[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27820-27824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10889]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 259


Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Regulatory Review; Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') 
resumes its regulatory review of the Guide Concerning Fuel Economy 
Advertising for New Automobiles (``Fuel Economy Guide'' or ``Guide''). 
The Commission seeks comments on potential amendments to update the 
Guide to reflect changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(``EPA'') fuel economy labeling rules, address advertising for 
alternative fueled vehicles, and consider other advertising claims 
prevalent in the market.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 10, 2014.

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 ``Fuel Economy Guide, 
R711008'' on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fueleconomyguide 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 O), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to 
the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 
5610, (Annex O), Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, Room M-8102B, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Commission issued the Fuel Economy Guide (16 CFR Part 259) in 
1975 to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising for new automobiles 
and to facilitate the use of fuel economy information in advertising. 
The Guide helps advertisers avoid unfair or deceptive claims under 
Section 5 of the FTC Act. To accomplish this goal, the Guide advises 
marketers to disclose established EPA fuel economy estimates (e.g., 
miles per gallon or ``mpg'') whenever they make any fuel economy claim 
based on those estimates. In addition, if advertisers make fuel economy 
claims based on non-EPA tests, the Guide directs them to disclose EPA-
derived fuel economy information and provide details about the non-EPA 
tests such as the test's source, driving conditions, and vehicle 
configurations.
    On April 28, 2009 (74 FR 19148), the Commission published a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') soliciting comments on proposed 
amendments to the Guide. The Commission then postponed its Guide review 
in a June 1, 2011 Notice (76 FR 31467) pending new fuel economy 
labeling requirements from the EPA and completion of the FTC's 
Alternative Fuel Rule (16 CFR Part 309) review. The Commission 
explained that Fuel Economy Guide revisions would be premature before 
the conclusion of these regulatory proceedings.
    With these two activities now complete, the Commission resumes its 
review of the Fuel Economy Guide with this document.\1\ The document 
contains a discussion of the Guide's format and content, a brief 
analysis of earlier comments received, and a discussion of several fuel 
economy claims. The Commission seeks comments on these issues, 
including issues it has raised in earlier documents, and any other 
matter related to the Guide. Though this document contains several 
proposed changes to the Guide, it does not present specific, proposed 
text revisions. The Commission will wait and include, if warranted, 
such specific language in a subsequent document after reviewing 
comments and consumer research results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission announced final revisions to the Alternative 
Fuels Rule in an April 23, 2013 Final Rule (78 FR 23832). In 2011, 
EPA completed revisions to its fuel economy labeling requirements, 
which, among other things, addressed labels for alternative-fueled 
vehicles (AFVs) not specifically addressed in past EPA requirements. 
See 76 FR 39478 (July 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering potential revisions to the FTC Guide, commenters 
should focus on information that helps marketers avoid deceptive or 
unfair claims prohibited by the FTC Act.\2\ The Guide is not intended 
to identify disclosures that are merely helpful or desirable to 
consumers. Likewise, commenters should not address the adequacy of EPA 
fuel economy test procedures or the accuracy of EPA label content. Such 
issues fall within the EPA's purview and the Commission generally 
defers to that agency's technical expertise and statutory authority 
over such matters and are

[[Page 27821]]

generally outside the scope of the Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a). The Guides do not have the force and effect 
of law and are not independently enforceable. However, failure to 
comply with industry guides may result in law enforcement action 
under applicable statutory provisions. The Commission, therefore, 
can take action under the FTC Act if a business makes fuel economy 
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 in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Issues for Comment

    The Commission seeks comment on several issues related to the Fuel 
Economy Guide including some raised by earlier comments,\3\ and others 
identified by the Commission based on recent EPA label changes. These 
issues fall into two categories: General matters related to the Guide 
review and specific fuel economy advertising claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In response to the 2009 document, the Commission received 
eight comments from sources including the automobile manufacturing 
industry, local government, and consumers groups. Comments are 
available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/fueleconadguidepropamend/index.shtm. Generally, the comments 
supported retention of the Guide and recognized its benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Matters for the Guide Review

