95-27553. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Periodic Review of Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62195-62206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27553]

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 455

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Periodic Review of Used Motor
Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission announces that its review of the Used Car Rule
(the ``Rule''), which was conducted pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (``RFA''), and the Commission's review program, has
been completed. Having considered all of the issues raised during the
comment period, the Commission is now issuing non-substantive
amendments to the Rule. The Commission is making several minor
grammatical changes to the Spanish language version of the Buyers
Guide. Further, the Commission is amending the Rule to permit dealers
to post Buyers Guides anywhere on a used vehicle, instead of requiring
that they be posted on a side window, provided the Buyers Guide is
conspicuously and prominently displayed and both sides can be easily
read. Finally, the Commission is amending the Rule to allow dealers the
option of obtaining a consumer's signature on the Buyers Guide, if
accompanied by a disclosure that the buyer is acknowledging receipt of
the Buyers Guide at the close of the sale.

DATES: The effective date of these non-substantive amendments will be
January 4, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the regulations and the notice of
final, non-substantive amendments should be sent to Public Reference
Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW, Washington D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Brent Mickum IV, Attorney,
Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-3132.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On May 6, 1994, the Commission, in accordance with the RFA's
requirements, and its own program to review all its rules and
guidelines periodically, published a Notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comments on the Rule.^{1 The Notice solicited comments
about the impact of the Rule generally, and whether it had had a
significant economic impact on small entities,^{2 and, if so,
whether the Rule should be amended to minimize any such impact. The
Notice also sought comment on certain proposed changes to the Rule.

\1\ 59 FR 23647 (May 6, 1994) (``the Notice'').
\2\ For the purpose of the RFA review, a ``small entity'' is a
used motor vehicle dealer with less than $11.5 million in annual
sales, as defined by the Small Business Size Standards, 13 CFR
121.601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission received 26 comments in response to the
Notice.^{3 These comments came from eight used car dealers; ^{4
four Attorneys General; ^{5 four consumer protection groups; ^{6
three trade associations; ^{7 one state government; ^{8 one radio
station; ^{9 one national distributor of Buyers Guides; ^{10 one
CPA firm that represents used car dealers; ^{11 and one
consumer.^{12

\3\ The comments were placed on the public record under category
23 (Regulatory Flexibility Act Review Comments) of Public Record
Docket No. P944202. References to the comments are made by means of
the author and number of the comment and, when appropriate, the page
of the comment. Two of the comments were consumer complaints that
were inadvertently classified as comments. Although some comments
were submitted shortly after the closing date of July 6, 1994, the
Commission has included them in its analysis.
\4\ Chuck Gould, J.O.A. Motors Ltd., B-03; Anonymous South
Carolina dealer, B-04; Karl Kroeger, K&K Auto Sales, Inc., B-05; F.
Whalen, B-06; Kenny Loveless, Northside Auto Sales, B-09; Mike
Zibura, B-10; Lee S. Maas, Sun-West Audi, B-18; Duane H. Wallace,
Town & Country Chevrolet Oldsmobile Inc., B-26.
\5\ Alaska Attorney General, Bruce M. Botelho, B-01; Illinois
Attorney General, Roland W. Burris, B-08; Iowa Attorney General,
William L. Brauch, Assistant Attorney General, B-15; Washington
Attorney General, Christine O. Gregoire, B-17.
\6\ National Coalition for Consumer Education (``NCCE''), Carol
Glade, Executive Director, B-12; Office of Consumer Credit
Commissioner, Richard R. Woodward, Examiner, B-16; National Consumer
Law Center (``NCLC''), B-23; National Association of Consumer Agency
Administrators (``NACAA''), Lawrence A. Breeden, President, B-25.
\7\ The National Independent Automobile Dealers Association
(``NIADA''), B-07; the Texas Automobile Dealers Association
(``TADA''), B-11; the National Automobile Dealers Association
(``NADA''), B-19.
\8\ Michigan Department of State, Jeff Villaire, Director,
Dealer Division, Bureau of Automotive Regulation, B-14.
\9\ WBBM Newsradio 78, Naomi Hood, Director, B-13.
\10\ Reynolds & Reynolds, Joe Hurr, Director, Automotive Forms
Marketing, B-20.
\11\ Hundman & Woodward, Carl Woodward, C.P.A., B-21.
\12\ Jay R. Drick, Esq., B-25. As indicated earlier, two of the
comments were consumer complaints that were misclassified as
comments. Warren and Irma Muncey, B-02; Sam A. Amato, B-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Regulation

The Commission promulgated the Used Car Rule under the authority of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. (``FTC Act''),
and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2309, on November 19,
1984. 49 FR 45692 (1984). The Rule became effective on May 9,
1985.^{13 A violation of the Rule constitutes an unfair or deceptive
act or practice under the FTC Act, and one who violates the Rule is
subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

\13\ Two states, Wisconsin and Maine, subsequently petitioned
the Commission and received exemptions pursuant to section 455.6 of
the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Used Car Rule is primarily intended to prevent and to
discourage oral misrepresentations and unfair omissions of material
facts by used car dealers concerning warranty coverage. The Rule
provides a uniform method for written disclosure of warranty
information on a window sticker called the ``Buyers Guide.'' The Rule
requires sellers to disclose on the Buyers Guide the basic terms and
conditions of any warranty offered in connection with the sale of a
used car, including the duration of coverage, the percentage of total
repair costs to be paid by the dealer, and the exact systems covered by
the warranty.
The Rule also requires certain other disclosures, including: a
suggestion that consumers ask the dealer if a pre-purchase inspection
is permitted; a warning against reliance on spoken promises that are
not confirmed in writing; and a list of fourteen major systems of an
automobile and the major problems that may occur in these systems. The
Rule also provides that the Buyers Guide disclosures are incorporated
by reference into the sales contract and govern in the event of an
inconsistency between the Buyers Guides and the sales contract.
The public comments on the questions asked in the Notice and the
additional information gathered during the reviews are discussed below.

III. Non-Substantive Amendments to Spanish Language Version of the
Buyers Guide

In the Notice, the Commission proposed two non-substantive
amendments to the Rule involving the

[[Page 62196]]
Spanish language version of the Buyers Guide, Section 455.5 of the
Rule. The Commission received three comments favoring the changes and
none in opposition.^{14 The Commission has thus determined to adopt
the proposed amendments.^{15 The first change is grammatical: the
``As Is'' (``Como Esta-Sin Garantia'') section of the Buyers Guide
reads ``El vendedor no asume ninguna responsabilidad por cualquier las
reparaciones * * *'' (emphasis added). This language is amended to
read: ``El vendedor no asume ninguna responsabilidad por cualquier
reparacion * * *'' The second change appears in the ``Warranty''
(``Garantia'') section of the Buyers Guide. The word ``vendedo'' in the
second full sentence is amended to ``vendedor.'' Consequently, the
sentence is also amended to read ``Pida al vendedor una copia del
documento * * *.''

\14\ NIADA, B-7 at 1; TADA, B-11 at 3; NACAA, B-24 at 3.
\15\ Dealers may use up existing stocks of the current version
of the Spanish Buyers Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Responses to the Federal Register Notice

Question One
Is there a continuing need for the Rule?
a. What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the
products or services affected by the Rule?
b. Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers?
i. Summary of Comments. The comments from the eight dealers and the
CPA firm (its clients are dealers) all favored rescinding the Rule.
They stated that the Rule places an enormous burden on small
businesses. Generally, these dealer comments ^{16 and the CPA firm
^{17 contended that the consumer benefit derived from the Rule was
not justified by the cost of displaying the form, and that consumers
pay no attention to the Buyers Guide. None of these comments provided
any specific information in support of their contentions.

\16\ B-05 at 1; B-06 at 1; B-09 at 1; B-18 at 1; B-26 at 1.
\17\ B-21. Henceforward, all references to the dealer comments
will include this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the other comments, including those from dealer trade
associations, stated that the Rule is beneficial and that there is a
continuing need for the Rule. Both NADA and NIADA reported that the
Rule has helped avoid confusion regarding warranty coverage, and that
the Buyers Guide is beneficial to both customers and dealers. Both NADA
and NIADA stated that the costs associated with the Rule seem to be
reasonable.^{18

\18\ See, e.g., NIADA Comment, B-7 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCCE noted that because young people and consumers with limited
resources are the major purchasers of used cars, objective, reliable,
point-of-sale information is essential to an effective consumer
decision. The comment stated that the FTC Used Car Rule provides
information to consumers that assists them in making a wise and well
informed decision, stimulates comparison shopping, and stimulates the
competitive spirit of our free enterprise system.^{19 Michigan's
Department of State noted that the longer the Rule is in place, the
more the public becomes aware of issues regarding warranty coverage and
extended service agreements.^{20 NCLC and NACAA noted that the Rule
allows consumers an opportunity to see what warranty protection is
available and to compare warranty coverage among vehicles and
dealers.^{21 The Iowa Attorney General noted that because motor
vehicle designs are growing increasingly complex and repairs more
expensive, warranty coverage is of increasing importance to motor
vehicle purchasers.^{22 Consequently, the Rule provides the consumer
with valuable information.

