22396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 

1 The 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 FTC 

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

2The Commission issued the Green Guides in 

1992 (57 FR 36363) and subsequently revised them 

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FTC plans to conduct a 

study to examine consumer perception 

of environmental marketing claims. The 

study is part of the Commission’s 

regulatory review of the Guides for the 

Use of Environmental Marketing Claims 

(‘‘Green Guides’’ or ‘‘Guides’’). This is 

the second of two notices required 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’) in which the FTC seeks public 

comments on its proposed consumer 

research before requesting Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 

review of, and clearance for, the 

collection of information discussed 

herein. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Green 

Marketing Consumer Perception Study, 

Project No. P954501’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. Please note 

that your comment—including your 

name and your state—will be placed on 

the public record of this proceeding, 

including on the publicly accessible 

FTC Website, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’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. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. . . .’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following weblink: (https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcGreenGuidesReview) (and following the 

instructions on the web-based form). To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the web-based form at the weblink: 

(https://secure.commentworks.com/ftcGreenGuidesReview). If this Notice 

appears at (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

search/index.jsp), you may also file an 

electronic comment through that 

website. The Commission will consider 

all comments that regulations.gov 

forwards to it. You may also visit the 

FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov/ to 

read the Notice and the news release 

describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the reference ‘‘Green 

Marketing Consumer Perception Study, 

Project No. P954501’’ 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 J), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 

DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that 

any comment filed in paper form be sent 

by courier or overnight service, if 

possible, because U.S. postal mail in the 

Washington area and at the Commission 

is subject to delay due to heightened 

security precautions. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should 

additionally be submitted to: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’), Attention: Desk Officer for 

Federal Trade Commission. Comments 

should be submitted via facsimile to 

(202) 395-5167 because U.S. postal mail 

at the OMB is subject to delays due to 

heightened security precautions. 

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/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission makes every 

effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from the 

public comments it receives before 

placing those comments on the FTC 

Website. More information, including 

routine uses permitted by the Privacy 

Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy 

policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/ 

privacy.shtm). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

Michael J. Davis, Attorney, 202-326- 

2458, Division of Enforcement, Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission issued the Green 

Guides, 16 CFR Part 260, to help 

marketers avoid making environmental 

claims that are unfair or deceptive 

under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. 45.2 Guides are administrative 

interpretations of the law. They do not 

have the force and effect of law and are 

not independently enforceable. The 

Guides are the Commission’s 

interpretation of Section 5 of the FTC 

Act as it applies to environmental 

marketing claims. The Commission, 

therefore, can take action under the FTC 

Act 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 

categories of environmental claims. 

These categories include: general 

environmental benefit claims such as 

‘‘environmentally friendly’’; degradable 

claims; compostable claims; recyclable 

claims; recycled content claims; source 

reduction claims; refillable claims; and 

ozone safe/ozone friendly claims. For 

each of these claims, the Green Guides 

explain how reasonable consumers are 

likely to interpret them. The Guides also 


tjames on PRODPC75 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 22397 

3The Guides do not, however, establish standards 

for environmental performance or prescribe testing 

protocols. 

4 72 FR 66091. 

5See 72 FR 66094, Carbon Offsets and Renewable 

Energy Certificates (held on January 8, 2008); 73 FR 

11371, Green Packaging Claims (held on April 30, 

2008); and 73 FR 32662, Green Building and 

Textiles (held on July 8, 2008). 

6 General Electric Company Comment in FTC 

Project No. P954501 (Dec. 15, 2008), pp. 1-4, 

available at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ 

greenguidespra/00001.pdf). 

describe the basic elements necessary to 

substantiate claims and present options 

for qualifying specific claims to avoid 

deception.3 The illustrative 

qualifications provide ‘‘safe harbors’’ for 

marketers who want certainty about 

how to make environmental claims, but 

do not represent the only permissible 

approaches to qualifying a claim. 

