43682 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable checks, tests, and verifications 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 

months until the terminating action specified 

in paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Operators 

are not required to get replacement batteries 

from Ameri-King Corporation. 

(h) Additional Corrective Actions 

(1) If, during any action required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails the 

functional test specified in step 6., the 

verification specified in step 7., or the 

activation check specified in step 8., of 

section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance,’’ of 

Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–450, 

‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October 18, 

1995, do the actions specified in paragraph 

(h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD. 

(i) Replace the affected Model AK–450–( ) 

ELT with a serviceable FAA-approved ELT as 

specified in paragraph (i) of this AD 

(‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAA-approved 

ELT’’), following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 

91.207(f), and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, 

and other applicable operating rules. 

(ii) Repair the ELT using approved 

maintenance practices and following 14 CFR 

91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 CFR 

135.168, as applicable, and other applicable 

operating rules. 

(2) If, during any action required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any ELT fails any 

of the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) 

through (h)(2)(v) of this AD: Replace the 

affected Model AK–451–( ) ELT with a 

serviceable FAA-approved ELT as specified 

in paragraph (i) of this AD (‘‘Definition of 

Serviceable FAA-approved ELT’’), following 

14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), and 14 

CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other 

applicable operating rules; or repair the ELT 

using approved maintenance practices and 

following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), 

and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other 

applicable operating rules. 

(i) The operational test specified in step 

3.4.6 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance 

(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’ 

of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM– 

451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5, 

2014. 

(ii) Any check specified in step 3.4.7 of 

section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance 

(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’ 

of Ameri-King Corporation Document IM– 

451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5, 

2014. 

(iii) The digital message verification 

specified in step 3.4.8 of section 3.4, 

‘‘Periodic Maintenance (Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King 

Corporation Document IM–451, 

‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5, 

2014. 

(iv) The registration verification specified 

in step 3.4.9 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic 

Maintenance (Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King Corporation 

Document IM–451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND 

OPERATION MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, 

dated July 5, 2014. 

(v) The verification of the ELT and global 

positioning system (GPS) interface specified 

in step 3.4.10 of section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic 

Maintenance (Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness),’’ of Ameri-King Corporation 

Document IM–451, ‘‘INSTALLATION AND 

OPERATION MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, 

dated July 5, 2014. 

(3) If, during any action required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any of the 

discrepancies specified in paragraphs 

(h)(3)(i) through (h)(3)(vi) of this AD are 

found, repair all discrepancies using 

approved maintenance practices and 

following 14 CFR 91.207(a), 14 CFR 91.207(f), 

and 14 CFR 135.168, as applicable, and other 

applicable operating rules. 

(i) Any unsecured fastener or mechanical 

assembly. 

(ii) Any cuts or abrasions on the coaxial 

cable outer jacket. 

(iii) Any corrosion on the ‘‘BNC’’ 

connectors and mating plug on the antenna 

and the ELT main unit. 

(iv) Any wear or abrasion on the modular 

cable outer jacket. 

(v) Any corrosion on the jack and plug of 

the modular connecting cable. 

(vi) Any corrosion on the battery 

compartment. 

(i) Definition of Serviceable FAA-Approved 

ELT 

For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable 

FAA-approved ELT is any FAA-approved 

ELT other than a Model AK–450–( ) and AK– 

451–( ) series ELT produced by Ameri-King 

Corporation. 

(j) Optional Terminating Action 

Doing the applicable action specified in 

paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD terminates 

the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) 

of this AD. 

(1) For aircraft required by operating 

regulations to be equipped with an ELT: 

Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAAapproved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’). 

(2) For aircraft not required by operating 

regulations to be equipped with an ELT: 

Replace the ELT with a serviceable FAAapproved ELT as specified in paragraph (i) of 

this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’). The ELT may be removed 

as an alternative to the ELT replacement; if 

an ELT is re-installed, it must be a 

serviceable ELT as specified in paragraph (i) 

of this AD (‘‘Definition of Serviceable FAAapproved ELT’’). 

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, 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 (l) of this AD. 

(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. 

(l) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace Engineer, 

Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130L, 

FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; phone: 562–627– 

5372; fax: 562–627–5210; email: 

gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov. 

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance,’’ 

Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–450, 

‘‘INSTALLATION & OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision A, dated October 18, 

1995. 

(ii) Section 3.4, ‘‘Periodic Maintenance 

(Instructions for Continued Airworthiness),’’ 

Ameri-King Corporation Document IM–451, 

‘‘INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

MANUAL,’’ Revision NC–4.1h, dated July 5, 

2014. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Gilbert Ceballos, Aerospace 

Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, 

ANM–130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount 

Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712–4137; 

phone: 562–627–5372; fax: 562–627–5210; 

email: gilbert.ceballos@faa.gov. 

(4) You may view this 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. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19, 

2017. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16048 Filed 9–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 259 

Guide Concerning Fuel Economy 

Advertising for New Automobiles 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; adoption of revised 

guides. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43683 

1The Guide does not have the force and effect of 

law and is not independently enforceable. However, 

failure to comply with industry guides may be an 

unfair or deceptive practice. The Commission can 

take action if a business engages in unfair or 

deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the 

FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)). 

2Additional information about the study, 

including the questionnaire and results, is available 

on the FTC Web site. See https://www.ftc.gov/ 

policy/public-comments/initiative-663. 

3The comments can be found at https://

www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-663. 

They include: Consumer Federation of America 

(CFA) and the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) (jointly) 

(referred herein as ‘‘CFA’’) (#13); National 

Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) (#11); 

Association of Global Automakers (Global 

Automakers) #9; Auto Alliance (Alliance) (#10); 

Growth Energy (#8); Isenberg (#6), and Hilandera 

(#7). 

4One commenter (Isenberg) noted that EPA and 

FTC should improve fuel economy testing. 

However, as explained above, testing accuracy falls 

outside of the Guide’s scope. 

5See Q5c. The response results for other choices, 

with no control, were: city rating (5.8%), combined 

rating (10.7%), unsure (5.5%), and none of the 

above (3.5%). 

6The results for Q5d were, not accounting for a 

control: combined (76.6%), highway (10%), city 

(4.2%), not sure (6.2%), and none of the above 

(2.5%). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

issues final amendments to the Guide 

Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising 

for New Automobiles (‘‘Fuel Economy 

Guide’’ or ‘‘Guide’’) to address 

advertising claims prevalent in the 

market and harmonize with current 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (‘‘NHTSA’’) fuel 

economy labeling rules. 

DATES: Effective October 19, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, (202) 326–2889, 

Attorney, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, Room C–9528, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In 1975, the Commission issued the 

Fuel Economy Guide (16 CFR part 259) 

(40 FR 42003 (Sep. 10, 1975)) to prevent 

deceptive fuel economy advertising for 

new automobiles and facilitate the use 

of fuel efficiency information in 

advertising. To accomplish these goals, 

the Guide advises advertisers to disclose 

established EPA fuel economy estimates 

(e.g., miles per gallon or ‘‘MPG’’) 

whenever they make any fuel economy 

claim based on those estimates. In 

addition, if advertisers make claims 

based on non-EPA tests, the Guide 

advises them to disclose EPA-derived 

information and provide details about 

the non-EPA tests, such as the test’s 

source, driving conditions, and vehicle 

configurations. 

The Guide helps advertisers avoid 

deceptive or unfair fuel economy 

claims.1 It does not address the 

adequacy of EPA fuel economy test 

procedures or the accuracy of EPA label 

content. Such issues fall within the 

EPA’s purview and are generally outside 

the Guide’s scope. 

