Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices 4291

Commission Actions section of the FTC

Home Page (for January 16, 1997), on

the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.’’ A paper

copy can be obtained from the FTC

Public Reference Room, Room H–130,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580, either in

person or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Such

comments or views will be considered

by the Commission and will be available

for inspection and copying at its

principal office in accordance with

Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

agreed to accept, subject to final

approval, a proposed consent order

settling charges that Pre-Paid Legal

Services, Inc., violated Section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After sixty (60) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement or make

final the agreement’s proposed order.

This matter concerns the sale of living

trusts to senior citizens through

membership in the American

Association for Senior Citizens

(‘‘AASC’). The respondent covered by

the proposed order is Pre-Paid Legal

Services, Inc., the company responsible

for furnishing to and preparing the

living trusts for AASC.

The complaint alleges that the

respondent violated Section 5 of the

Federal Trade Commission Act by

making numerous misrepresentations

about the advantages of living trusts

over other forms of estate planning.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that

respondent has misrepresented that (1)

the use of a living trust avoids all

administrative costs; (2) at death, a

living trust ensures that assets are

distributed immediately or almost

immediately; (3) a living trust cannot be

challenged; (4) living trusts are prepared

by local attorneys; (5) a living trust

protects against catastrophic medical

costs; (6) a living trust is the appropriate

estate planning device for every

consumer; and (7) there are no

disadvantages to a living trust.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions which are designed to

remedy the alleged violations and to

prevent the respondent from engaging in

similar acts and practices in the future.

The proposed order would prohibit the

respondent from making the

misrepresentations alleged in the

complaint and set forth above.

Additionally, the order would require

the respondent to disclose to

prospective purchasers that living trusts

may be challenged on similar grounds

as wills and that they may not be

appropriate in all instances.

Under the order, the respondent also

would be required to provide four

affirmative disclosures in situations

where the statements would be true. (1)

Some states have created a mechanism

for ‘‘informal probate’’ of an estate if the

estate meets certain criteria, which

significantly reduces the time involved

in probate. This disclosure would be

required in states where informal

probate is available. (2) If the transfer of

an individual’s assets into the living

trust is not included in the price of

creating the living trust, that fact must

be disclosed. (3) If it is the sole

responsibility of the purchaser of the

living trust to transfer assets into the

trust, that fact must be disclosed. (4) In

some states, but not in others, creditors

have a longer period of time to file

claims against a living trust than against

a probated estate. This fact would have

to be disclosed in such states.

The proposed order would require the

respondent to distribute the proposed

order to its officers, agents, and all

personnel who participate in any way

with respondent’s sales activities

relating to living trusts. Additionally,

the order would require the respondent

to notify the Commission of any changes

in its corporate structure and to retain

for three years all materials that it relies

upon in making representations covered

by the order. Finally, the respondent is

required to file one or more compliance

reports detailing its compliance with the

order.

The proposed order also requires the

respondent to offer partial refunds to

any AASC member who has not

previously received a refund from either

the respondent or AASC.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order, nor

to modify in any way their terms. The

proposed consent order has been

entered into for settlement purposes

only and does not constitute an

admission by the respondent that the

law has been violated as alleged in the

complaint.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2206 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

[File No. 962–3150]

Uno Restaurant Corporation, et al.;

Pizzeria Uno Corporation; Uno

Restaurants, Inc.; Analysis to Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violations of federal law prohibiting

unfair or deceptive acts or practices and

unfair methods of competition, this

consent agreement, accepted subject to

final Commission approval, would

prohibit, among other things, the

nationwide pizza restaurant chain from

misrepresenting the existence or amount

of fat or any other nutrient or substance

in pizzas or other food products

containing a baked crust. The agreement

settles allegations that advertising

touting the ‘‘Thinzettas’’ line of thin

crust pizzas as ‘‘low fat’’ was false and

misleading.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 6th St. and Pa. Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phoebe Morse, Federal Trade

Commission, Boston Regional Office,

101 Merrimac St, Suite 810, Boston, MA

02114–4719. (617) 424–5960. John T.

Dugan, Federal Trade Commission,

Boston Regional Office, 101 Merrimac

St, Suite 810, Boston, MA 02114–4719.

(617) 424–5960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C.

46, and § 2.34 of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice

is hereby given that the above-captioned

consent agreement containing a consent

order to cease and desist, having been

filed with and accepted, subject to final

approval, by the Commission, has been

placed on the public record for a period

of sixty (60) days. The following

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes the terms of the consent

agreement, and the allegations in the

accompanying complaint. An electronic

copy of the full text of the consent

agreement package can be obtained from

the Commission Actions section of the

FTC Home Page (for January 22, 1997),
4292 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices

on the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions/htm.’’ A paper

copy can be obtained from the FTC

Public Reference Room, Room H–130,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580, either in

person or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Such

comments or views will be considered

by the Commission and will be available

for inspection and copying at its

principal office in accordance with

Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s

Rules of Practice (16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to

Aid Public Comment

The Federal Trade Commission has

accepted an agreement to a proposed

consent order from Uno Restaurant

Corporation, Pizzeria Uno Corporation,

and Uno Restaurants, Inc. The proposed

respondents operate the nationwide

Pizzeria Uno restaurant chain, where

they sell, among other items, a line of

thin crust pizzas known as

‘‘Thinzettas.’’