II. Regulatory Review of the Green 

Guides 

The Commission reviews all of its 

rules and guides periodically to 

examine their efficacy, costs, and 

benefits, and to determine whether to 

retain, modify, or rescind them. On 

November 26, 2007, the FTC 

commenced its review of the Green 

Guides and sought public comment.4 As 

part of this comprehensive review, the 

FTC also announced a series of public 

workshops to explore emerging 

environmental marketing issues and, 

through subsequent notices, opened 

public comment periods in connection 

with each workshop.5 The Commission 

sought comment on a number of issues, 

including the continuing need for and 

economic impact of the Guides, the 

effect of the Guides on the accuracy of 

environmental claims, and whether the 

Guides should include certain 

environmental claims—such as carbon 

neutrality, sustainability, and 

renewability—not currently addressed 

in the Guides. 

The Commission also sought specific 

consumer survey evidence and 

consumer perception data addressing 

environmental claims. Few commenters 

submitted consumer survey evidence or 

consumer perception data. The 

Commission, therefore, is considering 

conducting its own study related to 

consumer perception of environmental 

marketing claims. This study would aid 

the Commission in determining what 

revisions, if any, it should make to the 

Guides to ensure that the Guides are 

appropriately responsive to any changes 

in consumer perception of 

environmental claims. 

III. Paperwork Reduction Act Notice 

Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, 

federal agencies must obtain approval 

from OMB for each collection of 

information they conduct or sponsor. 

‘‘Collection of information’’ means 

agency requests or requirements that 

members of the public submit reports, 

keep records, or provide information to 

a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 

1320.3(c). As required by section 

3506(c)(2) of the PRA, the FTC 

published a notice seeking public 

comment on the proposed collections of 

information. See 73 FR 60702 (Oct. 14, 

2008). In response, the Commission 

received one comment, which was 

submitted by General Electric Company 

(‘‘GE’’).6 Section V below sets forth FTC 

staff’s analysis of the GE comment. 

Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 

CFR Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 

the Commission is providing this 

second opportunity for public comment. 

All comments should be filed as 

prescribed in the ADDRESSES section 

above, and must be received on or 

before June 11, 2009. 

IV. FTC’s Proposed Study of Consumer 

Perception 

A. Methodologies 

1. Environmental Marketing Claims 

This proposed study will focus on 

consumer understanding of certain 

environmental marketing claims that are 

prevalent in today’s marketplace. 

Specifically, the proposed study will 

examine: general environmental benefit 

claims (e.g., eco-friendly, green); 

sustainable; renewable (e.g., made with 

renewable energy, made with renewable 

materials); and carbon neutral and 

carbon offset claims. In recommending 

any changes to the Green Guides, FTC 

staff will consider the consumer 

research results in conjunction with the 

broad range of policy and legal issues 

raised by commenters and workshop 

participants. 

The primary focus of the proposed 

study is to compare participant 

responses regarding the meaning of 

different environmental marketing 

claims, including unqualified general 

environmental claims, such as ‘‘Green’’ 

and ‘‘Eco-friendly,’’ and general 

environmental benefit claims combined 

with a specific representation—e.g., 

‘‘Green - Made with Renewable 

Materials’’ (a ‘‘qualified-general claim’’). 

Specifically, using a treatment-effect 

methodology, the study will examine 

whether consumers viewing general 

environmental benefit claims believe 

that a product has specific 

environmental benefits, such as being 

recyclable, biodegradable, compostable, 

or made from recycled materials. 

The proposed study also will examine 

whether consumers viewing a qualifiedgeneral environmental benefit claim, 

such as ‘‘Green - Made with Renewable 

Materials,’’ believe that such a claim 

implies that the product provides 

environmental benefits beyond the 

specific attribute mentioned. Thus, for 

example, would consumers viewing a 

‘‘Green - Made with Renewable 

Materials’’ claim for a product believe 

that product is also compostable, 

recyclable, or non-toxic? In addition to 

asking consumers about the unqualified 

and qualified general environmental 

benefit claims, the study will ask 

consumers how they perceive the 

specific environmental attributes that 

the study uses as qualifications (e.g., 

‘‘Made with Recycled Materials,’’ 

‘‘Made with Renewable Materials,’’ 

‘‘Made with Energy’’) alone. 