\19\ B-12 at 1. The comment indicates that the Commission's
objectives in promulgating the Rule have, in large part, been
achieved.
\20\ B-14 at 1.
\21\ NCLC, B-23 at 1; NACAA, B-24 at 1-2.
\22\ B-15 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. In the original rulemaking, the Commission found
that ``many used car dealers mislead consumers into believing that they
have broad post-purchase warranty coverage when in fact consumers
receive limited or no warranty protection * * *. In many cases dealers
make verbal promises to repair defects after sale that are contradicted
by final written contract terms * * *.'' ^{23 The Commission
concluded that the ``practices are pervasive and among the chief
sources of complaints received by various consumer protection
organizations around the country.'' ^{24

\23\ SBP, 49 FR 45692, 45702 (Nov. 19, 1984).
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the trade associations asserted that some of the
aforementioned problems have abated, other comments suggested that some
of these problems continue to occur. Used car complaints continue to be
among the most frequent type of complaints received by consumer
protection groups across the country,^{25 and the majority of these
organizations suggested amending the Rule in ways they contend would
provide even more protection to consumers.

\25\ For example, NACAA's comment notes that ``[a]uto sales
consistently rank among the most numerous consumer complaints. In
surveys of NACAA members conducted in 1992 and 1993, auto sales were
in the top five complaint categories. A report issued by the Council
of Better Business Bureaus revealed that in 1993 auto sales problems
were the fifth most frequent complaint made to BBBs nationwide. NAAG
has also released 1993 statistics which list automobiles (including
sales and service) as the third largest category of complaints.'' B-
24 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

No evidence was adduced during this review that contravenes the
Commission's 1984 findings, and no persuasive reasons were advanced in
the comments that would suggest that reconsideration is appropriate.
The dealer comments favoring repeal of the Rule because it is
burdensome are conclusory and contradicted by other comments. For
example, Reynolds & Reynolds, a publisher of Buyers Guides, noted that
the average cost of a Buyers Guide is 7.6 cents. It also noted that
because the compliance costs are so small they are usually absorbed and
rarely passed on to the purchaser.^{26 Accordingly, because the Rule
is achieving its objectives and is cost effective, the Commission is
retaining the Rule.

\26\ B-20 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Two
What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase the
benefits of the Rule to purchasers?
a. How would these changes affect the costs the Rule imposes on
firms subject to its requirements?
The comments responding to this question are discussed category-by-
category below.

A. Disclosing Defects

i. Summary of Comments. Many comments suggested general changes to
the Rule to increase its effectiveness for consumers. Six comments
recommended that the Rule require dealers to make written disclosure of
known defects in all ``As-Is'' sales.^{27 Texas's Consumer Credit
Commissioner suggested amending the Rule to inform consumers that ``As-
Is'' does not mean dealers can sell vehicles with material
defects.^{28

\27\ Alaska AG, B-01 at 1-2; Illinois AG, B-08 at 1; WBBM
Newsradio, B-13 at 1; Michigan Department of State, B-14 at 1;
Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner, B-16 at 1; NACAA, B-24 at 2-
3.
\28\ B-16 at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. In the original rulemaking, after carefully
considering the issue, the Commission decided not to require disclosure
of known defects because it ``concluded that the known

[[Page 62197]]
defects disclosure requirement will not provide used car buyers with a
reliable source of information concerning a car's mechanical condition
and that the provision would be exceedingly difficult to enforce.''
^{29 The Commission determined that the warranty and ``As-Is''
disclosures--along with the warnings about spoken promises and the pre-
purchase inspection notice--are effective remedies for the deceptive
practices occurring in the used car industry.^{30 No new information
was provided in this review on whether provisions requiring disclosure
of known defects provide substantial information benefits in practice,
nor did the Commission staff's independent review of available
information contradict this determination.^{31 The only pertinent
evidence regarding this issue relates to Wisconsin's experience with
its statute.

\29\ Id. at 45712.
\30\ Id.
\31\ For example, a literature search for economic research on
``defects disclosures'' turned up two titles, one an FTC working
paper, the other a dissertation from a student at the University of
Wisconsin. The two studies both use data from the 1970's (pre-Used
Car Rule SBP) and neither finds a beneficial effect of the
disclosures on the used car market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SBP indicates that during the original rulemaking the
Commission examined Wisconsin's experience with its used car rule,
which requires dealers to inspect their cars and to disclose the
results of the inspection. This examination revealed that 51% of
Wisconsin consumers still ultimately experienced repair problems not
identified at the time of purchase.^{32

\32\ During the rulemaking, the Commission considered the
results of a study conducted in Wisconsin, involving surveys of both
dealers and consumers. See, e.g., SBP at 45712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission was aware of this information when it promulgated
the Rule. There is no new evidence indicating that reliable information
would be disclosed if such a provision were required or that efficient
enforcement would be feasible. Based on the foregoing, the Commission
has determined that changing its original position on defect
disclosures is unnecessary.

B. Requiring Dealers To Keep Copies of the Buyers Guide and Requiring a
Signature Line

i. Summary of Comments. Both NACAA and the Iowa Attorney General
suggested amending the Rule to require dealers to obtain a consumer
signature on the Buyers Guide to ensure receipt of the document, and to
retain copies of the signed Buyers Guide.^{33 Both contended that
enforcement of the Rule would be easier because the absence of a signed
Buyers Guide in the dealer's records would create the inference that no
Buyers Guide was provided. Further, the dealer copy would be evidence
of the warranty disclosures that were made. On the other hand, NCLC
suggested that some dealers already have consumers sign the back of the
Buyers Guide at the close of the deal in an attempt to cover themselves
for failing to post Buyers Guides in vehicles earlier as required by
the Rule.^{34 NCLC stated that such a requirement could undermine
the intent of the Rule because signing a piece of paper, perhaps as
part of signing a stack of papers at closing, does not prove that the
Buyers Guide was posted on the vehicle, that the Buyers Guide was given
to the consumer at an appropriate time, or that the buyer was apprised
of the warranty terms.

\33\ B-24 at 3; B-15 at 3-4.
\34\ B-23 at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. In initially approving the form of the Buyers
Guide, the Commission determined that ``a uniform method of disclosure
will alleviate confusion and possible deception which might result from
inconsistent versions of the Buyers Guide.'' SBP at 45709.
Consequently, the Rule does not allow dealers to modify the format of
the Buyers Guide. In response to dealer requests, however, staff has
informed dealers, through informal staff opinion letters, that staff
was not likely to recommend enforcement actions against a dealer asking
for a consumer's signature on the back of the Buyers Guide.
Allowing a signature to be obtained on the back of the Buyers Guide
was permitted to assist dealers who wanted protection against consumer
claims that they had failed to provide Buyers Guides, as required by
law.\35\ From the dealers' perspective, one effective way to document
that a Buyers Guide was received by a consumer is to obtain the
consumer's signature and keep a copy of the signed Buyers Guide in
their files. Thus, there is now considerable incentive for dealers to
obtain signatures. Requiring a signature to be obtained appears
unnecessarily burdensome.

\35\ Although some dealers only give consumers the Buyers Guide
at closing and do not post, Commission investigations reveal that
some consumers claim that they were not provided with a copy of the
Buyers Guide, when, in fact, they were.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission also notes that the presence or absence of a
signature on a Buyers Guide, by itself, does little to ensure that the
Buyers Guide will be posted as required by the Rule. There is no
benefit unless dealers also are required to keep signed copies, any
omissions thereby demonstrating noncompliance. However, the Commission
does not believe the benefits of a mandatory signing requirement along
with a recordkeeping provision are likely to justify the costs those
requirements would impose.\36\

\36\ The issue of requiring dealers to maintain copies of the
Buyers Guide was considered in the original proceeding. In an effort
to minimize the Rule's recordkeeping requirements, the Commission
decided not to require dealers to maintain copies. The primary
thrust of the Rule was to provide pre-sale information about
warranty coverage and to ensure that a copy of the Buyers Guide was
given to the purchaser. The Commission concluded the Rule would
achieve these results without a recordkeeping requirement. Dealers,
of course, are free to maintain whatever records they believe are
appropriate, and many in fact do keep copies. Further, recent
legislation amending the Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies
to attempt to reduce the paperwork burden associated with their
regulations. Adding a recordkeeping requirement would constitute a
new paperwork burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dealers, however, may want to obtain signatures and maintain copies
of the Buyers Guide in their files. The Commission staff's enforcement
advice permits this, but such advice is not necessarily widely known.
The Commission, therefore, is amending the Rule to allow an optional
signature line on the back of the Buyers Guide. To ensure that the
customer's signature is not misused, and to put dealers on notice that
obtaining a signature does not satisfy all of the Rule's requirements,
the optional signature line is permitted only when accompanied by
language in immediate proximity to the line stating: ``I hereby
acknowledge receipt of the Buyers Guide at the closing of this sale.''
\37\