    As discussed below, the Commission seeks comment on general issues 
related to the Guide including definitions, citation format, the 
Guide's overall format, and consumer research.
1. Definitions
    In its previous NPRM, the Commission proposed fives changes related 
to the Guide's definitions section (16 CFR 259.1). The Commission 
received no comments in response. The Commission again seeks comment on 
these changes.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission, in the 2009 NPRM, also proposed to add two 
terms, ``Fuel'' and ``Alternative Fueled Vehicles,'' to distinguish 
the vehicles that would be covered by the guidance for the EPA label 
requirements from those covered by the proposed guidance regarding 
alternative fueled vehicles. 74 FR 19148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Commission proposes to replace several outdated terms in 
the Guide to ensure they are consistent with those in EPA's current 
fuel economy rules.\5\ Specifically, the definition ``Estimated city 
mpg.'' would change to ``Estimated city fuel economy''; ``Estimated 
highway mpg.'' would change to ``Estimated highway fuel economy''; and 
the term ``fuel economy'' would change to refer to a vehicle's ``fuel 
efficiency.'' In addition, the Commission proposes to eliminate the 
term ``estimated in-use fuel economy range'' because EPA's fuel economy 
label no longer provides such information.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 600.002.
    \6\ See 16 CFR 259.1(e) (definition of ``estimated in-use fuel 
economy range'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission proposes to add the term ``Combined fuel 
economy'' to Section 259.1 of the Guide to ensure consistency and 
reduce potential confusion because EPA now uses this term on its 
label.\7\ Consistent with EPA requirements,\8\ the Commission proposes 
to define ``Combined fuel economy'' as ``(1) the fuel economy value 
determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the 
city and highway fuel economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 
respectively, (2) for electric vehicles, the term means the equivalent 
petroleum-based fuel economy value as determined by the calculation 
procedure promulgated by the Secretary of Energy.'' \9\ The new term 
would expand the Commission's guidance to marketers whose vehicles now 
display combined fuel economy estimate information required by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 40 CFR 600, Appendix VI.
    \8\ See 40 CFR 600.206-12.
    \9\ The Commission proposes to adopt EPA's definition for the 
term. See 71 FR 77872, 77927 (Dec. 27, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the Commission proposes to amend the Guide's definition of 
``new automobile'' to incorporate changes made to the EPA's fuel 
labeling requirements. The EPA's rules require vehicle manufacturers to 
display a fuel economy label for a new class of vehicles, ``medium-duty 
passenger vehicles.'' \10\ To conform with EPA's change, the Commission 
plans to augment the definition of ``new automobile'' to include 
``medium-duty passenger vehicle'' as one of the classes of vehicles 
covered by the Fuel Economy Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 86.1803-01. Previously, the EPA required fuel 
economy labels for only passenger automobiles and light trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, the Commission proposes several minor revisions including 
an amendment to the definition of ``range of fuel economy'' to 
eliminate the phrase ``in use,'' and changes to the definitions for 
``estimated city mpg'' and ``estimated highway mpg'' to ensure 
consistency with the terms and definitions used by the EPA. The 
Commission also proposes to eliminate an obsolete reference to the term 
``unique nameplate'' in footnote 2 of the Guide and replace it with the 
more appropriate EPA term ``model type.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 77 FR 77928.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission proposes to reorganize the definition of 
``new automobile'' to reduce the definition's length and potential 
confusion. Specifically, the proposed amendment would remove the 
definitions ``dealer,'' ``manufacturer,'' and ``ultimate purchaser'' 
from ``new automobile'' and list them as separate terms under section 
259.1.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The definitions for ``dealer,'' ``manufacturer,'' and 
``ultimate purchaser'' have not been altered in any other way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Regulatory Citations
    In its previous NPRM, the FTC proposed to replace all specific 
regulatory citations to EPA regulations in the Guide with general 
citations (40 CFR Part 600) to reduce the frequency of future Guide 
changes should EPA amend its regulations. In comments, the Association 
of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (``AIAM'') noted that 
this proposal would create confusion because the general EPA provisions 
cited in the proposal contain two different sets of fuel economy 
requirements, one of which is not directly applicable to FTC's Guide. 
To avoid such confusion, the Commission no longer plans to use general 
citations in the Guide.
3. Guide Format
    The Commission also proposes to improve the Guide's format to 
ensure consistency with other recently amended FTC guides, such as the 
Guides For the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.\13\ Under this 
format, the revised Guide would contain a list of general principles to 
help marketers avoid deceptive practices, coupled with specific sample 
claims to illustrate those principles. This format, with its detailed 
examples, places the general principles in a useful context for 
marketers and helps readers locate relevant information. In addition, 
the sample claims frame the general principles in a clear context, thus 
improving understanding of the Guide. The Commission seeks comment on 
such an approach, including, as discussed in more detail below, the 
types of claims that the Guide should feature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims 
(``Green Guides'') (16 CFR Part 260); Guides Concerning the Use of 
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (16 CFR Part 255).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Consumer Research
    The Commission plans to conduct consumer research to enhance the 
Commission's understanding of how consumers understand fuel economy 
advertising claims. In particular, the Commission plans to explore 
several common advertising claims, such as general fuel economy claims, 
unqualified or minimally qualified mpg disclosures, and claims for 
vehicle driving range based on non-EPA test procedures. The FTC and its 
contractor will administer questions to the respondents online over the 
Internet. The study will employ standard consumer survey methodologies, 
such as choice experiments, to explore how different claims affect 
consumer decision-making. The Commission will