The study will examine whether 

consumers believe that environmental 

claims suggest anything about the 

environmental impact of a product 

through stages of its life cycle (e.g., 

production, transportation, use, and 

disposal). For consumers who do think 

about a product’s life cycle, the study 

will explore whether consumers think 

of more than one stage in the life cycle; 

and if they do, which specific life cycle 

stages they have in mind. 

The study will inquire about 

consumer interpretations of all of these 

claims in the context of multiple 

products to determine whether 

consumers’ interpretations are affected 

by the product about which the claim is 

made. 

Also, the study will collect 

information about how consumers 

perceive claims about the purchase of 

renewable energy and how they 

understand claims about carbon 

neutrality and carbon offsets. That 

information will help the Commission 

determine whether additional guidance 

is needed about the use of these terms 

in marketing and what that guidance 

should be. 

2. Study Sample 

As noted in Section IV.B below, the 

FTC proposes to collect information 

from up to 3,700 consumers in order to 

gather data on consumer perception of 

environmental marketing claims. All 

information will be collected on a 

voluntary basis. While having a sample 

that can be used to project to the entire 

U.S. adult population is not crucial to 

this study given its focus on comparing 

responses of participants who are 

randomly exposed to different products 

and claims, it will be useful to have as 

representative a sample as possible. 

Having considered the costs and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with NOTICES2
22398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 

7See 73 FR at 60704. 

8See id. 

benefits of various data collection 

methods, FTC staff has concluded that 

the most efficient way to collect data to 

meet the research objectives within a 

feasible budget is to use an Internet 

panel with nationwide coverage. 

Thus, the FTC has contracted with 

Harris Interactive, Inc. (‘‘Harris 

Interactive’’), a consumer research firm 

that has substantial experience assessing 

consumer communications via the 

Internet and other alternative protocols, 

to design an Internet study that, while 

not strictly representative of the nation 

as a whole, nonetheless reflects the 

views of a broad population. The Harris 

Interactive Internet panel consists of 

more than four million individuals 

drawn from throughout the country, 

derived from a series of convenience 

sampling procedures, rather than true 

probability sampling. Harris Interactive 

has studied the relationship between 

samples from its Internet panel and 

samples collected using more traditional 

probability sampling techniques, such 

as telephone surveys. Based on these 

studies, Harris Interactive has 

developed procedures to ensure that 

differences between the results of 

Harris’ Internet panel studies and those 

based on true probability samples of the 

nation are minimized. In particular, 

Harris Interactive has used a variety of 

methods, including demographic 

weighting, propensity scoring, and 

quota sampling to obtain accurate 

estimates of national views from its 

Internet panel. Through study 

administration, FTC staff will work with 

Harris Interactive to ensure that the 

sample is as representative of the nation 

as possible. 

B. PRA Burden Analysis 

Staff is revising certain prior 

assumptions,7 based on a more precise 

target population for completing the 

questionnaire and further consultation 

with Harris Interactive regarding the 

anticipated response rate. Harris 

Interactive anticipates that 6.3% of 

those invited to participate in the survey 

will respond and will fit within the 

desired distribution of demographic 

characteristics. Accordingly, Harris 

might contact as many as 59,000 

persons to achieve the contracted aim of 

surveying 3,700 respondents. 

As before,8 staff estimates that 

respondents to the Internet 

questionnaire will require, on average, 

approximately 25 minutes to complete 

it. Staff will pretest the questionnaire 

with approximately 100 respondents to 

ensure that all questions are easily 

understood. Allowing for an extra three 

minutes for questions unique to the 

pretest, the pretest will total 

approximately 47 hours cumulatively 

(100 respondents x 28 minutes each). 