II. Guide Amendments 

On June 6, 2016, the Commission 

sought comment on proposed 

amendments to the Guide (81 FR 36216) 

(‘‘2016 Notice’’). Consistent with the 

Commission’s other guides, these 

proposed changes updated the Guide’s 

format with a list of general principles 

to help advertisers avoid deceptive 

practices and detailed examples to 

illustrate those principles. Additionally, 

the proposed amendments provided 

guidance on claims involving EPAbased MPG ratings, non-EPA tests, 

vehicle configuration, fuel economy 

range, and alternative fueled vehicles. 

The Commission conducted Internetbased research exploring consumer 

perceptions of certain fuel economy 

marketing claims.2 The Commission 

based the proposed amendments on this 

research, as well as the EPA and 

NHTSA regulations, which have been 

amended since the last Guide review. 

The Commission received seven 

comments in response.3 Having 

reviewed these comments, the 

Commission now publishes its final 

amendments to the Guide. 

III. Issues Discussed in the Comments 

As discussed below, the comments 

addressed several issues, including the 

Guide’s overall benefits, single mileage 

claims, alternative fueled vehicle 

claims, non-EPA estimates in 

advertising, and the Guide’s format and 

wording. 

A. Guide Benefits 

The commenters generally supported 

the proposed Guide revisions. For 

example, the Alliance noted that the 

amendments ‘‘represent a constructive 

revision.’’ Commenter Hilandera added 

that the changes ‘‘add transparency to 

advertising by local dealers and national 

media’’ and help consumers ‘‘evaluate 

whether or not to purchase a particular 

car model.’’ Commenters also 

commended the FTC consumer 

research. The Global Automakers stated 

that the study results ‘‘allow for better, 

data-based evaluation of advertising 

statements, rather than speculating on 

how consumers might interpret those 

statements.’’ 4 NADA noted the research 

lends ‘‘support to several of the 

proposed changes to the Guide.’’ 

B. Single Mileage Claims 

Background: The previous Guide 

stated that, if an MPG claim involves 

only city or only highway fuel economy, 

the advertisement need only disclose 

the corresponding EPA city or highway 

estimate (16 CFR 259.2(a)(1)(ii)). In the 

2016 Notice, the Commission did not 

propose changing this approach. The 

Commission explained that single 

mileage (i.e., single driving mode) 

claims are not likely to deceive 

consumers as long as the advertisement 

clearly identifies the type of estimate 

(e.g., city, highway, or combined), and 

the estimate matches the content of the 

advertised claims. Moreover, consumers 

have seen such estimates in advertising 

and on EPA labels for decades. In light 

of this consumer experience, the 

Commission stated that it seems 

unlikely that a single, clearly-identified 

mileage estimate would lead to 

deception. 

The 2016 Notice further explained 

that the FTC consumer study supports 

the conclusion that consumers would 

not be deceived. For example, when 

shown a single highway mileage claim 

(e.g., ‘‘This car is rated at 25 miles per 

gallon on the highway according to the 

EPA estimate’’), the vast majority of 

study respondents (74.6%) correctly 

answered that the car would likely 

achieve that MPG in highway driving, 

and the responses for alternative 

interpretations were low.5 The results 

were similar when respondents were 

asked about a claim for a combination 

of city and highway driving.6

As the Commission explained, this 

research suggests that single mileage 

claims do not deceive consumers as 

long as the claim specifies the mode of 

driving involved (e.g., highway, 

combined, etc.). Given the absence of 

evidence demonstrating that such 

claims are deceptive, the Commission 

did not propose changes. Thus, 

consistent with the previous Guide, the 

Commission proposed a provision 

(§ 259.4(c)) that continued to advise 

marketers that EPA fuel economy 

estimates should match the type of 

driving claims (e.g., city, highway, 

general, etc.) appearing in the 

advertisements. For instance, if the 

advertiser makes a city fuel economy 

claim, it should disclose the city rating. 

Likewise, where an advertiser makes a 

general fuel economy claim, it should 

disclose both the highway and city 

rating (or combined) to prevent 

deception. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
43684 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

7These prior questions included Q3b, Q3c–e, and 

Q5a. 

8Likewise, CFA asserted that the appearance of 

the city rating only in an advertisement is equally 

misleading. However, CFA stated that ‘‘[i]f the FTC 

were to allow only one number, which we don’t 

recommend, in order to avoid deception, they 

should only allow just the city as that is the 

condition under which most people drive, 

according to the EPA.’’ 

9The final Guide continues to advise against 

unqualified mileage claims that fail to specify 

driving mode (e.g., 46 MPG) (§ 259.4(c)). 

Comments: The comments differed 

about the proposed guidance for single 

mileage claims. Some supported the 

Commission’s proposal. For instance, 

Global Automakers argued that the 

consumer research supports the 

Commission’s conclusion and that, after 

40 years of federally-mandated fuel 

economy information, ‘‘consumers are 

very aware of the significance of city vs. 

highway fuel economy estimates.’’ 

However, CFA strongly disagreed, 

arguing that a single city or highway 

MPG number is deceptive. 

According to CFA, advertisers’ failure 

to disclose city or combined ratings 

along with the highway rating 

constitutes a material omission likely to 

mislead consumers. In CFA’s view, 

because no consistent relationship 

exists between city and highway 

estimates, consumers cannot infer one 

of the ratings based solely on the other 

or predict their own experience based 

on a single rating. Accordingly, CFA 

argued that automobile advertisers 

should present both the highway and 

city numbers, the combined, or all three 

in their fuel economy advertising. As 

detailed below, in support of this 

position, CFA discussed the FTC’s 

research, submitted its own research, 

and highlighted additional arguments 

supporting its contention that highwayonly MPG claims are misleading. 

First, CFA addressed and critiqued 

the FTC research and associated 

analysis, claiming that the Commission 

failed to highlight a key result and that 

the study’s question ordering led to 

biased responses. Specifically, CFA 

argued the results of Question 6c reveal 

that a single mileage claim is likely to 

deceive a significant minority of 

consumers. The question presented 

respondents with a claim stating that 

‘‘This car is rated at 25 miles per gallon 

on the highway according to the EPA 

estimate’’ (Q6c) and then asked them 

whether they would expect to achieve 

that rating if they used the advertised 

vehicle for all their driving. According 

to the results, 20.7% of the respondents 

said they would probably get 25 MPG 

overall for all their driving. CFA 

contended this result demonstrates that, 

even if accompanied by a clear and 

prominent disclaimer that applies only 

to highway driving, a single mileage 

number misleads a significant minority 

of consumers into overestimating the 

MPG they will achieve. 

Additionally, CFA claimed the 

questions most relevant to the single 

mileage claim appeared after 

‘‘respondents had already experienced a 

number of questions emphasizing the 

distinction between highway and city 

driving and estimates.’’ 7 CFA 

contended the appearance of the city 

and highway mileage claims earlier in 

the questionnaire biased responses to 

subsequent questions. 

CFA also highlighted its own 

research. Its national telephone survey 

presented three questions. First, it 

showed respondents an advertisement 

stating ‘‘31 miles per gallon EPA 

highway estimate’’ and then asked 

whether they would be more or less 

likely to consider buying the vehicle if 

that advertisement also stated ‘‘19 miles 

per gallon EPA city estimate.’’ Overall, 

43% of respondents said the city 

number would affect their behavior 

(26% said it would make them less 

likely to buy the car, while 17% said it 

would make them more likely). CFA 

asserted that, because over two-fifths of 

the respondents said the city rating 

disclosure would change their behavior, 

advertising should present both 

numbers. 

