Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11371 

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

3. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a regulatory evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this proposed AD and placed it in the 

AD docket. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket that 

contains the proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 

or in person at the Docket Management 

Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is located at the street 

address stated in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 

2002–25–09, Amendment 39–12985 (67 

FR 78156, December 23, 2002), and 

adding the following new AD: 

Air Tractor, Inc.: Docket No. FAA–2008–

0247; Directorate Identifier 2008–CE–

003–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments on this 

airworthiness directive (AD) action by May 2, 

2008. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 2002–25–09, 

Amendment 39–12985. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the following 

airplane models and serial numbers that are 

certificated in any category: 

Models Serial Nos. 

AT–250, AT–300, 

AT–301, AT–302, 

AT–400, AT–400A, 

AT–401, AT–401A, 

AT–402, AT–402A 

and AT–402B.

–0001 through –1196. 

AT–501, AT–502, 

AT–502A, and AT–

502B.

–0001 through –2620. 

AT–602 ...................... –0337 through –1153. 

AT–802A ................... –0003 through –0282. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) Since we issued AD 2002–25–09, we 

received a report of the bolts that attach the 

forward end of the original design overturn 

skid plate to the airframe breaking in an 

overturn accident. This allowed the skid 

plate to rotate around the rear attach point, 

and the forward end of the plate to enter the 

cockpit area. We are proposing this AD to 

prevent the front and rear connections of the 

overturn skid plate to the airplane from 

breaking, which could allow foreign debris to 

enter the cockpit during an airplane overturn. 

This condition, if not corrected, could lead 

to pilot injury. 

Compliance 

(e) To address this problem, you must do 

the following, unless already done: 

Actions Compliance Procedures 

(1) If overturn skid plate kit part number (P/N) 

11411–1–500 or an FAA-approved equivalent 

P/N is already installed, then install P/N 

11411–1–501 modification kit.

Within the next 180 days after the effective 

date of this AD.

Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter 

#97, revised November 7, 2007. 

(2) If there is no overturn skid plate installed, 

then install overturn skid plate kit P/N 11411–

1–502 or an FAA-approved equivalent part 

number.

Within the next 180 days after the effective 

date of this AD.

Follow Snow Engineering Co. Service Letter 

#97, revised November 7, 2007. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(f) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Andy McAnaul, 

Aerospace Engineer, ASW–150, FAA San 

Antonio MIDO–43, 10100 Reunion Place, 

Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216, phone: 

(210) 308–3365; fax: (210) 308–3370. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

Related Information 

(g) To get copies of the service information 

referenced in this AD, contact Air Tractor 

Inc., P.O. Box 485, Olney, Texas 76374; 

telephone: (940) 564–5616; fax: (940) 564–

5612. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on 

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

February 26, 2008. 

James E. Jackson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–4005 Filed 2–29–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 260 

Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Marketing Claims; The Green Guides 

and Packaging; Public Workshop 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

workshop; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is planning to host a public workshop 

on April 30, 2008, to examine 

developments in green packaging claims 

and consumer perception of such 

claims. The workshop is a component of 

the Commission’s regulatory review of 

the Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Marketing Claims, which was 

announced on November 26, 2007. 

DATES: The workshop will be held on 

Wednesday, April 30, 2008, from 9 AM 

to 5 PM at the FTC’s Satellite Building 

Conference Center, located at 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

Any written comments in response to 

this Notice must be received by May 19, 

2008. 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
11372 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

2The Federal Register Notice announcing this 

review is at 72 FR 66091 (Nov. 27, 2007), and can 

be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2007/11/ 

P954501ggfrn.pdf. The Commission reviews all of 

its rules and guides periodically. These reviews 

seek information about the costs and benefits of the 

Commission’s existing rules and guides and their 

regulatory and economic impact. The information 

obtained during these reviews assists the 

Commission in identifying rules and guides that 

warrant modification or rescission. 

3The Commission issued the Green Guides in 

1992 (57 FR 36363) and subsequently revised them 

in 1996 (61 FR 53311), and in 1998 (63 FR 24240). 