The burden estimate now addresses 

both those who will complete the 

questionnaire and those who will not. 

Those completing it will require 1,542 

hours (3,700 persons x 25 minutes 

each). Those who do not complete the 

survey will spend no more than one 

minute; thus, 922 hours (59,000 total 

contacts - 3,700 persons completing the 

study) x one minute each). 

Cumulatively, then, complete and 

partial surveying of 59,000 persons will 

total about 2,464 hours. 

Overall burden for the pretest and 

questionnaire would thus be 2,511 

hours. The cost per respondent should 

be negligible. Participation is voluntary 

and will not require start-up, capital, or 

labor expenditures by respondents. 

V. Analysis of Comment Received 

As noted above, the Commission 

received one comment, by GE, in 

response to its notice seeking public 

comment on the proposed collections of 

information. See 73 FR 60702 (Oct. 14, 

2008). GE’s comment makes several 

suggestions about study methodology. 

In particular, GE discusses Internetbased research, noting that access to the 

study is limited to participants with 

access to a computer and that such 

participants tend to be persons who 

have self-selected by expressing an 

interest in consumer research. As 

discussed above, having considered the 

costs and benefits of various data 

collection methods, FTC staff has 

concluded that the most efficient way to 

collect data to meet the research 

objectives within a feasible budget is to 

use Harris Interactive’s existing Internet 

panel. Harris’ convenience sampling 

procedures will obtain accurate 

projections of national sentiment based 

on samples drawn from its Internet 

panel. As noted above, because the 

primary focus of the study is to compare 

responses across treatment groups, i.e., 

across different environmental 

marketing claims presented to 

participants, rather than to project 

responses to the population as a whole, 

using a broad sample of individuals at 

least 18 years of age, rather than a 

national probability sample will provide 

useful information. 

With respect to GE’s concern about 

identifying the ‘‘proper universe of 

consumers,’’ FTC staff has included in 

the questionnaire a brief section of 

questions that address participants’ 

level of interest in environmental issues. 

For example, one question asks: ‘‘In the 

past six months, have you chosen to 

purchase one product rather than 

another because the product is better for 

the environment?’’ Through analyses of 

answers to such questions, staff can 

compare the study responses of 

participants who have a high degree of 

interest in environmental issues and 

who take these issues into account 

when making purchasing decisions with 

responses of participants who are not as 

concerned with environmental issues. 

GE also asserts that the FTC should 

ensure a ‘‘proper sample size.’’ The FTC 

staff determined the sample size of 

3,700 consumers based on several 

considerations, including the funds 

available for the study, the cost of 

different sample size configurations, the 

number of environmental claims to be 

examined, and a power analysis. In this 

study, 150 participants will see each of 

the various environmental marketing 

claims to be compared. Staff believes 

that this will be adequate to allow 

comparisons across treatment cells. 

GE further recommends that the 

research be double-blind, so that 

‘‘neither participants nor administrators 

know its purpose or who it is for’’ and 

that the study employ an adequate 

control. To avoid biasing how 

respondents answer the questions, study 

participants will not be told that the 

FTC has commissioned the research in 

order to avoid biasing how respondents 

answer the questions. Furthermore, 

while completing the survey, 

participants will not have access to 

personnel at Harris Interactive who 

know the purpose of the study. For most 

participants, there will be no contact 

between the participant and any Harris 

personnel. Harris does, however, 

provide a telephone number or email for 

people who have technical problems 

while completing the survey. The 

personnel who respond to such 

inquiries, however, are only able to 

resolve technical problems, like an 

inability to connect to the web site. 

They do not know the purpose of the 

study and, if asked, for example, about 

the meaning of a question, are 

instructed to tell the person inquiring 

that he or she should answer to the best 

of their ability based on what appears 

on the screen. It is not necessary to have 

‘‘blind’’ administrators. Because the 

proposed study is automated and 

online, participants and study 

administrators can have only technical 

interaction. Therefore, there is no 

concern that a study administrator 

might convey information about desired 

results to participants. The study 

employs an adequate control, testing a 

‘‘New and Improved’’ claim that says 


tjames on PRODPC75 with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 22399 

nothing about environmental 

characteristics. 