\37\ Dealers are advised that the customer's signature will be
viewed merely as an acknowledgement that the customer has received
the Buyers Guide, which is only one of a dealer's duties under the
Rule. The dealer is still responsible for ensuring that posting
occurs when a vehicle is offered for sale. Further, the dealer has
the responsibility to ensure that any warranty terms that the dealer
and the buyer negotiate are reflected on the Buyers Guide, as
required by section 455.3(a) of the Rule. This is a non-substantive
amendment that does not require Magnuson-Moss rulemaking procedures,
as specified in section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Scope of the Rule

1. Private Sales
NIADA suggested that the FTC require that everyone display a Buyers
Guide in any used motor vehicle that is advertised for sale.\38\ This
issue was thoroughly considered during the original rulemaking. As
noted in the SBP, private parties generally do not offer warranties,
and therefore, at least as to this issue, it is unlikely that there
would be any misunderstandings. Also,

[[Page 62198]]
enforcing the Rule in private sales would not be cost effective. NIADA
offered no data that would contradict the findings in the SBP. Thus,
the Commission has determined that a proceeding to amend the Rule to
include private sales under the Rule is unnecessary.

\38\ B-7 at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Demonstrators
i. Summary of Comments. NADA suggested that Buyers Guides not be
required on ``demonstrator'' vehicles, because such vehicles also are
required to have a new car Monroney Label that cannot be removed until
after the vehicle is sold at retail.\39\ The purpose of the Monroney
label is to provide consumers with the manufacturers' suggested retail
price for the vehicle, and a list of the optional equipment that comes
with the vehicle. NADA believes that the Buyers Guide, when combined
with the Monroney Label, confuses customers without providing
additional useful information. It stated that all demonstrators are
covered by factory new vehicle warranties, and manufacturers require
dealers to review the warranty coverage of new vehicles with the
customer at the time of delivery.\40\

\39\ Under the Monroney Act, 15 U.S.C. 1231-33, new vehicles
must display a document (called the Monroney Label) that contains
the manufacturer's price, all optional equipment on the vehicle, the
location of the dealer to whom the vehicle was shipped, and the
Vehicle Identification Number of the car.
\40\ B-19 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. ``Demonstrator'' vehicles are considered ``used''
under the Rule because they have been driven for purposes other than
test driving or moving.\41\ However, for purposes of the Monroney Act
they are ``new'' because they have not been titled.\42\ In promulgating
the Used Car Rule, the Commission expressly rejected defining whether a
vehicle is new by virtue of titling laws.\43\ The Commission determined
that the definition of a used vehicle should be consistent with the
Commission's decision in Peacock Buick, Inc.\44\ The Peacock order
prohibits the defendants from ``[r]epresenting * * * that any vehicle
is new when it has been used in any manner, other than the limited use
necessary in moving or road testing a vehicle prior to delivery of such
vehicle to the customer.'' \45\

\41\ See 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2).
\42\ 15 U.S.C. 1231(d).
\43\ In adopting the Rule, the Commission stated that ``many
states, for the purpose of titling laws, identify as `new' vehicles
for which title has not passed to a purchaser despite extensive use
of the vehicle as a demonstrator model.'' SBP at 45707.
\44\ 86 F.T.C. 1532 (1975).
\45\ 86 F.T.C. at 1566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the rulemaking record reflected that used cars sold as
demonstrators were subject to dealer oral misrepresentations. Thus,
there was substantial justification on the record for including
demonstrators within the scope of the Rule.\46\ Consequently, the
Commission defined a ``used vehicle'' as ``any vehicle driven more than
the limited use necessary in moving or road testing a new vehicle prior
to delivery. * * *'' \47\ In adopting this definition, the Commission
was aware that the term would cover demonstrators, and that the
definition was broader than the definition employed in some states,
which rely on titling to determine whether a vehicle is used. Because
of the Commission's prior consideration of this issue and the fact that
the Monroney Label does not serve the purposes the Buyers Guide was
designed to address, the Commission has determined that amending the
Rule's coverage of demonstrators is unnecessary.

\46\ See SBP at 45707. Demonstrators include dealer-licensed
vehicles that can have thousands of miles on them. These vehicles
have only the period of new car warranty coverage that remains on
the vehicle at the time of purchase, not the full manufacturer
warranty that comes with the purchase of a new car. Thus, consumers
may wish to negotiate with the dealer for additional warranty
coverage.
\47\ 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Salvage Vehicles
Iowa's Attorney General suggested that the Commission amend the
Rule to cover sales of vehicles on salvage or equivalent certificates
of title.^{48 The Rule excludes from the definition of a ``used
vehicle'' ``any vehicle sold only for scrap or parts (title documents
surrendered to the State and a salvage certificate issued).'' ^{49
Addressing this issue in the SBP, the Commission stated:

\48\ B-15 at 3.
\49\ 16 CFR 455.1(d)(2)(emphasis added).

Insofar as a vehicle is sold for its parts and not as an
operating vehicle, there appears to be no need to provide consumers
with the kind of information customarily used to evaluate an
automobile as a means of personal transportation. Accordingly, the
definition of ``used vehicle'' specifically excludes those cars sold
only for salvage.^{50

\50\ SBP at 45707.

Although the Iowa AG's comment does not discuss the reasons why the
Rule should be extended to include salvaged vehicles, the Commission is
aware that the sale of salvaged vehicles is viewed as a problem in some
parts of the country. This occurs because unscrupulous individuals take
advantage of state laws that do not require titling documents to show
that a vehicle has been rebuilt from salvaged vehicles. These
individuals obtain salvaged vehicles, restore them, and then transport
them to a state that does not require the title to show that a vehicle
has been salvaged. There, a clean title with no reference to the fact
that a vehicle has been salvaged is obtained. The vehicle may then be
taken to any state, even a state that requires a salvage disclosure,
and be retitled and sold as a used vehicle without disclosing that it
was a salvaged vehicle.
The Used Car Rule, however, only addresses warranty coverage, not
the source of car parts, which is the underlying issue with vehicles
rebuilt from salvaged parts. Even if the Rule were amended to require
Buyers Guides for such vehicles, consumers still would not have
information about the vehicle's history. Further, because the vehicle
could be sold ``As-Is'' or with a limited warranty of short duration, a
Buyers Guide is unlikely to provide the desired protection for
individuals purchasing vehicles rebuilt from salvaged parts.
This problem is best addressed by the states or by federal
legislation,^{51 and not by an amendment to the Rule. To the extent
that consumers want or need to know that the vehicle they are
purchasing is constructed from a salvaged vehicle or vehicles, the more
appropriate and effective remedy would be uniform laws regarding the
way salvage vehicles are required to be titled. For these reasons, the
Commission has determined that it is unnecessary to amend the Buyers
Guide to indicate that a vehicle has been salvaged.

\51\ The Final Report of the Motor Vehicle Title, Registration,
and Salvage Advisory Committee, submitted by a Presidential Task
Force on February 10, 1994, proposes federalizing the definition of
a salvage vehicle to prevent the practice of allowing salvage
vehicles to be retitled in states that do not require disclosure on
the title certificate that a vehicle is a salvaged vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Leased Vehicles
NCLC suggested that the Rule be amended to cover leased used
vehicles.^{52 The comment, however, did not provide information
indicating the leasing of used vehicles is particularly pervasive or
fraught with the same types of problems the Commission found were
associated with the sale of used cars. Other than NCLC's suggestion,
there is no evidence on the record to suggest a need for the Commission
to initiate a proceeding to amend the Rule. The Consumer Leasing Act,
among other things, requires lessors to disclose in writing who is
responsible for repairs and maintenance on the vehicle and

[[Page 62199]]
whether warranties or service contracts are available.^{53 Pursuant
to that Act, if a warranty is offered the complete terms must be set
forth in writing. The Commission's research into the market for used
leased vehicles indicates that most used vehicles that are leased come
with warranties. Thus, lessors are required to provide the same type of
information required by the Used Car Rule (although not via a window
sticker format). Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the
suggested change is unnecessary.

\52\ B-23 at 3.
\53\ 15 U.S.C. 1667 et seq.; see also 12 CFR 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Amend Language That the Buyers Guide Controls in the Event of a
Discrepancy

i. Summary of Comments. NCLC suggested changing the language in
Section 455.3(b) of the Rule, which incorporates the Buyers Guide into
the written contract by reference and provides that the Buyers Guide
controls in the event of any discrepancy. NCLC stated that the
requirement that the Buyers Guide overrides any contrary provisions is
too broad and might in some cases have the Buyers Guide override
greater protections in the contract.^{54 NCLC preferred language
saying that if there are contrary provisions in the contract, the
provision that offers the greatest warranty protection to the consumer
is applicable.^{55

\54\ B-23 at 2.
\55\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The purpose of the disclosure in Section 455.3(b)
is to provide consumers with protection by allowing information to be
considered that might otherwise not be considered under contract law.
Specifically,

By integrating the Buyers Guide within the ``four corners'' of
the used car sales contract, the Commission intends that the Buyers
Guide become part of the written agreement between buyer and seller,
so that, in the event of disputes between buyers and sellers, the
information on the Buyers Guide would fall outside the exclusions of
the parol evidence rule of contract law.^{56

\56\ SBP at 45710.

