Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67369

Title: Westbound Transpacific

Stabilization Agreement

Parties:

American President Lines, Ltd.

Evergreen Marine Corporation

Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.

Hapag-Lloyd Container Linie GmbH

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

A.P. Moller-Maersk Line

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines

Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd.

Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line

Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.

P&O Nedlloyd B.V.

P&O Nedlloyd Limited

Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Synopsis: The proposed modification

provides for the parties to exchange

their rates on wastepaper and metal

scrap, to charge only the rates and

changes so declared, and to be subject

to neutral body policing.

Agreement No.: 203–011506–001

Title: Matson/APL Space Sharing

Agreement

Parties:

Matson Navigation Company, Inc.

American President Lines, Ltd.

Synopsis: The proposed modification

expands the geographic scope of the

parties’ space sharing agreement

include ports and points in Mexico.

The modification also revises the

vessels to be used under the

agreement and provides for other

conforming arrangements in

connection with equipment

interchange and stevedoring/terminal

services.

Agreement No.: 202–011528–006

Title: Japan/U.S. Eastbound Freight

Conference

Parties:

American President Lines, Ltd.

Hapag-Lloyd Container Line GMBH

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.

A.P. Moller-Maersk Line

Neptune Orient Lines Limited

Orient Overseas Container Line

(U.S.A.)

P&O Nedlloyd B.V.

P&O Nedlloyd Limited

Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Wilhelmsen Lines AS

Synopsis: The proposed amendment

provides that P&O Nedlloyd, B.V. and

P&O Nedlloyd Limited shall be

considered a single member for voting

and quorum purposes in conducting

the Agreement’s business.

Agreement No.: 224–200147–005

Title: Jacksonville Port Authority/SeaLand Service, Inc., Marine Terminal

Agreement

Parties:

Jacksonville Port Authority

Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Synopsis: The proposed modification

permits Sea-Land to exercise its

renewal option by extending the

terms until October 31, 2001. In

addition, the modification amends

Section 4, Rental, in its entirety;

revises Exhibit D—Throughput Rates;

and increases the fees and charges for

the rental and throughput rates.

Dated: December 18, 1997.

By Order of the Federal Maritime

Commission.

Ronald D. Murphy,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33506 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 97–24]

Trade Net, Inc. v. Cho Yang Shipping

Co., LTD.; Notice of Filing of Complaint

and Assignment

Notice is given that a complaint filed

by Trade Net, Inc. (‘‘Complainant’’)

against Cho Yang Shipping Co., Ltd.

(‘‘Respondent’’) was served December

19, 1997. Complainant alleges that

Respondent has violated section 8(c) of

the Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘the Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. § 1707, by failing and

refusing to make available the essential

terms of a service contract to

Complainant, a similarly situated

shipper, on the same basis as they have

been made applicable to the original

contract shipper.

This proceeding has been assigned to

the office of Administrative Law Judges.

Hearing in this matter, if any is held,

shall commence within the time

limitations prescribed in 46 CFR 502.61,

and only after consideration has been

given by the parties and the presiding

officer to the use of alternative forms of

dispute resolution. The hearing shall

include oral testimony and crossexamination in the discretion of the

presiding officer only upon proper

showing that there are genuine issues of

material fact that cannot be resolved on

the basis of sworn statements, affidavits,

depositions, or other documents or that

the nature of the matter in issue in such

that an oral hearing and crossexamination are necessary for the

development of an adequate record.

Pursuant to the further terms of 46 CFR

502.61, the initial decision of the

presiding officer in this proceeding shall

be issued by December 21, 1998, and the

final decision of the Commission shall

be issued by April 20, 1999.

Ronald D. Murphy,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33614 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act:

Implementation

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On March 29, 1996, Public

Law 104–121 was enacted. Title II of the

bill, called the ‘‘Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996’’ (‘‘SBREFA’’), affects the Federal

Maritime Commission’s

(‘‘Commission’’) rulemaking procedures

and will attach additional requirements

to other Commission regulatory activity

that may impact upon small businesses.

This Notice defines ‘‘small business’’

for Commission regulatory purposes;

announces new procedures for

rulemakings affecting small businesses;

and establishes two programs required

by SBREFA: (1) A program for

responding to certain informal inquiries

from small businesses; and (2) a policy

regarding reduction or waiver of civil

penalties in certain cases involving

small businesses.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Vern W. Hill, Director, Bureau of

Enforcement, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–

5783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections

202–245, Title II of Public Law 104–121,

effective June 27, 1996, place a number

of obligations on the Commission

whenever it regulates ‘‘small business

concerns’’ as defined by 15 U.S.C. 632

and regulations issued thereunder by

the Small Business Administration

(‘‘SBA’’).