Second, the CFA survey asked 

respondents whether ‘‘it is misleading 

to allow advertisers to present only a 

vehicle’s miles per gallon estimate for 

highway driving.’’ Before presenting 

this question, the survey informed 

participants that ‘‘[v]ehicles nearly 

always get more miles per gallon, or 

higher mileage per gallon, on highway 

driving than on city driving.’’ Sixty four 

percent of respondents indicated that 

presenting only the highway number in 

advertising is misleading. Third, the 

CFA survey asked respondents which 

type of claim (i.e., highway and city 

MPG, combined MPG, city MPG only, or 

highway MPG only) automobile 

advertisers should be required to make 

in ‘‘a fuel economy claim.’’ In response, 

65% identified both highway and city, 

23% pointed to a combined estimate, 

6% to the city rating, and only 3% to 

the highway number. 

Finally, CFA made several additional 

points. First, it explained that 

consumers are less likely to drive on the 

highway than in the city. It noted that, 

in approximating typical consumer 

driving patterns, the EPA combined 

number assumes 45% highway driving 

and 55% city driving. Second, it 

presented data demonstrating that little 

correlation exists for the majority of 

vehicles between a vehicle’s highway 

MPG and its corresponding city or 

combined MPG. Given this variability, 

CFA concluded that consumers cannot 

accurately infer a model’s city or 

combined MPG from a single highway 

rating, and those who attempt to make 

such an inference would be misled by 

a single mileage number.8 CFA further 

argued that, despite this variability, FTC 

has concluded consumers have a 

particular understanding of the 

relationship between city and highway 

ratings that leads them to ‘‘impute their 

own expected mileage, or compare 

mileages, based on just the highway 

number.’’ CFA concluded that the city 

and highway MPG figures together 

allow consumers better to assess, based 

on their own personal experience, MPG 

differences among vehicles. 

Discussion: Consistent with the 

Commission’s previous guidance, the 

final Guide does not advise against 

advertisers making single mileage 

claims.9 Neither the FTC study nor the 

comments provide clear evidence that 

such claims are deceptive. As detailed 

in the 2016 Notice, the FTC research 

suggests single mileage claims do not 

lead consumers to believe they will 

achieve that rating in other modes of 

driving. In addition, as discussed below, 

such claims do not appear to constitute 

a deceptive omission. While including 

MPG ratings for multiple modes of 

driving in advertising (e.g., disclosure of 

both city and highway MPG, or 

combined MPG) provides consumers 

with more information about vehicle 

fuel economy, the FTC Act requires 

advertisers to disclose only information 

that is necessary to prevent consumers 

from being misled—not all information 

that consumers may deem useful. As 

discussed below, the Commission 

disagrees with CFA’s interpretation of 

the FTC study results. In addition, 

CFA’s own research does not provide 

convincing evidence of deception. 

First, the Commission disagrees with 

CFA’s assertion that the question Q6 

responses demonstrate a single mileage 

claim deceives a significant minority of 

consumers. Question Q6c specifically 

asked respondents to read the statement 

‘‘This car is rated at 25 miles per gallon 

on the highway according to the EPA 

estimate,’’ and to choose a closed-ended 

answer that ‘‘best describes what you 

would expect to get if you used this car 

for all your driving.’’ Respondents chose 

from several close-ended answers 

indicating whether their results, based 

on their own driving, would be higher 

than, lower than, or similar to the 

advertised rating. As CFA noted, 20.7% 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43685 

10See, e.g., Diamond, Shari S. ‘‘Reference Guide 

on Survey Research.’’ Reference Manual on 

Scientific Evidence, Third Edition, Federal Judicial 

Center, 359–424, https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/ 

files/2015/SciMan3D01.pdf. 

11Terms listed in the questionnaire codebook 

(e.g., ‘‘highway’’ in Question 18) may have 

suggested that these questions presented 

respondents with specific answer choices (i.e., were 

close-ended). In fact, the terms listed in the 

codebook are the code categories used to sort 

respondents’ individual answers to these openended questions. 

12Although consumers may have their own 

preconceived notions about the significance of 

different fuel economy ratings, the question itself 

did not provide such information. 

13CFA asserted that the FTC has concluded 

consumers have a particular understanding of the 

relationship between city and highway ratings that 

leads them to ‘‘impute their own expected mileage, 

or compare mileages, based on just the highway 

number.’’ Although the Commission observed that 

many respondents expect the combined MPG to be 

lower than highway (81 FR at 36220, n. 31), the 

Commission did not intend to imply that 

consumers can impute the combined or city MPG 

based on the highway number. 

14See FTC Policy Statement on Deception, 

appended to Cliffdale Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. 

110, 174 (1984) (https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception) 

(‘‘Deception Policy Statement’’). ‘‘In determining 

whether an omission is deceptive, the Commission 

will examine the overall impression created by a 

practice, claim, or representation. For example, the 

practice of offering a product for sale creates an 

implied representation that it is fit for the purposes 

for which it is sold. Failure to disclose that the 

product is not fit constitutes a deceptive 

omission. . . . Omissions may also be deceptive 

where the representations made are not literally 

misleading, if those representations create a 

reasonable expectation or belief among consumers 

which is misleading, absent the omitted 

disclosure.’’ Id. at n. 4. 

of participants responded, ‘‘I would 

probably get 25 miles per gallon.’’ In 

CFA’s view, this figure demonstrates 

that the claim deceived a significant 

minority because these participants 

believed the highway rating would be 

achieved in all of their driving. 

However, the responses to Q6 do not 

provide a reliable measure of whether a 

highway-driving claim leads 

respondents to take away a false or 

misleading claim about ratings for other 

driving modes. First, because the survey 

asked respondents to consider their own 

driving habits, some portion of this 20% 

may be consumers who drive a lot on 

the highway. Those consumers’ answers 

do not demonstrate that the disclosure 

was deceptive. Second, because there is 

no control for these particular results, 

some portion of the answers likely 

represents random guessing, confusion 

about the question, or other factors 

absent in a real-world advertising 

context.10 Thus, although comparing 

responses across questions Q6a–c helps 

to gauge how respondents’ expectations 

for their own mileage may generally 

differ depending on the claim, the 

responses to these individual questions, 

considered in isolation, do not provide 

meaningful, specific measures of 

whether any of these claims are false or 

misleading. 

Second, contrary to the commenters’ 

suggestions, the question sequence in 

the FTC study is unlikely to have 

significantly impacted the research 

results. According to CFA, questions 

involving different driving modes 

appeared early in the survey. In its 

view, these questions ‘‘sensitized’’ (or 

‘‘educated’’) participants and caused 

them to answer later questions about 

driving modes differently than they 

would have if they had not been 

exposed to these prior questions. CFA 

pointed to three examples of questions 

appearing early in the study (Q3b, Q3c– 

e, and Q5a) that, in its view, tainted 

later results. However, the questions 

themselves did not mention different 

driving modes. Additionally, two of 

these three examples (Q3b and Q5a) 

were open-ended questions, where 

participants typed their answers into a 

blank text box.11 Though some 

respondents mentioned highway and 

city driving in their typed responses, no 

respondent could see any answer other 

than their own. Therefore, the questions 

could not have sensitized study 

participants. 

Additionally, the other example 

offered by the commenters, Q3c–3e 

(each respondent answered only one of 

these), is unlikely to have biased 

respondents. These questions displayed 

several closed-ended answers, one of 

which read, ‘‘This model gets up to 30 

miles per gallon depending on whether 

it’s highway or city driving.’’ The 

questions did not specify whether one 

mode of driving yields different mileage 

than the other.12 Despite the mention of 

highway and city driving, it is unlikely 

the mention of these modes of driving 

biased respondents in answering 

subsequent questions. For decades, 

miles per gallon ratings for highway and 

city driving have been familiar concepts 

in advertising. These ratings routinely 

appear in television advertising, on Web 

sites, and on vehicle labels in 

showrooms. Thus, the reference to 

modes of driving is not likely to be 

novel to typical consumers, particularly 

the recent or prospective car purchasers 

who participated in the study. 

