70804 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 77 FR 74746 (Dec. 17, 2012). 

2The comments are available at: http://

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/usedcarrulenprm/

index.shtm. The comments are numbered, and the 

Commission has assigned each a number that 

follows the name of the commenter. Comments 

cited in this notice are identified by the name of 

the commenter (organization or individual) 

followed by the comment number (e.g., Brown (1)). 

part number, in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert 

Service Bulletin B787–81205–SB270021–00, 

Issue 001, dated March 20, 2014. 

(h) Parts Installation Prohibitions 

(1) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install a slat skew DMA, part 

number P683A0001–03, on any airplane. 

(2) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install, on any airplane, a slat 

skew DMA in slat number 5, having part 

number 145Z0201–11–8, 145Z0201–21–4, 

145Z0201–21–3, 145Z0201–21–5, 145Z0201– 

21–8, 145Z0201–21–9, 145Z0201–31–1, or 

145Z0201–33–1. 

(3) As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install, on any airplane, a slat 

skew DMA in slat number 8, having part 

number 145Z0201–12–8, 145Z0201–22–4, 

145Z0201–22–3, 145Z0201–22–5, 145Z0201– 

22–8, 145Z0201–22–9, 145Z0201–32–1, or 

145Z0201–34–1. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace 

Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, 

ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone: 425– 

917–6546; fax: 425–917–6590; email: 

douglas.tsuji@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 

544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may view this referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 13, 2014. 

Jeffrey E. Duven, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28130 Filed 11–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 455 

Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation 

Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘SNPRM’’); 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The FTC is proposing further 

amendments to the Used Motor Vehicle 

Trade Regulation Rule (‘‘Rule’’ or ‘‘Used 

Car Rule’’) that would require dealers to 

indicate on the Buyers Guide whether 

they obtained a vehicle history report, 

and, if so, to provide a copy of the 

report to consumers who request it; 

revise the Buyers Guide statement 

describing the meaning of an ‘‘As Is’’ 

sale in which a dealer offers a vehicle 

for sale without a warranty; and move 

boxes to the front of the Buyers Guide 

for dealers to indicate whether nondealer warranties apply to a vehicle. 

Based on the FTC’s review of the public 

comments, the Commission proposes 

these amendments to promote consumer 

access to vehicle history information, to 

clarify the meaning of ‘‘As Is’’ in the 

sale of used vehicles without 

warranties, and to make disclosures 

concerning non-dealer warranties more 

prominent. The FTC is not adopting any 

final amendments to the Used Car Rule 

at this time. It continues to consider 

comments submitted in response to its 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’) published in December 2012 

and seeks additional comments in this 

SNPRM. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

usedcarrulesnprm online or on paper, 

by following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Used Car Rule Regulatory 

Review, 16 CFR part 455, Project No. 

P087604,’’ on your comment, and file 

your comment online at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

usedcarrulesnprm by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘Used Car Rule Regulatory 

Review, 16 CFR part 455, Project No. 

P087604,’’ on your comment, and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex A), 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 A), 

Washington, DC 20024. This document, 

and public records related to the FTC’s 

regulatory review, are also available at 

that address and at www.ftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

C. Hallerud, (312) 960–5634, Attorney, 

Midwest Region, Federal Trade 

Commission, 55 West Monroe Street, 

Suite 1825, Chicago, IL 60603. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In December 2012, the FTC issued an 

NPRM setting forth proposed changes to 

the FTC’s Used Car Rule.1 The Used Car 

Rule requires dealers to display on used 

cars offered for sale a window sticker 

called a ‘‘Buyers Guide’’ containing 

warranty and other information. Among 

other things, in the NPRM, the 

Commission proposed adding a 

statement to the Buyers Guide advising 

consumers about the availability of 

vehicle history reports and directing 

consumers to an FTC Web site for more 

information about those reports. The 

Commission also proposed changing the 

statement on the Buyers Guide that 

describes the meaning of ‘‘As Is’’ when 

a dealer offers to sell a used vehicle 

without a warranty. In response to the 

NPRM, the Commission received nearly 

150 comments from members of the 

public including automobile dealers, 

consumer attorneys, consumer advocacy 

organizations, automobile dealer 

associations, providers of vehicle 

history reports, legal aid agencies, 

consumer protection agencies, and state 

attorneys general.2 After reviewing the 

comments, the Commission now 

proposes additional modifications to the 

proposal made in the NPRM to address 

concerns raised by commenters. The 

Commission also seeks comments on 

alternative proposals and issues that 

commenters have submitted or 

identified. 

The Commission now proposes to 

amend the Used Car Rule to require that 

dealers who have obtained a vehicle 

history report on an individual vehicle 

indicate on the Buyers Guide that they 

have obtained such a report, and will 

provide a copy of the report to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70805 

3See 77 FR at 74768 (16 CFR 455.2(b) (ii)), 74770 

(Figure 2). 

4The proposed non-dealer warranty boxes on the 

back of the Buyers Guide are shown in Figure 3 of 

the NPRM. Id. at 74773. 

5 Id. at 74754–74756. 

6NMVTIS was created pursuant to the Anti-Car 

Theft Act of 1992, 49 U.S.C. 30501–30505. The 

United States Department of Justice published the 

final rule implementing NMVTIS in 2009. 28 CFR 

25, 74 FR 5740 (Jan. 30, 2009). 

7See Understanding an NMVTIS Vehicle History 

Report, available at: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/ 

nmvtis_understandingvhr.html. 

8See Consumer Access Product Disclaimer 

available through http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/

index.html. 

9Brands are descriptive labels that many state 

DMVs place on car titles regarding the status of a 

motor vehicle, such as ‘‘junk,’’ ‘‘salvage,’’ and 

‘‘flood.’’ The meaning of an individual brand differs 

from state to state, and the brands that states assign 

also differ by state. 

NMVTIS keeps a history of all brands, if any, that 

have been assigned to the vehicle by any state. See 

http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/nmvtis_

understandingvhr.html. 

10See Consumer Access Product Disclaimer 

available through: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/

index.html. 

11See Id. 

12 Id. 

13Consumer Access Product Disclaimer available 

through: http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/index.html. 

14CARFAX (6) at 1. 

consumers who request one. The 

proposal would retain with 

modifications the statement proposed in 

the NPRM to encourage consumers to 

obtain vehicle history reports, check for 

safety recalls, and to visit a proposed 

FTC Web site for more information. The 

Commission proposes to modify the 

Buyers Guide by adding a new box that 

dealers will be required to mark to 

indicate that they have obtained a 

vehicle history report. The proposed 

amendment would require those dealers 

who have obtained a vehicle history 

report, and who are required to check 

the box indicating that they have a 

vehicle history report, to provide a copy 

to consumers upon request. The 

proposed amended Rule would not 

require dealers to obtain vehicle history 

reports and would not mandate a 

specific type of vehicle history report or 

designate a specific provider of the 

reports. 

The Commission also proposes 

modifying the Buyers Guide statement 

that describes the meaning of an ‘‘As Is’’ 

sale. In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed changing the Buyers Guide 

statement describing ‘‘As Is’’ sales to 

make the statement easier to read and to 

understand. In light of the many 

comments critical of the proposed ‘‘As 

Is’’ statement in the NPRM, the 

Commission now proposes additional 

changes to the Buyers Guide statement 

describing ‘‘As Is’’ sales. The proposed 

statement in this SNPRM is intended to 

clarify that ‘‘As Is’’ means that a dealer 

is offering the vehicle for sale without 

a warranty, i.e., without any 

undertaking or promise by the dealer to 

be responsible for post-sale repairs to 

the vehicle. 

The NPRM also proposed minor 

changes to the wording of the ‘‘Implied 

Warranties Only’’ disclosure for use in 

jurisdictions that prohibit ‘‘As Is’’ used 

vehicle sales.3 No comments were 

received on the wording change. The 

NPRM wording has been retained in the 

Buyers Guide in this SNPRM (Figure 2). 

The Commission does not seek 

comments on the proposed change here. 

The Buyers Guide in this SNPRM 

incorporates several other changes that 

were proposed in the NPRM and subject 

to public comment. The revised Buyers 

Guide includes a statement, in Spanish, 

on the face of the English language 

Buyers Guide advising Spanishspeaking consumers to ask for the 

Buyers Guide in Spanish if they cannot 

read it in English. It also provides a new 

method for dealers to disclose both 

‘‘dealer’’ and ‘‘non-dealer’’ warranties 

by providing boxes on the front of the 

Buyers Guide where dealers have the 

option to indicate manufacturers’ or 

other third-party warranties. In response 

to the many comments suggesting that 

these disclosure boxes would be more 

noticeable to consumers on the front of 

the Guide, the Commission now 

proposes moving them to the front of 

the Guide.4

II. Proposed Amendments and Revised 

Buyers Guide 

A. Vehicle History Information 

i. Background 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed a Buyers Guide containing a 

statement that advised consumers to 

obtain vehicle history reports and 

directed consumers to an FTC Web site 

for more information.5 Vehicle history 

information is available from a variety 

of public and private sources. These 

sources include state titling agencies 

(e.g., departments of motor vehicles 

(‘‘DMVs’’)), the National Motor Vehicle 

Title Identification System (‘‘NMVTIS’’), 

and commercial vehicle history 

providers, such as CARFAX and 

Experian’s AutoCheck. Commenters 

proposed several different approaches 

for making vehicle history information 

more accessible to consumers. 

One source of vehicle history 

information is NMVTIS—a nationwide 

database of vehicle history information 

created pursuant to federal law.6

NMVTIS is designed to enable 

nationwide access to title information 

submitted by state titling agencies, and 

information concerning junk or salvage 

vehicles that insurers, recyclers, and 

salvage yards are required by law to 

submit.7 NMVTIS includes the most 

recent odometer reading in a state’s 

titling data.8 It is intended to serve as a 

reliable source of title and brand 9

history, but it does not contain detailed 

information regarding a vehicle’s repair 

history.10 Information on previous 

significant damage may not be included 

in NMVTIS if a vehicle was never 

determined to be a ‘‘total loss’’ by an 

insurer (or other appropriate entity) or 

branded by a DMV.11 On the other hand, 

an insurer may be required to report a 

vehicle as a ‘‘total loss’’ even if the 

state’s titling agency does not brand it 

as ‘‘junk’’ or ‘‘salvage.’’ 12

The NMVTIS Web site, 

www.vehiclehistory.gov, contains live 

links to the Web sites of approved nongovernmental entities that sell NMVTIS 

reports to the public. Consumers can 

purchase NMVTIS reports from these 

vendors for as little as two dollars. 

Approved providers to both consumers 

and dealers are subject to quality control 

standards designed to ensure 

consistency with the intent and purpose 

of the Anti-Car Theft Act and its 

implementing regulations. 

Title and other vehicle history 

information are also available from 

commercial vendors such as CARFAX 

and Experian’s AutoCheck. CARFAX 

and AutoCheck enable consumers to 

purchase vehicle history reports, and 

some dealers distribute them to 

consumers free of charge. CARFAX and 

AutoCheck obtain data from state titling 

agencies, insurers, repair facilities, 

automobile auctions, salvage facilities, 

and fleet rental firms. These reports 

include information on prior ownership, 

usage, damage, repair history, etc. They 

may even disclose whether the car has 

had regular oil changes. In addition, 

both CARFAX and AutoCheck offer 

consumers an option to pay a flat fee to 

receive reports on as many individual 

vehicles as the consumers wish. 