The NCLC comment envisions a situation where, for example, a written
contract offers a warranty but the Buyers Guide is marked ``As-Is'' and
then incorporated into the contract, negating or overriding the
warranty described in the contract. Because the Rule states that the
Buyers Guide controls, the consumer could, theoretically, be without
recourse. However, the Commission has never encountered this problem,
most likely because the Buyers Guide, if conforming to the Rule, should
contain any extra protections set forth in the contract. In fact, the
Rule places an affirmative duty on dealers to ensure that the Buyers
Guide reflects the actual terms negotiated. Section 455.3(b) of the
Rule states that the ``information on the final version of the window
form is incorporated into the contract * * *'' (emphasis added),\57\
and section 455.4 states that ``[A]ny final warranty terms agreed upon
* * * must be identified in the sales contract and summarized on the
copy of the Buyers Guide given to the buyer.'' \58\ Accordingly, there
will be no conflict where the dealer complies with the Rule. Where the
dealer does not, and the Buyers Guide contains the ``As-Is'' statement,
there usually will be ample evidence that this was not a ``final''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buyers Guide reflecting the terms negotiated.\59\
\57\ Section 455.3(a) states that the dealer must provide the
buyer with a Buyers Guide containing all of the disclosures required
by the Rule, ``and reflecting the warranty coverage agreed upon.''
\58\ SBP at 45711 (emphasis added).
\59\ Other documents generated in used car sales transactions
also would be pertinent to a decision whether a Buyers Guide
reflects the ``final version'' of the deal negotiated between the
buyer and the dealer. For example, the Warranty Disclosure Rule
requires that consumers be given written information regarding
warranty terms and coverage. It also provides that written warranty
terms become ``part of the basis of the bargain between the supplier
and the buyer . . .'' 16 CFR section 701.1(c)(2) Thus, if warranty
documents are considered part of the contract, and a Buyers Guide
indicates that a vehicle was sold ``As-Is,'' the warranty documents
would appear to be evidence that the Buyers Guide did not reflect
the final deal, and the language in section 455.3(b) of the Rule
would not be controlling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, the Commission has determined that action to
amend the Rule in this regard is unnecessary.
E. ``AS-IS'' Version of the Buyers Guide May Be Depriving Consumers of
Oral or Implied Warranty Rights Under UCC or State Law
i. Summary of Comments. NCLC recommended that the Commission
clarify use of the word ``warranty,'' as used on the Buyers Guide. The
comment notes that, under the UCC, oral express warranties may be given
in an individual transaction, notwithstanding that written warranties
are not provided.^{60 Consequently, NCLC believed that the term
``As-Is No Warranty'' on the Buyers Guide is confusing, because,
pursuant to the Rule's definition, the term ``No Warranty'' only means
no written warranty.\61\ Therefore, NCLC contended the ``As-Is No
Warranty'' notice on the Buyers Guide could conflict with UCC
protections and mislead consumers into believing that any express oral
warranty is voided when the dealer provides an ``As-Is No Warranty''
Buyers Guide.^{62 Moreover, NCLC contends that a dealer might make
oral warranties which are recognized by state law, but later use the
``As-Is No Warranty'' language on the Buyers Guide as evidence that no
oral warranties had been offered.

\60\ B-23 at 2.
\61\ Under the Rule, ``warranty'' means ``any undertaking in
writing, in connection with the sale by a dealer of a used vehicle,
to refund, repair, replace, maintain or take other action with
respect to such used vehicle and provided at no extra charge beyond
the price of the used vehicle.'' NCLC noted that the definition is
very similar to the one that appears in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(6)(B). See SBP at 45709 (``These subsections
define the terms `warranty,' `implied warranty,' and `service
contract' in a manner which conforms to the definitions of those
terms in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act'').
\62\ According to NCLC, the UCC allows dealers to disclaim
implied warranties (i.e., sell a vehicle ``As-Is'' and still make
statements about the car that create oral express warranties). B-23
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NACAA similarly stated that:

In many jurisdictions, oral or written representations (other
than [those found on] the ``Buyers Guide'') are enforceable. To
remedy this conflict, the [R]ule should be changed to say that while
dealers may not make any statements or take any actions that would
be contrary to the disclosures required in Secs. 455.2 and 455.3,
the ``Buyers Guide'' may not be used to disclaim any rights that
consumers may be able to assert under state or local law* *
*.^{63

\63\ B-24 at 2.

In addition, NCLC stated that the warranty section of the Buyers
Guide should be changed. The comment pointed out that a warranty, as
defined in Sec. 455.1(d)(5), is an undertaking in writing to refund,
repair, replace, maintain, or take other action with respect to the
vehicle.^{64 NCLC noted, however, that the form language written on
the Guide speaks only in terms of repair. It does not appear to allow
any option of refund, replacement, maintenance, or other action. NCLC
suggested that the Buyers Guide be changed to reflect that these as
well as other remedies are options.^{65

\64\ B-23 at 8-9.
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a corollary to the foregoing discussion, several comments
contended that the most frequently used version of the Buyers Guide--
having only ``AS-IS-NO WARRANTY'' and ``WARRANTY'' designations--
encourages dealers to sell cars without warranties. This version of the
Buyers Guide provides dealers with two choices, either to give an
express written warranty or to sell the car ``As-Is'' (with no express
or implied warranties). An alternate ``Implied Warranties Only'' Buyers
Guide is provided for in Sec. 455.2(b)(ii) for use in those states that
prohibit ``As-Is'' sales.

[[Page 62200]]

To remedy the problem, NCLC suggested that the Buyers Guide be
revised to include an ``Implied Warranties Only'' section on the ``As-
Is'' version of the Buyers Guide.^{66 If this revision were adopted,
the Buyers Guide would give dealers the option of checking one of three
boxes: ``As-Is No Warranty,'' ``Implied Warranties Only,'' and
``Warranty.'' The comments contended that most consumers do not know
that implied warranties are available as a form of legal
redress.^{67 If all versions of the Buyers Guide contained an
``Implied Warranties Only'' provision, or at least alerted consumers
that implied rights exist, consumers would be on notice that they may
be forsaking possible legal redress to which they would otherwise be
entitled but for the dealer's decision to sell the vehicle ``As-Is.''
Consumers then might attempt to negotiate a better warranty agreement
with the dealer than an ``As-Is'' deal. Also, some dealers might even
choose to offer implied warranties rather than use ``As-Is'' sales if
they were given an easy choice and did not have to use a special form
or make a substitution on the form. If their only choice is ``As-Is''
or an express warranty, NCLC contends, dealers nearly always choose to
sell vehicles ``As-Is.'' ^{68

\66\ NCLC also suggested amending the ``As-Is'' box on the
Buyers Guide to include language that made clear that an ``As-Is''
sale precludes implied warranties. B-23 at 5.
\67\ An implied warranty of fitness indicates that a car ``is
reasonably fit for and adapted to the purposes for which it was
purchased, i.e., a vehicle that will carry a driver and passenger
with reasonable safety, efficiency and comfort.'' Berg v. Stromme,
79 Wn.2d 184, 195, 484 P.2d 380 (1971). The Berg court uses the word
fitness interchangeably with merchantability.
\68\ B-23 at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington's Attorney General asserted that the Rule should only
allow use of the ``Implied Warranties Only'' version of the Buyers
Guide, because, given the choice to sell with a warranty or ``As-Is,''
dealers opt simply to check off the ``As-Is'' provision. The Washington
State Attorney General stated that the ``As-Is'' provision may provide
an unintended shield for some unscrupulous dealerships that fail to use
required procedures for disclaiming implied warranties under Washington
contract law. The comment stated that Washington consumers are not
generally aware that, under Washington law, their waiver of the implied
warranty of merchantability must be knowing and voluntary. Warranty
terms or the absence of implied warranties must be the subject of
explicit negotiations between the parties (written disclaimers are not
enough). The Rule does not disclose preconditions to a valid disclaimer
of implied warranties peculiar to Washington State Law.^{69

\69\ B-17 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The Buyers Guide focuses on written warranties
because during the rulemaking the Commission found that oral promises
made during used car sales were frequently contradicted by the written
documents, and that the parol evidence rule operated to exclude the
admissibility of oral promises contradicted by a written
contract.^{70 In the SBP, the Commission recognized that ``As-Is''
purchases could operate to exclude other contractual rights. The
Commission stated that:

\70\ See UCC 2-202.

consumers purchasing ``as-is'' but relying on contradictory oral
promises are stripped of the protection afforded by either express
or implied warranties and, at the same time, have no legal recourse
against the dealer because prior or contemporaneous oral statements
that contradict final written contract terms are generally not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
legally binding.^{71

\71\ SBP at 45698 (footnote omitted).