Accordingly, the limited mention of 

driving modes in this prior question is 

unlikely to have affected significantly 

respondents’ subsequent answers. 

Third, several aspects of the CFA 

study reduce its utility in addressing the 

question at hand. For instance, CFA’s 

first study question, QE1, asked whether 

adding a city rating to a highway rating 

claim would change the likelihood 

participants would purchase a 

particular car. As constructed, the 

question merely provides evidence that 

the city mileage rating may be useful to 

the consumer’s decision. It does not 

demonstrate that the highway rating, 

standing alone, is deceptive. In 

addition, the two other principal 

questions in the study (questions QE2 

and QE3) sought the respondents’ 

personal opinions about whether certain 

claims would be misleading or 

desirable. Such opinion questions do 

not furnish reliable evidence about 

deception because they rely on 

respondents’ opinions about the claim’s 

effects, as well as their own 

understanding of what deception 

means. QE3 is additionally problematic 

because it asks respondents only to 

identify disclosures that ‘‘auto 

advertisers should be required to 

include if making a fuel economy 

claim,’’ even though consumers could 

have various reasons other than the 

prevention of deception for wanting 

advertisers to disclose this information. 

Finally, the study’s lack of control 

questions reduces its usefulness, 

particularly given that CFA’s questions 

seek respondents’ personal opinions, as 

discussed above. 

Fourth, CFA argued that a highway 

mileage-only claim constitutes a 

misleading omission because consumers 

are not aware that city ratings can be 

substantially lower than highway 

numbers and, instead, believe a city 

rating can be derived from the vehicle’s 

highway number. As CFA explained, no 

consistent relationship exists between 

city and highway ratings among models 

on the market.13 Compared to the 

highway ratings, city ratings can be 

much lower, slightly lower, and even 

greater in some cases. These facts do not 

demonstrate that single mileage claims 

are deceptive. In its Policy Statement on 

Deception, the Commission explained 

that a ‘‘misleading omission occurs 

when qualifying information necessary 

to prevent a practice, claim, 

representation, or reasonable 

expectation or belief from being 

misleading is not disclosed.’’ 14 In this 

case, the FTC research suggests that 

consumers are not misled by standalone highway mode claims. As 

discussed above, the CFA research does 

not clearly indicate otherwise. 

Additionally, there is no clear 

indication consumers misperceive the 

relationship between city and highway 

ratings in a particular way that renders 

otherwise truthful highway mileage 

claims misleading. In fact, given the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
43686 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

15 Growth Energy also asked for clarification that 

the proposed Guide amendments do not create any 

changes to the EPA-required labels. They do not. In 

addition, Growth Energy asked whether the Guide 

‘‘in any way limit truthful and substantiated 

statements an advertiser may make regarding the 

benefits of FFVs,’’ such as environmental benefits. 

The Guide does not specifically address claims 

outside of the fuel economy context. However, 

marketers may wish to consult additional 

Commission guidance, such as the Guides for the 

Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green 

Guides) (16 CFR part 260). 

16See § 259.4(j). 

17 40 FR 42003 (Sept. 10, 1975). 

18The guidance assumes that the advertised nonEPA estimates are not identical to the EPA 

estimates. 

19See Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Marketing Claims (Green Guides) (16 CFR part 260). 

wide, longstanding availability of 

highway and city mileage ratings in the 

market, such misperception seems 

unlikely. 

C. Alternative Fuels 

Background: The proposed Guide 

amendments advise marketers that, if a 

flexible fueled vehicle (FFV) 

advertisement mentions the vehicle’s 

flexible fuel capability and makes a fuel 

economy claim, it should include the 

EPA fuel economy estimates for both 

gasoline and alternative fuel operation. 

The proposed Guide further explains 

that, without such disclosures, 

consumers may assume the advertised 

MPG rating applies both to gasoline and 

alternative fuel operation. 

Comments: The comments raised two 

concerns about this guidance. First, the 

Alliance asked the Commission to 

clarify that advertisers may provide only 

one fuel economy rating for FFVs if the 

advertisement clearly states the rating 

applies to gasoline operation. In the 

Alliance’s view, the manufacturer 

should be able to highlight the vehicle’s 

rating under a single fuel without 

adding unnecessary wording to disclose 

both fuel ratings. According to the 

Alliance, such claims are not deceptive 

as long as ‘‘the advertised rating cannot 

reasonably be understood by the 

consumer to apply to both fuels.’’ 

Second, the Global Automakers and 

the Alliance asked for clarification that 

the proposed flex-fuel guidance does 

not apply to plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), 

which are rated for both chargedepleting (expressed in MPGe) and 

charge-sustaining operation. These 

commenters noted that the Commission 

did not propose advising advertisers to 

disclose MPGe in advertising for electric 

vehicles because it is unclear whether 

such disclosures are essential to 

preventing deception and whether 

consumers understand and use such 

disclosures.15

Discussion: The Commission has 

modified the FFV guidance to address 

the Alliance’s suggestion regarding 

qualifications for FFV gasoline mileage 

claims. We agree that a clear and 

prominent disclosure limited to gasoline 

operation may obviate the need to 

disclose the vehicle’s alternative fuel 

mileage. The final amendments contain 

language acknowledging this 

possibility.16 In addition, in response to 

comments about PHEVs, the 

Commission has modified the final 

Guide to clarify the example does not 

apply to such vehicles. 

D. Non-EPA Estimates 

Background: Since its initial 

publication, the Guide has addressed 

fuel economy claims based on non-EPA 

tests. In issuing the Guide in 1975, the 

Commission explained that ‘‘the use in 

advertising of fuel economy results 

obtained from disparate test procedures 

may unfairly and deceptively deny to 

consumers information which will 

enable them to compare advertised 

automobiles on the basis of fuel 

economy.’’ 17 The current Guide advises 

advertisers to provide several 

disclosures whenever they make a fuel 

economy claim based on non-EPA 

information. Specifically, § 259.2(c) 

states that fuel economy claims based 

on such information should: (1) Disclose 

the corresponding EPA estimates with 

more prominence than other estimates; 

(2) identify the source of the non-EPA 

information; and (3) disclose how the 

non-EPA test differs from the EPA test 

in terms of driving conditions and other 

relevant variables. 

In its 2016 Notice, the Commission 

did not propose changing this approach. 

The Commission identified no evidence 

that fuel economy claims are deceptive 

if accompanied by the clear and 

prominent disclosures described above. 

Therefore, consistent with the previous 

Guide, the proposed Guide 

recommended specific disclosures 

related to non-EPA claims to reduce the 

possibility of deception.18 Finally, the 

previous Guide addressed the relative 

size and prominence of fuel economy 

claims based on non-EPA and EPA 

estimates in television, radio, and print 

advertisements. The Commission 

proposed retaining this guidance but 

also clarifying that it applies to any 

advertising medium (not solely 

television, radio, and print). 

Comments: Though the comments 

generally supported the guidance on 

non-EPA estimates, they raised two 

issues. First, the Alliance explained 

that, although such claims are not 

common, advertisers believe actual 

driving results achieved under 

controlled conditions other than the 

EPA testing methodology may be 

valuable to consumers in some 

circumstances. Both the Alliance and 

the Global Automakers noted that, 

under limited conditions, manufacturers 

may want to use non-EPA claims prior 

to a new vehicle launch when the 

formal EPA estimates are not yet 

available. In this case, a manufacturer 

may give its projection of the 

anticipated EPA estimates based on its 

testing using the EPA methodology. If 

such estimates are clearly identified as 

projections, the commenters asserted 

they are not deceptive. 