Commercial vehicle history reports 

may include vehicle condition data 

from sources other than NMVTIS.13

According to CARFAX, NMVTIS reports 

carry limited title, odometer, brand, and 

salvage/total loss information, whereas 

commercial reports may contain ‘‘a 

wealth of information about brands, 

total losses, prior wrecks, airbag 

deployments, open recalls, odometer 

readings, and even maintenance 

history.’’ 14 Experian noted that its 

AutoCheck vehicle history reports can 

include information about fire and flood 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

15Experian (15) at 3. 

16American Automobile Ass’n (‘‘AAA’’) (47) at 2; 

CARFAX (6) at 1; Experian (15) at 5; Nat’l 

Independent Automobile Dealers Ass’n (‘‘NIADA’’) 

(13) at 3 (proposal for a statement ‘‘directing 

consumers to the Web site’’ about vehicle history 

information ‘‘is an acceptable compromise’’). 

The following statement appears at the bottom of 

the front side of the Buyers Guide proposed in the 

NPRM: 

Before you buy this used vehicle: 

1. Get information about its history. Visit the 

Federal Trade Commission at: ftc.gov/usedcars. You 

will need the vehicle identification number (VIN), 

shown above, to make the best use of the resources 

on this site. 

17CARFAX (6) at 2–3; Experian (15) at 1. Nat’l 

Automobile Dealers Ass’n (‘‘NADA’’) commented 

that the Web site, if created at all, ‘‘should be 

limited to educational materials and should not 

endorse, link to, or otherwise imply the legitimacy 

of any particular vehicle history company, report, 

or service.’’ NADA (7) at 3. 

18E.g., NIADA (13) at 3. 

19E.g., CARS (22); Legal Aid Justice Center 

(‘‘LAJC’’) (18); Nat’l Salvage Vehicle Reporting 

Program (‘‘NSVRP’’) (54); Nat’l Vehicle Service 

(‘‘NVS’’) (51). 

20CARCO (44). ADD (17) at 3–4. 

21ADD (17) at 3–4. 

22 Id. at 4. 

23CARS (22) at 7. 

24 Id. 

25E.g., NSVRP (54). 

26NC AG (11). 

27NSVRP (54); NC AG (11). 

28NSVRP (54) at 13. 29NSVRP (54) at 13. 30NSVRP (54) at 17. 31 IA AG (12) at 5. 32 Id. (Attachment). 33 Id. 34 Id. at 5. 35 Id. at 6. 36CAS (3) at 4. 

damage; accident damage, including the 

number and severity of any accidents; 

number of prior owners; auction 

inspection announcements; salvage, 

theft, or lemon; fleet or rental use; frame 

damage; service and maintenance 

records; and manufacturer recalls.15

ii. Comments and Proposals on Vehicle 

History Reports 

The Commission received various 

comments and proposals about the 

potential costs and benefits of including 

references or requirements relating to 

vehicle history reports in the Buyers 

Guide. Some commenters supported the 

Commission’s NPRM proposal to add a 

statement to the Buyers Guide advising 

consumers to obtain a vehicle history 

report and directing consumers to an 

FTC Web site (the ‘‘NPRM Vehicle 

History Approach’’).16 Two vehicle 

history vendors recommended listing 

only an FTC Web site on the Buyers 

Guide, explaining that the FTC should 

avoid promoting a particular vendor or 

type of technology to deliver vehicle 

history reports.17 In addition, the auto 

dealer associations recommended that 

the Rule not favor a particular source of 

vehicle history information or require 

dealers to obtain reports.18

Several consumer groups and other 

commenters recommended that the FTC 

follow the approach of California 

Assembly Bill 1215 (codified as Cal. 

Vehicle Code 11713.26) (‘‘AB 1215’’) by 

requiring dealers to obtain NMVTIS 

reports, to post a warning if a title brand 

or salvage history appears in a NMVTIS 

report, and to provide a copy of the 

NMVTIS report to consumers upon 

request (the ‘‘AB 1215 Vehicle History 

Approach’’).19 A vehicle history vendor 

also proposed that the FTC require 

dealers to obtain NMVTIS reports.20

Another commercial vendor of 

NMVTIS reports, Auto Data Direct 

(‘‘ADD’’), recommended that the Buyers 

Guide should refer exclusively to the 

NMVTIS Web site and should advise 

consumers to ‘‘[g]et information about 

the vehicle’s history from one of the 

National Motor Vehicle Title 

Information System vehicle history 

providers found at http://

www.vehiclehistory.gov.’’ 21 (The ‘‘ADD 

Vehicle History Approach.’’) ADD also 

proposed adding a quick response (QR) 

code to the Buyers Guide that would 

link a smart phone to 

www.vehiclehistory.gov or permit 

dealers to use a QR code that would link 

to a vehicle history report previously 

obtained by the dealer.22

Consumers for Auto Reliability and 

Safety (‘‘CARS’’) proposed adding a 

statement to the Buyers Guide where 

dealers would be required to indicate 

the date on which the dealer obtained 

the required NMVTIS report.23 The 

Commission, however, observes that 

requiring dealers to disclose on the 

Buyers Guide the date that the dealer 

obtained a report appears to be 

unnecessary because that date typically 

appears on the reports. CARS noted that 

eliminating the statement 

recommending that consumers visit an 

FTC Web site would create more space 

for the NMVTIS statement on the Buyers 

Guide.24

Two commenters also suggested that 

vehicle history information could help 

protect consumers from vehicles 

damaged by Hurricane Sandy and other 

natural disasters. The NSVRP 

recommended that the Commission 

require that dealers obtain NMVTIS 

reports and affix warning labels,25 and 

the North Carolina Attorney General’s 

office (‘‘NC AG’’) recommended that the 

Commission require dealers to disclose 

vehicle history report information on 

the Buyers Guide (the ‘‘NC AG Vehicle 

History Approach’’).26 According to 

these commenters, Hurricane Sandy 

damaged an estimated 250,000 cars.27

Although some damaged vehicles were 

crushed and salvaged and others sold 

for export, NSVRP noted that many 

were sold through less ‘‘formally 

regulated channels including Craigslist, 

eBay Motors, curb stoning [sellers 

posing as private individuals to evade 

dealer regulatory requirements] or other 

means . . . to bypass proper titling, 

branding and reporting’’ and thereby 

hide total loss histories of Hurricane 

Sandy damaged vehicles.28 The 

comment explained that various vehicle 

history report services have not been 

able to capture many of the Hurricane 

Sandy flood transactions because of 

these violations.29 NSVRP suggested 

that by requiring sellers to check each 

vehicle’s history and to affix a warning 

disclosure modeled on AB 1215, the 

‘‘FTC may provide a cause of action for 

a defrauded party to be able to seek 

recourse from the parties in the supply 

chain who violated the law when they 

did not report into NMVTIS.’’ 30 If 

NSVRP is correct, however, that certain 

marketers of Hurricane Sandy damaged 

vehicles fail to comply adequately with 

their titling, branding, and reporting 

obligations, NMVTIS reports may not 

provide accurate information with 

respect to some vehicles. 

The Iowa Attorney General (‘‘IA AG’’), 

representing the views of twenty-two 

state attorneys general, proposed that 

the Buyers Guide include a box and 

require dealers to check that box if they 

know that the vehicle’s title contains 

negative brand information (the ‘‘IA AG 

Vehicle History Approach’’).31 A 

checked box would indicate that the 

vehicle’s title ‘‘will carry one or more of 

the following brands: Salvage, Prior 

Salvage, Rebuilt, Remanufactured, 

Flood, Lemon Law, or similar brand.’’ 32

The IA AG’s proposal does not require 

dealers to obtain NMVTIS reports or any 

other type of report from a designated 

vendor or source, and does not address 

whether the proposal might prompt 

dealers to procure vehicle history 

reports.33 According to the IA AG, every 

state unfair or deceptive trade practices 

law already requires dealers who are 

aware of negative title information to 

disclose that information.34 Therefore, 

the comment states, ‘‘requiring dealers 

to check a box merely expressly requires 

dealers to engage in an act they are 

already required to perform.’’ 35

The Center for Auto Safety (‘‘CAS’’) 

recommended requiring that dealers 

check a box disclosing whether the 

dealer has a vehicle history report.36

Dealers who check the box would be 

required to provide a copy of any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70807 

37 Id. 38For a various reasons, some commenters stated 

that the Rule should not be changed. E.g., 

Christensen (106); Emory, Lorrae (105); Grandjean, 

Dalma (45); Wright, Cheryl (100); Young (102). 39NADA (7) at 3. 40 Id. 41Supplementary NIADA comment on Regulatory 

Review, Supplementary Comment 2, at 2–3 (Mar. 

16, 2009). 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 Id. 45NIADA (7) at 3. 

46 Id. at 1. 

47 DOT at 2; see also CAS (3) at 4. 

48CAS (3) at 4. 

49 IA AG at 5. 

50See, e.g., NADA (7) at 3; Supplementary 

NIADA Comment at 2–3; CARFAX (6) at 2, 3; 

Experian (15) at 5, 6. 

reports in their files to requesting 

consumers.37 The Commission 

incorporates this recommendation into 

its revised proposal, described below as 

the SNPRM Vehicle History Approach. 

Finally, some commenters stated that 

the Rule should not address the issue of 

vehicle history at all.38 NADA 

commented that it believed that the 

Buyers Guide is fundamentally a 

warranty disclosure document and 

questioned whether vehicle history 

information is an appropriate subject for 

the Buyers Guide.39 NADA 

recommended that the FTC include a 

disclaimer about the reliability of 

vehicle history reports and cautioned 

the FTC against endorsing any 

particular vehicle history company, 

report, or service.40 NIADA raised 

concerns about potential liability for 

dealers, if the FTC requires dealers to 

obtain vehicle history reports.41 Thus, 

NIADA recommended a ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

from liability for dealers who are 

required to report vehicle history 

information. NIADA asserts that vehicle 

history reports are not static and are 

regularly updated as new information is 

collected in the databases on which the 

reports are based. Accordingly, its 

comment notes that ‘‘any history 

database . . . is only as good as the data 

in it.’’ 42 The comment states that 

dealers necessarily would have to run 

daily vehicle history or NMVTIS reports 

on each vehicle in inventory ‘‘hoping 

that each daily report contains 

completely up to date information about 

each vehicle and that such information 

is accurate.’’ 43 The comment concludes 

that these reports would be material 

information that state unfair or 

deceptive trade practices laws would 

require dealers to disclose and the 

dealers ‘‘would be automatically liable 

for providing false or incomplete 

information’’ if the reports are 

inaccurate or outdated.44 NIADA 

commented that the NPRM’s proposed 

approach of directing consumers to a 

Web site and advising an independent 

inspection is ‘‘an acceptable 

compromise.’’ 45

Two commenters addressed safety 

recall information, which typically does 

not appear in NMVTIS reports or 

vehicle titles. The United States 

Department of Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) 

provides information on safety recalls 

through the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration Web site, 

www.safecar.gov.46 To encourage 

consumers to utilize information 

available from the site, DOT 

recommended that the Buyers Guide 

caution consumers to check for 

outstanding safety recalls and to review 

a vehicle’s mileage history to determine 

whether a vehicle’s odometer is an 

accurate indication of its mileage 

history.47 CAS also urged the FTC to 

include safety recall information on the 

Buyers Guide.48

iii. Proposed Modifications To Address 

Vehicle History Reports (the ‘‘SNPRM 

Vehicle History Approach’’) 

To prevent deception in the market 

for used vehicles, and in response to the 

concerns raised by the comments 

discussed above, the Commission now 

proposes adopting an approach to 

vehicle history information similar to 

the one recommended by CAS and 

revising the NPRM’s proposed Buyers 

Guide statement concerning vehicle 

history reports. The Commission seeks 

comments on this revised proposal. 