The current Green Guides are available at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm. 

REGISTRATION INFORMATION: 

The workshop is open to the public, 

and there is no fee for attendance. The 

FTC also plans to make this workshop 

available via webcast (see http:// 

www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/packaging/ 

index.html). For admittance to the 

Conference Center, all attendees will be 

required to show a valid photo 

identification such as a driver’s license. 

The FTC will accept pre-registration for 

this workshop. Pre-registration is not 

necessary to attend, but is encouraged 

so that we may better plan this event. To 

pre-register, please email your name and 

affiliation to 

greenpackagingworkshop@ftc.gov. 

When you pre-register, we will collect 

your name, affiliation, and your email 

address. This information will be used 

to estimate how many people will 

attend. We may use your email address 

to contact you with information about 

the workshop. 

Under the Freedom of Information 

Act (‘‘FOIA’’) or other laws, we may be 

required to disclose to outside 

organizations the information you 

provide. For additional information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see the Commission’s 

Privacy Policy at www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm. The FTC Act and other 

laws the Commission administers 

permit the collection of this contact 

information to consider and use for the 

above purposes. 

WRITTEN AND ELECTRONIC 

COMMENTS: 

The submission of comments is not 

required for attendance at the workshop. 

If you wish to submit written or 

electronic comments to inform 

discussion at the workshop, such 

comments must be received by April11, 

2008. All comments in response to this 

Notice must be submitted no later than 

May 19, 2008. Comments should refer to 

‘‘Green Packaging Workshop—

Comment, Project No. P084200,’’ to 

facilitate organization of comments. A 

comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed or delivered to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission/ 

Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 

(Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. 

Comments containing confidential 

material must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’

and must comply with Commission 

Rule 4.9(c).1 The FTC is requesting that 

any comment filed in paper form be sent 

by courier or overnight service, if 

possible, because postal mail in the 

Washington area and at the Commission 

is subject to delay due to heightened 

security precautions. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by following the 

instructions on the web-based form at 

https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcpackagingworkshop. To ensure that the 

Commission considers an electronic 

comment, you must file it on that webbased form. You also may visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov to read this notice, 

and may file an electronic comment 

through that website. The Commission 

will consider all comments that 

www.regulations.gov forwards to it. 

The FTC Act and other laws 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, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC website. To read our policy 

on how we handle the information you 

submit—including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act—please 

review the FTC’s privacy policy, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janice Frankle, Attorney, 202-326-2022, 

Laura Koss, Attorney, 202-326-2890, or 

Anne McCormick, Attorney, 202-326- 

3583, Division of Enforcement, Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

FTC staff is planning to conduct a 

one-day workshop on April 30, 2008, 

addressing environmental advertising 

claims regarding product packaging. 

The workshop will explore ‘‘green’’

packaging claims, consumer perception 

of these claims, and substantiation 

issues. The workshop is one component 

of the Commission’s regulatory review 

of the Guides for the Use of 

Environmental Marketing Claims 

(‘‘Green Guides’’ or ‘‘Guides’’), 16 CFR 

Part 260, which the FTC announced on 

November 26, 2007.2

This notice addresses several issues 

related to the upcoming workshop; 

provides background on the Green 

Guides and the Green Guides regulatory 

review; briefly discusses consumer 

protection issues raised by green 

packaging claims used in today’s 

marketplace; and provides a short 

description of possible issues for 

discussion at the workshop as well as 

questions for comment. 

II. Background Information 

This Federal Register Notice is part of 

the FTC’s standard regulatory review of 

the Green Guides. The following section 

provides background information 

regarding the Green Guides and the 

Commission’s Green Guides regulatory 

review process. 

A. The Green Guides 

The Commission issued the Green 

Guides to help marketers avoid making 

environmental claims that are unfair or 

deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.3 Industry guides, 

such as these, are administrative 

interpretations of the law. Therefore, 

they do not have the force and effect of 

law and are not independently 

enforceable. The Commission can take 

action under the FTC Act, however, if 

a business makes environmental 

marketing claims inconsistent with the 

Guides. In any such enforcement action, 

the Commission must prove that the act 

or practice at issue is unfair or 

deceptive. 

