New FTC Online Resource Answers Questions about U.S. Antitrust Laws

What are the antitrust laws and how do they promote and protect competition? Find the answers in a new online resource from the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC Guide to the Antitrust Laws.

This plain-language guide is written for consumers and business people with questions about the antitrust laws. The Guide summarizes the core laws that ban unfair business practices and prevent mergers that harm consumers, and explains how antitrust cases are brought by U.S., state, and international authorities, as well as private parties. Antitrust rules are organized into four basic areas by the business conduct they regulate: Dealings with Competitors, Dealings in the Supply Chain, Single Firm Conduct, and Mergers.

There are 25 fact sheets on specific antitrust topics, such as price fixing, bid rigging, and refusals to deal. These fact sheets can also be downloaded and used as handouts. The Guide uses FTC cases as examples of different types of antitrust violations, and points to other guidance documents developed with the U.S. Department of Justice to help businesses comply with the U.S. antitrust laws. The online version of the Guide links directly to these other resources for easy reference.

Find the FTC Guide to the Antitrust Laws at http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/index.shtm.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(BC Web FYI.2008.wpd)

FTC To Host Public Workshop on “Green Guides” and Claims for Building and Textiles

As part of its review of its environmental marketing guidelines, also known as the “Green Guides,” the Federal Trade Commission will host its third public workshop to examine developments in environmental claims for building products, buildings, and textiles, along with consumer perceptions of those claims, on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The workshop will provide an opportunity for interested parties to study green textile and building claims. Discussion topics will include: 1) consumer perceptions of environmental claims for building and textile products; 2) the state of substantiation for green building and textile claims; and 3) the need for additional or updated FTC guidance in these areas. The workshop will be held at the agency’s satellite building in Washington, DC. FTC Chairman William E. Kovacic will provide opening remarks.

WHAT: Workshop on Green Guides and Claims for Building and Textiles
WHEN: Tuesday, July 15, 2008;
9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. (check-in starts at 8:15 am)
WHERE: FTC Conference Center – Satellite Building
601 New Jersey Ave, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001
AGENDA: Posted at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/buildingandtextiles/agenda.pdf
PRESS CONTACT: FTC Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

Webcast Information

Individuals who are unable to attend the workshop can view a live
Webcast by connecting to this link:
http://htc-01.media.globix.net/COMP008760MOD1/ftc_web/FTCindex.html

Commission Approves Federal Register Notice Regarding Light Bulb Labeling

Commission approval of Federal Register notice – The Commission has approved the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register to initiate a proceeding to evaluate labeling requirements for “lamps,” more commonly known as light bulbs. As detailed in the ANPR, section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the FTC to conduct a rulemaking to consider the effectiveness of current labeling requirements for lamps and to explore alternative labeling approaches. As the initial step in this effort, the Commission has approved an ANPR seeking comment on existing lamp labeling requirements and possible alternatives. The ANPR also announced a September 15, 2008 public roundtable meeting on lamp labeling to help the Commission accomplish its mandate in this area. The ANPR will be published shortly and is available now on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P084206frnanprlamps.pdf.

The ANPR announced today provides background about current light bulb labeling requirements, the recent mandate in the EISA, the purpose of the FTC labeling requirements, and various labeling considerations. The notice also contains a series of questions related to the effectiveness of current labeling and potential labeling alternatives to help focus comments and discussion at the public meeting in September. The Commission vote approving publication of the ANPR was 4-0. (FTC File No. P084206; the staff contact is Hampton Newsome, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2889.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 36.2008.wpd)

Commission Approves Federal Register Notice Regarding Light Bulb Labeling

Commission approval of Federal Register notice – The Commission has approved the publication of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register to initiate a proceeding to evaluate labeling requirements for “lamps,” more commonly known as light bulbs. As detailed in the ANPR, section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) requires the FTC to conduct a rulemaking to consider the effectiveness of current labeling requirements for lamps and to explore alternative labeling approaches. As the initial step in this effort, the Commission has approved an ANPR seeking comment on existing lamp labeling requirements and possible alternatives. The ANPR also announced a September 15, 2008 public roundtable meeting on lamp labeling to help the Commission accomplish its mandate in this area. The ANPR will be published shortly and is available now on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P084206frnanprlamps.pdf.