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for reception of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After sixty (60) days,

the Commission will again review the

agreement and the comments received

and will decide whether it should

withdraw from the agreement and take

other appropriate action or make final

the agreement’s proposed order.

The Commission’s complaint charges

that the proposed respondents falsely

claimed that their Thinzettas line of thin

crust pizzas is low in fat. The proposed

consent order contains provisions

designed to remedy the violations

charged and to prevent proposed

respondents from engaging in similar

acts in the future.

Part I of the proposed order, in

connection with pizzas or any other

food product containing a baked crust,

prohibits the proposed respondents

from misrepresenting the existence or

amount of total fat or any other nutrient

or substance in such product. Part I

further provides that if any

representation covered by this Part

conveys a nutrient content claim

defined (for purposes of labeling) by any

regulation promulgated by the Food and

Drug Administration, compliance with

this Part shall be governed by the

qualifying amount set forth in that

regulation. Part II of the proposed order

specifies that nothing in the order

prohibits the proposed respondents

from making any representation for any

product that is specifically permitted in

labeling for such product by regulations

promulgated by the Food and Drug

Administration pursuant to the

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of

1990.

Part III of the proposed order contains

record keeping requirements for

materials that substantiate, qualify, or

contradict covered claims and requires

the proposed respondents to keep and

maintain all advertisements and

promotional materials containing any

representation covered by the proposed

order. Part IV requires distribution of a

copy of the consent decree to current

and future principals, officers, directors,

managers, and franchisees, and to

certain current and future employees,

agents, and representatives.

Part V provides for Commission

notification upon any change in the

corporate respondents affecting

compliance obligations arising under

the order. Part VI requires the filing of

compliance report(s). Finally, Part VII

provides for the termination of the order

after twenty years under certain

circumstances.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order, and it is not intended

to constitute an official interpretation of

the agreement and proposed order or to

modify in any way their terms.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2207 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

Public Buildings Service; Notice of

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS)

SUMMARY: The General Services

Administration (GSA) hereby gives

notice it intends to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement

pursuant to the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, and the President’s

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508),

as implemented by GSA’s Order PBS P

1095.4B to construct a new Federal

Courthouse in downtown Seattle, King

County, Washington.

The EIS will evaluate the proposed

project, any other reasonable

alternatives, and the no-action

alternative identified through the

scoping process. Scoping will be

accomplished through direct mail

correspondence to interested persons,

parties, and organizations and through a

Public Scoping Meeting. GSA will

publish a Public Notice of this meeting

and all subsequent public meetings in

Seattle newspapers approximately one

to two weeks prior to each event.

ADDRESSES: As part of the public

scoping process, GSA solicits your

written comments on the scope of

alternatives and potential impacts at the

following address: Ms Donna M. Meyer,

Regional Environmental Program Officer

(10 PCB), General Services

Administration, 400 15th Street SW,

Auburn, WA, 98001, or FAX: Ms Donna

M. Meyer at 206–931–7308. Written

comments should be received no later

than February 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nona Diediker at Herrera Environmental

Consultants, 2200 Sixth Avenue, Suite

601, Seattle, Washington 98121, (206)

441–9080, or Donna M. Meyer, GSA,

(206) 931–7675.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GSA,

assisted by Herrera Environmental

Consultants, is anticipating the

preparation of an Environmental Impact

Statement on a proposal to acquire a site

and design and construct a new Federal

Courthouse in downtown Seattle. GSA

will serve as the lead agency and

scoping will be conducted consistent

with NEPA regulations and guidelines.

GSA invites interested individuals,

organizations, and federal, state, and

local agencies to participate in defining

the reasonable alternatives to be

evaluated in the EIS, and in identifying

any significant social, economic, or

environmental issues related to the

alternatives. During scoping, comments

should focus on identifying specific

impacts to be evaluated and suggesting

alternatives that minimize adverse

significant impacts while achieving

similar objectives. Comments may also

identify issues which are not significant

or which have been covered by prior

environmental review. Scoping should

be limited to commenting on

alternatives and the merit of the

proposal rather than indicating

preferences. There will be an

opportunity to comment on preferences

upon completion of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement.

Mailing List: If you wish to be placed

on the project mailing list to receive

future or further information as the EIS

process develops, contact Herrera at the

address noted above.

Project Purpose, Historical

Background, and Project: A new Federal

Courthouse is needed in downtown

Seattle to consolidate existing judicial

functions and to accommodate the

projected space needs of the Federal

Courts and court-related agencies. There

have been previous environmental

reviews completed for this project. A