The Green Guides outline general 

principles that apply to all 

environmental marketing claims and 

provide guidance regarding specific 

claims. For all claims, the Guides advise 

that: qualifications and disclosures be 

sufficiently clear and prominent to 

prevent deception; marketers indicate 

whether their claims apply to the 

product, the package, or a component of 

either; claims not overstate an 

environmental attribute or benefit, 

expressly or by implication; and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11373 

4The Guides do not, however, establish standards 

for environmental performance or prescribe testing 

protocols. 

5 ‘‘Cradle-to-cradle,’’ a term coined by authors 

William McDonough and Michael Braungart in 

their 2002 book entitled Cradle to Cradle: Remaking 

the Way We Make Things, is commonly used to 

indicate that a product has been designed from 

inception to be easily and continuously recyclable, 

thereby never entering the waste stream. 

6Bio-based plastics are derived from plant 

sources (such as corn, potato starch, or sugar cane) 

rather than petroleum sources. 

marketers present comparative claims in 

a manner that makes the basis for the 

comparison sufficiently clear to avoid 

consumer deception. 

The Guides then specifically address: 

general environmental benefit claims, 

such as ‘‘environmentally friendly’’; 

degradable, biodegradable, and 

photodegradable claims; compostable 

claims; recyclable claims; recycled 

content claims; source reduction claims; 

refillable claims; and ozone safe/ozone 

friendly claims. For each, the Guides 

explain how reasonable consumers are 

likely to interpret them. The Guides also 

describe the basic elements necessary to 

substantiate claims within each category 

and present options for qualifying 

specific claims to avoid deception.4 The 

illustrative examples provide ‘‘safe 

harbors’’ for marketers who seek 

certainty about how to make 

environmental claims, but do not 

represent the only permissible 

approaches to qualifying a claim that 

would otherwise be consistent with the 

Guides. 

B. Green Guides Regulatory Review 

On November 27, 2007, the FTC 

published a Federal Register Notice 

commencing the decennial regulatory 

review of the FTC’s Green Guides. The 

Notice solicited public comments in 

response to questions about the Guides’

costs, benefits, and effectiveness and 

also posed claim-specific questions. The 

Notice announced that the FTC would 

be hosting public meetings to facilitate 

public dialogue on issues relating to the 

Green Guides review. The Commission 

will review and consider information 

gathered at these meetings, in addition 

to the public comments, in formulating 

its final determination. 

On January 8, 2008, the Commission 

conducted its first public meeting 

relating to the Green Guides Review—a 

workshop on Carbon Offsets and 

Renewable Energy Certificates. The 

meeting announced through this 

Federal Register Notice, entitled ‘‘The 

Green Guides and Packaging,’’ will be 

the second public meeting planned as 

part of the comprehensive review of the 

Green Guides. A public meeting aimed 

at green claims related to packaging will 

enable participants and the Commission 

to focus in-depth on an area in which 

a wide range of green claims are 

prevalent. 

III. Green Packaging Claims and 

Consumer Protection Issues 

Since the Commission last revised the 

Green Guides in 1998, there has been a 

marked increase in environmental 

claims, including ‘‘green’’ claims 

concerning product packaging. Sellers 

and marketers, for example, frequently 

use terms addressed in the Green 

Guides, such as ‘‘recyclable,’’

‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘degradable,’’

‘‘compostable,’’ or ‘‘refillable,’’ to claim 

their packaging is green. Sellers and 

marketers also are using new green 

claims not presently addressed in the 

Green Guides to emphasize the reduced 

environmental impact of their 

packaging, including such terms as 

‘‘sustainable’’ and ‘‘renewable.’’ For 

example, some marketers now claim to 

adhere to a ‘‘cradle-to-cradle’’

philosophy, indicating that their 

product and its packaging are 

specifically designed to be easily and 

continuously recyclable.5 Such claims, 

which concern the entire, and 

potentially repetitive life cycle of 

product packaging, raise several 

consumer perception and substantiation 

issues. Likewise, in recent years there 

has been a proliferation of 

environmental seals and third-party 

certifications purporting to verify the 

positive environmental impact of 

product packaging. The criteria for and 

meaning of these seals and certifications 

also raise consumer protection 

challenges. 