The ANPR announced today provides background about current light bulb labeling requirements, the recent mandate in the EISA, the purpose of the FTC labeling requirements, and various labeling considerations. The notice also contains a series of questions related to the effectiveness of current labeling and potential labeling alternatives to help focus comments and discussion at the public meeting in September. The Commission vote approving publication of the ANPR was 4-0. (FTC File No. P084206; the staff contact is Hampton Newsome, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2889.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 36.2008.wpd)

FTC Submits Do Not Call Report to Congress for FY 2007

Commission approval of report to Congress – The Commission has approved the issuance of a report to Congress regarding the Do Not Call Registry for Fiscal Year 2007. The report, which is available now as a link to this press release on the FTC’s Web site, has been submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce and the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as required by Section 4(b) of the Do Not Call Implementation Act.

The report – the fourth and final submission required by the Act – contains information on the following topics: 1) the effectiveness of the Registry; 2) the number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers on the Registry; 3) the number of entities paying fees to access the Registry and the amount of the fees; 4) the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the Registry with similar registries maintained by the states; 5) the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the Registry with enforcement activities of the Federal Communications Commission under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; and
6) FTC enforcement of the Registry under the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The Commission vote approving issuance of the report was 4-0. (FTC File No. P034305; the staff contact is John Krebs, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3747.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP.

(FYI 34.2008.wpd)

FTC Challenges Flow International’s Proposed Acquisition of Rival OMAX Corp.

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a complaint charging that Flow International Corporation’s (Flow) proposed $109 million acquisition of rival waterjet manufacturer OMAX Corporation (OMAX) would be anticompetitive and in violation of federal antitrust laws. Under the terms of a consent order resolving the Commission’s complaint and allowing the transaction to proceed, Flow will be required to grant to any firm a royalty-free license to two OMAX patents relating to the controllers used in waterjet cutting systems.

“Flow and OMAX are each other’s closest competitor in the highly concentrated U.S. market for waterjet cutting systems,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The consent agreement announced today will remedy the Commission’s competitive concerns, and will benefit consumers by ensuring that Flow will continue to face direct competition in this market going forward.”

The Relevant Product Market

The relevant product market at issue in this transaction is the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems. These systems use high-pressure water mixed with abrasive garnet particles to cut a wide variety of materials, including steel and stone. Both Flow and Omax have developed PC-based controllers that automatically compensate for the unique cutting characteristics of waterjet systems. The controllers, for example, manage the taper of the waterjet – the waterjet expands as it leaves the nozzle, forming a cone shape – and the lag – the faster the cutting head moves, the more the waterjet trails behind the cut.

Flow and OMAX are the leading manufacturers of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. Flow, a publicly traded company, is headquartered in Kent, Washington. Its PC-based
controller, along with the accompanying sales and marketing efforts, has made Flow the leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. OMAX, Flow’s closest competitor, also uses PC-based controllers to run its waterjet cutting systems, and holds two broad patents covering controllers. OMAX’s controllers are a significant factor behind its position as the second leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States.

On December 5, 2007, Flow signed an exclusive option agreement to negotiate the acquisition of OMAX. Under the agreement, Flow and OMAX will work to negotiate a definitive agreement for Flow to acquire OMAX. Upon closing, Flow will pay approximately $109 million in cash and stock with the potential for a contingent earn-out in two years of up to $26 million. The closing also will settle a long-running and expensive lawsuit between Flow and OMAX relating to controllers and patents.

The Commission’s Complaint

The Commission’s complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would be anticompetitive and would substantially lessen competition in the U.S. market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the acquisition would eliminate direct competition between Flow and OMAX and enable Flow to exercise unilateral market power in the relevant market.