Second, Global Automakers noted 

that, in some cases, a manufacturer may 

wish to include actual on-road test 

results from reputable organizations to 

provide additional information 

regarding the vehicle’s fuel economy. In 

explaining the road test procedures and 

conditions, according to Global 

Automakers, it should be sufficient to 

simply state that the data is generated 

through on-road tests and specify the 

organization that conducted the tests, 

without providing extensive details 

regarding the test procedures and 

conditions. 

Discussion: In the final Guide, the 

Commission has not changed the nonEPA claims section. Specifically, the 

final Guide does not address the use of 

‘‘preliminary’’ test results in advertising. 

It is not clear how consumers interpret 

such claims. In addition, the 

Commission disagrees with Global 

Automakers regarding disclosures for 

advertisements containing ‘‘on-road’’ 

test results. Without the full set of 

disclosures recommended by the Guide, 

it is not clear whether consumers will 

understand that such ‘‘road test’’ results 

are inconsistent with the EPA-approved 

ratings. Given this uncertainty as to 

what consumers would take away from 

preliminary test results in advertising, 

the Commission has decided not to alter 

the non-EPA claims section. 

E. Guide Format and Language 

Background: The Commission 

proposed improving the Guide’s format 

by making it consistent with recently 

amended FTC guides, such as the 

Guides for the Use of Environmental 

Marketing Claims.19 Under this 

approach, the Guide includes a list of 

general principles to help advertisers 

avoid deceptive practices with detailed 

examples to illustrate those principles. 

Comments: The commenters generally 

agreed with, or did not comment on, the 

revised format. CFA, however, raised 

concerns about the language used to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43687 

20The Alliance agreed with the Commission’s 

decision not to provide specific guidance related to 

fuel economy claims in limited-format advertising. 

Interested parties may contact the FTC to discuss 

specific limited-format situations as they arise. 

Further developments in this area may suggest the 

need for the development of additional guidelines 

in the future. 

21CFA also recommended that the Commission 

replace the phrase ‘‘estimated MPG’’ with ‘‘fuel 

economy claim’’ in proposed § 259.3. The 

Commission has made this change to clarify the 

guidance’s breadth. In addition, CFA recommended 

the section clarify that if a MPG number appears in 

an advertisement, the qualifying information 

recommended by the Guides (e.g., EPA estimate) 

should be clearly, conspicuously, and prominently 

displayed adjacent to the MPG number. The final 

Guide does not include such a change because the 

guidance already states such disclosures should 

appear in ‘‘close proximity’’ to the claim. 

22 In determining whether an advertisement, 

including its format, misleads consumers, the 

Commission considers the overall ‘‘net impression’’ 

it conveys. See Deception Policy Statement, 103 

F.T.C. at 175. 

identify deceptive claims in the 

proposed Guide examples.20 It noted 

that, the conclusions in several 

examples state that the claim in 

question is ‘‘likely’’ to be deceptive. 

CFA noted this approach conflicts with 

the Green Guides, which generally 

states the example claims ‘‘are’’ 

deceptive. In the commenters’ view, the 

weaker language in the reformatted 

Guide serves neither businesses, which 

seek clear, firm guidance, nor 

consumers who may fall victim to 

unscrupulous businesses that make 

claims inconsistent with the Guides and 

then point to the Guides’ vagueness as 

a defense. CFA further stated that the 

lack of clarity hampers the enforcement 

efforts of state and local consumer 

protection agencies and private 

attorneys.21

Discussion: The Commission agrees 

that the guidance should be consistent 

with similar documents such as the 

Green Guides (16 CFR part 260) and 

Endorsement Guides (16 CFR part 255). 

Because these guides reflect the 

Commission’s understanding of how 

consumers are likely to interpret the 

applicable claims, it is reasonable to 

follow a consistent format for the 

examples in each. The guides set forth 

general principles, together with 

instructive examples, designed to help 

marketers avoid deceptive claims. 

However, as noted in the guides 

themselves, determinations regarding 

particular claims will depend on the 

specific advertisement at issue.22

Nevertheless, to ensure consistency 

with other guidance and avoid 

confusion, the Commission has 

modified the examples in the final 

Guide consistent with the commenters’ 

suggestion. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 259 

Advertising, Fuel economy, Trade 

practices. 

Final Amendments 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Commission revises 16 

CFR part 259 to read as follows: 

PART 259—GUIDE CONCERNING 

FUEL ECONOMY ADVERTISING FOR 

NEW AUTOMOBILES 

Sec. 

259.1 Purpose. 

259.2 Definitions. 

259.3 Qualifications and disclosures. 

259.4 Advertising guidance. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58. 

§ 259.1 Purpose. 

The Guide in this part contains 

administrative interpretations of laws 

enforced by the Federal Trade 

Commission. Specifically, the Guide 

addresses the application of Section 5 of 

the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the use of 

fuel economy information in advertising 

for new automobiles. This guidance 

provides the basis for voluntary 

compliance with the law by advertisers 

and endorsers. Practices inconsistent 

with this Guide may result in corrective 

action by the Commission under Section 

5 if, after investigation, the Commission 

has reason to believe that the practices 

fall within the scope of conduct 

declared unlawful by the statute. The 

Guide sets forth the general principles 

that the Commission will use in such an 

investigation together with examples 

illustrating the application of those 

principles. The Guide does not purport 

to cover every possible use of fuel 

economy in advertising. Whether a 

particular advertisement is deceptive 

will depend on the specific 

advertisement at issue. 

§ 259.2 Definitions. 

For the purposes of this part, the 

following definitions shall apply: 

Alternative fueled vehicle. Any 

vehicle that qualifies as a covered 

vehicle under part 309 of this chapter. 

Automobile. Any new passenger 

automobile, medium duty passenger 

vehicle, or light truck for which a fuel 

economy label is required under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 

U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) or rules 

promulgated thereunder, the equitable 

or legal title to which has never been 

transferred by a manufacturer, 

distributor, or dealer to an ultimate 

purchaser or lessee. For the purposes of 

this part, the terms ‘‘vehicle’’ and ‘‘car’’ 

have the same meaning as 

‘‘automobile.’’ 

Dealer. Any person located in the 

United States or any territory thereof 

engaged in the sale or distribution of 

new automobiles to the ultimate 

purchaser. 

EPA. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

EPA city fuel economy estimate. The 

city fuel economy determined in 

accordance with the city test procedure 

as defined and determined pursuant to 

40 CFR part 600, subpart D. 

EPA combined fuel economy estimate. 

The fuel economy value determined for 

a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically 

averaging the city and highway fuel 

economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 

respectively, determined pursuant to 40 

CFR part 600, subpart D. 

EPA driving range estimate. An 

estimate of the number of miles a 

vehicle will travel between refueling as 

defined and determined pursuant to 40 

CFR part 600, subpart D. 

EPA fuel economy estimate. The 

average number of miles traveled by an 

automobile per volume of fuel 

consumed (i.e., Miles-Per-Gallon 

(‘‘MPG’’) rating) as calculated under 40 

CFR part 600, subpart D. 

EPA highway fuel economy estimate. 

The highway fuel economy determined 

in accordance with the highway test 

procedure as defined and determined 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, subpart D. 

Flexible fueled vehicle. Any motor 

vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) 

engineered and designed to be operated 

on any mixture of two or more different 

fuels. 

Fuel. (1) Gasoline and diesel fuel for 

gasoline- or diesel-powered 

automobiles; 

(2) Electricity for electrically-powered 

automobiles; 

(3) Alcohol for alcohol-powered 

automobiles; 

(4) Natural gas for natural gaspowered automobiles; or 

(5) Any other fuel type used in a 

vehicle for which EPA requires a fuel 

economy label under 40 CFR part 600, 

subpart D. 