Additionally, in recent years, 

marketers increasingly are using ‘‘biobased plastics’’6 in packaging, resulting 

in new green packaging claims. For 

example, some marketers now claim 

that bio-based plastic bottles are 

‘‘commercially compostable.’’ Proper 

disposal of these bottles and other new 

packaging materials may require new or 

less accessible recycling, composting, or 

disposal facilities. As a result, such 

claims raise potential consumer 

perception and substantiation issues. 

IV. Issues and Questions for Discussion 

at the Workshop 

Some possible topics for discussion at 

the workshop are: 1) trends in packaging 

and the resultant environmental 

packaging claims; 2) packaging terms 

currently covered by the Green Guides, 

including ‘‘recyclable,’’ ‘‘recycled 

content,’’ ‘‘source reduction,’’

‘‘degradable’’ (including 

‘‘biodegradable’’ and 

‘‘photodegradable’’), ‘‘compostable,’’

and ‘‘refillable’’ and whether consumer 

perception of these terms have changed; 

3) new green packaging claims not 

currently addressed in the Guides, 

including ‘‘sustainable,’’ ‘‘renewable,’’

and ‘‘bio-based’’; 4) claims based on 

third-party certification and consumer 

perception of these claims; 5) the impact 

of changes in science and technology, 

including the use of new packaging 

materials and the use of new recycling, 

composting, and disposal techniques, 

on environmental packaging claims; 6) 

the state of substantiation for 

environmental packaging claims; and 7) 

the need for additional or updated FTC 

guidance in these areas. 

In addition to considering these 

possible topics, the Commission invites 

written comments on any or all of the 

following questions regarding 

environmental packaging claims. The 

Commission requests that responses to 

these questions be as specific as 

possible, including a reference to the 

question being answered, and reference 

to empirical data or other evidence 

wherever available and appropriate. 

A. Recyclable 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘recyclable’’ claims about 

packaging? Please provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception about ‘‘recyclable’’

packaging claims (e.g., ‘‘Please recycle’’

and the three-chasing-arrows symbol) 

since the Guides were last revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) Has consumers’ access to recycling 

facilities (e.g., curbside and drop-off 

facilities) for packaging changed since 

the Guides were last reviewed? 

(a) If so, how, and how does this 

change affect consumers’ perception 

of what they can and cannot recycle? 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answers. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(4) Have the types of packaging capable 

of being recycled changed since the 

Guides were last reviewed? 

(a) If so, how, and how do these 

changes, if any, affect consumers’

perception of what they can recycle? 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
11374 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answers. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such changes? If so, how? 

(5) Are there ‘‘recyclable’’ claims in the 

marketplace concerning packaging that 

are misleading? If so, please describe 

these claims and provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(6) What recyclability disclosures are 

businesses currently making about 

packaging? 

(a) Are current recyclability 

disclosures adequate to apprise 

consumers of the criteria for the 

recycling of packaging, the 

appropriate methods of recycling, 

and/or the availability of appropriate 

recycling facilities? Please provide 

any evidence that supports your 

answer. 

(b) Are current recyclability 

disclosures adequate for consumers to 

understand whether the product or 

the package, or both, are recyclable? 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(7) Should the current recyclability 

disclosures in the Guides be revised? If 

so, how? 

(8) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to ‘‘recyclable’’

claims about packaging. Please provide 

any evidence that supports your answer. 