According to the complaint, both Flow and OMAX produce waterjet cutting systems that feature relatively inexpensive yet sophisticated PC-based controllers. These controllers make FLOW and OMAX each other’s closest competitors in the relevant market. The complaint further alleges that OMAX holds two broad patents that prevent new entry sufficient to deter or counteract the likely anticompetitive harm that would be caused by the proposed acquisition.

Terms of the Consent Order

The Commission’s consent order is designed to remedy the alleged anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition. The order requires Flow to grant each competitor seeking one a royalty-free license to OMAX’s two broad patents. Since other aspects of Flow and OMAX’s businesses can easily be duplicated by competitors, requiring Flow to grant these licenses will ensure that other firms are able to replace the competition that would otherwise have been eliminated by the proposed acquisition.

The Commission vote to accept the complaint and consent order was 4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid public comment can be found on the Commission’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0810079/index.shtm. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through August 8, 2008, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

Copies of the documents related to this matter are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 081-0079)
(Flow-OMAX.final)

FTC Challenges Flow International’s Proposed Acquisition of Rival OMAX Corp.

The Federal Trade Commission today issued a complaint charging that Flow International Corporation’s (Flow) proposed $109 million acquisition of rival waterjet manufacturer OMAX Corporation (OMAX) would be anticompetitive and in violation of federal antitrust laws. Under the terms of a consent order resolving the Commission’s complaint and allowing the transaction to proceed, Flow will be required to grant to any firm a royalty-free license to two OMAX patents relating to the controllers used in waterjet cutting systems.

“Flow and OMAX are each other’s closest competitor in the highly concentrated U.S. market for waterjet cutting systems,” said Jeffrey Schmidt, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The consent agreement announced today will remedy the Commission’s competitive concerns, and will benefit consumers by ensuring that Flow will continue to face direct competition in this market going forward.”

The Relevant Product Market

The relevant product market at issue in this transaction is the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems. These systems use high-pressure water mixed with abrasive garnet particles to cut a wide variety of materials, including steel and stone. Both Flow and Omax have developed PC-based controllers that automatically compensate for the unique cutting characteristics of waterjet systems. The controllers, for example, manage the taper of the waterjet – the waterjet expands as it leaves the nozzle, forming a cone shape – and the lag – the faster the cutting head moves, the more the waterjet trails behind the cut.

Flow and OMAX are the leading manufacturers of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. Flow, a publicly traded company, is headquartered in Kent, Washington. Its PC-based
controller, along with the accompanying sales and marketing efforts, has made Flow the leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States. OMAX, Flow’s closest competitor, also uses PC-based controllers to run its waterjet cutting systems, and holds two broad patents covering controllers. OMAX’s controllers are a significant factor behind its position as the second leading supplier of waterjet cutting systems in the United States.

On December 5, 2007, Flow signed an exclusive option agreement to negotiate the acquisition of OMAX. Under the agreement, Flow and OMAX will work to negotiate a definitive agreement for Flow to acquire OMAX. Upon closing, Flow will pay approximately $109 million in cash and stock with the potential for a contingent earn-out in two years of up to $26 million. The closing also will settle a long-running and expensive lawsuit between Flow and OMAX relating to controllers and patents.

The Commission’s Complaint

The Commission’s complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition would be anticompetitive and would substantially lessen competition in the U.S. market for the development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of waterjet cutting systems, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the acquisition would eliminate direct competition between Flow and OMAX and enable Flow to exercise unilateral market power in the relevant market.

According to the complaint, both Flow and OMAX produce waterjet cutting systems that feature relatively inexpensive yet sophisticated PC-based controllers. These controllers make FLOW and OMAX each other’s closest competitors in the relevant market. The complaint further alleges that OMAX holds two broad patents that prevent new entry sufficient to deter or counteract the likely anticompetitive harm that would be caused by the proposed acquisition.