Manufacturer. Any person engaged in 

the manufacturing or assembling of new 

automobiles, including any person 

importing new automobiles for resale 

and any person who acts for, and is 

under the control, of such manufacturer, 

assembler, or importer in connection 

with the distribution of new 

automobiles. 

Model type. A unique combination of 

car line, basic engine, and transmission 

class as defined by 40 CFR part 600, 

subpart D. 

Ultimate purchaser or lessee. The first 

person, other than a dealer purchasing 

in his or her capacity as a dealer, who 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
43688 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

in good faith purchases a new 

automobile for purposes other than 

resale or leases such vehicle for his or 

her personal use. 

Vehicle configuration. The unique 

combination of automobile features, as 

defined in 40 CFR part 600. 

§ 259.3 Qualifications and disclosures. 

To prevent deceptive claims, 

qualifications and disclosures should be 

clear, prominent, and understandable. 

To make disclosures clear and 

prominent, marketers should use plain 

language and sufficiently large type for 

a person to see and understand them, 

should place disclosures in close 

proximity to the qualified claim, and 

should avoid making inconsistent 

statements or using distracting elements 

that could undercut or contradict the 

disclosure. The disclosures should also 

appear in the same format as the claim. 

For example, for television 

advertisements, if the fuel economy 

claim appears in the video, the 

disclosure recommended by this Guide 

should appear in the visual format; if 

the fuel economy claim is audio, the 

disclosure should be in audio. 

§ 259.4 Advertising guidance. 

(a) Misrepresentations. It is deceptive 

to misrepresent, directly or by 

implication, the fuel economy or driving 

range of an automobile. 

(b) General fuel economy claims. 

General unqualified fuel economy 

claims, which do not reference a 

specific fuel economy estimate, likely 

convey a wide range of meanings about 

a vehicle’s fuel economy relative to 

other vehicles. Such claims, which 

inherently involve comparisons to other 

vehicles, can mislead consumers about 

the vehicle class included in the 

comparison, as well as the extent to 

which the advertised vehicle’s fuel 

economy differs from other models. 

Because it is highly unlikely that 

advertisers can substantiate all 

reasonable interpretations of these 

claims, advertisers making general fuel 

economy claims should disclose the 

advertised vehicle’s EPA fuel economy 

estimate in the form of the EPA MPG 

rating. 

Example 1: A new car advertisement states: 

‘‘This vehicle gets great mileage.’’ The claim 

is likely to convey a variety of meanings, 

including that the vehicle has a better MPG 

rating than all or almost all other cars on the 

market. However, the advertised vehicle’s 

EPA fuel economy estimates are only slightly 

better than the average vehicle on the market. 

Because the advertiser cannot substantiate 

that the vehicle’s rating is better than all or 

almost all other cars on the market, the 

advertisement is deceptive. In addition, the 

advertiser may not be able to substantiate 

other reasonable interpretations of the claim. 

To avoid deception, the advertisement 

should disclose the vehicle’s EPA fuel 

economy estimate (e.g., ‘‘EPA-estimated 27 

combined MPG’’). 

Example 2: An advertisement states: ‘‘This 

car gets great gas mileage compared to other 

compact cars.’’ The claim is likely to convey 

a variety of meanings, including that the 

vehicle gets better gas mileage than all or 

almost all other compact cars. However, the 

vehicle’s EPA fuel economy estimates are 

only slightly better than average compared to 

other models in its class. Because the 

advertiser cannot substantiate that the 

vehicle’s rating is better than all or almost all 

other compact cars, the advertisement is 

deceptive. In addition, the advertiser may not 

be able to substantiate other reasonable 

interpretations of the claim. To address this 

problem, the advertisement should disclose 

the vehicle’s EPA fuel economy estimate. 

(c) Matching the EPA estimate to the 

claim. EPA fuel economy estimates 

should match the mode of driving claim 

appearing in the advertisement. If they 

do not, consumers are likely to associate 

the stated fuel economy estimate with a 

different type of driving. Specifically, if 

an advertiser makes a city or a highway 

fuel economy claim, it should disclose 

the corresponding EPA-estimated city or 

highway fuel economy estimate. If the 

advertiser makes both a city and a 

highway fuel economy claim, it should 

disclose both the EPA estimated city 

and highway fuel economy rating. If the 

advertiser makes a general fuel economy 

claim without specifically referencing 

city or highway driving, it should 

disclose the EPA combined fuel 

economy estimate, or, alternatively, 

both the EPA city and highway fuel 

economy estimates. 

Example 1: An automobile advertisement 

states that model ‘‘XYZ gets great gas mileage 

in town.’’ However, the advertisement does 

not disclose the EPA city fuel economy 

estimate. Instead, it only discloses the EPA 

highway fuel economy estimate, which is 

higher than the model’s city estimate. This 

claim likely conveys to a significant 

proportion of reasonable consumers that the 

highway estimate disclosed in the 

advertisement applies to city driving. Thus, 

the advertisement is deceptive to consumers. 

To remedy this problem, the advertisement 

should disclose the EPA city fuel economy 

estimate (e.g., ‘‘32 MPG in the city according 

to the EPA estimate’’). 

Example 2: A new car advertisement states 

that model ‘‘XZA gives you great gas 

mileage’’ but only provides the EPA highway 

fuel economy estimate. Given the likely 

inconsistency between the general fuel 

economy claim, which does not reference a 

specific type of driving, and the disclosed 

EPA highway estimate, the advertisement is 

deceptive to consumers. To address this 

problem, the advertisement should disclose 

the EPA combined estimate (e.g., ‘‘37 MPG 

for combined driving according to the EPA 

estimate’’), or both the EPA city and highway 

fuel economy estimates. 

Example 3: An advertisement states: 

‘‘according to EPA estimates, new cars in this 

class are rated at between 20 and 32 MPG, 

while the EPA estimate for this car is an 

impressive 35 MPG highway.’’ The 

advertisement is likely to imply that the 20 

to 32 MPG range and 35 MPG estimate are 

comparable. In fact, the ‘‘20 and 32 MPG’’ 

range reflects EPA city estimates. Therefore, 

the advertisement is deceptive. To address 

this problem, the advertisement should only 

provide an apples-to-apples comparison— 

either using the highway range for the class 

or using the city estimate for the advertised 

vehicle. 

(d) Identifying fuel economy and 

driving range ratings as estimates. 

Advertisers citing EPA fuel economy or 

driving range figures should disclose 

that these numbers are estimates. 

Without such disclosures, consumers 

may incorrectly assume that they will 

achieve the mileage or range stated in 

the advertisement. In fact, their actual 

mileage or range will likely vary for 

many reasons, including driving 

conditions, driving habits, and vehicle 

maintenance. To address potential 

deception, advertisers may state that the 

values are ‘‘EPA estimate(s),’’ or use 

equivalent language that informs 

consumers that they will not necessarily 

achieve the stated MPG rating or driving 

range. 

Example 1: An automobile manufacture’s 

Web site states, without qualification, ‘‘This 

car gets 40 MPG on the highway.’’ The claim 

likely conveys to a significant proportion of 

reasonable consumers that they will achieve 

40 MPG driving this vehicle on the highway. 

The advertiser based its claim on an EPA 

highway estimate. However, EPA provides 

that estimate primarily for comparison 

purposes—it does not necessarily reflect real 

world driving results. Therefore, the claim is 

deceptive. In addition, the use of the term 

‘‘gets,’’ without qualification, may lead some 

consumers to believe not only that they can, 

but will consistently, achieve the stated 

mileage. To address these problems, the 

advertisement should clarify that the MPG 

value is an estimate by stating ‘‘EPA 

estimate’’ or equivalent language. 

