mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 12593 

off their energy bills by replacing their 

windows with THV windows. 

According to the complaint, respondent 

did not possess and rely upon a 

reasonable basis substantiating these 

representations when it made them. 

Many factors determine the savings 

homeowners can realize by replacing 

their windows, including the home’s 

geographic location, size, insulation 

package, and existing windows. 

Consumers who replace single or 

double-paned wood or vinyl-framed 

windows—common residential window 

types in the United States—with THV 

replacement windows are not likely to 

achieve a 40%, 50%, or 35%–55% 

reduction in residential energy 

consumption or heating and cooling 

costs. The complaint also alleges that, 

by providing its independent dealers 

and installers with advertising and other 

promotional materials making the above 

unsubstantiated representations, 

respondent provided the means and 

instrumentalities to engage in deceptive 

practices. Thus, the complaint alleges 

that respondent engaged in unfair or 

deceptive practices in violation of 

Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. 

Some promotional materials 

challenged in the FTC’s complaint 

include the words ‘‘up to’’ in an 

apparent attempt to qualify 

representations that consumers who 

replace windows with respondent’s 

windows are likely to achieve specified 

amounts of residential energy savings or 

reduction in residential heating and 

cooling costs. In the context of specific 

ads in this case, the words ‘‘up to’’ do 

not effectively qualify such 

representations for replacement 

windows. The FTC’s complaint and the 

proposed consent order should not be 

interpreted as a general statement of 

how the Commission may interpret or 

take other action concerning 

representations including the words ‘‘up 

to’’ for other products or services in the 

future. 

The proposed consent order contains 

three provisions designed to prevent 

respondent from engaging in similar 

acts and practices in the future. Part I 

addresses the marketing of windows. It 

prohibits respondent from making any 

representation that: (A) Consumers who 

replace their windows with 

respondent’s windows achieve up to or 

a specified amount or percentage of 

energy savings or reduction in heating 

and cooling costs; or (B) respondent 

guarantees or pledges that consumers 

who replace their windows with 

respondent’s windows will achieve up 

to or a specified amount or percentage 

of energy savings or reduction in 

heating and cooling costs; unless the 

representation is non-misleading and, at 

the time of making such representation, 

respondent possesses and relies upon 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence to substantiate that all or 

almost all consumers are likely to 

receive the maximum represented 

savings or reduction. Further, if 

respondent represents, guarantees, or 

pledges that consumers achieve such 

energy savings or heating and cooling 

cost reductions under specified 

circumstances, it must: Disclose those 

circumstances clearly and prominently 

in close proximity to such 

representation, guarantee, or pledge; 

and substantiate that all or almost all 

consumers are likely to receive the 

maximum represented, guaranteed, or 

pledged savings or reduction under 

those circumstances (e.g., when 

replacing a window of a specific 

composition in a building having a 

specific level of insulation in a specific 

region). The performance standard 

imposed under this Part constitutes 

fencing-in relief reasonably necessary to 

ensure that any future energy savings or 

reduction claims are not deceptive. 

Parts II and III address any product or 

service for which respondent makes any 

energy-related efficacy representation. 

Part II prohibits respondent from 

making any representation: (A) About 

the ability of respondent’s windows to 

pay for themselves in energy savings 

alone within any specific number of 

years or other time period, when 

consumers replace their windows with 

respondent’s windows; (B) that any 

specific number or percentage of 

consumers who replace their windows 

with respondent’s windows achieve 

energy savings or reduction in heating 

and cooling costs; or (C) about energy 

consumption, energy savings, energy 

costs, heating and cooling costs, 

U-factor, solar heat gain coefficient, 

R-value, K-value, insulating properties, 

thermal performance, or energy-related 

efficacy; unless the representation is 

non-misleading and substantiated by 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence. Part III prohibits respondent 

from providing to others the means and 

instrumentalities with which to make 

any false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise 

misleading representation of material 

fact. It defines ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ to mean any 

information, including any advertising, 

labeling, or promotional, sales training, 

or purported substantiation materials, 

for use by trade customers in their 

marketing of any such product or 

service. 

Parts IV though VIII require 

respondent to: Train personnel who 

direct or engage in the promotion or sale 

of any product or service covered by the 

order not to make representations 

prohibited by the order; keep copies of 

advertisements and materials relied 

upon in disseminating any 

representation covered by the order; 

provide copies of the order to certain 

personnel, agents, and representatives 

having supervisory responsibilities with 

respect to the subject matter of the 

order; notify the Commission of changes 

in its structure that might affect 

compliance obligations under the order; 

and file a compliance report with the 

Commission and respond to other 

requests from FTC staff. Part IX provides 

that the order will terminate after 

twenty (20) years under certain 

circumstances. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order. It is not intended to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the complaint or the proposed order, or 

to modify the proposed order’s terms in 

any way. 

By direction of the Commission, 

Commissioner Rosch abstaining. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5000 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Decision To Evaluate a Petition To 

Designate a Class of Employees From 

the Ventron Corporation Site in 

Beverly, MA, To Be Included in the 

Special Exposure Cohort 

AGENCY: National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: NIOSH gives notice as 

required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a 

decision to evaluate a petition to 

designate a class of employees from the 

Ventron Corporation site in Beverly, 

Massachusetts, to be included in the 

Special Exposure Cohort under the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. The 

initial proposed definition for the class 

being evaluated, subject to revision as 

warranted by the evaluation, is as 

follows: 

Facility: Ventron Corporation. 