[[Page 27822]]

provide more detail regarding the study in a separate document.

B. Types of Fuel Economy Claims

    As discussed in detail below, the Commission seeks comment on 
specific types of advertising claims, including EPA-based miles-per-
gallon claims, claims based on non-EPA tests, claims related to vehicle 
configuration, range of fuel economy claims, and alternative fueled 
vehicle claims.
1. EPA Miles-Per-Gallon Claims
    The Commission seeks comment on the Guide's current provisions for 
mpg claims (section 259.2(a)). The current Guide states that any 
express or implied fuel economy claim must be accompanied by a 
corresponding EPA fuel economy rating (i.e., EPA mpg number) matching 
the representation. For example, if an advertisement contains a city-
related representation (e.g., ``XYC car gets great mileage in the 
city''), the Guide advises the advertiser to disclose the vehicle's EPA 
city mileage rating.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Guide does not direct marketers to provide both highway 
and city ratings unless the advertisement contains fuel economy 
claims related to both city and highway performance. Where a fuel 
economy claim does not specify highway or city performance (e.g., 
``XYZ car gets great mileage''), the Guide indicates that the 
marketer should disclose the vehicle's city mpg. The Guide also 
advises marketers to state that EPA is the source of the mpg ratings 
and that such ratings are estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the Commission noted that EPA's labeling rule now 
requires manufacturers to disclose a ``combined'' fuel economy 
estimate, in addition to city and highway estimates, on the fuel 
economy label.\15\ Accordingly, consistent with guidance for highway 
and city ratings, the proposed amendments advised advertisers to 
disclose an EPA combined fuel economy estimate for any representation 
related to combined fuel economy.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 74 FR 19149.
    \16\ 74 FR 19150. Section 259.2(a) does not prohibit disclosure 
of both the city and highway estimates. For example, a manufacturer 
could display the EPA's city and highway economy estimate in a print 
advertisement for a vehicle. Alternately, the same company could 
display only the EPA's combined fuel economy estimate in a 
television advertisement for the same vehicle and still comply with 
the current Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, commenters raised several concerns about the current 
guidance for mpg claims. First, two commenters insisted that both city 
and highway fuel economy estimates must appear in all advertisements 
because such estimates are material to consumers' purchasing 
decisions.\17\ Second, comments suggested that disclosure of a single 
mpg rating (e.g., highway mileage only) overstates the actual fuel 
economy for some contexts and that, regardless of the presence of 
qualifying language, consumers will expect a vehicle to attain the 
advertised mileage.\18\ Furthermore, Public Citizen and other consumer 
group commenters expressed concern that manufacturers advertise only 
the most favorable fuel economy estimates for their vehicles.\19\ 
Finally, another commenter suggested that only the combined city and 
highway fuel economy rating be allowed in advertising.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Montgomery County, Maryland, Office of Consumer Protection 
(541056-00007) (``Montgomery County''); Public Citizen, the 
Center for Auto Safety, and the Safe Climate Campaign 
(541056-00009) (``Public Citizen''). Public Citizen 
proposed that both city and highway estimates be displayed and that 
the city fuel economy be expressed in larger text than the highway 
fuel economy. Montgomery County further suggested that the Guide 
adopt a comparative fuel economy scale, ``similar to the 0-10 scale 
for air pollution provided by the EPA.''
    \18\ Public Citizen; Montgomery County. Montgomery County argued 
that disclosing only one fuel economy rating could be misleading to 
consumers with hybrid vehicles: ``Unlike traditional autos . . . 
hybrids often receive higher city than highway ratings. . . . [M]any 
consumers, familiar with EPA estimates, look at the high city 
