
the timeframe differ for liquid products?
b. If so, why, and what should the
timeframe be? If not, why not? What
evidence supports your proposed
revision(s)?
c. Should the Commission clarify or
change existing guidance on degradable
claims in light of its decision in the
ECM Biofilms matter? 4 If so, how?
4. Ozone-Safe/Ozone-Friendly, 16
CFR 260.11. The Guides contain an
example stating it is deceptive to label
a product ‘‘ozone-friendly’’ if the
product contains any ozone-depleting
substance, including those substances
listed as Class I or Class II chemicals in
Title VI of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101–
549, and others subsequently designated
by EPA as ozone-depleting substances.
The Guides list chlorofluorocarbons
(‘‘CFCs’’); halons; carbon tetrachloride;
1,1,1-trichloroethane; methyl bromide;
hydrobromofluorocarbons; and
hydrochlorofluorocarbons (‘‘HCFCs’’) as
examples of such ozone-depleting
substances. Should the Commission
remove or revise this example given that
it references ozone-depleting chemicals
that the EPA now bans? If so, why, and
what guidance should be provided? If
not, why not? What evidence supports
your proposed revision(s)?
5. Recyclable, 16 CFR 260.12. Should
the Commission revise the Guides to
include updated guidance on
‘‘recyclable’’ claims? If so, why, and
what guidance should be provided? If
not, why not?
a. What evidence supports your
proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available
concerning consumer understanding of
the term ‘‘recyclable’’?
4 In the Matter of ECM BioFilms, Inc., a
corporation, also d/b/a Enviroplastics International,
160 F.T.C. 652 (2015).
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2022 / Proposed Rules
c. What evidence constitutes a
reasonable basis to support a
‘‘recyclable’’ claim?
6. Recyclable, 16 CFR 260.12. The
Guides provide that marketers can make
an unqualified ‘‘recyclable’’ claim when
recycling facilities are available to a
substantial majority of consumers or
communities where the item is sold.
‘‘Substantial majority’’ is defined as
60%.
a. Should the Guides be revised to
update the 60% threshold? If so, why,
and what guidance should be provided?
If not, why not? What evidence supports
your proposed revision? Is there any
recent consumer perception research
relevant to the 60% threshold?
b. Should the Guides be revised to
include guidance related to unqualified
‘‘recyclable’’ claims for items collected
by recycling programs for a substantial
majority of consumers or communities
but not ultimately recycled due to
market demand, budgetary constraints,
or other factors? If so, why, and what
guidance should be provided? If not,
why not? What evidence supports your
proposed revision?
7. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13.
The Guides state marketers may make
‘‘recycled content’’ claims only for
materials recovered or otherwise
diverted from the solid waste stream,
either during the manufacturing process
or after consumer use. Do the current
Guides provide sufficient guidance for
‘‘recycled content’’ claims? If so, why?
If not, why not, and what guidance
should be provided? What evidence
supports your proposed revision(s)?
8. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13.
The Guides suggest marketers can
substantiate ‘‘recycled content’’ claims
using per-product or annual weighted
average calculation methods. Should the
Guides be revised to provide guidance
on making ‘‘recycled content’’ claims
based on alternative method(s), e.g.,
mass balance calculations, certificate
(i.e., credit or tagging) systems, or other
methods? If so, why, and what guidance
should be provided? If not, why not?
What evidence supports your proposed
revision?
9. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13.
What changes, if any, should the
Commission make to its guidance on
pre-consumer or post-industrial
recycled content claims? How do
consumers interpret such claims? Please
provide any relevant consumer
perception evidence.
10. Energy Use/Energy Efficiency.
Should the Commission consider
adding guidance on energy use or
efficiency claims for home-related
products, electric vehicles, or other
products?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Dec 19, 2022
Jkt 259001
a. What, if any, evidence exists of
such deceptive claims in the market?
b. What types of products are
typically involved with deceptive
claims?
c. If deception exists, what specific
guidance should the Commission
provide to help marketers avoid
deceptive claims? What evidence
supports your proposed revision?
11. Organic. In 2012, the Commission
declined to issue guidance on ‘‘organic’’
claims for non-agricultural products.
Should the Commission revisit this
determination? If so, why, and what
guidance should be provided? If not,
why not?
a. What evidence supports making
your proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available
concerning consumer understanding of
the term ‘‘organic’’ with respect to nonagricultural products?
c. What evidence constitutes a
reasonable basis to support an ‘‘organic’’
claim in this context?