B. Recycled Content 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘recycled content’’ claims 

about packaging? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception about ‘‘recycled content’’

packaging claims (e.g., the threechasing-arrows symbol) since the 

Guides were revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) Do consumers make distinctions 

between ‘‘pre-consumer’’ recycled 

content (i.e., materials recovered or 

otherwise diverted from the solid waste 

stream during the manufacturing 

process) and ‘‘post-consumer’’ recycled 

content (i.e., materials recovered or 

otherwise diverted from the solid waste 

stream after consumer use) in 

packaging? Please provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(4) Have technological changes affected 

what consumers consider ‘‘preconsumer’’ and ‘‘post-consumer’’? 

(a) If so, please describe these changes 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such changes? If so, how? 

(5) Are there ‘‘recycled content’’ claims 

in the marketplace concerning 

packaging that are misleading? If so, 

please describe these claims and 

provide any evidence that supports your 

answer. 

(6) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to ‘‘recycled 

content’’ claims about packaging. Please 

provide any evidence that supports your 

answer. 

C. Degradable, Biodegradable, 

Photodegradable, and Compostable 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘degradable,’’

‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘photodegradable,’’ or 

‘‘compostable’’ claims about packaging? 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception of these claims since the 

Guides were revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) How do consumers perceive 

‘‘degradable,’’ ‘‘biodegradable,’’

‘‘photodegradable,’’ or ‘‘compostable’’

claims with respect to packaging that 

consumers throw in the garbage (e.g., 

packaging ultimately disposed of in a 

landfill)? Please provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(4) The Guides provide that an 

unqualified claim that a package is 

‘‘compostable’’ should be substantiated 

by evidence that all the materials in the 

package will break down into, or 

otherwise become part of, usable 

compost (e.g., soil-conditioning 

material, mulch) in a safe and timely 

manner in an appropriate composting 

program or facility, or in a home 

compost pile or device. Should the 

Guides be revised to provide more 

specificity regarding the time frame for 

composting? 

(a) If so, why, and what should the 

time frame be? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(b) If not, why not? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(5) Has consumers’ access to municipal 

or institutional composting facilities 

changed since the Guides were last 

reviewed? 

(a) If so, how, and how does any such 

change affect consumers’ perception 

of what packaging they can and 

cannot compost? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(6) Are there ‘‘degradable,’’

‘‘biodegradable,’’ ‘‘photodegradable,’’ or 

‘‘compostable’’ claims in the 

marketplace concerning packaging that 

are misleading? If so, please describe 

these claims and provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(7) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to 

‘‘degradable,’’ ‘‘biodegradable,’’

‘‘photodegradable,’’ or ‘‘compostable’’

claims about packaging. Please provide 

any evidence that supports your answer. 

D. Source Reduction 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘source reduction’’ claims 

about packaging? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception of these claims since the 

Guides were revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) Are there ‘‘source reduction’’ claims 

in the marketplace concerning 

packaging that are misleading? If so, 

please describe these claims and 

provide any evidence that supports your 

answer. 

(4) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to ‘‘source 

reduction’’ claims about packaging. 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

E. Refillable 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 42 / Monday, March 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11375 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘refillable’’ claims about 

packaging? Please provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception of these claims since the 

Guides were revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) Are there ‘‘refillable’’ claims in the 

marketplace concerning packaging that 

are misleading? If so, please describe 

these claims and provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

(4) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to ‘‘refillable’’

claims about packaging. Please provide 

any evidence that supports your answer. 

F. Ozone Safe and Ozone Friendly 

(1) How effective have the Guides been 

in preventing consumer deception and 

providing business guidance with 

respect to ‘‘ozone safe’’ or ‘‘ozone 

friendly’’ claims about packaging? 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(2) Has there been a change in consumer 

perception of these claims since the 

Guides were revised? 

(a) If so, please describe this change 

and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) Should the Guides be revised to 

address any such change? If so, how? 

(3) Are there ‘‘ozone safe’’ or ‘‘ozone 

friendly’’ claims in the marketplace 

concerning packaging that are 

misleading? If so, please describe these 

claims and provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(4) To the extent not addressed in your 

previous answers, please explain 

whether and how the Guides should be 

revised to prevent consumer deception, 

provide business guidance, and/or 

reduce costs the Guides impose on 

businesses, particularly small 

businesses, with respect to ‘‘ozone safe’’

or ‘‘ozone friendly’’ claims about 

packaging. Please provide any evidence 

that supports your answer. 