Terms of the Consent Order

The Commission’s consent order is designed to remedy the alleged anticompetitive effects of the proposed acquisition. The order requires Flow to grant each competitor seeking one a royalty-free license to OMAX’s two broad patents. Since other aspects of Flow and OMAX’s businesses can easily be duplicated by competitors, requiring Flow to grant these licenses will ensure that other firms are able to replace the competition that would otherwise have been eliminated by the proposed acquisition.

The Commission vote to accept the complaint and consent order was 4-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid public comment can be found on the Commission’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0810079/index.shtm. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through August 8, 2008, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000.

Copies of the documents related to this matter are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Room 394, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 081-0079)
(Flow-OMAX.final)

FTC Testifies on Behavioral Advertising

In testimony on behavioral advertising, the Federal Trade Commission today told the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that “the issues surrounding this practice are complex … the business models are diverse and constantly evolving, and … behavioral advertising may provide benefits to consumers even as it raises concerns about consumer privacy.”

In the FTC’s testimony, Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Committee that behavioral advertising, defined as “the practice of collecting information about an individual’s online activities in order to serve advertisements that are tailored to that individual’s interests,” typically involves the use of “cookies,” or small text files placed on an individual’s computer, to collect information about the pages viewed and other online activities. The testimony also states that, in many cases, the practice involves collecting consumer information that is not personally identifiable in the traditional sense – that is, it does not identify the consumer by name, address, or similar identifier. The practice also can involve the sharing of the information with networks that serve advertisements at Web sites across the Internet.

According to the testimony, behavioral advertising may provide a variety of benefits to consumers, including free content, personalization of ads, and a potential reduction in unwanted advertising. Consumer research has shown that consumers value online ads that are more personalized. These ads may facilitate shopping for specific products. Further, behavioral advertising may help subsidize and support a diverse range of free online content and services that might otherwise not be available or that consumers would have to pay for, for example, blogging, search engines, and instant access to news and other information.

On the other hand, consumers have expressed discomfort about the privacy implications of being tracked online, as well as the specific harms that could result. In particular, “Without adequate safeguards in place, consumer tracking data may fall into the wrong hands or be used for unanticipated purposes,” the testimony states. “These concerns are exacerbated when the
tracking involves sensitive information about, for example, children, health, or a consumer’s finances.”

The testimony also described Commission efforts and initiatives in the consumer privacy area, including its recent work to address the privacy issues raised by online behavioral advertising. According to the testimony, consumer privacy issues such as data security, identity theft, spam, and spyware have been top agency priorities since the mid-1990s, and the Commission has worked to address these issues through a combination of consumer and business education, law enforcement, and policy initiatives. As part of its privacy program, in November 2007, the Commission held a two-day town hall meeting on behavioral advertising. In response to issues raised at the town hall, in December Commission staff released for public comment a set of proposed behavioral advertising principles for self-regulation.

According to the testimony, “the Commission is cautiously optimistic that the privacy concerns raised by behavioral advertising can be addressed by industry self-regulation,” which “affords the flexibility that is needed as business models continue to evolve.” The testimony noted, however, that the FTC will continue to monitor the marketplace closely so it can take appropriate action as circumstances warrant.

The Commission vote to approve the testimony was 4-0.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

FTC Testifies on Behavioral Advertising

In testimony on behavioral advertising, the Federal Trade Commission today told the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that “the issues surrounding this practice are complex … the business models are diverse and constantly evolving, and … behavioral advertising may provide benefits to consumers even as it raises concerns about consumer privacy.”

In the FTC’s testimony, Lydia Parnes, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told the Committee that behavioral advertising, defined as “the practice of collecting information about an individual’s online activities in order to serve advertisements that are tailored to that individual’s interests,” typically involves the use of “cookies,” or small text files placed on an individual’s computer, to collect information about the pages viewed and other online activities. The testimony also states that, in many cases, the practice involves collecting consumer information that is not personally identifiable in the traditional sense – that is, it does not identify the consumer by name, address, or similar identifier. The practice also can involve the sharing of the information with networks that serve advertisements at Web sites across the Internet.