estimate in a hybrid ad and conclude, based on past experience, that 
the unstated highway mileage must be even higher.'' Montgomery 
County at 2.
    \19\ Public Citizen.
    \20\ Consumer Federation of America et al. (``CFA'') 
(541056-00006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comments on various aspects of the mpg 
provision of the current Guide (section 259.2(a)). Commenters should 
limit their comments to addressing deceptive and unfair claims under 
the FTC Act and should not recommend guidance, including affirmative 
disclosures, merely because such information would help consumer 
purchasing decisions. Among other things, the Commission seeks comments 
on: (1) Whether a general fuel economy claim (e.g., ``XYZ car gets 
great mileage'') should be accompanied by a specific mpg disclosure to 
prevent consumer deception or unfairness; (2) whether an advertisement 
is unfair or deceptive if it provides only one type of mileage rating 
(e.g., an advertisement that only provides highway mpg); (3) whether an 
unspecified mpg claim (e.g., ``37 mpg'') is deceptive if the 
advertisement fails to identify whether the rating is city, highway, or 
combined; (4) how consumers understand ``up to'' mpg claims, which 
sometimes appear in ads (e.g., ``up to 45 mpg''); (5) whether the 
combined EPA mpg rating should serve as the default disclosure for 
unspecified fuel economy claims (instead of the city mpg as currently 
indicated in the Guide); (6) whether the Guide should advise marketers 
to avoid statements that imply a linear relationship between mpg and 
fuel costs; (7) whether fuel economy advertisements containing mpg 
claims should identify EPA as the source of the ratings; and (8) 
whether FTC should provide additional guidance regarding disclaimers 
that the EPA ratings are only estimates.
2. Claims Based on Non-EPA Estimates
    The Commission is also considering whether the Guide's provisions 
for advertising claims based on non-EPA tests should be updated. 
Section 259.2(c) advises that advertisers may make fuel economy claims 
based on non-EPA information only if they: (1) Disclose the 
corresponding EPA estimates with more prominence than other estimates; 
(2) identify the source of the non-EPA information; and (3) disclose 
how their non-EPA test differs from the EPA test in terms of driving 
conditions and other relevant variables.
    In response to the NPRM, the comments offered conflicting views on 
this guidance. Some consumer groups urged the FTC to prohibit 
altogether any non-EPA fuel economy estimate in advertising because 
such estimates may thwart consumers' efforts to compare vehicle fuel 
economy.\21\ The Council of Better Business Bureaus (``BBB'') supported 
the current Guide's non-EPA claim provision explaining that it gives 
advertisers the flexibility to advertise legitimate fuel efficiency 
claims while still permitting fair comparisons with other vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ CFA stated that despite required source disclosures, non-
EPA information would, ``[a]t the worst . . . mislead consumers; at 
the best, simply confuse them and prevent them from using advertised 
rating information comparatively.'' Public Citizen shared the CFA's 
concerns and further stated that, ``Allowing a non-EPA derived 
estimate does not have any consumer utility . . . [and] the 
existence of two different fuel economy rating systems in fuel 
economy advertisements can only create consumer confusion and 
mistrust for the reliability of both . . . '' Public Citizen at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks further comment on this issue. Commenters 
should address, among other things, the prevalence of non-EPA fuel 
economy claims, including both traditional fuel economy claims (e.g., 
mpg) as well as electric vehicle driving range claims (e.g., ``100 
miles per charge''); and the adequacy of the current guidance for 
preventing deception.
3. Claims Related to Model Groups
    The current Guide advises manufacturers to limit fuel economy 
ratings to the corresponding model type to ensure advertised fuel 
economy ratings match the advertised vehicles specification, citing EPA 
requirements for vehicle configuration (40 CFR

[[Page 27823]]

600.207).\22\ Specifically, section 259.2, n. 2 of the Guide warns 
against using a single fuel economy estimate for all vehicles bearing a 
common model name, if separate vehicles within that model group have 
different fuel economy ratings.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The EPA's fuel economy regulations define model type as ``a 
unique combination of car line, basic engine, and transmission 
class'' 40 CFR 600.002-85 (emphasis added.)
    \23\ Section 259.2, n. 2 states that the ``estimated city mpg'' 
and the ``estimated highway mpg'' must be those applicable to the 
specific nameplate being advertised. Fuel economy estimates assigned 
to ``unique nameplates'' apply only to such unique car lines. As 
discussed earlier in this document, the Commission also proposes to 
eliminate an obsolete reference to the term ``unique nameplate'' in 
footnote 2 of the Guide and replacing it with the more appropriate 
EPA term ``model type.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Addressing this issue, two commenters argued that the Guide should 
require all advertisements to disclose the model year and the vehicle 
configuration tested.\24\ Public Citizen noted that the current Guide 
would allow the ``highest fuel economy vehicle configuration of one 
model to be applied to all vehicle configurations of that model.'' \25\ 
The BBB noted that, in some advertising, marketers fail to identify 
``the specific vehicle variables affecting a vehicle's fuel economy not 
specified (e.g., automatic or standard transmission, engine size, four 
wheel drive versus front wheel drive, etc.).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ BBB; Public Citizen.
    \25\ Public Citizen. Similarly, Montgomery County offered 
several examples of noncompliant advertising as further proof that 
failing to disclose the vehicle configuration to which the estimates 
apply is deceptive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks further comment on this issue. Among other 
things, the Commission invites commenters to address whether the FTC 
should provide further guidance to help advertisers avoid deceptive 
claims in this context.
4. Claims for Alternative Fueled Vehicles
    In the NPRM, the Commission proposed disclosure requirements for 
vehicles covered by the FTC's Alternative Fuels Rule (16 CFR Part 
309).\26\ The proposed amendment mirrored the Guide's other provisions 
by advising marketers to advertise estimated cruising ranges determined 
under the Alternative Fuels Rule as well as non-FTC sources. In 
advertisements that display non-FTC derived estimates, the proposal 
advised advertisers to: (1) Display the estimated cruising range 
required on the FTC label more prominently than any other estimate; (2) 
disclose the source of the cruising range estimate; and (3) display any 
material differences between the method used and the method required by 
the FTC's labeling rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 77 FR 19152.
    \27\ The Commission also proposed adding two terms, ``Fuel'' and 
``Alternative Fueled Vehicles,'' to distinguish the vehicles that 
would be covered by the guidance for the EPA label requirements from 
those covered by the proposed guidance regarding alternative fueled 
vehicles. The NPRM defined ``Fuel'' to include gasoline and diesel 
fuel, electrical energy, alcohol, and natural gas. The NPRM also 
defined ``Alternative Fueled Vehicle'' to cover any vehicle that 
qualifies as a covered vehicle under 16 CFR Part 309. This term 
covers any vehicle designed to operate solely on an alternative 
fuel, or dual-fuel such as ethanol, natural gas, liquefied petroleum 
gas, hydrogen, coal-derived fuel, fuels from biological materials, 
electricity, or other fuels determined by the secretary to yield 
substantial security and environmental benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters raised several issues with the proposed amendments. Some 
argued that the numerous inconsistencies in EPA and FTC standards and 
calculations for AFVs would render any prospective guidance confusing 
and ineffective.\28\ Another group of commenters recommended guidance 
about alternative fueled vehicles that also use gasoline (i.e., 
flexible fueled vehicles (FFV)).\29\ In particular, these comments 
noted that many FFVs have one fuel economy rating for gasoline and 
another for alternative fuel operation. They recommended disclosure of 
fuel economy estimates for every allowable fuel a vehicle may use. They 
