[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40530-40532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19897]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Docket No. 9280]


Blue Coral, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50, 
Ltd.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

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

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged 
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to 
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft amended 
complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the 
consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle 
these allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, 
Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elaine D. Kolish, Federal Trade Commission, S-4302, 6th & Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-3042. Mary K. Engle, Federal 
Trade Commission, S-

[[Page 40531]]

4302, 6th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-
3161.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 3.25 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 3.25), 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 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 Page (for July 24, 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, NW., Washington, DC 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 accepted an agreement to a 
proposed consent order from Blue Coral, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50, 
Inc.; and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. These three entities are successors 
in interest to Quaker State--Slick 50, Inc.; Slick 50 Management, Inc.; 
Slick 50 Products Corp.; and Slick 50 Corp. (all entities collectively, 
``respondents'').
    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 withdraw 
from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
    This matter involves allegedly deceptive representations for Slick 
50 engine treatment, and aftermarket motor oil additive containing 
particles of the polymer polytetrafluoroethylene (``PTFE''). The 
Commission issued a complaint on July 12, 1996, charging that 
advertisements for Slick 50 disseminated by the respondents made 
various false and unsubstantiated claims. The Commission's complaint 
was withdrawn from adjudication on May 12, 1997, prior to commencement 
of the administrative hearing, so that the Commission could consider 
the proposed order.
    According to the FTC complaint, the respondents falsely claimed: 
(1) Automobile engines generally have little or no protection from wear 
at or just after start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50; 
(2) Automobile engines commonly experience premature failure caused by 
wear unless they are treated with Slick 50; (3) Slick 50 coats engine 
parts with a layer of PTFE; and (4) Slick 50 meets military 
specifications for aftermarket motor oil additives. The complaint 
alleged the following claims as unsubstantiated: (1) Compared to motor 
oil alone, Slick 50: reduces engine wear, reduces engine wear by more 
than 50%, reduces engine wear by up to 50%, reduces engine wear at 
start-up, extends the duration of engine life, lowers engine 
temperatures, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage, and 
increases horsepower; (2) One treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce 
engine wear for 50,000 miles; and (3) Slick 50 has been used in a 
significant number of U.S. Government vehicles. Lastly, the complaint 
alleged that respondents falsely represented: (1) Tests prove that, 
compared to motor oil alone, Slick 50: reduces engine wear by more than 
50%, reduces engine wear by up to 50%, and reduces engine wear at 
start-up; and (2) Tests prove that one treatment of Slick 50 continues 
to reduce engine wear for 50,000 miles.
    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent 
the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the 
future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from 
representing that: (1) Automobile engines generally have little or no 
protection from wear at or just after start-up unless they have been 
treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; (2) Automobile engines 
commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are 
treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or (3) Slick 50 or a 
similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
    Part II of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from 
misrepresenting that any oil additive or Slick 50 engine lubricating 
product meets the standards of any organization and from 
misrepresenting tests or studies when selling such products. Part II 
also prohibits the respondents from making any representation about the 
performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of such products 
unless, at the time they make the representation, they possess and rely 
upon appropriate, competent and reliable evidence that substantiates 
the representation.
    Part III of the proposed order prohibits respondents from 
representing that any Slick 50 lubricating product for use in a motor 
vehicle, other than an engine lubricating product, reduces wear, 
extends the life of a part, lowers engine temperature, reduces 
emissions, or increases mileage or horsepower, unless, at the time they 
make the representation, they possess and rely upon appropriate, 
competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the representation.
    Parts IV through IX and XI require the respondents to keep copies 
of advertisements making representations covered by the order; to keep 
records concerning those representations; including materials that they 
relied upon when making the representations, to notify the Commission 
of changes in corporate structure; to provide copies of the order to 
certain of respondents' personnel; to send notice of the order to 
purchasers for resale of Slick 50; to keep records showing that the 
order or notice of the order was received by or sent to appropriate 
persons and showing any redress made available to consumers pursuant to 
class action lawsuits challenging conduct similar to that challenged in 
the Commission's complaint; to provide notice to Commission staff prior 
to submitting any proposed settlement of such class action lawsuits to 
a court; and to file with the Commission compliance reports and reports 
showing any redress made available to consumers pursuant to class 
action lawsuits. Part X provides that the order will terminate after 
twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
    Additionally, Paragraph 5 of the consent agreement seeks to 
preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress under Section 
19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act if the respondents do not make 
available redress having an aggregate retail value of at least $10 
million to consumers pursuant to class action lawsuits that challenge 
conduct similar to that challenged in the Commission's complaint. 
Paragraph 5 also reserves the Commission's right to seek to intervene 
in any such class action lawsuit to oppose a settlement that it 
believes is not in the public interest.
    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the 
proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of

[[Page 40532]]

the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19897 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M