Supporting Statement A

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html

Federal Trade Commission Supporting Statement
for the Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting Rule
(“Fuel Rating Rule”)
16 C.F.R. Part 306
OMB Control No. 3084-0068

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests approval for a three-year extension of an existing clearance relating to the disclosure and reporting requirements under the Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting Rule (“Fuel Rating Rule”). There is no change in the instrument collection.

    (1) Necessity for Collecting the Information

The Fuel Rating Rule establishes standard procedures for determining, certifying, and disclosing the octane rating of automotive gasoline and the automotive fuel rating of alternative liquid automotive fuels, as required by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (“PMPA”). 15 U.S.C. § 2822(a)-(c). The Rule also requires refiners, producers, importers, distributors, and retailers to retain records showing how the ratings were determined, including delivery tickets or letters of certification.

The Rule further requires producers, importers, distributors, and retailers of alternative fuels to keep for one year records of any delivery tickets, letters of certification, or tests upon which they based the automotive fuel ratings that they certified or posted. These records must be available for inspection by Commission and Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) staff members or by persons authorized by the Commission or EPA.

    (2) Use of the Information

By knowing as accurately as possible both the octane or fuel rating requirements of their cars and the associated rating of what they buy at the pump, consumers simultaneously can save money, conserve energy, reduce air pollution, and protect their cars against possible engine damage.

The information that must be kept under the Rule’s recordkeeping requirements is used by Commission or EPA staff, or by persons authorized by the FTC or EPA. Authorized persons check the records for enforcement purposes to ensure the accuracy of automotive fuel rating representations. The information is sought on a case-by-case or spot check basis.

The primary purpose of the recordkeeping requirement is to preserve evidence of automotive fuel rating certification from refiners through the chain of distribution. Without records of how the rating of the automotive fuel was represented when the transfer was made, it would be impossible to trace cases of a rating overstatement from the point of detection at the retail level back upstream to an offending distributor or refiner.



    (3) Consideration of the Use of Improved Information Technology to Reduce Burden

The Rule permits the use of any technologies that industry members may wish to employ and that may reduce the burden of information collection. The Rule’s certification and posting requirements are tailored to take advantage of existing industry practices in order to minimize the compliance burden. Certifications can be made on computer-generated delivery documents, resulting in savings of considerable time and labor. As noted above, certification can be accomplished in either of two ways: on a delivery ticket with each transfer of fuel or by a certification letter or other written statement, which may be sent and stored electronically.

Although nothing in the Rule requires that these certifications contain any signature (see § 306.6), to the extent such a certification may typically involve a signature, the Rule leaves certifying parties free to use whatever technology they deem appropriate to identify and authenticate such signatures, consistent with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, P.L. 105-277, Title XVII, 112 Stat. 2681-749 (“GPEA”). Likewise, the Rule complies with GPEA by permitting certain disclosures to be made (see § 306.5) and necessary records to be kept (see §§ 306.7, 306.9, 306.11) without regard to format, so that a regulated entity, if it chooses, may conduct these activities electronically.

Notwithstanding the GPEA, it would be impracticable and incompatible with the purpose of the Rule to permit the use of electronic mail or other electronic option to substitute for the automotive fuel rating labels (see § 306.12) that retailers must post on the face of each fuel pump. These disclosures must be made to the consumer at the pump. Nothing in this labeling requirement, however, expressly prohibits the label itself from being electronically displayed if it otherwise satisfies the typeface, color, size, and durability requirements of the Rule.

    (4) Efforts to Identify Duplication

Commission staff has not identified any other federal statutes, rules, or policies that would duplicate the Rule.

    (5) Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Organizations

The Rule’s rating certification requirements are designed to impose the minimum possible burden on industry members. The certification of an automotive fuel rating by a refiner to a distributor or by a distributor to a retailer may be made on any document that is used as written proof of transfer or a letter or any other written statement. These fuel transfer documents were already retained by refiners, distributors, and retailers in the ordinary course of business. To further minimize the certification and recordkeeping requirements, the Rule permits an automotive fuel rating certification to be provided by means of a one-time letter of certification, obviating the need for individual certifications on each delivery ticket. This one-time letter could remain effective for a number of years, and its retention would constitute compliance with the Rule’s recordkeeping requirements.



    (6) Consequences of Conducting Collection Less Frequently

The fundamental disclosure required by the Rule involves posting the octane rating of automotive gasoline and the automotive fuel rating of alternative liquid automotive fuels at retail sale. This requires accurate rating and certification of these fuels. To do less would fail to fulfill the PMPA’s statutory mandate.

    (7) Circumstances Requiring Collection Inconsistent with Guidelines

The collection of information in this Rule is consistent with the guidelines stated in 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(2).