G. Claims Currently Not Addressed by 

the Green Guides 

(1) Should the Guides be revised to 

include guidance regarding ‘‘bio-based’’

packaging claims? If so, why, and what 

guidance should be provided? If not, 

why not? 

(a) What evidence supports making 

your proposed revision(s)? Please 

provide this evidence. 

(b) What evidence is available 

concerning consumer understanding 

of the term ‘‘bio-based’’? Please 

provide this evidence. 

(c) What evidence constitutes a 

reasonable basis to support a ‘‘biobased’’ claim? Please provide this 

evidence. 

(2) Should the Guides be revised to 

include guidance regarding life cycle or 

‘‘cradle-to-cradle’’ packaging claims? 

(a) If so, why, and what guidance 

should be provided? If not, why not? 

Please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(b) What evidence is available 

concerning consumer understanding 

of life cycle analyses or the term 

‘‘cradle-to-cradle’’? Please provide 

this evidence. 

(c) Is there an appropriate scientific 

methodology to evaluate life cycle or 

‘‘cradle-to-cradle’’ packaging claims? 

If so, please provide any evidence that 

supports your answer. 

(3) Are there other environmental 

claims concerning packaging not 

currently addressed by the Guides, and 

if so what are they? Please provide any 

evidence that supports your answer. 

(a) Should the Guides be revised to 

include guidance regarding these 

claims? If so, why, and what guidance 

should be provided? If not, why not? 

(b) What evidence is available 

concerning consumer understanding 

of these claim(s)? Please provide this 

evidence. 

(c) What evidence constitutes a 

reasonable basis to support these 

claim(s)? Please provide this 

evidence. 

H. Third-Party Certifications and Seals 

(1) What evidence is available 

concerning consumer understanding of 

third-party certifications and seals, 

labels, or symbols on packaging? Please 

provide this evidence. 

(2) Why are marketers using these thirdparty certifications and seals, labels, or 

symbols on packaging? Please provide 

any evidence that supports your answer. 

(3) What criteria are third-party 

certifiers using to substantiate claims 

made with third-party certification, 

seals, labels, or symbols on packaging? 

Are those criteria appropriate? Please 

provide any evidence that supports your 

answers. 

(4) Should the Guides be revised to 

include additional guidance regarding 

these claims? If so, how? 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary 

[FR Doc. E8–3972 Filed 2–29–08: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0669; FRL–8536–1] 

RIN–2060–AH93 

Revisions to the General Conformity 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing and 

corrected docket number. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing a 

public hearing to be held on March 14, 

2008 for the proposed rule on ‘‘Revision 

to the General Conformity Regulations.’’

This rulemaking action was published 

in the Federal Register on January 8, 

2008 and proposes to revise EPA’s 

regulations relating to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements that Federal 

Actions conform to the appropriate 

State, Tribal or Federal implementation 

plan for attaining clean air (‘‘general 

conformity’’). The public hearing will 

provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning these proposed 

changes. EPA is also correcting the 

docket number published in the January 

8, 2008 proposed rulemaking. In the 

January 8, 2008 Revisions to the General 

Conformity Regulations: Proposed Rule, 

there was an error made in citing the 

docket number. The appropriate docket 

number for the January 8, 2008 

proposed rulemaking is EPA–HQ–OAR–

2006–0669. Please submit all comments 

to docket number EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–

0669 when commenting on the January 

8, 2008 proposed rule. 

DATES: The public hearing will convene 

at 9 a.m. on March 14, 2008, and 

continue until 1 hour after the last 

registered speaker has spoken. People 

wishing to present oral testimony must 

pre-register by 5 p.m. on March 11, 

2008. For updates and additional 

information on the public hearing, 

please check EPA’s Web site for this 

rulemaking at http://www.epa.gov.oar/ 

gencomform/. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be 

held at U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, East Building, Room 1153, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 

20004. Because this hearing is being 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS