[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40530-40532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19897]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Docket No. 9280]
Blue Coral, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50,
Ltd.; Analysis To Aid Public Comment
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged
violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or
practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to
Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft amended
complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the
consent order--embodied in the consent agreement--that would settle
these allegations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,
Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elaine D. Kolish, Federal Trade Commission, S-4302, 6th & Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-3042. Mary K. Engle, Federal
Trade Commission, S-
[[Page 40531]]
4302, 6th & Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-
3161.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46, and Section 3.25 of
the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 3.25), notice is hereby
given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent
order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject
to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on public record
for a period of sixty (60) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public
Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the
allegations in the accompanying complaint. An electronic copy of the
full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the
Commission Actions section of the FTC Home Page (for July 24, 1997), on
the World Wide Web, at ``http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.'' A paper
copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130,
Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either
in person or by calling (202) 326-3627. Public comment is invited. Such
comments or views will be considered by the Commission and will be
available for inspection and copying at its principal office in
accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).
Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement to a
proposed consent order from Blue Coral, Inc.; Blue Coral-Slick 50,
Inc.; and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd. These three entities are successors
in interest to Quaker State--Slick 50, Inc.; Slick 50 Management, Inc.;
Slick 50 Products Corp.; and Slick 50 Corp. (all entities collectively,
``respondents'').
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for
sixty (60) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments
received during this period will become part of the public record.
After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement
and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw
from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves allegedly deceptive representations for Slick
50 engine treatment, and aftermarket motor oil additive containing
particles of the polymer polytetrafluoroethylene (``PTFE''). The
Commission issued a complaint on July 12, 1996, charging that
advertisements for Slick 50 disseminated by the respondents made
various false and unsubstantiated claims. The Commission's complaint
was withdrawn from adjudication on May 12, 1997, prior to commencement
of the administrative hearing, so that the Commission could consider
the proposed order.
According to the FTC complaint, the respondents falsely claimed:
(1) Automobile engines generally have little or no protection from wear
at or just after start-up unless they have been treated with Slick 50;
(2) Automobile engines commonly experience premature failure caused by
wear unless they are treated with Slick 50; (3) Slick 50 coats engine
parts with a layer of PTFE; and (4) Slick 50 meets military
specifications for aftermarket motor oil additives. The complaint
alleged the following claims as unsubstantiated: (1) Compared to motor
oil alone, Slick 50: reduces engine wear, reduces engine wear by more
than 50%, reduces engine wear by up to 50%, reduces engine wear at
start-up, extends the duration of engine life, lowers engine
temperatures, reduces toxic emissions, increases gas mileage, and
increases horsepower; (2) One treatment of Slick 50 continues to reduce
engine wear for 50,000 miles; and (3) Slick 50 has been used in a
significant number of U.S. Government vehicles. Lastly, the complaint
alleged that respondents falsely represented: (1) Tests prove that,
compared to motor oil alone, Slick 50: reduces engine wear by more than
50%, reduces engine wear by up to 50%, and reduces engine wear at
start-up; and (2) Tests prove that one treatment of Slick 50 continues
to reduce engine wear for 50,000 miles.
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent
the respondents from engaging in similar acts and practices in the
future. Part I of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from
representing that: (1) Automobile engines generally have little or no
protection from wear at or just after start-up unless they have been
treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; (2) Automobile engines
commonly experience premature failure caused by wear unless they are
treated with Slick 50 or a similar PTFE product; or (3) Slick 50 or a
similar PTFE product coats engine parts with a layer of PTFE.
Part II of the proposed order prohibits the respondents from
misrepresenting that any oil additive or Slick 50 engine lubricating
product meets the standards of any organization and from
misrepresenting tests or studies when selling such products. Part II
also prohibits the respondents from making any representation about the
performance, benefits, efficacy, attributes or use of such products
unless, at the time they make the representation, they possess and rely
upon appropriate, competent and reliable evidence that substantiates
the representation.
Part III of the proposed order prohibits respondents from
representing that any Slick 50 lubricating product for use in a motor
vehicle, other than an engine lubricating product, reduces wear,
extends the life of a part, lowers engine temperature, reduces
emissions, or increases mileage or horsepower, unless, at the time they
make the representation, they possess and rely upon appropriate,
competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the representation.
Parts IV through IX and XI require the respondents to keep copies
of advertisements making representations covered by the order; to keep
records concerning those representations; including materials that they
relied upon when making the representations, to notify the Commission
of changes in corporate structure; to provide copies of the order to
certain of respondents' personnel; to send notice of the order to
purchasers for resale of Slick 50; to keep records showing that the
order or notice of the order was received by or sent to appropriate
persons and showing any redress made available to consumers pursuant to
class action lawsuits challenging conduct similar to that challenged in
the Commission's complaint; to provide notice to Commission staff prior
to submitting any proposed settlement of such class action lawsuits to
a court; and to file with the Commission compliance reports and reports
showing any redress made available to consumers pursuant to class
action lawsuits. Part X provides that the order will terminate after
twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
Additionally, Paragraph 5 of the consent agreement seeks to
preserve the Commission's option to seek consumer redress under Section
19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act if the respondents do not make
available redress having an aggregate retail value of at least $10
million to consumers pursuant to class action lawsuits that challenge
conduct similar to that challenged in the Commission's complaint.
Paragraph 5 also reserves the Commission's right to seek to intervene
in any such class action lawsuit to oppose a settlement that it
believes is not in the public interest.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the
proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official
interpretation of
[[Page 40532]]
the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19897 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M