Based on CAS’s and other comments, 

the Commission concludes that this 

approach will help prevent deception in 

the market for used vehicles. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

amending the Rule to require that 

dealers indicate on the Buyers Guide 

whether they have obtained a vehicle 

history report and, if so, to provide a 

copy of the report upon request by a 

consumer. 

The Commission believes that this 

proposed approach would impose 

minimal burdens upon used car dealers, 

while providing consumers with 

important information about used 

vehicles and ensuring that dealers do 

not fail to disclose material information 

if they have obtained negative 

information in a vehicle history report. 

This disclosure requirement is also 

consistent with dealers’ existing legal 

obligations. As the IA AG noted in its 

comments, ‘‘Under state and federal 

law, motor vehicle dealers that know of 

negative title information have a legal 

obligation to disclose it to consumers’’ 

and ‘‘[f]ailing to do so violates every 

state UDAP statute.’’ 49 The proposed 

disclosure requirement ensures that 

dealers who have obtained vehicle 

history reports—which may contain 

negative vehicle history information— 

make such reports available to 

consumers. 

Several commenters urged the 

Commission to avoid requiring dealers 

to obtain vehicle history reports or 

requiring the use of a particular type of 

report or vendor.50 To address dealer 

concerns about potential liability for 

inaccurate information in vehicle 

history reports and to promote 

consumer choice among types of vehicle 

history reports and sources of vehicle 

history information, the proposed Rule 

would not require dealers to obtain 

particular types of vehicle history 

reports, and would not require dealers 

to obtain those reports from specified 

vendors. Dealers who have obtained 

vehicle history reports would be 

required to check a box indicating that 

they have such a report and will provide 

the consumer with a copy upon request. 

The box would be accompanied by 

statements describing vehicle history 

reports and encouraging consumers to 

obtain a vehicle history report 

regardless of whether the box is 

checked. 

The statements would also direct 

consumers to a planned FTC Web site 

for information about obtaining vehicle 

history reports, searching for safety 

recalls, and other topics. The 

Commission proposes adding safety 

recalls to the list of information 

available at the planned FTC Web site. 

Accordingly, the proposed Buyers 

Guide in this SNPRM recommends that 

consumers obtain a vehicle history 

report and visit a planned FTC Web site 

for information on how to search for 

safety recalls and how to obtain other 

vehicle history information. Although 

the proposed Buyers Guide does not 

include a recommendation that 

consumers check odometer readings, 

odometer information is typically 

included in the reports and the advice 

to review odometer history is part of the 

advice that Commission staff anticipates 

making available from the Web site. 

Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes adding the following box and 

accompanying statements to the front of 

the Buyers Guide: 

b IF THE DEALER CHECKED THIS BOX, 

THE DEALER HAS A VEHICLE HISTORY 

REPORT AND WILL PROVIDE A COPY TO 

YOU UPON REQUEST. The Vehicle History 

Report may contain information from title 

records, salvage yards, and insurance 

companies. It may also include salvage, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

51NMVTIS reports provide current state of title, 

latest title information, title brand information, 

odometer reading, total loss history (reported by 

insurers), and salvage history (reported by junk/

salvage yards). Commercial reports, such as 

CARFAX and AutoCheck, could include additional 

or different information and rely on different 

sources. 

CARFAX submitted a proposed Buyers Guide that 

contains a box that dealers would check to indicate 

that they have a vehicle history report and will 

provide it to the consumer. If the dealer does not 

have a vehicle history report, the dealer would 

check a different box that would instruct consumers 

to obtain a vehicle history report independently. 

The box further advises consumers that the vehicle 

history report should include information that, 

presumably, would appear in a CARFAX report: 

‘‘title brands, total losses, accidents, mileage, 

owners, service and maintenance, and airbag 

deployments.’’ CARFAX (6). 

52See 77 FR at 74755–74756. 

53CAS (3) at 4. 

54 IA AG (12) 5–6, attachment. 

55 Id. 

repair, accident, and prior ownership 

history.51

Regardless of whether the box is checked, 

the FTC recommends that you obtain a 

Vehicle History Report. For information on 

how to obtain a vehicle history report, how 

to search for safety recalls, and other topics, 

visit the Federal Trade Commission at 

ftc.gov/used cars. You will need the vehicle 

identification number (VIN) shown above to 

make the best use of the resources on this 

site. 

The Commission proposes using a 

single box for dealers to indicate 

whether they have obtained a vehicle 

history report. By leaving the box 

unchecked, dealers would indicate that 

they have not obtained a vehicle history 

report. This is also consistent with the 

Rule’s approach to service agreements, 

where dealers only check a box if they 

are offering that to consumers. 

Dealers who do not now obtain 

vehicle history reports would not be 

required to obtain them or to make any 

additional disclosures on the Buyers 

Guide. The additional burden imposed 

on dealers who already obtain vehicle 

history reports would be minimal. 

Dealers who already have the reports are 

unlikely to need to make additional 

disclaimers, because the reports are 

typically dated and contain disclaimers 

about the limits of the data in them. The 

only additional burden placed on these 

dealers is a requirement that they check 

a box on the Buyers Guide and provide 

requesting consumers a copy of a report 

that the dealer already has obtained. 

The second paragraph following the 

vehicle history box encourages 

consumers to obtain their own vehicle 

history reports to reduce consumer 

reliance on dealers for information. The 

paragraph also advises consumers to 

search for safety recalls, and encourages 

consumers to visit an FTC Web site for 

more information. By doing so, the 

Commission combines the benefit of 

immediate access to a dealer’s vehicle 

history report with the benefits of the 

planned FTC Web site that would 

provide consumers with additional 

information on how to obtain vehicle 

history reports and related information. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed advising consumers to obtain 

a vehicle history report and directing 

consumers to an FTC Web site that 

would provide information about 

various forms of vehicle history 

information and potential sources for 

that information. 52 The alternative 

approach in this SNPRM would help 

prevent deception in the market for 

used vehicles, and further promote 

consumer access to vehicle history 

information, by allowing consumers to 

obtain such information directly from 

dealers. This revised approach increases 

the likelihood that consumer would be 

aware of pertinent information in the 

dealer’s possession. In addition, 

consumers could supplement a vehicle 

history report provided by a dealer with 

other reports and information available 

on the proposed FTC Web site. 

The proposed single check box 

disclosure format is adapted from CAS 

proposal that, if dealers have a vehicle 

history report, ‘‘they must give a copy 

to a prospective purchaser’’ and mark ‘‘a 

box on the Buyers Guide disclosing 

whether they have a copy and that a 

copy is available upon request.’’ 53

The proposal is also similar to IA 

AG’s proposal that dealers mark a box 

indicating that the vehicle’s title carries 

a brand.54 The IA AG proposes a check 

box that states: ‘‘If the dealer checked 

this box, it means that the title for this 

vehicle will carry one or more of the 

following brands: Salvage, Prior 

Salvage, Rebuilt, Remanufactured, 

Flood, Lemon Law, or a similar 

brand.’’ 55 In the IA AG’s proposal, an 

unmarked box would indicate that the 

dealer is unaware whether the title 

carries a brand. Unlike the IA AG’s 

proposal, this SNPRM does not require 

dealers who have obtained vehicle 

history reports to disclose on the Buyers 

Guide that a vehicle’s title carries a 

brand, but only that the dealer has 

obtained a report and will provide a 

copy to requesting consumers. Although 

the proposed Buyers Guide requires 

only disclosures concerning vehicle 

history reports, other laws, such as 

those prohibiting unfair or deceptive 

practices, may obligate dealers who are 

aware of title brands or other material 

information in vehicle history reports to 

provide appropriate disclosures to 

consumers. 

The Commission is not inclined to 

require that dealers obtain vehicle 

history reports and disclose information 

in them in ways similar to AB 1215. 

Under the AB 1215 approach, 

consumers must rely upon the dealer for 

information. AB 1215 requires dealers to 

post a warning label if NMVTIS shows 

a title brand or salvage or insurance 

information. Consumers cannot tell 

from the warning label what title 

brands, insurance information, or 

salvage history may apply to a vehicle 

without asking the dealer for 

information and/or a copy of the 

NMVTIS report. A vehicle without a 

warning label will not alert consumers 

to review a vehicle history report or to 

investigate other sources of information. 

An AB 1215 approach to vehicle history 

information mandates the use of 

NMVTIS reports and the IA AG’s 

proposal focuses on title brands to the 

exclusion of the variety of other vehicle 

history information that is available. 

The lack of an AB 1215 warning label 

or a check in the title brand box in the 

IA AG’s proposal indicates at most that 

the dealer did not find insurance or 

salvage information in NMVTIS or a 

title brand, not that a vehicle was free 

from damage or mechanical flaws. The 

lack of disclosures could give 

consumers a false sense of security 

about the condition of a vehicle and 

would not alert consumers to sources of 

information such as commercial vehicle 

history reports that could reveal hidden 

damage or mechanical defects that 

NMVTIS is not designed to detect. 

For these reasons, the Commission 

does not propose adopting either the AB 

1215 or the IA AG’s approach to vehicle 

history reports. The Commission, 

however, proposes to modify the 

approach to vehicle history reports it 

proposed in the NPRM. In this SNPRM, 

the Commission proposes a Rule that 

would require dealers who already have 

obtained vehicle history reports to 

check a box on the Buyers Guide 

indicating that they have a vehicle 

history report and will provide it upon 

request. Dealers who have not obtained 

a vehicle history report would not be 

required to obtain them or to make any 

additional disclosures on the Buyers 

Guide. 

The Commission invites comments on 

its recommended Rule and modification 

of the Buyers Guide (the SNPRM 

Vehicle History Approach). The 

Commission also invites comments on 

the alternative proposed approaches 

discussed above. When commenting on 

the various proposed approaches, please 

quote and identify the proposed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70809 

56 I.e., NPRM Vehicle History Approach, SNPRM 

Vehicle History Approach, AB 1215 Vehicle History 

Approach, IA AG Vehicle History Approach, ADD 

Vehicle History Approach, and NC AG Vehicle 

History Approach. 

57 42 FR at 45722–45723. 

58 77 FR at 74769 (Figure 1). 

59Uniform Commercial Code (‘‘UCC’’) 2–316(3) 

(a) (‘‘unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, 

all implied warranties are excluded by expressions 

like ‘as is,’ ‘with all faults’ or other language which 

in common understanding calls the buyer’s 

attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes 

plain that there is no implied warranty.’’). 

60Anderson, Patty (71); Bensley, William (53); 

Bolliger, Bernard (69); Brown, Bernard (1); Burdge, 

Ronald (74); Cheney, Shawna (38); Choi, Hyung 

(63); Clanton, William (62); Coleman, Donald (23); 

Connolly, Gwendolyn (36); Cooper, Patrick (144); 

Crabtree, Jeffrey (108, 112); Deneen, Daniel (73); 

Desmond, Dawn (33); Domonoske, Thomas (43); 

Duff, Robert (66); Feferman, Richard (149); Flinn, 

Michael T. (34, 129); Goldberg, Joseph (61); Heaney, 

Mark (77); Hughes, Rob, Torres Law Firm (8); Irwin, 

Dale (68); Kaufman, Scott (52); Maier, Peter (26); 

Malone, Dean T. (72); Norris, Matthew J. (35); 

Quirk, Michael (113); Rawls, Kathi (59); 

Reichenbach, Gregory (64); Richards, Rhys, Casper 

& Casper (20); Roher, Deborah (56); Rudnitsky, 

Taras (42); Seth, Donald (116); Steinbach, Mark 

(65); Taterka, Steven (21); Thomson, Steven (58); 

Tomlinson, Richard (2); Valdez, David (115); Wells, 

Amy (30); Willis, Todd (39); Witte, Erin, Surovell 

Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC (5). 

