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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices 4293

new review is necessary because of a

change in the delineated area. The

existing U.S. Courthouse at 1010 5th

Street is listed on the National Register

of Historic Places along with its lawn

area.

The Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts (AOC) has requested GSA

provide a building based on the Long

Range Facility Plan for the Western

District of Washington. The new

Courthouse would provide for 15

courtrooms for use by the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals, the U.S. District

Court, and U.S. Magistrate judges. The

existing Courthouse would continue to

be utilized.

At occupancy, the new facility is

expected to house approximately 700

federal employees. Development would

involve construction of one building

comprising approximately 620,000

square feet of gross floor area and

parking for 200 vehicles.

Alternatives: The EIS will examine

the short and long term impacts on the

natural and built environment of

developing and operating a new

courthouse in downtown Seattle.

Potential impact assessment will

include but not be limited to changes in

the social environment, changes in land

use, aesthetics, changes in traffic and

parking patterns, economic impacts, and

conformance to City planning and

zoning requirements.

The EIS will also examine measures

to mitigate significant unavoidable

adverse impacts resulting from the

proposed action. Concurrent with NEPA

implementation, GSA will also

implement its consultation

responsibilities under Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act to

identify potential impacts to existing

historic or cultural resources.

The EIS would consider a no action

alternative and action alternatives. The

no-action alternative (no-build)

alternative would continue the use of

the existing U.S. Courthouse

supplemented by the continued use of

leased space throughout the downtown

Seattle area. The preferred action

alternative is construction of a new

courthouse building. Currently, three

separate site alternatives are being

proposed for study. GSA will consider

the acquisition of one or two block sites

sufficient to meet future expansion

needs of the court and within an area

delineated as follows:

Bounded on the north by Blanchard

Street, on the east by Terry Avenue, on

the south by James Street, and by First

Avenue on the west.

Due to the unique requirements for

courtrooms, chambers, and security

considerations, GSA has found it is

impractical to consider the use of an

existing building through either

purchase or lease in which to meet these

needs.

Procedures: The Draft EIS will be

prepared at the completion of and based

upon a scoping report. The Draft EIS

will then be made available for public

and agency review and comment with a

public hearing being held during this

comment period. A final EIS would be

prepared following conclusion of the

comment period to address issues raised

on the Draft EIS.

Dated: January 23, 1997.

L. Jay Pearson,

Regional Administrator (10A).

[FR Doc. 97–2237 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–23–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary; Statement of

Organization, Functions, and

Delegation of Authority

Part A (Office of the Secretary),

Chapter AE (Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

(OASPE), of the Statement of

Organization, Functions and Delegation

of Authority for the Department of

Health and Human Services (most

recently amended at 61 FR 24499 on

May 15, 1996) is amended to establish

the Office of Science Policy within

OASPE.

I. Chapter AE, add the following as

paragraph F:

F. The Office of Science Policy (OSP)

is responsible for guiding and

coordinating the development of science

policy throughout the Department. As

directed by the Secretary or the ASPE,

OSP establishes and leads broadly

representative, multi-office working

groups to develop policy initiatives

related to complex science and

technology issues that cut across the

missions of several entities within the

Department. The Director, OSP

frequently serves as the spokesperson

for these working groups in

presentations to the Secretary, other

senior DHHS staff, to members and/or

staff of the Congress, and to others

outside DHHS.

OSP is responsible for guiding and

coordinating the incorporation of

science-policy considerations within

regulatory proposals, legislative

proposals, Congressional testimony,

press releases, and other public

documents describing major

Departmental initiatives. OSP staff

provide critique and advice regarding

the science-policy content of such

documents, which typically originate

from DHHS Operating Divisions or other

units within the Office of the Secretary.

In selected instances, OSP initiates and

directs the development of such

documents.

OSP is responsible for creating and

maintaining effective communication

with scientific and technical

communities outside the Department

regarding science-policy issues. This

may include liaison with the Office of

Science and Technology Policy,

Executive Office of the President. It also

includes active participation in interagency science and technology activities

(such as those sponsored by the

National Science and Technology

Council) and government/private sector

collaborations related to science policy

(such as those sponsored by the

National Academy of Sciences). These

duties may include service as the

Secretary’s representative in meetings

with leaders of research universities,

scientific societies, professional

associations, and industrial

organizations involved in biomedical,

behavioral, or social-science research or

in the delivery of health and human

services.

In all of these areas, OSP staff

coordinate their activities as appropriate

with those of other components within

OASPE, with other components of the

Office of the Secretary, and with the

Operating Divisions of the Department.

The Director, OSP consults regularly

with the Assistant Secretary for Health

in his/her role as the Secretary’s senior

advisor on public health and science.

Dated: January 17, 1997.

John J. Callahan,

Assistant Secretary for Management and

Budget.

[FR Doc. 97–2085 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4110–12–M

Office of the Secretary

Federal Financial Participation in State

Assistance Expenditures; Federal

Matching Shares for Temporary

Assistance to Needy Families,

Medicaid, and Aid to Needy Aged,

Blind, or Disabled Persons for October

1, 1997 Through September 30, 1998

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Federal Percentages and

Federal Medical Assistance Percentages

for Fiscal Year 1998 have been

calculated pursuant to the Social

Security Act (the Act). These

percentages will be effective from