To address this problem, the Commission sought to put consumers on
notice that they should be wary of oral promises. Immediately under the
words ``Buyers Guide,'' on both forms of the Buyers Guide, is the
following language: ``IMPORTANT: SPOKEN PROMISES ARE DIFFICULT TO
ENFORCE. ASK THE DEALER TO PUT ALL PROMISES IN WRITING. KEEP THIS
FORM.'' In addition, the ``As-Is'' box contains the following
statement: ``YOU WILL PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. The dealer assumes
no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements
about the vehicle.'' The warnings on the Buyers Guide and its
admonition to put all promises in writing help consumers by giving them
information they can use to ensure they have enforceable rights. Thus,
the changes suggested by NCLC (e.g., to revise the ``As-Is No
Warranty'' title to ``As-Is No Written Warranty'') are not necessary.
Such changes could lead to more uncertainty and disputes about warranty
coverage. The Commission continues to advise that consumers get any
promises in writing, rather than trying to prove later that a dealer
orally promised to make repairs.
NCLC also suggested that the Buyers Guide be revised to reflect
that options other than repair are available. However, repair is the
most common remedy offered by dealers. Dealers, of course, are free to
offer other options on the Buyers Guide, if they choose. Further, the
Buyers Guide does not take the place of the warranty documents that
dealers must provide pursuant to rule 701. The Buyers Guide refers to
these documents in the ``Warranty'' box on the Buyers Guide: ``ASK THE
DEALER FOR A COPY OF THE WARRANTY DOCUMENT FOR A FULL EXPLANATION OF
WARRANTY COVERAGE, EXCLUSIONS, AND THE DEALER'S REPAIR OBLIGATIONS.''
NCLC also suggested reformatting the Buyers Guide to include ``As-
Is,'' ``Implied Warranties Only,'' and ``Warranty'' sections on the
same Buyers Guide. The purpose would be to increase consumer awareness
of implied warranty rights and the likelihood that implied warranty
rights could be negotiated. There is no evidence that suggests,
however, that including ``Implied Warranties Only'' as a third option
on the Buyers Guide would encourage consumers to negotiate for warranty
coverage more than they presently do, as NCLC suggests. Nor is there
any evidence that supports the assertion that dealers would choose this
option over the ``As-Is'' option if it were displayed on the Buyers
Guide.
Comments such as the Washington Attorney General's indicated a
desire to alert consumers that implied warranties exist. Others
suggested adding language that categorically states that implied
warranties are unavailable in ``As-Is'' sales.^{72 The ``Warranty''
section of the Buyers Guide contains the following language: ``UNDER
STATE LAW, `IMPLIED WARRANTIES' MAY GIVE YOU EVEN MORE RIGHTS.'' The
existing language alerts consumers that the other option to an ``As-
Is'' sale is one with a warranty, and that, along with an express
warranty, the buyer may receive even more rights (implied warranties)
under state law. Similarly, amending the ``As-Is'' portion of the
Buyers Guide to state that implied warranties are never available in an
``As-Is'' transaction would likely create confusion in states such as
Washington, where implied warranties must be knowingly waived.^{73
Further, such language would misstate the law when a service contract
is sold with a vehicle.^{74

\72\ NCLC, B-27 at 5.
\73\ See also discussion relating to Part IV, Question 5, infra.
\74\ The Buyers Guide states: ``IF YOU BUY A SERVICE CONTRACT
WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE TIME OF SALE, STATE LAW `IMPLIED WARRANTIES'
MAY GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although some consumers are not aware that implied warranties are
available under state laws, many states permit ``As-Is'' sales and do
not require disclosures or preconditions to such sales. The problem
presented by the

[[Page 62201]]
Washington Attorney General is somewhat unique insofar as it pertains
to implied warranties, and might be addressed more effectively under
state law. For the foregoing reasons, the Commission has determined to
take no action on the suggested change.

F. Private Right of Action

i. Summary of Comments. NCLC and Jay Drick suggested that the
Commission create a private right of action for violation of the
Rule.^{75 NCLC noted that currently, a consumer has a cause of
action for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but no
equivalent cause of action for violations of the Rule.^{76 These
comments suggested that the Rule state that a violation of the Rule is
a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, which affords a private legal
remedy in both state and federal courts. NCLC stated that, if
necessary, the language of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act could be
amended to make this clear. According to these comments, a private
right of action for violation of the Rule would increase dealers'
accountability for violating the Rule.^{77

\75\ B-23 at 1-2, B-25 at 1 (a consumer and attorney).
\76\ B-23 at 1.
\77\ B-23 at 1-2, B-25 at 1. Mr. Drick contends the rule should
allow for enforcement by private attorneys in state courts. B-25 at
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The actual value of a private cause of action for
buyers against dealers for violating the Used Car Rule is unclear. It
would be difficult for consumers to prove and quantify the injury or
damages sustained as a consequence of a Rule violation for failing to
post a Buyers Guide or for some other violation of the Rule.^{78 In
enforcing compliance with the Rule, the Commission has relied on
injunctions and civil penalties to stop violations and provide
deterrence.

\78\ Consumers who have disputes with dealers about warranties
generally already have recourse to the courts to resolve their
disputes, and such disputes normally will involve resolving who
should be responsible for making repairs. For example, section
110(d) of the Warranty Act allows consumers to bring suits on their
own behalf for a warrantor's failure to honor warranties or service
contracts, or to comply with any other obligation under the Act.
Under the law, actions generally will be brought in state courts. If
a complaint alleges at least $50,000 in damages the action may be
filed in federal court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if a private right of action would be useful, the Commission
has no apparent authority to create one. There is no private right of
action for violation of any FTC rule promulgated under the Magnuson-
Moss Act. In addition, federal courts consistently have held that there
is no private remedy under the FTC Act.^{79

\79\ The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, in Holloway
v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F.2d 986, 988-89 (D.C. Cir. 1973), and
other federal courts have held there is no implied private right of
action under the FTC's franchise disclosure rules. In Freedman v.
Meldy's Inc., 587 F. Supp. 658, 662 (E.D. Pa. 1984)., the court
reached its decision despite the FTC's contention that the courts
should recognize private rights of action under the Franchise Rule.
Citing Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Cannon v. University of
Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 718 (1978), the Freedman court stated:
``Congress may, if it wishes, give effect to the apparent desire of
the FTC that private rights of action be afforded litigants under 16
CFR Secs. 436.1-438.10. The FTC may express, as it has, its opinion
that private rights of action should be provided, but the
Commission's opinion cannot supplement or supply the requisite
Congressional intent.'' 587 F. Supp. at 662.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission is taking no action on
the recommendation.
Questions Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Eleven
Questions 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 all deal generally with the costs and
burdens that may be associated with the Rule. Consequently, they are
addressed together to avoid repetition. Question 11 is also included in
this section because it deals with the number of small firms that are
affected by the Rule.
Question Three
What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance,
has the Rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
a. Has the Rule provided benefits to such firms?
Question Four
What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the
burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
a. How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the
Rule?
Question Seven
What significant burdens or costs, including costs of compliance,
has the Rule imposed on small firms subject to its requirements?
a. How do these burdens or costs differ from those imposed on
larger firms subject to the Rule's requirements?
Question Eight
To what extent are the burdens or costs that the Rule imposes on
small firms similar to those that small firms would incur under
standard and prudent business practices?
Question Nine
What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the
burdens or costs imposed on small firms?
a. How would these changes affect the benefits of the Rule?
b. Would such changes adversely affect the competitive position of
larger firms?
Question Eleven
How many used car dealers have under $11.5 million in annual sales?
i. Summary of Comments. No comment furnished any information about
how many dealers have sales under $11.5 million, which is how a small
used motor vehicle dealer is defined by the Small Business
Administration. Based on the Commission's experience in conducting
inspections and investigations, the Commission believes that the
overwhelming majority of independent used car dealers have annual sales
under $11.5 million, and thus are small entities for purposes of the
RFA analysis. Franchised dealers that sell used cars, in contrast, are
likely to have annual sales in excess of $11.5 million, but their sales
figures would include new car as well as used car sales.
Only a few comments addressed whether changes to the Rule--short of
rescinding the Rule altogether ^{80--would reduce the costs imposed
on small and large firms. TADA contended that requiring a Spanish
Buyers Guide to be posted on every used vehicle in addition to the
English Buyers Guide, where sales are conducted in Spanish, is
burdensome to dealers, and it therefore recommended that dealers be
permitted to provide a Spanish Buyers Guide to the consumer only when
the transaction is being consummated.^{81 NIADA suggested that the
burdens related to compliance are greater for small dealerships because
larger dealerships have more personnel to assist in the preparation and
processing of paperwork related to car sales.^{82