61E.g., Ohio Ass’n for Justice (31) (‘‘proposed 

language is contrary to existing case law, which 

provides that even when a vehicle is sold ‘‘As Is,’’ 

this is not a shield to fraud . . . [The proposed 

language] may have the detrimental effect of 

discouraging consumers with valid fraud claims 

from seeking advice from consumer advocates, state 

attorneys general, or other advocacy groups.’’); 

Irwin (68) (GA attorney) (proposed language ‘‘will 

mislead consumers about their rights and make 

them think that a dealer can’t be held responsible 

for oral statements.’’). 

62E.g., CARS (22) at 1; Elias, Fla. Dep’t of 

Regulatory and Econ. Res.-Consumer Protection 

(57); IA AG (12) at 5; Kaufman (74); Katherine 

Graham and George Alexander Community Law 

Center (‘‘KGACLC’’) (25) at 5; Klarquist (29); 

Military Justice Project, Nat’l Ass’n of Consumer 

Advocates (‘‘NACA’’) (14) at 2; Valdez (115). 

63CARS (22) at 4. 

64 15 U.S.C. 2308; 16 CFR 455.2(b)(3). 

65 Id. Dealers should not check the ‘‘As Is’’ box 

on the Buyers Guide when the vehicle is covered 

by a warranty, whether because the state mandates 

a minimum warranty or because the dealer has 

chosen to offer a warranty. Instead, the dealer 

should check the Warranty box. Moreover, dealers 

should use the Implied Warranties Only Buyers 

Guide if the vehicle is offered for sale in a 

jurisdiction that prohibits ‘‘As Is’’ sales. 16 CFR 

455.2(b)(1)(ii). 

The Int’l Ass’n of Lemon Law Administrators 

(‘‘IALLA’’) commented that the Buyers Guide 

should have a box for dealers to check to indicate 

if the vehicle is covered by a state-mandated 

minimum warranty. IALLA (70) at 1. Although the 

IALLA commented that the December 2012 NPRM 

would make the disclosure of a state-mandated 

warranty optional, neither the proposed nor the 

current rule does so. See 77 FR at 74761; Staff 

Compliance Guidelines 53 FR at 17663 (although 

the Rule does not require dealers to disclose 

warranties that are the responsibilities of third 

parties, such as manufacturers, it does require that 

dealers disclose all warranties for which they are 

responsible. ‘‘Therefore, if federal, state, or local 

laws require you [the dealer] to give a specific 

warranty . . . you must briefly disclose this 

warranty on the Buyers Guide’’ in the Systems 

Covered/Duration section). The dealer’s obligation 

is the same whether a warranty is required by state 

law or the dealer chooses to offer a vehicle with a 

warranty. If state law requires a minimum warranty, 

or a dealer chooses to offer a warranty when one 

is not required, the dealer should check the 

Warranty Box and disclose details of the terms of 

Continued 

approach by its assigned name 56 and 

provide any data, consumer surveys, or 

other evidence that supports your 

comments. 

B. ‘‘As Is’’ Statement 

The existing Buyers Guide contains a 

box that dealers who offer to sell a used 

car without a warranty are required to 

mark to indicate that the vehicle is 

offered ‘‘As Is,’’ i.e., without a warranty 

from the dealer. Adjacent to that box is 

a statement describing the meaning of 

the term ‘‘As Is.’’ In the NPRM, the 

Commission proposed modifying that 

statement to make it easier to read and 

to understand, but not to change the 

statement’s meaning. After reviewing 

the comments that addressed the ‘‘As 

Is’’ statement, the Commission now 

proposes to adopt a modified ‘‘As Is’’ 

Statement. 

i. Existing ‘‘As Is’’ Statement 

The existing ‘‘As Is’’ statement on the 

Buyers Guide has been part of the 

Buyers Guide since the Rule’s 

promulgation in 1984. This ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement was formulated to correct 

consumer misunderstanding of the term 

‘‘As Is.’’57 The existing Buyers Guide 

states: 

b AS IS—NO WARRANTY 

YOU WILL PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY 

REPAIRS. The dealer assumes no 

responsibility for any repairs regardless of 

any oral statements about the vehicle. 

(‘‘Existing ‘As Is’ Statement’’). 

ii. NPRM ‘‘As Is’’ Statement 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

proposed revising the Buyers Guide ‘‘As 

Is’’ statement to improve readability and 

to clarify the meaning of the term ‘‘As 

Is.’’ The Buyers Guide in the NPRM 

stated: 

b AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY 

THE DEALER WON’T PAY FOR ANY 

REPAIRS. The dealer is not responsible for 

any repairs, regardless of what anybody tells 

you. (‘‘NPRM ‘As Is’ Statement’’).58

iii. SNPRM ‘‘As Is’’ Statement 

After reviewing the comments 

submitted in response to the NPRM, the 

Commission now proposes modifying 

the Buyers Guide by replacing the 

existing explanatory ‘‘As Is’’ statement 

with the following: 

b AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY 

THE DEALER WILL NOT PAY FOR ANY 

REPAIRS. The dealer does not accept 

responsibility to make or to pay for any 

repairs to this vehicle after you buy it 

regardless of any oral statements about the 

vehicle. But you may have other legal rights 

and remedies for dealer misconduct. 

(‘‘SNRPRM ‘As Is’ Statement’’). 

The proposed revised ‘‘As Is’’ 

Statement in this SNPRM is intended to 

make the statement easier to read and to 

improve consumer understanding, but is 

not intended to change the statement’s 

meaning. Both the existing ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement and the SNPRM’s ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement are intended to indicate that 

a dealer disclaims responsibility for 

implied warranties that might otherwise 

arise by operation of state law.59

iv. Discussion 

Commenters uniformly recommended 

that the Commission not adopt the 

NPRM’s proposed changes to the 

explanatory ‘‘As Is’’ statement. 

Commenters stated that the proposed 

revision could obscure the meaning of 

‘‘As Is,’’ potentially change its meaning, 

or simply misstate the law. More than 

forty attorney-practitioners stated that 

the proposed revision misstates the law 

and consumers’ rights.60 Several 

commenters noted that the proposed 

NPRM revisions to the ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement could deter consumers from 

pursuing potential remedies.61 Several 

commenters also criticized the ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement that currently appears on the 

Buyers Guide.62 Commenters proposed 

several different possible formulations 

of the ‘‘As Is’’ statement. 

CARS’s (22) comment is 

representative of the comments 

criticizing the NPRM’s proposed 

revision to the ‘‘As Is’’ language. CARS 

stated that the proposed language 

‘‘wrongly conflates the lack of a 

warranty with no responsibility for 

repairs,’’ and then listed various 

scenarios in which a dealer could 

become responsible for oral statements 

and repairs.63 These include situations 

in which: dealers’ oral statements create 

express warranties under state law; 

deceptive statements or concealment of 

known facts violate state unfair or 

deceptive practices statutes; a service 

contract nullifies any attempt to 

disclaim implied warranties pursuant to 

federal warranty law under the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal 

Trade Commission Improvement Act 

(‘‘Magnuson-Moss Act’’) and FTC 

Rule; 64 dealers inadequately disclaim 

implied warranties under state law; or 

dealers improperly claim that a sale is 

‘‘As Is’’ in one of the seventeen states 

that prescribe minimum mandatory 

warranties.65


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the warranty in the Systems Covered/Duration 

section on the front of the Buyers Guide. 

66 IA AG (12). 

67NC AG (11). 

68See East Bay (4) at 8. 

69 I.e., Existing ‘‘As Is’’ Statement, SNPRM ‘‘As 

Is’’ Statement, CARS ‘‘As Is’’ Statement, IA AG ‘‘As 

Is’’ Statement, NC AG ‘‘As Is’’ Statement, and East 

Bay ‘‘As Is’’ Statement. 

70 77 FR at 74771 (Figure 3). 71E.g., American Ass’n for Justice (89) at 2; 

Bolliger (69) (Florida attorney); CAS (3) at 2; CARS 

(22) at 8; Crabtree (108, 112); Domonoske (43); Elias 

(57) (Florida Dep’t of Regulatory and Economic 

Resources—Consumer Protection); Kaufman (52): 

Klarquist (29); Kraft, Karen, Credit Counseling (78); 

Richards, Casper & Casper (20); Speer, James, 

Virginia Poverty Law Center (109); Thomson (58); 

Wells (30); NACA (14) at 2; OAJ (31) at 2; Wholesale 

Forms (10) at 1, 2. 

72See 16 CFR 455.2(b)(v). 73CAS (3) at 3. 

74The Buyers Guide in this SNPRM includes the 

statement: ‘‘Si usted no puede leer este documento 

en ingle ́s, pidale al concesionario una copia en 

espan ̃ ol.’’ See Figures 1 and 2. 

75This statement has been on the Buyers Guide 

since the Rule’s promulgation in 1984: ASK THE 

DEALER IF YOUR MECHANIC CAN INSPECT THE 

VEHICLE ON OR OFF THE LOT. See Figures 1 and 

2. 

76See 16 CFR 455.2(b)(1)(ii); Figure 2. 

77 Id. 

78Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Sale of Used 

Motor Vehicles, 49 FR 45692, 45709 (Nov. 19, 

1984). 

79 15 U.S.C. 1012(b). 

v. Alternative ‘‘As Is’’ Statements 

Several commenters suggested other 

formulations of the ‘‘As Is’’ statement, 

both as alternatives to the statement 

proposed in the NPRM and the ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement on the existing Buyers Guide. 

For example, CARS recommended that 

the Buyers Guide state: 

AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY. 

DEALER DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY 

FOR ANY REPAIRS AFTER SALE 

(‘‘CARS ‘As Is’ Statement’’) 

The IA AG suggested: 

THE DEALER IS NOT PROVIDING A 

WARRANTY. The dealer does not agree to fix 

problems with the vehicle after you buy it. 

However, you may have legal rights if the 

dealer concealed problems with the vehicle 

or its history.66

(‘‘IA AG ‘As Is’ Statement’’) 

The NC AG proposed: 

THE DEALER WON’T PAY FOR REPAIRS. 

The dealer does not agree to pay for the 

vehicle’s repairs. But you may have legal 

rights and remedies if the dealer 

misrepresents the vehicle’s condition or 

engages in other misconduct.67

(‘‘NC AG ‘As Is’ Statement’’) 

The East Bay Community Law Center 

(‘‘East Bay’’) suggested: 

AS IS—NO WARRANTY. YOU WILL PAY 

ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. Ask for all 

representations about the vehicle in 

writing.68

(‘‘East Bay ‘As Is’ Statement’’) 

vi. Request for Comments 

The Commission agrees with the 

comments recommending that it should 

not adopt the December 2012 NPRM 

proposed revision to the ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement on the Buyers Guide. The 

Commission has considered and 

incorporated the suggested revisions to 

the current ‘‘As Is’’ statement into the 

formulation of the ‘‘As Is’’ statement 

proposed in this SNPRM. The 

Commission invites comments on the 

proposed ‘‘As Is’’ statement in this 

SNPRM (SNPRM ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

and on the alternative proposed ‘‘As Is’’ 

statements that are noted above. When 

commenting on the various proposed 

‘‘As Is’’ Statements, please quote and 

identify the statement by its assigned 

name 69 and provide any data, consumer 

surveys, or other evidence that supports 

your comments. 

C. Non-Dealer Warranty Boxes Proposed 

in NPRM 

The front of the proposed Buyers 

Guide in the SNPRM contains boxes 

(‘‘non-dealer warranty boxes’’) that 

dealers could check to indicate whether 

an unexpired manufacturer warranty, a 

manufacturer used car warranty, or 

some other warranty applies, and 

whether a service contract is available. 

The version of the Buyers Guide 

proposed in the NPRM included these 

same boxes on the back of the Buyers 

Guide.70 The Commission now proposes 

to move these boxes to the front of the 

Buyers Guide as shown in Figures 1 and 

2. Those commenters who addressed the 

non-dealer warranty boxes uniformly 

recommended moving the disclosures to 

the front of the Buyers Guide where 

they will be more accessible to 

consumers.71

The proposed Buyers Guide in this 

SNPRM retains the existing Rule’s 

statement used to disclose the 

applicability of an unexpired 

manufacturer’s warranty: ‘‘The 

manufacturer’s original warranty has 

not expired on the vehicle.’’ 72 CAS 

suggested that the unexpired 

manufacturer’s warranty box should 

state that ‘‘[t]he manufacturer’s original 

warranty has not expired on some 

components of the vehicle’’ because, 

according to CAS, that language is 

‘‘more consistent with the different 

coverages that are in current 

warranties.’’ 73 Although the 

Commission believes that the existing 

disclosure is adequate, the Commission 

invites comments on the effectiveness of 

the disclosure. 

The Commission believes that the 

disclosure of non-dealer warranties will 

help ensure that consumers are not 

deceived if the dealer chooses to use the 

existence of a non-dealer warranty as a 

selling point. For example, to ensure 

that consumers understand the scope of 

any non-dealer warranty available, the 

disclosure advises consumers to ‘‘ask 

the dealer for a copy of the warranty 

document and an explanation of 

warranty coverage, exclusions, and 

repair obligations.’’ The Commission 

invites comments on the effectiveness of 

the disclosure in preventing deception. 

D. Miscellaneous NPRM Buyers Guide 

Modifications Incorporated in the 

SNPRM 

The Buyers Guide and rule text 

proposed in this SNPRM incorporates 

other modifications to the Buyers Guide 

that the Commission proposed in the 

NPRM. The English version of the 

Buyers Guide in this SNPRM includes a 

proposed statement, in Spanish, that 

advises Spanish-speaking consumers 

that they can request a Spanishlanguage version of the Buyers Guide.74

In addition, the Buyers Guide’s 

statement advising consumers to ask the 

dealer about a mechanical inspection 

has been relocated above the proposed 

vehicle history information box to 

enhance its prominence.75 The SNPRM 

also retains the use of the terms ‘‘dealer 

warranty’’ and ‘‘non-dealer warranty’’ 

proposed in the NPRM. Finally, the 

SNPRM Buyers Guide incorporates the 

NPRM’s proposed modifications to the 

description of ‘‘Implied Warranties 

Only’’ on the version of the Buyers 

Guide for use in jurisdictions that 

prohibit dealers from waiving implied 

warranties 76 and the description of a 

service contract on the front of the 

Buyers Guide.77 The Commission 

published these proposed modifications 

in the NPRM and does not seek 

additional comments here. 

E. Modification of Service-Contract 

Provisions 

When promulgating the Rule in 1984, 

the Commission noted that its intent 

was not to regulate those service 

contracts that are ‘‘excluded from the 

Commission’s jurisdiction by the 

McCarran-Ferguson Act.’’ 78 Consistent 

with that intent, the Commission 

proposes revising the provision in 

§ 455.1(d)(7) and the exception in 

§ 455.2(d)(3) so that they correspond 

more closely with the statutory language 

of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.79

III. Request for Comment 

The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit written comments on 

any issue of fact, law, or policy that may 

bear upon the proposals under 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70811 

80 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). 

consideration. Please include 

explanations for any answers provided, 

as well as supporting evidence where 

appropriate. After evaluating the 

comments, the Commission will 

determine whether to issue specific 

amendments. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before January 30, 2015. Write ‘‘Used 

Car Rule Regulatory Review, 16 CFR 

part 455, Project No. P087604’’ 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 provided 

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 must follow the procedure 

explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).80 Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the FTC General 

Counsel grants your request in 

accordance with the law and the public 

interest. 

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/

usedcarrulesnprm by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

this document appears at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also 

may file a comment through that Web 

site. 

If you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, write ‘‘Used Car Regulatory 

Review, 16 CFR part 455, Project No. 

P087604’’ 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 A), 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 A), 

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 

document and the news release 

describing it. 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 January 30, 2015. 

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. 

Comments on any proposed 

recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting 

requirements subject to review under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) 

should additionally be submitted to 

OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should 

be addressed to Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the Federal Trade 

Commission, New Executive Office 

Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 

20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. 

postal mail, however, are subject to 

delays due to heightened security 

precautions. Therefore, comments 

instead should be sent by facsimile to 

(202) 395–5167. 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

57b, requires the Commission to issue a 

preliminary regulatory analysis when 

publishing a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, but requires the 

Commission to prepare such an analysis 

for a rule amendment proceeding only 

if it: (1) Estimates that the amendment 

will have an annual effect on the 

national economy of $100,000,000 or 

more; (2) estimates that the amendment 

will cause a substantial change in the 

cost or price of certain categories of 

goods or services; or (3) otherwise 

determines that the amendment will 

have a significant effect upon covered 

entities or upon consumers. The 

Commission has set forth in Section V 

below, in connection with its Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, and has discussed elsewhere in this 

Document: the need for and objectives 

of the Proposed Rule (V.B below); a 

description of reasonable alternatives 

that would accomplish the Rule’s stated 

objectives consistent with applicable 

law (V.F below); and a preliminary 

analysis of the benefits and adverse 

effects of those alternatives (id.). 

The Commission believes that the 

proposed amendments to the Used Car 

Rule will not have such an annual effect 

on the national economy, on the cost or 

prices of goods or services sold by used 

car dealers, or on covered businesses or 

consumers. The Commission has not 

otherwise determined that the proposed 

amendments will have a significant 

impact upon regulated persons. As 

noted in the PRA discussion below, the 

Commission staff estimates each 

business affected by the Rule will likely 

incur only minimal initial added 

compliance costs to disclose on the 

Buyers Guide that they have obtained a 

vehicle history report and to provide 

copies of such reports to consumers 

upon request. To ensure that the 

Commission has considered all relevant 

facts, however, it requests additional 

comment on these issues. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires a 

description and analysis of proposed 

and final rules that will have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The RFA 

requires an agency to provide an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) with the proposed Rule, and a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

81See 5 U.S.C. 603–604. 

82See 5 U.S.C. 605. 

83 16 CFR 455.1(d)(3). 

84U.S. Small Bus. Admin. Table of Small Bus. 

Size Standards Matched to North American Indus. 

Classification System [‘‘NAICS’’] Codes at 23 

(effective Jan. 22, 2014) (available at: http:// 

www.sba.gov/content/small-business-sizestandards) (last visited May 30, 2014). Used car 

dealers are classified as NAICS 441120 and 

franchised new car dealers as NAICS 441110. 

85NIADA Used Car Industry Report 2013, at 16. 

86 Id. at 20. Used vehicle sales accounted for 

38.29% ($1,618,954) of those sales. 

87NADA Data State of the Industry Report 2013 

at 5 (number of franchised dealers as of Jan. 1, 

2013). (available at: http://www.nada.org/ 

Publications/NADADATA/2013/). 

88 Id. at 14. 

89Table of Small Bus. Size Standards at 23. 

90Some states also have adopted the Rule as state 

law. In addition, the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. 

2302(b), requires that written warranties on 

consumer products be available before sale, as 

specified by 16 CFR part 702, but displaying 

warranty information is not required. 

(‘‘FRFA’’), if any, with the final Rule.81

The Commission is not required to make 

such analyses if a Rule would not have 

such an economic effect.82

As described below, the Commission 

anticipates that the proposed changes to 

the Rule addressed in this SNPRM will 

require some dealers to make additional 

disclosures on the Buyers Guide and to 

provide consumers with copies of 

vehicle history reports. Many of these 

dealers are small entities as defined by 

the RFA. The Commission anticipates 

that these proposed changes will not 

impose undue burdens on these small 

entities. Nevertheless, to obtain more 

information about the impact of this 

SNPRM on small entities, the 

Commission has decided to publish the 

following IRFA pursuant to the RFA and 

to request public comment on the 

impact on small businesses of this 

SNPRM. 

A. Description of the Reasons That 

Agency Action Is Being Considered 

As described in Part I above, in 

December 2012, the Commission issued 

an NPRM setting forth proposed 

changes to the Commission’s Used Car 

Rule. Among other things, the 

Commission proposed adding a 

statement to the Buyers Guide advising 

consumers about the availability of 

vehicle history reports and directing 

consumers to an FTC Web site for more 

information about those reports. The 

Commission also proposed changing the 

statement on the Buyers Guide that 

describes the meaning of ‘‘As Is’’ when 

used by a dealer to offer to sell a used 

vehicle without a warranty. Third, the 

Commission proposed adding boxes to 

the back of the Buyers Guide where 

dealers could indicate whether nondealer warranties applied to a vehicle. 

The Commission received nearly 150 

comments, including many concerning 

these three proposals. After reviewing 

the comments, the Commission now 

proposes amending the Rule by 

modifying the Buyers Guide to add a 

box where dealers will indicate if they 

have a vehicle history report and by 

requiring dealers who have the reports 

to make them available to consumers 

upon request. To provide consumers 

with a better description of their 

warranty rights in an ‘‘As Is’’ sale, the 

Commission proposes revising the 

existing Buyers Guide description of an 

‘‘As Is’’ sale. The Commission also 

proposes moving the third-party 

warranty boxes to the front of the 

Buyers Guide. 

B. Succinct Statement of the Objectives 

of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 

Amendments to the Rule 

The objectives of the proposed 

changes in the Rule are to promote the 

availability of vehicle history 

information to consumers and to inform 

consumers about their rights in ‘‘As Is’’ 

sales in which dealers disclaim 

warranties. The legal basis for the 

proposed amendments is Section 1029 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 

5519, and the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41–58. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rule’s Amendments Will Apply 

The Used Car Rule primarily applies 

to ‘‘dealers’’ defined as ‘‘any individual 

or business which sells or offers for sale 

a used vehicle after selling or offering 

for sale five (5) or more used vehicles in 

the previous twelve months.’’ 83 The 

Commission believes that many of these 

dealers are small businesses according 

to the applicable Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) size standards. 

Under those standards, the SBA would 

classify as small businesses 

independent used car dealers having 

annual receipts of less than $23 million 

and franchised new car dealers, which 

also typically sell used cars, having 

fewer than 200 employees each.84

Most independent used vehicle 

dealers would be classified as small 

businesses. In 2012, the United States’ 

37,892 independent used vehicle 

dealers 85 had average total sales of 

$4,228,137.86 These used vehicle 

dealers’ average annual revenue is well 

below the maximum $23 million in 

annual sales established by the SBA for 

classification as a small business. 

Therefore, these used vehicle dealers 

would be classified as small businesses. 