also urged additional disclosures to reduce consumer confusion and 
raise awareness that alternative fueled vehicles may operate more 
efficiently on gasoline than on alternative fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, e.g., Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 
(541056-00002).
    \29\ See Public Citizen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2013, the Commission amended the Alternative Fuels Rule to 
consolidate the FTC's alternative fueled vehicle labels with EPA's new 
fuel economy labels.\30\ Because those amendments removed any potential 
conflict between FTC and EPA labels, there is no need for information 
in the Guide related to FTC alternative fueled vehicles labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 78 FR 23832 (April 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, the Commission seeks additional comment on whether the 
Guide should address advertising for FFVs, particularly as it pertains 
to different fuel economy estimates for different fuels. Specifically, 
commenters should address whether advertisements that provide a 
vehicle's gasoline mpg rating and identify the vehicle as an FFV should 
also disclose that vehicle's alternative fuel mpg rating. In addressing 
this issue, commenters should indicate whether such ads are common and 
whether FTC guidance would help marketers avoid deceptive claims.
5. Fuel Economy Range Claims
    Section 259.2(b)(1) addresses ``estimated in-use fuel economy 
range'' claims (e.g., ``expected range for most drivers 15 to 21 
mpg''). Because EPA's revised label no longer contains this information 
and no evidence suggests such claims are prevalent in the market, the 
Commission proposes to eliminate that specific provision from the 
Guide. At this time, the Commission does not propose to eliminate 
section 259.2(b)(2), which addresses range information for automobile 
classes (e.g., ``Small SUVs range from 16 to 32 mpg'').

III. Request for Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to 
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 10, 2014. 
Write ``Fuel Economy Guide, R711008'' on your comment. Your comment--
including your name and your state--will be placed on the public record 
of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public 
Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a 
matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home 
contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission 
Web site.
    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as anyone'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, do not 
include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information 
which is . . . privileged or confidential,'' as discussed in 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). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive 
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential 
treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for 
confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure

[[Page 27824]]

explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\31\ Your comment will be 
kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request 
in accordance with the law and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ In particular, the written request for confidential 
treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and 
legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions 
of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fueleconomyguide, by following the instruction on the web-based 
form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also 
may file a comment through that Web site.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Fuel Economy Guide, 
R711008'' 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 O), Washington, DC 
20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th 
Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610, (Annex O), Washington, DC 20024. If 
possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or 
overnight service.
    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this 
NPRM and the News Release describing this proceeding. The FTC Act and 
other laws that 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 on or before July 10, 2014. You can find more 
information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in 
the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-10889 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P