[[Page 62202]]
NADA stated that the Rule is meeting the objectives of the law and is
not a substantial burden on small dealers.^{83 Iowa's Attorney
General noted that the costs associated with Rule compliance are
minimal and are passed on to the consumer.^{84 However, Iowa's
comment also stated that larger firms are better able to absorb the
costs of compliance. Reynolds & Reynolds noted that the costs of
compliance include the costs of the form and the time required to fill
them out properly. These costs differ from small firms to large firms
because a larger firm most likely can take advantage of volume
purchases and afford a computer to print out the form, while a smaller
dealer would be more likely to purchase Buyers Guides in smaller
quantities and fill them out by hand.^{85

\80\ For example, two comments from independent dealers
contended that the Rule and the posting requirement place an
unnecessary burden on dealers. They stated the Rule creates extra,
and unneeded, steps in processing a vehicle sale transaction. No
quantification for the assertion was provided, however. B-03 at 1,
B-26 at 1. One of the dealers also noted that virtually every car in
his area is sold ``As-Is'' and that most consumers in the area are
aware of the practice. Instead of posting Buyers Guides, he
suggested posting one large sign on the lot stating: ``Unless a
specific warranty is provided in writing, all used vehicles for sale
at this dealership are sold As-Is; the buyer will pay all costs for
any repairs.'' B-03 at 2.
\81\ B-11 at 2. TADA asserted that in cities with large Spanish-
speaking populations where dealers conduct a large percentage of
sales in Spanish, the Rule requires each vehicle to have two Buyers
Guides, one in English and another in Spanish.
\82\ B-7 at 2. NIADA noted that filling out the Buyers Guide and
attaching it to the car is just another part of the logging-in
procedure. With regard to the differing costs between large and
small firms, the trade association noted that both size firms need
to fill out a certain number of forms for each vehicle they sell.
The larger dealers have more employees to do the job.
\83\ B-19 at 1.
\84\ B-15 at 6.
\85\ B-20 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of the comments that responded to these questions,
however, contended that the burdens or costs associated with compliance
are minimal.^{86 For example, Reynolds & Reynolds reported that used
car dealers can purchase Buyers Guides for an average cost of 7.6
cents.^{87 While Reynolds & Reynolds believes the costs are so
minimal that they are not passed along to the consumer, NIADA stated
that they are.^{88

\86\ See, e.g., B-20 at 1.
\87\ B-20 at 1. See also NIADA, B-07 at 2. Buyers Guides may be
purchased in packets of 250 for $21.00.
\88\ Id. NIADA also noted that labor costs are associated with
compliance, but did not quantify those costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two comments from Attorneys General addressed whether the burdens
and costs of the Rule would be similar to those incurred under ordinary
and prudent business practice. The Iowa Attorney General noted that the
Used Car Rule imposes no costs other than those a prudent dealer would
incur regardless of the Rule.^{89 The Washington Attorney General
stated that the burdens or costs should be similar to those that would
be incurred by prudent businesses.^{90

\89\ B-15 at 6.
\90\ B-17 at 4. But stricter compliance with Washington law on
the disclaimer of implied warranties could increase the costs of
repair or recision to dealers who market unmerchantable vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of benefits, Iowa's Attorney General noted that the Rule
has undoubtedly benefited both the manufacturers and dealers by
fostering competition regarding warranty coverage.^{91 The comments
generally suggested that the Rule also has eliminated many disputes
regarding oral representations made by dealers concerning warranty
coverage.^{92 For example, Reynolds & Reynolds noted that the Rule
removes the question as to whether or not a specific vehicle has a
warranty.^{93 Compliance with the Rule virtually assures that
consumers are aware of available warranty coverage, and therefore
consumers are significantly protected against dealer
misrepresentations.^{94

\91\ B-15 at 4.
\92\ See NIADA Comment, B-7 at 4-5.
\93\ B-20 at 1.
\94\ B-15 at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. Based on the information obtained in response to
the Notice, the Commission has concluded that the costs and burdens
associated with Rule compliance are not substantial. Although the costs
or burdens of complying with the Rule may be marginally greater on
smaller dealers that have fewer employees than larger dealerships, the
costs associated with compliance are still quite small. The cost for
Buyers Guides averages 7.6 cents per form, and other costs associated
with the Rule (i.e., filling out the Buyers Guide and posting them),
although not quantified, were represented as minimal and reasonable. At
the same time, the comments contended that there are benefits from Rule
compliance. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that no changes
are needed to reduce the costs of the Rule on small businesses.
Further, although compliance with the Rule may be more burdensome
and costly to dealers who frequently conduct sales transactions in
Spanish, TADA's proposed solution (elimination of the requirement to
post Spanish Buyers Guides) contravenes the Commission's rationale for
the posting requirement.^{95 Providing a Buyers Guide at the time of
sale is insufficient to protect against the unfair and deceptive
practices the Rule was designed to deter. By requiring posting, the
Rule affords buyers an opportunity to comparison shop. Accordingly, the
Commission has decided to take no action.

\95\ The Commission originally considered requiring Buyers
Guides to be translated into several dozen languages. However,
``[t]he evidence in the [rulemaking] record indicates that, besides
English, Spanish is the language most frequently used during used
car sales transaction.'' SBP at 45711 (footnote omitted). Thus, the
Rule requires the window form and the content disclosures to be in
Spanish, if the sale is conducted in Spanish. Dealers who conduct
transactions in both English and Spanish may post both versions of
the Buyers Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Five
Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or
local laws or regulations?
i. Summary of Comments. In terms of ``overlap,'' NCLC stated: There
really is no overlap with state consumer protection laws (unfair and
deceptive acts and practices statutes) because not all states' laws
cover all violations of the Used Car Rule. The Used Car Rule itself
merely effectuates a claim under a deceptive practices act in some
states, by declaring certain conduct to be unfair or deceptive, which
may then be prohibited by the state law.^{96

\96\ B-23 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIADA stated, however, that there may be possible overlap with
Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.^{97 Iowa's Attorney General
noted that the Rule overlaps with the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, Iowa
Code 714.16, to the extent that the Consumer Fraud Act requires that
sellers of merchandise not fail to disclose material facts with the
intent that others rely on the omission.^{98 Although the two
overlap, Iowa believed it presents no problem to either the Commission
or the State of Iowa in the enforcement of the Rule or the Iowa
Consumer Fraud Act.^{99

\97\ B-07 at 5.
\98\ Warranty coverage on a motor vehicle is considered to be a
material fact under Iowa law.
\99\ B-15 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska's Attorney General believed there is a ``gap'' in the Rule
that has been addressed in state court decisions.^{100 TADA noted
that the Rule's definition of a ``used vehicle'' and the State of
Texas's definition cause problems because the Commission's definition
of ``used vehicle'' is much broader than that of some states, including
Texas.^{101 According to TADA this causes confusion and
misunderstanding as to when a vehicle is required to display a Buyers
Guide.^{102

\100\ The ``gap'' relates to the Rule's failure to require
dealers to disclose known defects. The AG asserts that the common
law of most states requires disclosure. See, e.g., Patton v. McHone,
822 S.W.2d 608 (Tenn. App. 1991). B-01 at 1.
\101\ See also discussion at Part IV, Question 2, B, 2-3, supra,
regarding the difference between the Rule's definition of a ``used
vehicle,'' and the state law definitions.
\102\ B-11 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NACAA stated that the Rule conflicts with some state laws by
providing that the language in the Buyers Guide overrides contrary
provisions in the contract of sale.^{103 The Washington

[[Page 62203]]
State Attorney General's Office also noted that the Commission's ``As-
Is'' version of the Buyers Guide does not accurately reflect Washington
contract law on valid disclaimer of implied warranties, thus creating a
conflict.^{104

\103\ B-24 at 2, citing section 455.3(b) of the Rule. NACAA also
contended that the provision may be used by dealers to disclaim
promises of greater warranty protection in oral or written form.
This issue was addressed in the discussion at Part IV, Question 2,
E, supra .
\104\ B-17 at 3. See also discussion at Part IV, Question 2, E,
supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The comments indicated that to the extent there is
any overlap between the Rule and state law, it is generally not a
significant problem. The ``conflict'' noted by the Washington Attorney
General has been addressed by the Commission staff in correspondence
with the Attorney General. As was explained in the staff's letter, the
purpose of the posted Buyers Guide is to show consumers what warranty
coverage a dealer is offering. The Rule also requires the dealer to
provide the buyer with a copy of the Buyers Guide showing the final
warranty coverage agreed to. If, under Washington State law, an ``As-
Is'' sale has not been properly consummated, the final version of the
Buyers Guide should note that the car is being sold with implied
warranties.^{105 Because the Used Car Rule does not conflict with
state consumer protection statutes in any significant way, there is no
need for Commission action.