Location: Beverly, Massachusetts. 

Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All 

Atomic Weapons Employees. 

Period of Employment: January 1, 

1942 through December 31, 1948. 
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES


12594 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division 

of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia 

Parkway, MS C–46, Cincinnati, OH 

45226, Telephone 877–222–7570. 

Information requests can also be 

submitted by email to DCAS@CDC.GOV. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4953 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–19–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Decision To Evaluate a Petition To 

Designate a Class of Employees From 

the Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, CO, 

To Be Included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort 

AGENCY: National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Department of Health 

and Human Services. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: NIOSH gives notice as 

required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a 

decision to evaluate a petition to 

designate a class of employees from the 

Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, 

to be included in the Special Exposure 

Cohort under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000. The initial 

proposed definition for the class being 

evaluated, subject to revision as 

warranted by the evaluation, is as 

follows: 

Facility: Rocky Flats Plant. 

Location: Golden, Colorado. 

Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All 

employees of the Department of Energy, 

its predecessor agencies, and their 

contractors and subcontractors. 

Period of Employment: January 1, 

1972 through December 31, 1989. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division 

of Compensation Analysis and Support, 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia 

Parkway, MS C–46, Cincinnati, OH 

45226, Telephone 877–222–7570. 

Information requests can also be 

submitted by email to DCAS@CDC.GOV. 

John Howard, 

Director, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4961 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163–19–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

[30-Day–12–12BL] 

Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork 

Reduction Act Review 

The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) publishes a 

list of information collection requests 

under review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in 

compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

To request a copy of these requests, call 

the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) Reports Clearance 

Officer at (404) 639–7570 or send an 

email to omb@cdc.gov. Send written 

comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington, 

DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–5806. 

Written comments should be received 

within 30 days of this notice. 

Proposed Project 

Biomonitoring of Great Lakes 

Populations Program—New—Agency 

for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR), Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Background and Brief Description 

The Great Lakes Basin has suffered 

decades of pollution and ecosystem 

damage. In 1987, the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement listed 40 Areas of 

Concern (AOCs) representing the most 

polluted areas in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Many chemicals persist in Great Lakes 

sediments, as well as in wildlife and 

humans. These chemicals can build up 

in the aquatic food chain. Eating 

contaminated fish is a known route of 

human exposure. 

In 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative (GLRI) was enacted in Public 

Law 111–88. The GLRI makes Great 

Lakes restoration a national priority for 

16 federal agencies. The GLRI is led by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA). Under a 2010 

interagency agreement with the U.S. 

EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 

announced a funding opportunity called 

the ‘‘Biomonitoring of Great Lakes 

Populations Program’’ (CDC–RFA– 

TS10–1001). 

This applied public health program 

aims to measure Great Lakes chemicals 

in human blood and urine. These 

measures will be a baseline for the GLRI 

and future restoration activities. The 

measures will be compared to available 

national estimates. This program also 

aims to take these measures from people 

who may be at higher risk of harm from 

chemical exposures. 

Three states were funded for this 

program: Michigan, Minnesota, and 

New York. The health departments in 

these states will look at seven AOCs and 

four types of sensitive adults: 

Michigan—urban anglers in the Detroit 

River and the Saginaw River and Bay 

AOCs; Minnesota—American Indians 

near the St. Louis River AOC; and New 

York—licensed anglers and immigrants 

from Burma and their family members 

living in four Lake Ontario and Lake 

Erie AOCs. These include the Rochester 

Embayment AOC, the Eighteenmile 

Creek AOC, and the AOCs along the 

Niagara and Buffalo Rivers. 

Each state will use its own way to ask 

people to take part in the study. In 

Michigan, people fishing along the 

shores of the Detroit River and Saginaw 

River and Bay will be asked a few 

questions to see if they are willing to 

take part in the study. In Minnesota, 

American Indians will be randomly 

chosen from a list of people who get 

local tribal health clinic and social 

services. They will be contacted by 

trained staff to take part in the study. In 

New York, names from the state 

licensed angler database will be chosen 

at random. These people will be 

contacted by mail and telephone to take 

part in the study. Another group, 

immigrants who moved from Burma to 

Buffalo, NY, will work with trained 

study staff to get their people to take 

part in the study. 

All respondents who consent will 

give blood and urine specimens. Their 

blood and urine will be tested for 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 

mercury, lead, and pesticides. Pesticides 

will include mirex, hexachlorobenzene, 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) 

and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene 

(DDE). Each state will test blood and 

urine for other chemicals of local 

concern. Respondents will also be 

interviewed. They will be asked about 

demographic and lifestyle factors, 

hobbies, and types of jobs, which can 

contribute to chemical exposure. Some 

diet questions will be asked, too, with 

a focus on eating Great Lakes fish. There 

is no cost to respondents other than 

their time spent in the study. The 

estimated annualized burden hours are 

713 hours. The ATSDR is requesting 

approval to conduct this information 

collection for two years. 

The ATSDR is authorized to conduct 

this program under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 

1980, as amended by the Superfund