(e) Disclosing EPA test as source of 

fuel economy and driving range 

estimates. Advertisers citing any EPA 

fuel economy or driving range figures 

should identify EPA as the source of the 

test so consumers understand that the 

estimate is comparable to EPA estimates 

for competing models. Doing so 

prevents deception by ensuring that 

consumers do not associate the claimed 

ratings with a test other than the EPArequired procedures. Advertisers may 

avoid deception by stating that the 

values are ‘‘EPA estimate(s),’’ or 

equivalent language that identifies the 

EPA test as the source. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 43689 

Example 1: A radio commercial for the 

‘‘XTQ’’ car states that the vehicle ‘‘is rated at 

an estimated 28 MPG in the city’’ but does 

not disclose that an EPA test is the source of 

this MPG estimate. This advertisement may 

convey that the source of this test is an entity 

other than EPA. To avoid deception, the 

advertisement should state that the MPG 

figures are EPA estimates. 

(f) Specifying driving modes for fuel 

economy estimates. If an advertiser cites 

an EPA fuel economy estimate, it should 

identify the particular type of driving 

associated with the estimate (i.e., 

estimated city, highway, or combined 

MPG). Advertisements failing to do so 

can deceive consumers who incorrectly 

assume the disclosure applies to a 

specific type of driving, such as 

combined or highway, which may not 

be the driving type the advertiser 

intended. Thus, such consumers may 

believe the model’s fuel economy rating 

is higher than it actually is. 

Example 1: A television commercial for the 

car model ‘‘ZTA’’ informs consumers that the 

ZTA is rated at ‘‘25 miles per gallon 

according to the EPA estimate’’ but does not 

disclose whether this number is a highway, 

city, or combined estimate. The 

advertisement likely conveys to a significant 

proportion of reasonable consumers that the 

25 MPG figure reflects normal driving (i.e., a 

combination of city and highway driving), 

not the highway rating as intended by the 

advertiser. In fact, the 25 MPG rating is the 

vehicle’s EPA highway estimate. Therefore, 

the advertisement is deceptive. 

(g) Within vehicle class comparisons. 

If an advertisement contains an express 

comparative fuel economy claim where 

the relevant comparison is to any group 

or class, other than all available 

automobiles, the advertisement should 

identify the group or class of vehicles 

used in the comparison. Without such 

qualifying information, many 

consumers are likely to assume that the 

advertisement compares the vehicle to 

all new automobiles. 

Example 1: An advertisement claims that 

sports car X ‘‘outpaces other cars’ gas 

mileage.’’ The claim likely conveys a variety 

of meanings to a significant proportion of 

reasonable consumers, including that this 

vehicle has a higher MPG rating than all or 

almost all other vehicles on the market. 

Although the vehicle’s MPG rating compares 

favorably to other sports cars, its fuel 

economy is only better than roughly half of 

all new automobiles on the market. 

Therefore, the claim is deceptive. 

(h) Comparing different model types. 

Fuel economy estimates are assigned to 

specific model types under 40 CFR part 

600, subpart D (i.e., unique 

combinations of car line, basic engine, 

and transmission class). Therefore, 

advertisers citing MPG ratings for 

certain models should ensure that the 

rating applies to the model type 

depicted in the advertisement. It is 

deceptive to state or imply that a rated 

fuel economy figure applies to a vehicle 

featured in an advertisement if the 

estimate does not apply to vehicles of 

that model type. 

Example 1: A manufacturer’s 

advertisement states that model ‘‘PDQ’’ gets 

‘‘great gas mileage’’ but depicts the MPG 

numbers for a similar model type known as 

the ‘‘Econo-PDQ.’’ The advertisement is 

likely to convey that the claimed MPG rating 

applies to all types of the PDQ model. 

However, the ‘‘Econo-PDQ’’ has a better fuel 

economy rating than other types of the 

‘‘PDQ’’ model. Therefore, the advertisement 

is deceptive. 

(i) ‘‘Up to’’ claims. Advertisers should 

avoid using the term ‘‘up to’’ without 

adequate explanatory language if they 

intend to communicate that certain 

versions of a model (i.e., model types) 

are rated at a stated fuel economy 

estimate. A significant proportion of 

reasonable consumers are likely to 

interpret such claims to mean that the 

stated MPG can be achieved if the 

vehicle is driven under certain 

conditions. Therefore, to address the 

risk of deception, advertisers should 

qualify the claim by clearly and 

prominently disclosing the stated MPG 

applies to a particular vehicle model 

type. 

Example 1: An advertisement states, 

without further explanation, that a vehicle 

model VXR will achieve ‘‘up to 40 MPG on 

the highway.’’ The advertisement is based on 

a particularly efficient type of this model, 

with specific options, with an EPA highway 

estimate of 40 MPG. However, other types of 

model VXR have lower EPA MPG estimates. 

A significant proportion of reasonable 

consumers likely interpret the ‘‘up to’’ claim 

as applying to all VXR model types. 

Therefore, the advertisement is deceptive. To 

address this problem, the advertisement 

should clearly and prominently disclose that 

the 40 MPG rating does not apply to all 

model types of the VXR or use language other 

than ‘‘up to’’ that better conveys the claim. 

(j) Claims for flexible-fueled vehicles. 

Advertisements for flexible-fueled 

vehicles should not mislead consumers 

about the vehicle’s fuel economy when 

operated with alternative fuel. If an 

advertisement for a flexible-fueled 

vehicle (other than a plug-in hybrid 

electric vehicle) mentions the vehicle’s 

flexible-fuel capability and makes a fuel 

economy claim, it should clearly and 

prominently qualify the claim to 

identify the type of fuel used. Without 

such qualification, consumers are likely 

to take away that the stated fuel 

economy estimate applies to both 

gasoline and alternative fuel operation. 

Example 1: An automobile advertisement 

states: ‘‘This flex-fuel powerhouse has a 30 

MPG highway rating according to the EPA 

estimate.’’ The advertisement likely implies 

that the 30 MPG rating applies to both 

gasoline and alternative fuel operation. In 

fact, the ethanol EPA estimate for this vehicle 

is 25 MPG. Therefore, the advertisement is 

deceptive. To address this problem, the 

advertisement could clearly and prominently 

qualify the claim or disclose the MPG ratings 

for both gasoline and alternative fuel 

operation. 

(k) General driving range claims. 

General unqualified driving range 

claims, which do not reference a 

specific driving range estimate, are 

difficult for consumers to interpret and 

likely convey a wide range of meanings 

about a vehicle’s range relative to other 

vehicles. Such claims, which inherently 

involve comparisons to other vehicles, 

can mislead consumers about the 

vehicle class included in the 

comparison as well as the extent to 

which the advertised vehicle’s driving 

range differs from other models. 

Consumers may take away a range of 

reasonable interpretations from these 

claims. To avoid possible deception, 

advertisers making general driving range 

claims should disclose the advertised 

vehicle’s EPA driving range estimate. 

Example 1: An advertisement for an 

electric vehicle states: ‘‘This car has a great 

driving range.’’ This claim likely conveys a 

variety of meanings, including that the 

vehicle has a better driving range than all or 

almost all other electric vehicles. However, 

the EPA driving range estimate for this 

vehicle is only slightly better than roughly 

half of all other electric vehicles on the 

market. Because the advertiser cannot 

substantiate that the vehicle’s driving range 

is better than all or almost all other electric 

vehicles, the advertisement is deceptive. In 

addition, the advertiser may not be able to 

substantiate other reasonable interpretations 

of the claim. To address this problem, the 

advertisement should disclose the vehicle’s 

EPA driving range estimate (e.g., ‘‘EPAestimated range of 70 miles per charge’’). 