\105\ See staff Opinion Letter to Robert F. Manifold, Division
Chief, October 12, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions Six and Ten
Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes in
relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule?
How many used vehicles (as defined by Section 455.1(d)(2) of the
Rule) are sold annually in the United States?
i. Summary of Comments. The number of used cars sold annually is
much larger now than when the Rule was promulgated.^{106 Based on
information NADA submitted, franchised dealerships accounted for nearly
10 million used car sales in 1993 (9,836,800) and NIADA reported
another 16 million sales were made by independent dealers. NIADA's
information indicated that 25.9 million used vehicles were sold by
independent and franchised dealers in 1992.^{107 Franchised dealers
report that the biggest part of both their profit and their volume is
coming from their used, not new, vehicle sales. ``New car dealers sold
more used vehicles than new for the first time in 1989, and since then
relative used-car volume has grown steadily.'' ^{108

\106\ In the original rulemaking, the Commission noted that in
1979, ``two of every three cars sold in the United States were used.
Consumers in that year spent $66.7 billion, including the value of
trade-ins in purchasing 18.5 million used cars from all sources.''
SBP at 45695.
\107\ B-7, see attachment to comment entitled ``Used Car
Sales.'' Other sources indicate that the dollar amount of used car
sales covered by the Rule reached $281.5 billion in 1993 and $289.2
billion in 1994. See Used Gold Reference Guide, Chapter 7, p. 3, CNW
Marketing Research, Bandon, Oregon, 1994.
\108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIADA noted that economic conditions within the industry have
improved, but was unable to quantify whether the changed conditions
have had an impact on the Rule. Other comments noted changes in the
relevant technology and/or economic conditions that may have affected
the Rule. For example, NCLC noted a significant increase in the leasing
of new and used cars in support of its recommendation that Buyers
Guides be posted on leased vehicles. NCLC also pointed to the
proliferation of computers and copying machines within the industry,
concluding this should make it easier for dealers to comply with the
Rule.^{109 Reynolds & Reynolds noted that many computer systems have
the ability to print the form for a dealer, thereby reducing time/
energy demands upon dealers to fill out the Buyers Guide.^{110
Another comment noted that car manufacturers have done a better job of
conveying warranty information and covered systems to dealers.^{111

\109\ B-23 at 5.
\110\ B-20 at 2.
\111\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iowa Attorney General noted that since vehicles are more
complex than ever, repair costs have increased. The Washington Attorney
General noted that both the demand for and price of used vehicles have
been driven up because new cars are becoming increasingly
expensive.^{112 Thus, warranty coverage is more important to
consumers than ever before, and the need for the Rule is greater than
in the past.^{113 Similarly, most of the comments said there was a
continuing need for the Rule because of the size of the industry.

\112\ B-17 at 3.
\113\ B-15 at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The economic changes in the industry--the growth in
used car sales, the increased prices of used cars,^{114 and the
rising cost of repairs--make warranty coverage an important
consideration in a sales transaction. The changes addressed in the
comments demonstrate that the reasons for promulgating the Rule
continue to exist. At the same time, the comments noted that
technological changes have made it easier for dealers to comply with
the Rule.

\114\ According to CNW Marketing Research, the average sales
price for a used car sold by a franchised dealer was $11,820, and
$6,835 for an independent dealer, in 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Twelve
Should the Rule's requirement that the Buyers Guide be posted in a
side window of a used vehicle, as set forth in Section 455.2(a)(1) of
the Rule, be modified to allow posting in a different location (for
example, in the rear window of a pickup truck or other vehicle without
side rear windows), as long as the Buyers Guide is conspicuous and both
sides may be readily viewed?
i. Summary of Comments. The comments generally supported modifying
the Rule as suggested. NADA recommended that the Rule afford some
flexibility in the placement of the guide, allowing it to be placed
elsewhere than in a side window. NCCE suggested that enforcement focus
on the availability and accessibility of the information ``and not on
the trivial aspects of the regulation such as location of the
information.'' ^{115

\115\ B-12 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One consumer protection group noted that if there are no side rear
windows, the Buyers Guide should be placed in the front window.^{116
One Attorney General supported the modification, noting that the Rule
should allow for dealers to post the Buyers Guides in the rear windows
of pick-up trucks and other vehicles lacking side rear windows to offer
the dealers some flexibility.^{117 The Michigan Secretary of State
supported the amendment permitting the posting of Buyers Guides in
other than the side window as long as the guide is prominently
displayed and both sides can be readily viewed by a purchaser.^{118
Other comments also supported the proposed modification of the
Rule.^{119

\116\ B-23 at 6-7.
\117\ B-15 at 5.
\118\ B-14 at 1.
\119\ B-17 at 5, B-19 at 2, B-20 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The Commission is amending the Rule to delete the
side window posting requirement.^{120 Dealers instead will be
required to post Buyers Guides prominently and in plain sight anywhere
on the vehicle as long as both sides are accessible. This amendment
affords dealers greater flexibility in posting Buyers Guides on all
vehicles, not just pickup trucks or vehicles without side windows. For
example,

[[Page 62204]]
dealers could hang Buyers Guides from the rear view mirror or place
them under the windshield wipers or hang them from exterior side view
mirrors. These options allow consumers to view the Buyers Guide easily.
Putting Buyers Guides in glove boxes or on the floor or in the trunk
will not satisfy the requirement that the Buyers Guide be in plain
sight and conspicuous.

\120\ Because this amendment does not change the substantive
rights afforded by the Rule or significantly affect the obligations
of dealers, the Commission has concluded that section 18, 15 U.S.C.
57a, rulemaking proceedings are unnecessary to issue this amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Thirteen
What changes to the format of the Buyers Guide should be considered
in order to reduce compliance costs or burdens? Would such changes have
any detrimental effect on the benefits provided by the Rule? Is there
any empirical or other evidence to support opinions that such changes
would or would not have a detrimental effect on benefits?
i. Summary of Comments. Some comments recommended that the Buyers
Guide should be maintained in its present form.^{121 Others stated
that the format of the Buyers Guide should be changed, but none
provided empirical evidence in support of their assertions. For
example, Reynolds & Reynolds suggested allowing the Buyers Guide to be
merged with other required forms. It stated that the Buyers Guide could
be combined with the state lemon laws and refund rights acts forms. The
result would be a form with larger dimensions. While the combined form
would be higher priced, the overall cost of complying with the multiple
laws would be lowered.^{122

\121\ Iowa Attorney General, B-15 at 7.
\122\ B-20 at 1. Reynolds & Reynolds suggested that additional
information could be printed on the form (i.e., standard warranty
coverage) in order to save dealers from having to fill out a new
form for each vehicle. There is, however, no prohibition against
pre-printing information on the Buyers Guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both NADA and NIADA recommended that the Rule allow some
flexibility in the format requirements of the Buyers Guide.^{123
Specifically, NIADA suggested that reducing the size requirement of the
Buyers Guide to 7'' x 5'' would be useful because it would minimize the
window blockage in compact cars and pickup trucks, and thus reduce what
it termed a driving safety hazard.^{124 NIADA contended that the
present Buyers Guide contains much empty space ``that could be
eliminated without destroying the eye catching qualities it now has.''
^{125 NIADA also suggested putting the dealer's name and address on
the front of the Buyers Guide so that the entire form could be easily
filled in using an office computer printer. In addition it suggested
that the language ``RECEIPT OF ORIGINAL COPY ACKNOWLEDGED'' and a
signature line be placed on the front of the Buyers Guide.

\123\ The Rule requires that the Buyers Guide conform to the
exact wording, type style, type size, and format specified by the
Rule. See Section 455.2(a)(2) of the Rule. Among other things, the
Rule specifies that the form must be printed on white stock no less
than 11 inches high by 7\1/4\ inches wide. NADA stated that while
the Buyers Guide does an adequate job of communicating information
to consumers, ``[t]here needs to be more flexibility regarding the
size, typeface, additions, etc. to the form.''
\124\ B-7 at 3. The Rule provides that Buyers Guides may be
removed during test drives. But, some commenters claim that removing
Buyers Guides for test drives and re-posting them afterwards is
burdensome.
\125\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NCLC, along with Iowa Attorney General,^{126 opposed changing
the format of the Buyers Guide, stating:

\126\ B-15 at 7.