12. Sustainable. In 2012, the
Commission determined it lacked a
basis to give specific guidance on how
consumers interpret ‘‘sustainable’’
claims. Should the Commission revisit
this determination? If so, why, and what
guidance should be provided? If not,
why not?
a. What evidence supports making
your proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available
concerning consumer understanding of
the term ‘‘sustainable’’?
c. What evidence constitutes a
reasonable basis to support a
‘‘sustainable’’ claim?
IV. 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 February 21, 2023. Write ‘‘Green
Guides Review, Matter No. P954501’’ on
your comment.
Because of public health measures
and 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77769
before placing them on the
regulations.gov site.
If you file your comment on paper,
write ‘‘Green Guides Review, Matter No.
P954501’’ 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, Suite CC–
5610 (Annex J), 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 FTC Rule
§ 4.9(c). 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
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
77770
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 20, 2022 / Proposed Rules
consider and use in this proceeding, as
appropriate. The Commission will
consider all timely and responsive
public comments that it receives on or
before February 21, 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.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
Note: the following statement will not
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan
People decide what to buy, or not to
buy, for all kinds of reasons. One of
those reasons increasingly seems to be
environmental impact. Before making a
purchase, many American consumers
want to know how a product contributes
to climate change, or pollution, or the
spread of microplastics. Businesses have
noticed. Walk down the aisle at any
major store—you’re likely to see
packages trumpeting their low carbon
footprint, their energy efficiency, or
their quote-unquote ‘‘sustainability.’’
For the average consumer, it’s
impossible to verify these claims.
People who want to buy green products
generally have to trust what it says on
the box.
That’s why it’s so important for
companies making these claims to tell
the truth. If they don’t, it distorts the
market for environmentally friendly
products. It puts honest companies, who
bear the costs of green business
practices, at a competitive disadvantage.
And it harms consumers who want to
make conscientious decisions about
what products to buy and what
businesses to support.
The Commission has a strong track
record of suing companies for deceptive
environmental claims. It has reached
several multi-million-dollar settlements
just in the past few years.1 And, since
1992, the FTC has published the Guides
for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims.2 The ‘‘Green Guides,’’ as we call
them, are administrative interpretations
1 United States v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:22–
cv–00965 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2022), https://
www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/
2023173WalmartComplaint.pdf; United States v.
Kohl’s Inc., Case No. 1:22–cv–00964 (D.D.C. Apr. 8,
2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/
2023171KohlsOrder.pdf; FTC v. Truly Organic Inc.,
Case No. 1:19–cv–23832 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2019),
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files?file=documents/
cases/truly_organic_stipulated_final_order_0.pdf.
2 The most recent revisions to the Guides
occurred in 2012. See Guides for the Use of
Environmental Marketing Claims, 77 FR 62122 (Oct.
11, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:32 Dec 19, 2022
Jkt 259001
of the FTC Act as applied to
environmental claims. They help
companies avoid running afoul of the
law’s ban on deceptive advertising. And
they clarify the boundaries for fair, legal
competition.
To be effective, the Green Guides have
to keep up with developments in both
science and consumer perception.
That’s why the Commission is
commencing a regulatory review of the
guides.
At a broad level, the questions focus
on whether any aspects are outdated
and in need of revision. For example,
recent reports suggest that many plastics
that consumers believe they’re recycling
actually end up in landfills. One
question, then, is whether claims that a
product is recyclable should reflect
where a product ultimately ends up, not
just whether it gets picked up from the
curb. I’m particularly interested in
receiving comments, including
consumer perception research, on
relatively emerging environmental
topics.
I’d like to thank staff for their hard
work on this matter, and I encourage
members of the public to submit
comments to make sure their voice is
heard.
[FR Doc. 2022–27558 Filed 12–19–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0161; FRL–10428–
01–R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable
Further Progress Plan for the DallasFort Worth Ozone Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is supplementing a
proposed approval published on
October 9, 2020 (‘‘October 2020
proposal’’), for revisions to the Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet
the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
requirements for the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW) serious nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
proposal supplements the EPA’s
October 2020 proposal with respect to
the substitution of emission reductions
of nitrogen oxide (NOX) for emission
reductions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), based on comments
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
received during the public comment
period for the October 2020 proposal. In
the October 2020 proposal, the EPA
proposed to approve the substitution of
NOX emission reductions for VOC
emission reductions but did not address
how the substitution is consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In this
supplemental proposal, EPA is
proposing to approve the substitution of
NOX emission reductions for VOC
emission reductions as consistent with
section 182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA. The
EPA is providing an opportunity for
public comment on this supplemental
proposal. The EPA is not reopening for
comment the October 2020 proposal.