(l) Use of non-EPA estimates—(1) 

Disclosure content. Given consumers’ 

exposure to EPA estimated fuel 

economy values over the last several 

decades, fuel economy and driving 

range estimates derived from non-EPA 

tests can lead to deception if consumers 

understand such estimates to be fuel 

economy ratings derived from EPArequired tests. Accordingly, advertisers 

should avoid such claims and disclose 

the EPA fuel economy or driving range 

estimates. However, if an advertisement 

includes a claim about a vehicle’s fuel 

economy or driving range based on a 

non-EPA estimate, advertisers should 

disclose the EPA estimate and disclose 

with substantially more prominence 

than the non-EPA estimate: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES
43690 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 19, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(2)(C) (Wool Products 

Labeling Act of 1939) (‘‘Wool Act’’); 15 U.S.C. 

69b(2)(E) (Fur Products Labeling Act) (‘‘Fur Act’’); 

15 U.S.C. 70b(b)(3) (Textile Fiber Products 

Identification Act) (‘‘Textile Act’’); 16 CFR part 300 

(Wool Rules); 16 CFR part 301 (Fur Rules); 16 CFR 

part 303 (Textile Rules). The FTC’s public Web site 

offers a detailed description of products that are 

subject to, or exempt from, these labeling 

requirements. See Federal Trade Commission, 

Threading Your Way Through the Labeling 

Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts, 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/ 

guidance/threading-your-way-through-labelingrequirements-under-textile. 

2See 16 CFR 300.4 (Wool Rules provision); 16 

CFR 301.26 (Fur Rules provision); 16 CFR 303.30 

(Textile Rules provision). 3See 17 FR 6075, 6077 (July 8, 1952) (Fur Rule 

provision 16 CFR 301.26); 24 FR 4480, 4484 (June 

2, 1959) (Textile Rule provision 16 CFR 303.20); 29 

FR 6622 (May 21, 1964) (Wool Rule provision 16 

CFR 300.4). 4 In recent years, the FTC has issued 

approximately 3,000 RNs per year. 

(i) That the fuel economy or driving 

range information is based on a nonEPA test; 

(ii) The source of the non-EPA test; 

(iii) The EPA fuel economy estimates 

or EPA driving range estimates for the 

vehicle; and 

(iv) All driving conditions or vehicle 

configurations simulated by the nonEPA test that are different from those 

used in the EPA test. Such conditions 

and variables may include, but are not 

limited to, road or dynamometer test, 

average speed, range of speed, hot or 

cold start, temperature, and design or 

equipment differences. 

(2) Disclosure format. The 

Commission regards the following as 

constituting ‘‘substantially more 

prominence’’: 

(i) For visual disclosures on television. 

If the fuel economy claims appear only 

in the visual portion, the EPA figures 

should appear in numbers twice as large 

as those used for any other estimate, and 

should remain on the screen at least as 

long as any other estimate. Each EPA 

figure should be broadcast against a 

solid color background that contrasts 

easily with the color used for the 

numbers when viewed on both color 

and black and white television. 

(ii) For audio disclosures. For radio 

and television advertisements in which 

any other estimate is used only in the 

audio, equal prominence should be 

given to the EPA figures. The 

Commission will regard the following as 

constituting equal prominence: The EPA 

estimated city and/or highway MPG 

should be stated, either before or after 

each disclosure of such other estimate, 

at least as audibly as such other 

estimate. 

(iii) For print and Internet disclosures. 

The EPA figures should appear in 

clearly legible type at least twice as 

large as that used for any other estimate. 

The EPA figures should appear against 

a solid color, and contrasting 

background. They may not appear in a 

footnote unless all references to fuel 

economy appear in a footnote. 

Example 1: An Internet advertisement 

states: ‘‘Independent driving experts took the 

QXT car for a weekend spin and managed to 

get 55 miles-per-gallon under a variety of 

driving conditions.’’ It does not disclose the 

actual EPA fuel economy estimates, nor does 

it explain how conditions during the 

‘‘weekend spin’’ differed from those under 

the EPA tests. This advertisement likely 

conveys that the 55 MPG figure is the same 

or comparable to an EPA fuel economy 

estimate for the vehicle. This claim is 

deceptive because it fails to disclose that fuel 

economy information is based on a non-EPA 

test, the source of the non-EPA test, the EPA 

fuel economy estimates for the vehicle, and 

all driving conditions or vehicle 

configurations simulated by the non-EPA test 

that are different from those used in the EPA 

test. 

Example 2: An advertisement states: ‘‘The 

XZY electric car has a driving range of 110 

miles per charge in summer conditions 

according to our expert’s test.’’ It provides no 

additional information regarding this driving 

range claim. This advertisement likely 

conveys that this 110-mile driving range 

figure is comparable to an EPA driving range 

estimate for the vehicle. The advertisement is 

deceptive because it does not clearly state 

that the test is a non-EPA test; it does not 

provide the EPA estimated driving range; and 

it does not explain how conditions referred 

to in the advertisement differed from those 

under the EPA tests. Without this 

information, consumers are likely to confuse 

the claims with range estimates derived from 

the official EPA test procedures. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2017–19869 Filed 9–18–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 300, 301, and 303 

RIN 3084–AB29, 3084–AB27, 3084–AB30 

Wool Products Labeling; Fur Products 

Labeling; Textile Fiber Products 

Identification 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’) 

amends the Rules and Regulations 

Under the Wool Products Labeling Act 

of 1939 (‘‘Wool Rules’’), the Rules and 

Regulations Under Fur Products 

Labeling Act (‘‘Fur Rules’’), and the 

Rules and Regulations Under the Textile 

Fiber Products Identification Act 

(‘‘Textile Rules’’) (collectively, ‘‘Rules’’) 

to require the public to submit any 

requests to obtain, update, or cancel 

registered identification numbers via the 

FTC’s Web site. 

DATES: The amended Rules are effective 

October 19, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua S. Millard, (202) 326–2454, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Commission is revising the Fur, 

Textile, and Wool Rules to require 

electronic filing of requests to obtain, 

update, or cancel registered 

identification numbers used on fur, 

textile, and wool product labels through 

the FTC’s Web site, unless the 

Commission or its designee instructs 

otherwise as specified below. The 

revisions facilitate the use of the 

Commission’s web-based registered 

identification number (‘‘RN’’) system, 

which will streamline the application 

and update process for participating 

businesses, and greatly increase the 

efficiency with which the FTC delivers 

RN services to the public. This 

document describes the background of 

the RN program and the grounds for 

revising the relevant parts of the Fur, 

Textile, and Wool Rules, and sets forth 

the amended Rules provisions. 

II. Background 

Federal labeling requirements 

mandate that most fur, textile, and wool 

products have a label identifying the 

manufacturer or other business 

responsible for marketing or handling 

the item.1 To comply with this mandate, 

a person or firm residing in the United 

States that imports, manufactures, 

markets, distributes, or otherwise 

handles fur, textile, or wool products 

may apply for an RN to display on 

product labels in lieu of the person or 

firm’s full name.2 RNs are not 

mandatory, but they occupy less space 

on a label and help buyers identify the 

person or firm responsible for a product. 

The public can find contact information 

for each RN registrant by searching the 

FTC’s public Web page dedicated to the 

RN program, https://rn.ftc.gov. 

For over 50 years, to obtain or update 

an RN, one had to complete and submit 

a paper form published in the Federal 

Register, or in more recent years, 

transmit the information requested on 

that form by electronic means.3 The FTC 

receives thousands of new RN 

applications every year in various 

formats, thus complicating and slowing 

the review process.4


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with RULES