It is important to keep the Buyers Guide at its current size and
not to make it smaller. It must be prominent in order to be noticed
by consumers so that the buyer can negotiate with the dealer over
the terms on the Buyers Guide and know exactly what is provided in
terms of warranties. Some of the type on the back of the Buyers
Guide, indicating systems to check, is already very small.^{127

\127\ B-23 at 4.

ii. Discussion. The Commission has decided not to modify the
present size or format of the Buyers Guide. The only argument for
reducing the size of the Buyers Guide is that the current size of the
Buyers Guide may present a safety hazard during test drives. It is
difficult to imagine that dealers would forego the option of
temporarily removing Guides during test drives, if a true safety hazard
existed. However, if such a hazard existed, it seems unlikely that
reducing the dimensions of the Buyers Guide to 5'' x 7'' would
significantly lessen the hazard. The Commission's amendment to allow
conspicuous posting anywhere in the vehicle is likely to better address
this issue than reducing the size of the Buyers Guide.
The Commission requested empirical evidence to support any proposed
modifications to the size or format because, during the original
rulemaking proceeding, considerable effort was expended to design a
form that communicates information effectively to consumers. To
evaluate the effectiveness of the Buyers Guide during the rulemaking, a
series of copy comprehension tests were conducted. According to the SBP
for the Rule, the results of the copy testing were incorporated into
the final design of the Buyers Guide that the Commission adopted in May
1981.^{128 Although the copy testing was done on prior versions of
the Buyers Guide, which differed from the Buyers Guide now in use,
those comprehension tests were relevant to the design of the revised
format the Commission adopted in 1984. Based on those tests, certain
changes to the Buyers Guide were implemented which carried through to
the current version.^{129

\128\ SBP at 45709. The Commission announced the earlier version
of the rule in 46 FR 41328 (1981). The 1981 Buyers Guide included
information about the condition of major mechanical and safety
systems of the car, which the Commission decided to omit in 1984.
\129\ For example, based on the testing, the Commission
increased the type size of the warning against relying on spoken
promises, and prefaced it with the bold-face heading, ``Important.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further, the size of the Buyers Guide was the subject of comments
filed in response to the Commission's July 31, 1984 Federal Register
Notice soliciting comment on a Baseline Study of the Rule and the
Commission's tentative decision to adopt a revised rule. For example,
NADA requested that the size of the form be reduced from 12 inches high
by 7\1/4\ inches wide to 6 x 8 inches. Following its review, the
Commission concluded that the format and type size required by the Rule
would easily fit onto a 7\1/4\ x 11 sheet. Therefore, to avoid
unnecessary costs, the Commission revised the Rule to require a form no
smaller than 11 inches high by 7\1/4\ inches wide. The Commission
rejected NADA's proposal to reduce the form to the 6 x 8 size because
the type sizes required by the Rule would have to be reduced to fit on
the smaller sheet, making the Buyers Guide difficult to read. The final
Rule the Commission published required a Buyers Guide no smaller than
11 inches high by 7\1/4\ wide.^{130

\130\ 16 CFR 455.2(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under these circumstances, the Commission has determined not to
change the format of the Buyers Guide without copy testing or other
reliable information showing that a reduced or revised Buyers Guide
would be as easy to read and comprehend as the current Buyers Guide.
For example, taking out the white space, as NIADA suggests, could
reduce the effectiveness of the Buyers Guides. The empty space on the
Buyers Guide was planned to make information stand out and to avoid
making the form a jumble of information. For the same reasons, the
Commission is also rejecting the suggestion that the format of the
Buyers Guide be modified to incorporate other required forms.^{131

\131\ Recent Commission research also suggests that the
consolidation of labels may result in information overload. See
Report to Congress by the Federal Trade Commission, Study of a
Uniform National Label for Devices that Dispense Fuel to Consumers,
pp. 27-30 (Oct. 1993).

[[Page 62205]]

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

Further, the Commission is rejecting the suggestion to modify the
Buyers Guide to include dealer information and a signature line on the
front of the Buyers Guide. NIADA noted that computer pre-printing of
the Buyers Guide requires turning the page over in order to print the
information. The actual burden of having to turn over the Buyers Guide
to pre-print the information is quite small. Further, dealers may use
an ink stamp to put this information on the back side. Both of these
methods--ink stamp or turning the Buyers Guide over and pre-printing
the information--are inexpensive ways of complying with the
Rule.^{132

\132\ The issue of obtaining consumer signatures was addressed
earlier in this notice. See Part IV, Question 2, B, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question Fourteen
What changes to the format of the Buyers Guide should be considered
in order to increase its benefits? What effect would such changes have
on the costs or burdens imposed by the Rule? Is there any empirical or
other evidence to support opinions that such changes would or would not
increase costs or burdens?
i. Summary of Comments. One consumer suggested that the information
be on one side only, and that a signature line be included so that the
customer has a chance to read it and know he is entitled to a
copy.^{133 This consumer also suggested that the Buyers Guide be
modified to have check boxes for the selling dealer to disclose whether
or not the dealer has attempted to repair any item on the vehicle in
any way, and a section for the dealer to list specifically what
components or systems were found by the inspection to be in need of
repair and yet were not repaired by the dealer, plus their anticipated
costs.^{134 NACAA noted that the Buyers Guide should be revamped to
provide a checklist of symptoms and causes for auto problems, and state
more strongly that consumers should have those items independently
checked before committing themselves to a used car purchase.^{135
Washington's Attorney General suggested that the Buyers Guide note that
the Cooling-Off Rule does not apply to used car sales. Reynolds &
Reynolds suggested that a customer signature box be added to the form's
back to ensure that the purchaser has received warranty information (or
the lack thereof) and has acknowledged it.^{136

\133\ Jay Drick, B-25 at 1-2.
\134\ B-25 at 1.
\135\ B-24 at 3.
\136\ B-20 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Discussion. The Commission has concluded that adding additional
information to the Buyers Guide, such as a warning that the Cooling-Off
Rule does not apply, is unnecessary.^{137 The format of the present
Buyers Guide achieves the Rule's objectives, and thus, for the reasons
previously discussed throughout this notice, the Commission is leaving
the format of the Buyers Guide essentially unchanged.^{138

\137\ 16 CFR 429. The Cooling-Off Rule does not apply to the
sale of vehicles, nor any other goods and services, offered at a
seller's place of business. It also does not apply to sales of
vehicles at auctions provided that the seller has a permanent place
of business.
\138\ See discussion at Part IV, Question 2, B, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Review

Based on its review of the record, the Commission has concluded
that the Rule has not had ``a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities'' affected by the Rule.^{139 As
previously discussed, the comments indicate that the costs associated
with Rule compliance are minimal. The record also suggests that these
costs generally would be borne by a reasonably prudent business anyway.

\139\ 5 U.S.C. 603-605. The Commission received no information
regarding the number of dealerships with annual sales of $11.5
million or less. But, the Commission's experience is that most
independent used car dealers have annual sales less than $11.5
million and therefore are small entities for purposes of the RFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

The comments and the Commission's experience indicate that the Rule
is working and achieving its objectives, while imposing only minimal
costs on used car dealers. For the reasons discussed above, however,
the Commission is amending the Spanish Buyers Guide and amending the
Rule to permit dealers to post Buyers Guides prominently and in plain
view in all used vehicles being offered for sale (rather than on a side
window). The Commission also is amending the Rule to permit dealers to
put a signature line on the back of the Buyers Guide, if accompanied by
a specific disclosure.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 455

Motor vehicles, Trade practices.

Authority: The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
(1980).

Text of Amendments

For the reasons set forth in this document, pertinent sections of
the Used Car Rule, 16 CFR Part 455, are amended as follows:

PART 455--[AMENDED]

The authority citation for part 455 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 88 Stat. 2189, 5 U.S.C. 2309; 38 Stat. 717 as
amended; 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.

2. Section 455.2(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 455.2 Consumer sales--window form.

(a) * * *
(1) The Buyers Guide shall be displayed prominently and
conspicuously in any location on a vehicle and in such a fashion that
both sides are readily readable. You may remove the form temporarily
from the vehicle during any test drive, but you must return it as soon
as the test drive is over.
* * * * *
3. Further, Sec. 455.2 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read
as follows:

Sec. 455.2 Consumer sales--window form.

* * * * *
(f) Optional Signature Line. In the space provided for the name of
the individual to be contacted in the event of complaints after sale,
you may include a signature line for a buyer's signature. If you opt to
include a signature line, you must include a disclosure in immediate
proximity to the signature line stating: ``I hereby acknowledge receipt
of the Buyers Guide at the closing of this sale.'' You may pre-print
this language on the form if you choose.
* * * * *
4. Further, the first page of the sample Spanish language Buyers
Guide (``GUIA DEL COMPRADOR'') appearing at the end of section 455.5 is
revised to read as follows:

Sec. 455.5 Spanish language sales.

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

[[Page 62206]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TR05DE95.000

By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-27553 Filed 12-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Visit the Official Version

Document Information

Effective Date:: 1/4/1996
Published:: 12/05/1995
Department:: Federal Trade Commission
Entry Type:: Rule
Action:: Final rule.
Document Number:: 95-27553
Dates:: The effective date of these non-substantive amendments will be January 4, 1996.
Pages:: 62195-62206 (12 pages)
PDF File:: 95-27553.pdf
CFR: (2): 16 CFR 455.2; 16 CFR 455.5