Comments received on the October 2020
proposal and this supplemental
proposal will be addressed in a final
rule.
DATES: Written comments on this
supplemental proposal must be received
on or before January 19, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2020–0161, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
paige.carrie@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Carrie Paige, 214–665–6521,
paige.carrie@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214–
E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM
20DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77766-77770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27558]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 260
RIN 3084-AB15
Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Regulatory review; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to its decennial regulatory review schedule, the
Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') requests public
comment on its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims
(``Green Guides'' or ``Guides''). The Commission is soliciting comments
about the efficiency, costs, benefits, and regulatory impact of the
Guides to determine whether to retain, modify, or rescind them. All
interested persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit
written data, views, and arguments concerning the Guides.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 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 ``Green Guides Review,
Matter No. P954501'' 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, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J),
Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome (202-326-2889) or
Julia Solomon Ensor (202-326-2377), Attorneys, Division of Enforcement,
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. The Green Guides
First issued in 1992 and most recently revised in 2012, the
Commission's Guides for Use of Environmental
[[Page 77767]]
Marketing Claims, 16 CFR part 260 (``Green Guides'' or the ``Guides''),
address the applicability of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)
(``section 5'') to environmental advertising and labeling claims.\1\
The Green Guides outline general principles applicable to all
environmental marketing claims, and provide specific guidance regarding
many common environmental benefit claims. For each claim covered, the
Guides: (1) explain how reasonable consumers likely interpret it; (2)
describe the basic elements necessary to substantiate it; and (3)
present options for qualifications to avoid deception.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission issued the Green Guides in 1992 (57 FR 36363
(Aug. 13, 1992)), and subsequently revised them in 1996 (61 FR 53311
(Oct. 11, 1996)), 1998 (63 FR 24240 (May 1, 1998)), and 2012 (77 FR
62122 (Oct. 11, 2012)). The FTC administers several other
environmental and energy-related rules and guides. See Guide
Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (16 CFR part
259), Energy Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305), Fuel Rating Rule (16
CFR part 306), Alternative Fuels and Alternative Fueled Vehicles
Rule (16 CFR part 309), Recycled Oil Rule (16 CFR part 311), and
Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation Rule (16 CFR part 460).
\2\ The Guides do not establish standards for environmental
performance or prescribe testing protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the illustrative qualifications provide examples for
marketers seeking to make non-deceptive claims, they do not represent
the only permissible approaches. As administrative interpretations of
the law, the Guides themselves are not enforceable. In any enforcement
action, the Commission must prove the challenged act or practice is
unfair or deceptive in violation of section 5.
II. Regulatory Review of the Green Guides
The Commission reviews all of its rules and guides periodically to:
(1) examine their efficacy, costs, and benefits; and (2) determine
whether to retain, modify, or rescind them. The Commission completed
its most recent Green Guides review a decade ago (77 FR 62122 (Oct. 11,
2012)). With the present document, the Commission commences a new
review.
The Commission seeks comment on several general issues, which are
addressed in section III.A. of this document, including the continuing
need for the Guides, their economic impact, and their effect on the
accuracy of various environmental claims. section III.A. also seeks
comment on the Guides' interaction with other environmental marketing
regulations, and whether the Commission should consider rulemaking to
establish independently enforceable requirements related to unfair and
deceptive environmental claims. Since the Commission's 2012 revisions,
increased attention to environmental concerns, including climate change
and issues driven by the COVID-19 public health crisis, have likely
encouraged continued environmental claims related to various products,
packaging, services, and manufacturing processes. The Commission notes
the proliferation of environmental benefit claims includes claims not
currently addressed in the Guides. Accordingly, this review is
important to ensure the Guides reflect changes in the marketplace over
time.
The Commission also seeks to ensure the Guides appropriately
respond to changes in consumer perception. As the Commission recognized
in 1992, science and technology in the environmental area change
constantly, and new developments might affect consumer perception.
Thus, in section III.B., the Commission solicits specific consumer
survey evidence and consumer perception data addressing environmental
claims, including claims not currently covered by the Guides.