The SBA would also classify many 

franchised new car dealers as small 

businesses. In 2012, the nation’s 17,635 

franchised new car dealers 87 had an 

average of fifty-five employees,88 well 

below the 200-employee maximum 

established by the SBA for classification 

as a small business.89

D. Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements, Including an 

Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities 

That Will Be Subject to the 

Requirements and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

The Used Car Rule imposes disclosure 

obligations on used vehicle car dealers, 

as set forth in Part [VI] of the Notice, but 

does not impose any reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Specifically, dealers are required to 

complete and display a Buyers Guide on 

each used car offered for sale. Neither 

the existing Rule nor the proposed 

amendments to the Rule require dealers 

to retain more records than may be 

necessary to complete and display the 

Buyers Guides. The proposed 

amendments do not require dealers to 

obtain vehicle history reports although 

it requires dealers who have obtained 

such reports to retain vehicle history 

reports if they have obtained them and 

to provide copies of the reports to 

requesting consumers. Neither the 

existing Rule nor the proposed 

amendments requires dealers to disclose 

non-dealer warranties. For those dealers 

who have obtained vehicle history 

reports or choose to disclose non-dealer 

warranties, the proposed amendments 

change the disclosure obligations 

required by the Rule. The Commission 

invites comments on the proposed 

Rule’s compliance requirements and on 

the types of professional skills necessary 

to meet dealers’ compliance obligations. 

E. Identification of Other Duplicative, 

Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal 

Rules 

The Commission has not identified 

any other federal statutes, rules, or 

policies that would duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the proposed amended 

Rule. No other federal law or regulation 

requires that the Buyers Guide 

disclosures be made when a used 

vehicle is placed on the dealer’s lot or 

when it is offered for sale.90 Dealers in 

two states are exempt from the Rule. 

Maine and Wisconsin require dealers to 

disclose related but different 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70813 

91The Commission granted Maine and Wisconsin 

exemptions from the Rule pursuant to 16 CFR 

455.6. Although neither state requires that dealers 

disclose vehicle history reports to consumers, each 

state requires that dealers disclose vehicle 

information on that state’s Buyers Guide that the 

dealer knows about, such as prior use, title brands, 

mechanical defects, and substantial damage. See 

Wis. Admin. Code 139.04, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, 

1475. The Commission does not propose any 

change in the exemption status of these states in 

this SNPRM. 

92Although no other federal law creates a similar 

obligation, California requires used vehicle dealers 

to obtain NMVTIS reports, and, if those reports 

contain junk, salvage, or insurance information or 

show that the title carries a brand, to post a warning 

label and to provide a copy of the NMVTIS report 

upon request. Cal. Veh. Code 11713.26. In effect, 

the proposed amended Rule would require 

California dealers to disclose, for every used vehicle 

offered for sale, that a vehicle history report (i.e., 

a NMVTIS report) is available whereas the 

California statute requires only that dealers disclose 

that a NMVTIS report is available when the report 

contains certain information that triggers the 

required disclosure. 

93 77 FR at 74764–74765. 

94 37,892 independent dealers in 2012. NIADA 

Used Car Industry Report (2013), at 16. 17,540 

franchised new car dealers in 2012. NADA Data 

State-of-the Industry Report 2013, at 5. 

95Federal Trade Comm’n Agency Information 

Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Extension,78 FR 59032 (Sept. 

25, 2013), note 2, citing NIADA Used Car Industry 

Continued 

information regarding used car sales.91

The proposed amendments to the Rule 

would require dealers who have 

obtained vehicle history reports to 

disclose that fact on the Buyers Guide 

and to provide copies of the reports 

upon request. No other federal law or 

regulation creates a similar obligation.92

The Commission invites comment 

and information on this issue. 

F. Description of Any Significant 

Alternatives to the Proposed Amended 

Rule 

In proposing amendments to the Rule, 

the Commission is attempting to avoid 

unduly burdensome requirements for 

entities. The Commission believes that 

the proposed amendments will advance 

the goals of promoting consumer access 

to vehicle history information, 

consumer understanding of the meaning 

of ‘‘As Is’’ in used vehicle sales 

transactions in which a dealer disclaims 

warranties, and consumer awareness of 

warranties that may apply to a used 

vehicle. In proposing the amendments, 

the Commission has taken into account 

the concerns evidenced by the record to 

date. 

The Commission is considering, but, 

at this point, has decided not to propose 

adopting, several different approaches 

to vehicle history information discussed 

in the comments. In this SNPRM, the 

Commission proposes to require dealers 

who have vehicle history reports to 

disclose that fact on the Buyers Guide 

and to provide copies of the reports to 

requesting consumers. The Commission 

proposed in the NPRM placing a 

statement on the Buyers Guide that 

would advise consumers about the 

availability of vehicle history 

information and direct consumers to an 

FTC Web site for more information. The 

Commission also considered requiring 

dealers to obtain vehicle history reports, 

such as NMVTIS reports, and requiring 

dealers to make disclosures similar to 

those required by California’s AB 1215. 

Given the availability of various sources 

for and types of vehicle history reports, 

the Commission chose not to propose 

that dealers be required to obtain reports 

or to designate specific types of reports 

or specific vendors. In doing so, the 

Commission seeks to balance the burden 

placed on dealers with the goals of 

promoting consumer choice and access 

to vehicle history information. 

The Commission considered 

comments on the Buyers Guide ‘‘As Is’’ 

statement and the various formulations 

of the statement proposed by the 

comments. The Commission chose to 

propose the ‘‘As Is’’ statement in this 

SNPRM because the Commission 

believes that the proposed statement 

clearly and accurately describes the 

meaning of ‘‘As Is.’’ Nevertheless, the 

Commission invites further comment on 

how best to phrase the Buyers Guide 

‘‘As Is’’ statement to help consumer 

understanding of the term. 

The Commission considered 

comments on the non-dealer warranty 

boxes proposed in the December 2012 

NPRM. In response to those comments, 

the Commission has moved those boxes 

to the front of the Buyers Guide. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

ways in which to modify the Rule to 

reduce any costs to or burdens on small 

entities. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The existing Rule contains no 

recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements, but it does contain 

disclosure requirements that constitute 

‘‘information collection requirements’’ 

as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c) under the 

OMB regulations that implement the 

PRA. OMB has approved the Rule’s 

existing information collection 

requirements through Jan. 31, 2017 

(OMB Control No. 3084–0108). 

The proposed amendments would 

increase the burden on those dealers 

who have obtained vehicle history 

reports because the amendments would 

require those dealers to disclose on the 

Buyers Guide that they have the reports 

and to provide copies of them to 

consumers upon request. This 

requirement would place no additional 

burden on dealers who do not have 

vehicle history reports. The proposed 

change to the Buyers Guide’s 

description of ‘‘As Is’’ sales would not 

impose any additional burden on 

dealers other than the initial burden of 

purchasing replacement Buyers Guides. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the 

proposed amendments would increase 

the burden on those dealers who choose 

to disclose non-dealer warranties, but 

not on those dealers who do not make 

the optional disclosures.93 The 

proposed amendments would change 

the burden estimates because the 

burden imposed on some dealers will 

increase. Therefore, the Commission is 

providing PRA estimates for the 

proposed modification set forth below. 

The Commission invites comments 

on: (1) Whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(2) the accuracy of the FTC’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of 

collecting information. 

Estimated Additional Annual Hours 

Burden 

A. Number of Respondents 

The proposed amendments to the 

Rule would affect all 55,432 used 

vehicle dealers 94 in the United States. 

Dealers who have vehicle history 

reports would be required to check a 

box on the Buyers Guide and to provide 

copies of the reports to requesting 

consumers. Although the proposed 

amendments to the Rule would not 

require dealers who do not have vehicle 

history reports to make additional 

Buyers Guide disclosures, the proposed 

amendments would continue to require 

all dealers to obtain and to use 

replacement Buyers Guides. 

B. Recordkeeping Hours 

The proposed amendments to the 

Rule will not impose incremental 

recordkeeping requirements on dealers. 

C. Disclosure Hours 

Under the existing OMB clearance for 

the Rule, FTC staff estimated the total 

annual hours burden to be 2,296,227 

hours, based on the number of used car 

dealers (55,432), the number of used 

cars sold by dealers annually 

(28,958,000), and the time needed to 

fulfill the information collection tasks 

required by the Rule.95


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Report (2013), 16–17. The number of used cars sold 

by dealers in 2012 is calculated by multiplying the 

percentage of total used car sales conducted by 

dealers (71.5%) by the total number of used cars 

sold in 2012 (40.5 million). 96Staff notes that vendors of vehicle history 

reports advertise extensively in dealer trade 

publications. 97See http://hedgescompany.com/automotivemarket-research-statistics/auto-mailing-lists-andmarketing. 

98Staff projects that the incremental time to check 

the vehicle history box would be de minimis. 

99 77 FR at 74764–74765. 

100 Id. at 74765. 

101http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ocwage.nr0.htm. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Economic News Release, April 1, 2014, Table 1, 

‘‘National employment and wage data from the 

Occupational Employment Statistics survey by 

occupation, May 2013.’’ The hourly rate drawn 

from this source is for ‘‘[o]ffice clerks, general.’’ 

Industry sources, and anecdotal 

evidence,96 indicate that most dealers 

use vehicle history reports and that 

dealer use of vehicle history reports is 

becoming increasingly commonplace. 

Staff is unaware of any reliable data 

concerning how often dealers obtain 

vehicle history reports, but, for 

simplicity, projects that 50% or more of 

dealers, nationwide, obtain the reports. 

In turn, staff projects that the proposed 

Rule would require dealers to check an 

additional box on the Buyers Guide and 

to make the reports available in at least 

50% of used car sales nationwide. 

The proposed Rule, however, would 

affect California, the state with the 

largest number of used car sales in the 

United States, differently. California 

requires dealers to obtain NMVTIS 

reports and to make those reports 

available to consumers when the reports 

contain a branded title or junk, salvage, 

or insurance information. Therefore, the 

proposed amendments to the Rule 

effectively would require all California 

used vehicle dealers to check the 

additional Buyers Guide box and make 

a vehicle history report available even 

when a NMVTIS report would not 

trigger the disclosures required by 

California. Although staff is unaware of 

reliable data concerning California’s 

share of nationwide used car sales, 

California accounts for approximately 

11% of vehicle registrations in the 

United States.97 Using vehicle 

registrations as a proxy for sales, staff 

projects that California accounts for 

approximately 11% of nationwide used 

cars sales. Assuming that California 

used car dealers fully comply with their 

state law and the amendments proposed 

by the SNPRM, they will make the 

additional vehicle history disclosures in 

the projected 11% of nationwide sales, 

i.e., 3,185,380 (11% × 28,958,000) used 

car sales. 

Based on vehicle registrations as a 

proxy for used car sales, 89% of all used 

car sales occur outside of California, i.e., 

25,772,620 used car sales (89% of 

28,958,000 nationwide used car sales). 

Assuming that dealers obtain vehicle 

history reports and, in turn, make the 

requisite vehicle history disclosures 

under the proposed Rule (i.e., check the 

added box on the Buyers Guide, issue 

the vehicle history report to the 

consumer), dealers outside of California 

will make the required disclosures for 

12,886,310 used car sales (50% of 

25,772,620 used cars). 

Thus, staff estimates that dealers will 

make the required vehicle history 

disclosures for 16,071,690 used car 

sales. At an estimated thirty seconds to 

retrieve a report, this amounts to 

133,931 additional disclosure hours, 

cumulatively 98 (16,071,690 used cars × 

1/120 hour). 

Like the NPRM, the SNPRM provides 

for optional disclosures concerning nondealer warranties. In the NPRM, staff 

estimated that dealers would make these 

optional disclosures in 25% of used car 

sales.99 Staff also estimated that dealers 

would need no more than an additional 

thirty seconds to make these optional 

disclosures.100 Therefore, the additional 

aggregate burden on dealers who choose 

to make the optional non-dealer 

warranty disclosures is 60,329 hours 

(25% × 28,958,000 used car sales × 1/ 

120 hour). 