GE asserts that the questionnaire 

should ask consumers about marketing 

terms in conditions that are as realworld as possible, suggesting that 

participants be shown actual 

advertisements and suggesting that the 

study include a control. GE also 

expresses concern, however, ‘‘that no 

matter how a specific term is tested, the 

relevance of the data may be limited to 

the particular scenario presented.’’ 

Thus, GE urges the FTC to consider how 

to conduct research on ‘‘specific terms 

in a manner that will both be relevant 

and will have broader applicability.’’ 

While the proposed study does not 

test actual advertisements, the 

environmental marketing claims are 

based upon actual claims FTC staff has 

observed in the marketplace. In 

addition, the study protocol tests each 

claim with three different products— 

kitchen flooring, a laundry basket, and 

wrapping paper. While costs prohibit 

conducting a study with more products, 

examining three products will provide 

useful information about the extent to 

which product variation affects 

participants’ interpretation of the claims 

being studied. 

GE urges the FTC to include nonleading questions and stimuli, 

specifically recommending that the 

study include open-ended questions. 

FTC staff agrees with these 

recommendations and it has designed 

questions that are as non-suggestive and 

non-leading as possible. Many parts of 

the questionnaire include a combination 

of open- and closed-ended questions, 

which ask about the same concept. 

Moreover, the questionnaire uses 

phrasing that minimizes the risk that 

participants will give answers that they 

think should be correct. For example, 

some participants will randomly be 

shown the claim ‘‘Sustainable’’ in 

connection with wrapping paper. The 

questionnaire then asks: ‘‘Which of the 

following most accurately describes 

what this statement suggests or implies 

to you about any negative 

environmental impact that may come 

from this wrapping paper?’’ (emphasis 

added). The response choices to this 

question then take the form: ‘‘The 

statement suggests or implies that there 

is no negative environmental impact 

from this wrapping paper;’’ ‘‘The 

statement suggests or implies that this 

wrapping paper causes less negative 

environmental impact than other 

wrapping paper. . .,’’ etc. The FTC staff 

also plans to conduct a pretest, which 

will help identify any remaining 

problems in this area. 

Finally, GE notes that Internet study 

participants may consult outside 

reference materials or other persons in 

responding to the questionnaire. While 

there is a possibility that participants 

could consult such sources, FTC staff 

believes that this not a significant 

problem. Based on its extensive Internet 

study experience, Harris Interactive 

assures that participants in such studies 

generally are most interested in 

completing the study in a relatively 

short period of time; thus, they are 

unlikely to choose to spend the 

additional time needed to do any such 

research. In addition, the questionnaire 

expressly informs each participant that 

the study designer is interested in what 

the individual thinks, rather than any 

supposedly ‘‘right’’ answer. For 

example, some participants will 

randomly be shown the claim ‘‘Ecofriendly’’ in connection with kitchen 

flooring. The questionnaire then asks: 

‘‘What, if anything, does this statement 

suggest or imply to you about the 

kitchen flooring?’’ (emphasis added). 

Moreover, the final phase of the 

questionnaire contains a standard 

question for all participants asking 

whether they consulted outside sources. 

Again, based upon its extensive 

experience with Internet-protocol 

studies, Harris Interactive reports that 

participants tend to answer such 

questions honestly. Finally, Harris 

noted that if a participant consults 

outside sources while completing the 

questionnaire, it will take that 

participant longer to complete the 

study. Thus, when reviewing study 

results, Harris Interactive will examine 

participant response times, identifying 

those that are abnormally long, and 

assess whether they reflect participants’ 

outside consultation. 

David C. Shonka 

Acting General Counsel 

[FR Doc. E9–11019 Filed 5–11–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 


tjames on PRODPC75 with NOTICES2