    (8) Public Comments/Consultation Outside the Agency

On July 23, 2026, the FTC sought public comment on the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements associated with the Rule. 91 Fed. Reg. 46439. Three commenters submitted germane responses. Two of the commenters supported the proposed extension of the OMB clearance for information collection requirements.1 A third commenter, The Native Claim Firm (“NCF”), expressed no position on the proposed extension but contested the Commission’s burden estimate.2 Specifically, NCF observed that the Commission’s burden estimate provides an average figure across retailers of all sizes and argued that this approach could obscure the relative burden on low-volume retailers. NCF requested the Commission to consider the burden on low-volume retailers and supplement its burden estimate with a breakdown by retailer size or dispenser count. To support its request, NCF estimated that low-volume retailers face a PRA burden of $0.0000077 per gallon, which is higher than the $0.0000057 per gallon that NCF calculated for the Commission’s average figure approach. While the Commission appreciates commenters raising awareness that small entities may face unique compliance burdens, the Commission finds that this difference of two ten-thousandths of a cent per gallon does not warrant modifying the burden estimate in this instance.

Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 C.F.R. Part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew the pre-existing clearance for the Rule.

    (9) Payments or Gifts to Respondents

Not applicable. There have been no payments or gifts to respondents in connection with the Rule.




(10) Assurances of Confidentiality

The Rule requirements for which the Commission seeks OMB approval do not involve collection or disclosure of confidential information. From time to time, the Commission may require a covered entity to submit information as part of a law enforcement investigation to determine whether any entity has engaged in any practices that might have violated the Rule. Any information provided to the Commission in connection with such law enforcement investigations is treated as confidential under Sections 6(f) and 21(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 46(f) and 57b-2(f).

    (11) Matters of a Sensitive Nature
The Rule does not present any questions of a sensitive nature.

    (12) Hours of Burden and Associated Labor Costs

Estimated annual burden hours: 28,163 (derived from 11,394 recordkeeping hours added to 16,769 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Based on industry sources, staff estimates that approximately 136,727 fuel industry members3 each incur an average annual burden of approximately five minutes to ensure retention of relevant business records4 for the period required by the Rule, resulting in a total of 11,394 hours.

Disclosure: Staff estimates that affected industry members incur an average burden of approximately one hour to produce, distribute, and post octane rating labels. Because the labels are durable, only about one of every eight industry member retailers (16,769 of 134,146 industry member retailers) incur this burden each year, resulting in a total annual burden of 16,769 hours.




Estimated annual labor costs: $455,731.

Labor costs are derived by applying appropriate hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Here, the average hourly wages of refiners, producers, distributors, and importers is $45.03.5 The average hourly wages of retailers is $15.96.6 The recordkeeping component, 11,394 hours, consists of approximately 215 hours for producers, distributors, and importers; and 11,179 hours for retailers. Thus, the total annual labor cost for recordkeeping is $188,098 ((215 hours x $45.03/hour) + (11,179 hours x $15.96/hour)). The disclosure component, which concerns retailers, is approximately 16,769 hours. Thus, total annual labor cost for disclosure is $267,633 (16,769 hours x $15.96/hour).

    (13) Estimated Annual Capital and/or Other Non-labor Related Costs

Staff believes that the Rule does not impose any capital costs for producers, importers, or distributors of fuels. Retailers, however, incur the cost of procuring and replacing fuel dispenser labels to comply with the Rule. Staff conservatively estimates that the price per automotive fuel label is $3.06 and that the average automotive fuel retailer has six dispensers; thus, $18.36 labeling cost per retailer at inception and each time a retailer must replace labels.7 Staff has previously estimated a dispenser useful life range of 6 to 10 years and based on that, assumed a useful life of 8 years for labels, the mean of that range. Annualizing the $18.36 labeling cost per retailer over a label’s average useful life yields $2.30. Cumulative annual labeling cost would thus be $308,536 (134,146 retailers × $2.30 per year).

    (14) Estimate of Cost to Federal Government

Staff estimates that the yearly cost to the Federal Government to administer the Rule’s requirements is approximately $40,229, which is the cost of 0.15 of an attorney/economist work year at GS-15, step 10, under the locality pay scale for the Washington, DC area.  Fringe benefits are calculated at 36% of the salary for FTC officials and are included within the overall estimate of $40,229. 

    (15) Adjustments/Changes in Burden

There is slight adjustment downward for both the estimated annual hours of burden (28,163 hours in 2026 and 31,976 hours in 2023) and the annual labor costs ($455,731 in 2026 and $481,374 in 2023).


    (16) Statistical Use of Information

There are no plans to publish for statistical use any information the Rule requires.


    (17) Requested Permission Not to Display the Expiration Date for OMB Approval

The OMB control number and expiration date associated with this PRA submission will be displayed on the Federal Government’s electronic PRA docket at www.reginfo.gov. The OMB control number for current information collections is also found at 16 C.F.R. § 1.101 in the Code of Federal Regulations. There are no required forms or other documents upon which display of the control number and expiration date would be appropriate.

    (18) Exceptions to the Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

Not applicable. The Commission certifies that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 C.F.R. § 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 1320.8(b)(3). There is no certification for the use of effective and efficient statistical survey methodology pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1320.9(i) because that is not applicable to this collection.