In sum, the proposed amendments in 

the SNPRM, including those retained 

from the NPRM, would increase the 

estimated annual burden by 194,260 

hours: [(100% of 3,185,380 California 

used car sales × 1/120 hour per vehicle 

to make vehicle history disclosures) + 

(50% of 25,772,620 remaining used car 

sales × 1/120 hour per vehicle to make 

vehicle history disclosures) + (25% × 

28,958,000 used car sales × 1/120 hour 

per vehicle to make optional non-dealer 

warranty disclosures)]. 

D. Reporting Hours 

The proposed amendments to the 

Rule will not impose incremental 

reporting requirements. 

E. Labor Costs 

(1) Recordkeeping 

None. 

(2) Disclosure 

The estimated annual incremental 

cost of the proposed amendments to the 

Rule is $2,801,229. That figure is the 

product of estimated burden hours 

(194,260) multiplied by an hourly labor 

rate of $14.42 101 for clerical or 

administrative staff. 

(3) Reporting 

None. 

F. Non-Labor/Capital Costs 

The FTC anticipates making amended 

Buyers Guides available on its Web site 

for downloading by dealers. The FTC 

expects that current suppliers of Buyers 

Guides, such as commercial vendors 

and dealer trade associations, will 

supply dealers with amended Buyers 

Guides. Accordingly, dealers’ cost to 

obtain amended Buyers Guides should 

increase only marginally, if at all. 

The proposed Rule would require 

dealers who already have vehicle 

history reports to make copies of those 

reports available to consumers upon 

request. The proposed Rule does not 

require dealers to obtain the reports. 

The only additional cost that dealers 

will incur because of the proposed Rule 

is the cost of making copies for 

consumers who request them. Vehicle 

history reports are typically no more 

than a few pages in length. Staff 

anticipates that dealers can make copies 

of the reports using ordinary office 

equipment that they already possess and 

that the incremental cost of additional 

paper, ink, etc., for copies will be 

minimal. In addition, this SNPRM asks 

for public comment on whether these 

costs, however minimal, could be 

reduced further by permitting dealers to 

provide consumers with electronic 

access to the reports. 

VII. Communications by Outside 

Parties to the Commissioners or Their 

Advisors 

Written communications and 

summaries or transcripts of oral 

communications respecting the merits 

of this proceeding, from any outside 

party to any Commissioner or 

Commissioner’s advisor, will be placed 

on the public record. See 16 CFR 

1.26(b)(5). 

VIII. Questions Concerning the 

Proposed Modifications of the Rule 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on various aspects of the proposed Rule 

and is particularly interested in 

receiving comment on the questions that 

follow. These questions are designed to 

assist the public and should not be 

construed as a limitation on the issues 

on which public comment may be 

submitted in response to this notice. 

Responses to these questions should cite 

the numbers and subsection of the 

questions being answered. For all 

comments submitted, please submit any 

relevant data, statistics, or any other 

evidence upon which those comments 

are based. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70815 

Vehicle History Report Disclosures 

1. The Commission proposes to 

amend the Rule by requiring dealers 

who have obtained a vehicle history 

report to check a box on a revised 

Buyers Guide indicating that they have 

a vehicle history report and will provide 

a copy of the report upon request. 

a. Should the Commission require 

dealers who have obtained a vehicle 

history report to check a box indicating 

that the dealer has a vehicle history 

report and will provide a copy upon 

request? Why or why not? 

b. Do used vehicle dealers typically 

obtain vehicle history reports for 

vehicles that they offer for sale? How 

prevalent is this practice? How 

prevalent is the practice among 

franchise dealers? How prevalent is the 

practice among independent dealers? 

Provide any studies, surveys, or other 

data that support your answers. 

c. Do used vehicle dealers who obtain 

vehicle history reports typically make 

information from the reports available to 

consumers? If so, how? Do dealers make 

the reports available online? How 

prevalent is the practice among 

franchised used vehicle dealers of 

making vehicle history report 

information available to consumers? 

How prevalent is the practice among 

independent dealers? Provide any 

studies, surveys, or other data that 

support your answers. 

d. Would a proposed Rule requiring 

dealers to provide consumers with a 

copy of a vehicle history report that a 

dealer has obtained on a vehicle be 

more or less likely to prompt dealers to 

obtain vehicle history reports? Would 

dealers who currently obtain vehicle 

history reports be more or less likely to 

obtain the reports if the Commission 

requires dealers to provide copies to 

consumers of any reports that the 

dealers obtain? Why or why not? 

e. How prevalent is the practice 

among used vehicle dealers of obtaining 

vehicle history reports and failing to 

disclose title brands or other significant 

problems documented in those reports? 

How prevalent is the practice among 

franchised dealers? How prevalent is the 

practice among independent dealers? 

Would the proposed Rule requiring 

dealers to provide a copy of vehicle 

history reports that they have obtained 

reduce the prevalence of dealer failures 

to disclose information contained in 

vehicle history reports? Provide any 

studies, surveys, or other data that 

support your answers. 

f. Does the Buyers Guide box and 

accompanying text concerning vehicle 

history reports in Figures 1 and 2 clearly 

indicate to consumers that the dealer 

has obtained a vehicle history report 

and will provide a copy upon request? 

If not, identify alternative means to 

make the disclosure. 

g. Would the lack of a mark in the box 

concerning vehicle history reports 

clearly convey that the dealer has not 

obtained a vehicle history report and 

therefore is not required to provide a 

copy? If not, provide alternative ways in 

which a dealer could signify on the 

Buyers Guide that the dealer has not 

obtained a vehicle history report that it 

can provide upon request. 

h. Would the following statement on 

the proposed Buyer Guides in Figures 1 

and 2 benefit consumers? 

Regardless of whether the box is checked, 

the FTC recommends that you obtain a 

Vehicle History Report. For information on 

how to obtain a vehicle history report, how 

to search for safety recalls, and other topics, 

visit the Federal Trade Commission at 

ftc.gov/used cars. You will need the vehicle 

identification number (VIN) shown above to 

make the best use of the resources on this 

site. 

i. Will the SNPRM proposal to require 

that dealers who have obtained vehicle 

history reports indicate that they have 

the reports, and will provide copies 

upon request, make dealers more or less 

likely to obtain vehicle history reports, 

or have no impact on whether dealers 

obtain vehicle history reports? 

j. Should the proposed Rule define 

the term ‘‘vehicle history report’’? If so, 

what should such a definition contain? 

k. Should the Commission require 

that dealers who have obtained multiple 

vehicle history reports provide copies of 

all the reports upon request? If not, why 

not? 

l. Should the Commission require that 

dealers who have obtained multiple 

reports provide only one report to 

consumers? If so, should dealers be 

required to provide consumers with the 

most recent report? If not, which report 

should dealers be required to provide? 

m. Should the Commission permit 

dealers to provide consumers with 

electronic access to vehicle history 

reports as an alternative to providing 

consumers with printed reports? What 

mechanisms should dealers be 

permitted to use? 

n. Should dealers be required to 

disclose the date(s) when they obtained 

vehicle history reports? 

o. Once a dealer views a vehicle 

history report, should the Commission 

require that that dealer make the report 

available to consumers for as long as the 

dealer possesses the vehicle to which it 

applies regardless whether the dealer 

discards the report before selling the 

vehicle? 

p. What barriers, if any, prevent 

effective enforcement of the proposed 

requirement that dealers indicate on the 

Buyers Guide whether they have 

obtained vehicle history reports? What 

measures could FTC staff take to detect 

violations of a requirement that dealers 

provide copies of vehicle history reports 

upon request? What records, if any, do 

suppliers of vehicle reports maintain 

that would demonstrate whether 

individual used vehicle dealers had 

previously viewed or obtained vehicle 

history reports on individual vehicles? 

q. Should the Commission require 

dealers to create and to maintain records 

when they obtain or view vehicle 

history reports? If so, what 

recordkeeping should the Commission 

require and for what length of time 

should dealers be required to maintain 

the records? 

r. What are the costs, potential 

liabilities, and/or benefits to dealers of 

requiring dealers to disclose that they 

have obtained vehicle history reports? 

Once disclosed, what are the costs, 

potential liabilities, and/or benefits to 

dealers of providing copies of the 

reports to consumers? 

s. What are the costs and/or benefits 

to consumers of requiring dealers to 

disclose that they have obtained vehicle 

history reports? Once disclosed, what 

are the costs and/or benefits to 

consumers of requiring dealers to 

provide copies of the reports to 

consumers? 

t. What are the costs, potential 

liabilities, and/or benefits to dealers of 

requiring dealers to disclose that they 

have obtained vehicle history reports, 

and affirmatively provide such reports 

to consumers, only when the reports 

include negative information (rather 

than provide any obtained report upon 

request as proposed in the SNPRM 

Vehicle History Approach)? How should 

the Rule define negative information? 

u. What are the costs, potential 

liabilities, and/or benefits to consumers 

of requiring dealers to disclose that they 

have obtained vehicle history reports, 

and affirmatively provide such reports 

to consumers, only when the reports 

include negative information? (rather 

than provide any obtained report upon 

request as proposed in the SNPRM 

Vehicle History Approach) How should 

the Rule define negative information? 

v. The Commission also invites 

comments on the alternative approaches 

discussed in Section II of this SNPRM. 

Which, if any, of the following 

alternatives provides the most benefits 

to consumers? to dealers? Which, if any, 

of the following alternatives is the most 

costly or burdensome for dealers? 

Provide any data, surveys, or evidence 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

that supports your comments regarding 

each of the alternative approaches: 

i. NPRM Vehicle History Approach 

ii. SNPRM Vehicle History Approach 

iii. AB 1215 Vehicle History Approach 

iv. IA AG Vehicle History Approach 

v. ADD Vehicle History Approach 

vi. NC AG Vehicle History Approach 

w. Provide any studies, surveys, or 

other data concerning the number or 

percentage of used vehicles sold or 

offered for sale with clean titles that 

should have title brands or other 

negative information shown in their 

vehicle history reports. 

‘‘As Is’’ Statement on Buyers Guide 

2. The Commission proposes 

changing the statement on the Buyers 

Guide that explains the meaning of an 

‘‘As Is’’ sale. The Commission proposes: 

THE DEALER WILL NOT PAY FOR ANY 

REPAIRS. The dealer does not accept 

responsibility to make or to pay for any 

repairs to this vehicle after you buy it 

regardless of any oral statements about the 

vehicle. But you may have other legal rights 

and remedies for dealer misconduct. 

(SNPRM ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

a. Does the SNPRM ‘‘As Is’’ Statement 

clearly and accurately describe the 

meaning of ‘‘As Is’’ in a used vehicle 

sale in which dealers disclaim implied 

warranties? If not, provide alternative 

means to convey that information to 

consumers. 

b. The Commission also invites 

comments on the following alternative 

descriptions of ‘‘As Is’’ proposed in the 

comments. Which, if any, of the 

following alternatives more clearly and 

accurately describes the meaning of ‘‘As 

Is’’ than the ‘‘As Is’’ statement proposed 

by the SNPRM? Provide any data, 

consumer surveys, or evidence that 

supports your comments: 

i. AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY. 

DEALER DENIES ANY RESPONSIBILITY 

FOR ANY REPAIRS AFTER SALE 

(CARS ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

ii. THE DEALER IS NOT PROVIDING A 

WARRANTY. The dealer does not agree to fix 

problems with the vehicle after you buy it. 

However, you may have legal rights if the 

dealer concealed problems with the vehicle 

or its history. 

(IA AG ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

iii. THE DEALER WON’T PAY FOR 

REPAIRS. The dealer does not agree to pay 

for the vehicle’s repairs. But you may have 

legal rights and remedies if the dealer 

misrepresents the vehicle’s condition or 

engages in other misconduct. 