III. Issues for Comment
The Commission requests written comment on the following questions,
including whether the Commission should initiate a proceeding to
consider a rulemaking relating to environmental benefit claims under
its FTC Act authority.\3\ Responses should be as specific as possible,
and reference the question being answered, as well as empirical data or
other evidence wherever available and appropriate. Additionally, the
Commission also invites comments on any issues related to the Green
Guides not specifically mentioned in the questions below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the
Commission is authorized to prescribe ``rules which define with
specificity acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in or affecting commerce'' within the meaning of section
5(a)(1) of the Act. Among other things, the statute requires that
Commission rulemaking proceedings provide an opportunity for
informal hearings at which interested parties are accorded limited
rights of cross-examination. Before commencing a rulemaking
proceeding, the Commission must have reason to believe that the
practices to be addressed by the rulemaking are ``prevalent.'' 15
U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). Once the Commission has promulgated a trade
regulation rule, anyone who violates the rule ``with actual
knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective
circumstances that such act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited
by such rule'' is liable for civil penalties for each violation. The
Commission obtains such penalties by referring a suit to the
Department of Justice for filing in federal district court under
section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. General Issues
1. Is there a continuing need for the Guides? Why or why not?
2. What benefits have the Guides provided to consumers? What
evidence supports the asserted benefits?
3. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Guides to
increase their benefits to consumers?
a. What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Guides impose
on businesses, particularly on small businesses?
c. How would these modifications affect benefits to consumers?
4. What impact have the Guides had on the flow of truthful
information to consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to
consumers?
5. What significant costs have the Guides imposed on consumers and/
or consumer and environmental organizations? What evidence supports the
asserted costs?
6. What modifications, if any, should the Commission make to the
Guides to reduce the costs imposed on consumers?
a. What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications affect the benefits of the Guides?
7. Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2012
concerning consumer perception of environmental claims, including
claims not currently covered by the Guides. Does this new information
indicate the Guides should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not,
why not?
8. Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2012
concerning consumer interest in particular environmental issues. Does
this new information indicate the Guides should be modified? If so,
why, and how? If not, why not?
9. What benefits, if any, have the Guides provided to businesses,
particularly to small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted
benefits?
10. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Guides to
increase their benefits to businesses, particularly to small
businesses?
a. What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications affect the costs the Guides impose
on businesses, particularly small businesses?
c. How would these modifications affect the consumer benefits?
11. What significant costs, including costs of compliance, have the
Guides imposed on businesses, particularly on small businesses? What
evidence supports the asserted costs?
12. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Guides to
reduce the
[[Page 77768]]
costs imposed on businesses, particularly on small businesses?
a. What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
b. How would these modifications affect the consumer benefits
provided by the Guides?
13. What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry
compliance with the Guides?
a. To what extent has there been a reduction in deceptive
environmental claims since the Guides were issued? Please provide any
supporting evidence. Does this evidence indicate the Guides should be
modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
b. To what extent have the Guides reduced marketers' uncertainty
about which claims might lead to FTC law enforcement actions? Please
provide any supporting evidence. Does this evidence indicate the Guides
should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
14. Are there claims addressed in the Guides on which guidance is
no longer needed? If so, explain. Please provide supporting evidence.
15. What potentially unfair or deceptive environmental marketing
claims, if any, are not covered by the Guides?
a. What evidence demonstrates the existence of such claims?
b. With reference to such claims, should the Guides be modified? If
so, why, and how? If not, why not?
16. What modifications, if any, should be made to the Guides to
account for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What
evidence supports the proposed modifications?
17. Do the Guides 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 Guides be
modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
c. Is there evidence concerning whether the Guides have assisted in
promoting national consistency with respect to the regulation of
environmental claims? If so, please provide that evidence.
18. Are there international laws, regulations, or standards with
respect to environmental marketing claims the Commission should
consider as it reviews the Guides? If so, what are they? Should the
Guides be modified to harmonize with these international laws,
regulations, or standards? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
19. Should the Commission initiate a proceeding to consider a
rulemaking under the FTC Act related to deceptive or unfair
environmental claims?
a. If so, which principles set out in the Green Guides should be
incorporated into a rule? For each suggested provision, explain why and
provide any evidence that supports your proposal.
b. Are there additional principles related to environmental claims
not currently covered by the Guides that should be incorporated into a
rule? For each suggested provision, explain why and provide any
evidence that supports your proposal.
B. Specific Claims
The Commission seeks comments on specific issues that have
generated increased attention and interest over the last several years.