According to the testimony, behavioral advertising may provide a variety of benefits to consumers, including free content, personalization of ads, and a potential reduction in unwanted advertising. Consumer research has shown that consumers value online ads that are more personalized. These ads may facilitate shopping for specific products. Further, behavioral advertising may help subsidize and support a diverse range of free online content and services that might otherwise not be available or that consumers would have to pay for, for example, blogging, search engines, and instant access to news and other information.

On the other hand, consumers have expressed discomfort about the privacy implications of being tracked online, as well as the specific harms that could result. In particular, “Without adequate safeguards in place, consumer tracking data may fall into the wrong hands or be used for unanticipated purposes,” the testimony states. “These concerns are exacerbated when the
tracking involves sensitive information about, for example, children, health, or a consumer’s finances.”

The testimony also described Commission efforts and initiatives in the consumer privacy area, including its recent work to address the privacy issues raised by online behavioral advertising. According to the testimony, consumer privacy issues such as data security, identity theft, spam, and spyware have been top agency priorities since the mid-1990s, and the Commission has worked to address these issues through a combination of consumer and business education, law enforcement, and policy initiatives. As part of its privacy program, in November 2007, the Commission held a two-day town hall meeting on behavioral advertising. In response to issues raised at the town hall, in December Commission staff released for public comment a set of proposed behavioral advertising principles for self-regulation.

According to the testimony, “the Commission is cautiously optimistic that the privacy concerns raised by behavioral advertising can be addressed by industry self-regulation,” which “affords the flexibility that is needed as business models continue to evolve.” The testimony noted, however, that the FTC will continue to monitor the marketplace closely so it can take appropriate action as circumstances warrant.

The Commission vote to approve the testimony was 4-0.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

FTC Proposes Rescinding 40-Year Guidance on Statements Concerning Tar and Nicotine Yields

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed rescinding guidance issued in 1966 that generally permits statements concerning tar and nicotine yields if they are based on the Cambridge Filter Method, which is sometimes referred to as “the FTC Method.” If the guidance is withdrawn, advertisers should no longer use terms suggesting the FTC’s endorsement or approval of any specific test method.

The Cambridge Filter Method is a machine-based test method that “smokes” cigarettes according to a standard protocol. At the time the FTC issued its guidance, most public health officials believed that reducing the amount of “tar” produced by a cigarette could reduce a smoker’s risk of lung cancer. The Commission believed that giving consumers uniform, standardized information about tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes would help them make informed decisions about the cigarettes they smoked.

Today, however, the scientific consensus is that machine-based measurements of tar and nicotine yields based on the Cambridge Filter Method do not provide meaningful information on the amounts of tar and nicotine smokers receive from cigarettes or on the relative amounts of tar and nicotine they are likely to receive from smoking different brands of cigarettes. The primary reason for this is smoker compensation – that is, smokers alter their smoking behavior in order to obtain the necessary nicotine dosage. Compensation, and changes over the years in cigarette design to facilitate compensation, can have significant effects on the amount of tar and nicotine smokers get from cigarettes.

The proposal can be found on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. It will be published soon in the Federal Register, and the comment period will end 30 days thereafter. Interested parties are invited to submit comments. Comments must be received no later than August 12, 2008. Comments filed in paper form should reference “Cigarette Test Method, [P944509]” in the text and on the envelope. Send two copies to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex L), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments filed electronically should be submitted via the Web-based form at
https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-CigaretteTestMethod.

The Commission vote authorizing the publication of the Federal Register Notice was 4-0. (FTC File No. P944509. The staff contacts are Rosemary Rosso and Shira Modell, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2174 or 202-326-3116.)

(FYI Cigarette Testing )
(FTC File No. P944509)