(NC AG ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

iv. AS IS—NO WARRANTY. YOU WILL 

PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. Ask 

for all representations about the vehicle in 

writing. 

(East Bay ‘‘As Is’’ Statement) 

Non-Dealer Warranties 

3. The Commission proposes to 

amend the Rule by providing boxes on 

the front of the Buyers Guide to allow, 

but not require, dealers to indicate the 

applicability of non-dealer warranties 

including manufacturer and other thirdparty warranties. Does the proposed 

method of disclosure effectively convey 

to consumers that dealers may, but are 

not required, to disclose non-dealer 

warranties that are applicable to a 

vehicle? 

4. Does the lack of a checkmark in any 

of the manufacturer or third-party 

warranty boxes effectively communicate 

that the dealer is not providing any 

information about whether a 

manufacturer or other third-party 

warranty applies? 

5. Would check marks in multiple 

boxes effectively communicate that 

multiple third-party warranties apply? 

6. Does the Buyers Guide statement 

that ‘‘[t]he manufacturer’s original 

warranty has not expired on the 

vehicle’’ effectively explain to 

consumers that an unexpired 

manufacturer’s warranty applies? 

Would the statement prompt consumers 

to seek additional information about the 

scope of coverage of the unexpired 

warranty? 

IX. Proposed Amendments to the Rule 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 455 

Motor Vehicles, Trade Practices. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Trade 

Commission proposes to amend 16 CFR 

part 455 as follows: 

PART 455—USED MOTOR VEHICLE 

TRADE REGULATION RULE 

■ 1. Revise the authority citation for part 

455 to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2309; 15 U.S.C. 41– 

58. 

■ 2. Amend § 455.1 by revising 

paragraph (d)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 455.1 General duties of a used vehicle 

dealer; definitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(7) Service contract means a contract 

in writing for any period of time or any 

specific mileage to refund, repair, 

replace, or maintain a used vehicle and 

provided at an extra charge beyond the 

price of the used vehicle, unless offering 

such contract is ‘‘the business of 

insurance’’ and such business is 

regulated by State law. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 455.2 by revising 

paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), 

and (b) and adding paragraph (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 455.2 Consumer sales—window form. 

(a) General duty. Before you offer a 

used vehicle for sale to a consumer, you 

must prepare, fill in as applicable and 

display on that vehicle the applicable 

‘‘Buyers Guide’’ illustrated by Figures 

1–2 at the end of this part. 

* * * * * 

(2) The capitalization, punctuation 

and wording of all items, headings, and 

text on the form must be exactly as 

required by this Rule. The entire form 

must be printed in 100% black ink on 

a white stock no smaller than 11 inches 

high by 71⁄4 inches wide in the type 

styles, sizes and format indicated. When 

filling out the form, follow the 

directions in paragraphs (b) through (e) 

and (g) of this section and § 455.4 of this 

part. 

(b) Warranties—(1) No Implied 

Warranty—‘‘As Is’’/No Dealer Warranty. 

(i) If you offer the vehicle without any 

implied warranty, i.e., ‘‘as is,’’ mark the 

box appearing in Figure 1. If you offer 

the vehicle with implied warranties 

only, substitute the IMPLIED 

WARRANTIES ONLY disclosure 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this 

section, and mark the IMPLIED 

WARRANTIES ONLY box illustrated by 

Figure 2. If you first offer the vehicle ‘‘as 

is’’ or with implied warranties only but 

then sell it with a warranty, cross out 

the ‘‘As Is—No Dealer Warranty’’ or 

‘‘Implied Warranties Only’’ disclosure, 

and fill in the warranty terms in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section. 

(ii) If your State law limits or 

prohibits ‘‘as is’’ sales of vehicles, that 

State law overrides this part and this 

rule does not give you the right to sell 

‘‘as is.’’ In such States, the heading ‘‘As 

Is—No Dealer Warranty’’ and the 

paragraph immediately accompanying 

that phrase must be deleted from the 

form, and the following heading and 

paragraph must be substituted as 

illustrated in the Buyers Guide in Figure 

2. If you sell vehicles in States that 

permit ‘‘as is’’ sales, but you choose to 

offer implied warranties only, you must 

also use the following disclosure instead 

of ‘‘As Is—No Dealer Warranty’’ as 

illustrated by the Buyers Guide in 

Figure 2. See § 455.5 for the Spanish 

version of this disclosure. 

IMPLIED WARRANTIES ONLY 

The dealer doesn’t make any promises to fix 

things that need repair when you buy the 

vehicle or afterward. But implied warranties 

under your state’s laws may give you some 

rights to have the dealer take care of serious 

problems that were not apparent when you 

bought the vehicle. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70817 

1A ‘‘Full’’ warranty is defined by the Federal 

Minimum Standards for Warranty set forth in 104 

of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. 2304 (1975). 

The Magnuson-Moss Act does not apply to vehicles 

manufactured before July 4, 1975. Therefore, if you 

choose not to designate ‘‘Full’’ or ‘‘Limited’’ for 

such cars, cross out both designations, leaving only 

‘‘Warranty.’’ 

(2) Full/Limited Warranty. If you offer 

the vehicle with a warranty, briefly 

describe the warranty terms in the space 

provided. This description must include 

the following warranty information: 

(i) Whether the warranty offered is 

‘‘Full’’ or ‘‘Limited.’’ n2 Mark the box 

next to the appropriate designation.1

(ii) Which of the specific systems are 

covered (for example, ‘‘engine, 

transmission, differential’’). You cannot 

use shorthand, such as ‘‘drive train’’ or 

‘‘power train’’ for covered systems. 

(iii) The duration (for example, ‘‘30 

days or 1,000 miles, whichever occurs 

first’’). 

(iv) The percentage of the repair cost 

paid by you (for example, ‘‘The dealer 

will pay 100% of the labor and 100% 

of the parts.’’) 

(v) You may, but are not required to, 

disclose that a warranty from a source 

other than the dealer applies to the 

vehicle. If you choose to disclose the 

applicability of a non-dealer warranty, 

mark the applicable box or boxes 

beneath ‘‘NON–DEALER WARRANTIES 

FOR THIS VEHICLE’’ to indicate: 

‘‘MANUFACTURER’S WARRANTY 

STILL APPLIES. The manufacturer’s 

original warranty has not expired on the 

vehicle,’’ ‘‘MANUFACTURER’S USED 

VEHICLE WARRANTY APPLIES,’’ and/ 

or ‘‘OTHER USED VEHICLE 

WARRANTY APPLIES.’’ If, following 

negotiations, you and the buyer agree to 

changes in the warranty coverage, mark 

the changes on the form, as appropriate. 

If you first offer the vehicle with a 

warranty, but then sell it without one, 

cross out the offered warranty and mark 

either the ‘‘As Is—No Dealer Warranty’’ 

box or the ‘‘Implied Warranties Only’’ 

box, as appropriate. 

(3) Service contracts. If you make a 

service contract available on the vehicle, 

you must add the following heading and 

paragraph below the Non-Dealer 

Warranties Section and mark the box 

labeled ‘‘Service Contract,’’ unless 

offering such service contract is ‘‘the 

business of insurance’’ and such 

business is regulated by State law. See 

§ 455.5 for the Spanish version of this 

disclosure. 

b SERVICE CONTRACT. A service contract 

on this vehicle is available for an extra 

charge. Ask for details about coverage, 

deductible, price, and exclusions. If you buy 

a service contract within 90 days of your 

purchase of this vehicle, implied warranties 

under your state’s laws may give you 

additional rights. 

* * * * * 

(g) Vehicle History Reports. If you 

have obtained a vehicle history report 

regarding a used vehicle, mark the 

applicable box on the Buyers Guide 

adjacent to the statement, IF THE 

DEALER CHECKED THIS BOX, THE 

DEALER HAS A VEHICLE HISTORY 

REPORT AND WILL PROVIDE A COPY 

TO YOU UPON REQUEST. If you have 

obtained a vehicle history report, you 

must provide a copy of the report upon 

request to persons who request a copy. 

If you have not obtained a vehicle 

history report, leave the box blank. 

■ 3. Revise § 455.5 to read as follows: 

§ 455.5 Spanish language sales. 

(a) If you conduct a sale in Spanish, 

the window form required by § 455.2 

and the contract disclosures required by 

§ 455.3 must be in that language. You 

may display on a vehicle both an 

English language window form and a 

Spanish language translation of that 

form. Use the translation and layout for 

Spanish language sales in Figures 4, 5, 

and 6. 

(b) Use the following language for the 

‘‘Implied Warranties Only’’ disclosure 

when required by § 455.2(b)(1) as 

illustrated by Figure 5: 

SOLO GARANTI ́AS IMPLI ́CITAS 

El concesionario no hace ninguna promesa 

de reparar lo que sea necesario cuando 

compre el vehı ́culo o posteriormente. Sin 

embargo, las garantı ́as implı ́citas segu ́n las 

leyes estatales podrı ́an darle algunos 

derechos para hacer que el concesionario se 

encargue de ciertos problemas que no fueran 

evidentes cuando compro ́ el vehı ́culo. 

(c) Use the following language for the 

‘‘Service Contract’’ disclosure required 

by § 455.2(b)(3) as illustrated by Figures 

4 and 5: 

CONTRATO DE MANTENIMIENTO. Con 

un cargo adicional, puede obtener un 

contrato de mantenimiento para este 

vehı ́culo. Pregunte acerca de los detalles de 

la cobertura, los deducibles, el precio y las 

exclusiones. Si compra un contrato de 

mantenimiento dentro de los 90 dı ́as desde 

el momento en que compro ́ el vehı ́culo, las 

garantı ́as implı ́citas segu ́n las leyes de su 

estado podrı ́an darle derechos adicionales. 

■ 4. Add an appendix to part 455 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix to Part 455—Illustrations 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
70818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70819 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.009</GPH>
70820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70821 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.011</GPH>

GARANTiAS QIJE NO PERTENECEN AL CONCESIONARIO: 
70822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.012</GPH>

GARANTiAS PARA EElTE VEHICUI.O: 

GAAANTlAS QUE 1110 PERTENECEN AI. CONCESIONARIO: 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 2014 / Proposed Rules 70823 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28000 Filed 11–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2007–0490; FRL–9919–77] 

RIN 2070–AJ96 

Certain Nonylphenols and 

Nonylphenol Ethoxylates; Significant 

New Use Rule; Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of October 1, 2014, 

concerning 15 related chemical 

substances commonly known as 

nonylphenols (NP) and nonylphenol 

ethoxylates (NPE). For 13 NPs and 

NPEs, EPA proposed to designate any 

use as a ‘‘significant new use,’’ and for 

2 additional NPs, EPA proposed that 

any use other than use as an 

intermediate or use as an epoxy cure 

catalyst would constitute a ‘‘significant 

new use.’’ This document extends the 

comment period for 45 days, from 

December 1, 2014, to January 15, 2015. 

The comment period is being extended 

because EPA received comments 

contending that the proposed NP/NPE 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) 

contains many chemicals that need to be 

analyzed, there are many documents in 

the docket that need to be reviewed, the 

rule involves some companies 

correcting how they identify chemicals, 

and companies need more time to 

determine whether they use the 

chemicals for purposes other than what 

EPA has identified. Extending the 

comment period will allow companies 

to more accurately assess and 

communicate to EPA how the chemicals 

are being used. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published October 1, 

2014 (79 FR 59186), is extended. 

Comments, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2007–0490, must be received on 

or before January 15, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed 

instructions provided under ADDRESSES

in the Federal Register document of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP28NO14.013</GPH>