The following questions are designed to facilitate comment on those
issues, and the inclusion or exclusion of any topic does not indicate
that specific modifications to the Guides are currently under
consideration.
1. Carbon Offsets and Climate Change, 16 CFR 260.5. The Guides
currently include guidance relating to carbon offsets. Should the
Commission consider revising this section or provide additional
guidance addressing other types of advertising claims related to carbon
offsets and/or climate change?
a. Are there any specific claims related to carbon offsets not
currently addressed by the Green Guides that are appropriate for
further consideration during the review?
b. What, if any, evidence is there of deceptive claims related to
climate change in the market?
c. If such evidence exists, what specific guidance should the FTC
provide to help marketers avoid deceptive claims?
d. Is there any consumer research available regarding consumer
perception of climate change-related claims such as ``net zero,''
``carbon neutral,'' ``low carbon,'' or ``carbon negative''?
e. Are there any specific deceptive claims related to climate
change prevalent in the market?
f. If evidence of deception exists, what specific guidance should
the FTC provide to help marketers avoid deceptive claims? What evidence
supports your proposed revision?
2. Compostable, 16 CFR 260.7. The Guides currently advise marketers
claiming products are ``compostable'' in municipal or institutional
facilities that they should qualify such claims if appropriate
facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers or
communities where the item is sold. Should this guidance be revised to
define ``substantial majority'' consistent with the ``recyclable''
section? If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why
not? What evidence supports your proposed revision(s)?
3. Degradable, 16 CFR 260.8. The Guides provide that an unqualified
claim indicating a product or package is degradable, biodegradable,
oxo-degradable, oxo-biodegradable, or photodegradable should be
substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence
demonstrating the entire item will completely break down and return to
nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary
disposal. For products customarily disposed in a landfill, ``reasonably
short period of time'' is defined as one year.
a. Should the Commission revise the Guides to provide an
alternative timeframe for product decomposition for all or any category
of products? Does the timeframe differ for liquid products?
b. If so, why, and what should the timeframe be? If not, why not?
What evidence supports your proposed revision(s)?
c. Should the Commission clarify or change existing guidance on
degradable claims in light of its decision in the ECM Biofilms matter?
\4\ If so, how?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the Matter of ECM BioFilms, Inc., a corporation, also d/
b/a Enviroplastics International, 160 F.T.C. 652 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ozone-Safe/Ozone-Friendly, 16 CFR 260.11. The Guides contain an
example stating it is deceptive to label a product ``ozone-friendly''
if the product contains any ozone-depleting substance, including those
substances listed as Class I or Class II chemicals in Title VI of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-549, and others
subsequently designated by EPA as ozone-depleting substances. The
Guides list chlorofluorocarbons (``CFCs''); halons; carbon
tetrachloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; methyl bromide;
hydrobromofluorocarbons; and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (``HCFCs'') as
examples of such ozone-depleting substances. Should the Commission
remove or revise this example given that it references ozone-depleting
chemicals that the EPA now bans? If so, why, and what guidance should
be provided? If not, why not? What evidence supports your proposed
revision(s)?
5. Recyclable, 16 CFR 260.12. Should the Commission revise the
Guides to include updated guidance on ``recyclable'' claims? If so,
why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not?
a. What evidence supports your proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of
the term ``recyclable''?
[[Page 77769]]
c. What evidence constitutes a reasonable basis to support a
``recyclable'' claim?
6. Recyclable, 16 CFR 260.12. The Guides provide that marketers can
make an unqualified ``recyclable'' claim when recycling facilities are
available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where
the item is sold. ``Substantial majority'' is defined as 60%.
a. Should the Guides be revised to update the 60% threshold? If so,
why, and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not? What
evidence supports your proposed revision? Is there any recent consumer
perception research relevant to the 60% threshold?
b. Should the Guides be revised to include guidance related to
unqualified ``recyclable'' claims for items collected by recycling
programs for a substantial majority of consumers or communities but not
ultimately recycled due to market demand, budgetary constraints, or
other factors? If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If
not, why not? What evidence supports your proposed revision?
7. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13. The Guides state marketers may
make ``recycled content'' claims only for materials recovered or
otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during the
manufacturing process or after consumer use. Do the current Guides
provide sufficient guidance for ``recycled content'' claims? If so,
why? If not, why not, and what guidance should be provided? What
evidence supports your proposed revision(s)?
8. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13. The Guides suggest marketers
can substantiate ``recycled content'' claims using per-product or
annual weighted average calculation methods. Should the Guides be
revised to provide guidance on making ``recycled content'' claims based
on alternative method(s), e.g., mass balance calculations, certificate
(i.e., credit or tagging) systems, or other methods? If so, why, and
what guidance should be provided? If not, why not? What evidence
supports your proposed revision?
9. Recycled Content, 16 CFR 260.13. What changes, if any, should
the Commission make to its guidance on pre-consumer or post-industrial
recycled content claims? How do consumers interpret such claims? Please
provide any relevant consumer perception evidence.
10. Energy Use/Energy Efficiency. Should the Commission consider
adding guidance on energy use or efficiency claims for home-related
products, electric vehicles, or other products?
a. What, if any, evidence exists of such deceptive claims in the
market?
b. What types of products are typically involved with deceptive
claims?
c. If deception exists, what specific guidance should the
Commission provide to help marketers avoid deceptive claims? What
evidence supports your proposed revision?
11. Organic. In 2012, the Commission declined to issue guidance on
``organic'' claims for non-agricultural products. Should the Commission
revisit this determination? If so, why, and what guidance should be
provided? If not, why not?
a. What evidence supports making your proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of
the term ``organic'' with respect to non-agricultural products?
c. What evidence constitutes a reasonable basis to support an
``organic'' claim in this context?
12. Sustainable. In 2012, the Commission determined it lacked a
basis to give specific guidance on how consumers interpret
``sustainable'' claims. Should the Commission revisit this
determination? If so, why, and what guidance should be provided? If
not, why not?
a. What evidence supports making your proposed revision(s)?
b. What evidence is available concerning consumer understanding of
the term ``sustainable''?
c. What evidence constitutes a reasonable basis to support a
``sustainable'' claim?
IV. 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 February 21, 2023. Write
``Green Guides Review, Matter No. P954501'' on your comment.
Because of public health measures and 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 regulations.gov site.
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Green Guides Review,
Matter No. P954501'' 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, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J),
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 FTC Rule Sec. 4.9(c). 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
Sec. 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
[[Page 77770]]
consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission
will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it
receives on or before February 21, 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.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
Note: the following statement will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan
People decide what to buy, or not to buy, for all kinds of reasons.
One of those reasons increasingly seems to be environmental impact.
Before making a purchase, many American consumers want to know how a
product contributes to climate change, or pollution, or the spread of
microplastics. Businesses have noticed. Walk down the aisle at any
major store--you're likely to see packages trumpeting their low carbon
footprint, their energy efficiency, or their quote-unquote
``sustainability.''
For the average consumer, it's impossible to verify these claims.
People who want to buy green products generally have to trust what it
says on the box.
That's why it's so important for companies making these claims to
tell the truth. If they don't, it distorts the market for
environmentally friendly products. It puts honest companies, who bear
the costs of green business practices, at a competitive disadvantage.
And it harms consumers who want to make conscientious decisions about
what products to buy and what businesses to support.
The Commission has a strong track record of suing companies for
deceptive environmental claims. It has reached several multi-million-
dollar settlements just in the past few years.\1\ And, since 1992, the
FTC has published the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims.\2\ The ``Green Guides,'' as we call them, are administrative
interpretations of the FTC Act as applied to environmental claims. They
help companies avoid running afoul of the law's ban on deceptive
advertising. And they clarify the boundaries for fair, legal
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00965
(D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023173WalmartComplaint.pdf; United States v. Kohl's Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00964 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023171KohlsOrder.pdf; FTC v. Truly Organic Inc.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-23832 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files?file=documents/cases/truly_organic_stipulated_final_order_0.pdf.
\2\ The most recent revisions to the Guides occurred in 2012.
See Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 77 FR
62122 (Oct. 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be effective, the Green Guides have to keep up with developments
in both science and consumer perception. That's why the Commission is
commencing a regulatory review of the guides.
At a broad level, the questions focus on whether any aspects are
outdated and in need of revision. For example, recent reports suggest
that many plastics that consumers believe they're recycling actually
end up in landfills. One question, then, is whether claims that a
product is recyclable should reflect where a product ultimately ends
up, not just whether it gets picked up from the curb. I'm particularly
interested in receiving comments, including consumer perception
research, on relatively emerging environmental topics.
I'd like to thank staff for their hard work on this matter, and I
encourage members of the public to submit comments to make sure their
voice is heard.
[FR Doc. 2022-27558 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P