Federal Register, Volume 62 Issue 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7785-7786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4145]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 952-3029]


Splitfire, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public Comment

Agency: Federal Trade Commission.

action: Proposal Consent Agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent agreement, accepted subject to final 
Commission approval, would prohibit, among other things, the 
Northbrook, Illinois-based spark-plug marketer from making deceptive 
claims about the fuel economy, emissions, horsepower, or cost savings 
gained from using its ``split electrode'' spark plugs and from 
misrepresenting the results of tests, studies, or research and of 
testimonials. The complaint accompanying the consent agreement alleges 
that Splitfire made false or unsubstantiated economy, efficiency, and 
improved performance claims for its spark plugs.

dates: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 1997.

addresses: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, 
Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

for further information contact: Laura Fremont, Federal Trade 
Commission, San Francisco Regional Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 
570, San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 356-5270.

supplementary information: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 2.34 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby 
given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent 
order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject 
to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public 
record for a period of sixty (60) days. The following Analysis to Aid 
Public comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the 
allegations in the accompanying complaint. An electronic copy of the 
full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the 
Commission Actions section of the FTC Home Pace (for February 11, 
1997), on the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.'' 
A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 
H-130, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627. Public comment is 
invited. Such comments or views will be considered by the Commission 
and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal 
office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission has provisionally accepted an 
agreement to a proposed consent order from respondent SplitFire, Inc., 
an Illinois corporation that markets automotive products.
    The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 
sixty (60) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments 
received during this period will become part of the public record. 
After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement 
and the comments received and will decide whether it should make final 
the agreement's proposed order, or withdraw from the agreement and take 
other appropriate action.
    This matter concerns the advertising of SplitFire's ``SplitFire'' 
spark plug, which has one v-shaped, or ``split'' electrode. The 
Commission's complaint charges that SplitFire's advertising 
represented, without a reasonable basis, that use of SplitFire Spark 
Plugs results in significantly better fuel economy, significantly 
greater horsepower, and significantly lower emissions than use of 
either conventional (non split-electrode) spark plugs of platinum-
tipped spark plugs. The Commission's complaint also charges that 
respondent represented, without a reasonable basis, that use of 
SplitFire Spark Plugs will result in significant cost savings over use 
of either conventional or platinum-tipped spark plugs.
    In addition, the complaint alleges that the company lacked a 
reasonable basis for its claim that 70% of SplitFire Spark Plugs users 
achieve a gas mileage increase of from 1 to 6 more miles per gallon. 
Further, the complaint alleges as false SplitFire's claim that these 
figures were based on competent and reliable studies or surveys.
    Lastly, the Commission's complaint charges that respondent 
represented, without a reasonable basis, that the testimonials or 
endorsements from consumers appearing in advertisements and promotional 
materials for its spark plugs reflect the typical or ordinary 
experience of members of the public who use SplitFire Spark Plugs.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to remedy 
the violations charged and to prevent the respondent from engaging in 
similar acts and practices in the future.
    Part I of the proposed order prohibits SplitFire, Inc., from 
representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the 
effect of any motor vehicle product on a vehicle's fuel economy, 
emissions, or horsepower. Part I also prohibits the company from 
representing, without competent and reliable scientific evidence, the 
comparative or absolute cost savings that any motor vehicle product 
will contribute to or achieve. Part II of the proposed order prohibits 
respondent, when advertising any motor vehicle product, from 
misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions 
or interpretations of any test, study, or research.
    Part III of the proposed order addresses claims made through 
endorsements or testimonials. Under Part III, respondent may make such 
representations if respondent possesses and relies upon competent and 
reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the representations; or 
respondent must disclose either what the generally expected results 
would be for users of the advertised product, or the limited 
applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may 
generally expect to achieve. The proposed order's treatment of 
testimonial claims is in accordance with the Commission's ``Guides 
Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,'' 16 
C.F.R. 255.2(a).
    Part IV of the proposed order requires respondent to possess 
adequate substantiation for any representation regarding the 
performance, benefits, or efficacy of any motor vehicle product.
    The proposed order also requires respondent to maintain advertising 
materials and materials relied upon to substantiate claims covered by 
the order; to provide a copy of the consent agreement to certain 
personnel in the company; to notify the Commission of any change in the 
corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order; and to 
file one or more reports detailing compliance with the order.

[[Page 7786]]

    Under Part IX, the order terminates 20 years from the date of 
issuance, except under certain specified conditions.
    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 agreement and proposed order or to modify in any 
way their terms.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4145 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M