‘‘Small Business ’’ Defined

Initially, the Commission must decide

whether to adopt the SBA’s definitions

of ‘‘small business’’ as being appropriate

for the Commission’s regulatory

purposes. Alternatively, the

Commission may, after consultation

with the Office of Advocacy of the SBA,

and after providing opportunity for

public comment, establish its own

standards for determining which of its

regulated entities should appropriately

be considered small businesses within

the context of Commission regulation,
67370 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

and publish such standards in the

Federal Register.

To make that initial determination,

the Commission reviewed SBA

classifications and standards, and

consulted with the SBA’s Office of

Advocacy. From these sources, we

learned that SBA definitions,

classifications and standards are

intended to be as inclusive of small

businesses as possible; a purpose which

does necessarily coincide with the

Commission’s regulatory mandate.

The SBA catalogues businesses along

industry lines using the Standard

Industrial Classification Manual (‘‘SIC’’)

published by the Executive Office of the

President, Office of Management and

Budget. SBA then, in accordance with

its regulations at 13 CFR 121.201,

determines which entities in each

classification are small business

establishments based upon the number

of their employees or the

establishment’s annual receipts in

millions of dollars.

The Commission identified the

following SIC categories and codes as

falling within our regulatory

jurisdiction:

4412 Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of

Freight (Vessel Operating Common

Carriers—‘‘VOCCs’’)

4481 Deep Sea Transportation of Passengers

(Passenger Vessel Operators—‘‘PVOs’’)

4491 Marine Cargo Handing (Marine

Terminal Operators—‘‘MTOs’’)

4731 Arrangement of Transportation of

Freight and Cargo (Ocean Freight

Forwarders—‘‘OFFs’’; and Non-Vessel

Operating Common Carriers—

‘‘NVOCCs’’)

Business entities in Categories 4412

and 4481, VOCCs and PVOs, are

evaluated by SBA according to their

number of employees. The SBA has

determined that if such business

establishments have less than 500

employees, they qualify as a small

businesses for SBA purposes. Business

establishments in Categories 4491 and

4731, NVOCCs, OFFs and MTOs, are

evaluated by their annual receipts in

millions of dollars. For these categories,

SBA determined that business

establishments with annual receipts

(gross annual revenues) or less than

$18.5 million are small businesses.

As stated, the Commission could

accept these SBA standards and treat

VOCCs and PVOs having fewer than 500

employees, and MTOs, OFFs and

NVOCCS having less than $18.5 million

in gross annual revenues, as small

businesses; or, following established

procedures, we could develop our own

standards more closely oriented to the

Commission’s regulatory framework.

The dilemma is that, unlike other

agencies which may choose to develop

their own standards, the Commission

neither collects nor maintains any data

regarding the number of employees or

gross annual revenues of the entities it

regulates. Indeed, we have no

preexisting regulatory purpose for doing

so. Thus, for the Commission to create

standards by which to define ‘‘small

businesses’’, and to determine which

regulated entities fall within those

standards, a major collection of data

from all industry segments would have

to be undertaken. Moreover, many of the

Commission’s regulated entities are

foreign domiciles from whom such data

is not readily accessible. Even assuming

sufficient data could be obtained by the

Commission, the collection and

requisite economic analysis of that data

would entail an unfeasible expenditure

of time and resources. For these reasons,

the Commission has determined to

adopt the SBA’s inclusive standards.

Thus, in the future, the Commission

will be considering the small business

impact of many of its regulatory

undertakings.

However, it is apparent that many

Commission regulated entities are

VOCCs, PVOs and MTOs which

generally are very large companies with

far in excess of 500 employees, in the

case of VOCCs and PVOs, and $18.5

million in gross revenues in the case of

MTOs. These companies, as well as

conferences or associations of such

companies, generally represented by

retained counsel, frequently raise,

informally, complex issues responding

to which involves considerable

Commission time and effort. Such

entities are not the intended small

business beneficiaries of SBREFA.

Accordingly, the Commission is

making a rebuttable presumption that

VOCCs and PVOs, as well as

conferences and associations comprised

of VOCC and PVO members, have more

than 500 employees, and that MTOs at

United States ports, as well as

conferences and associations of such

MTOs, earn gross revenues in excess of

$18.5 million per year. Thus, VOCCs,

PVOs and MTOs are presumed not to be

small businesses encompassed within

the programs and policies mandated by

SBREFA.

Nevertheless, any VOCC or PVO with

fewer than 500 employees, or any MTO

with less than $18.5 million in gross

annual revenues, that seeks to be treated

as a small business for Commission

regulatory purposes, may submit a

request to such treatment to the

Secretary of the Commission, along with

payroll or gross annual revenues

evidence, as applicable, sufficient to

substantiate its claim and rebut the

presumption.

Rulemaking Affecting Small Businesses

Section 241 of Title II amends the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5

U.S.C. 603, and sets forth additional

requirements applicable to rulemaking

proceedings that will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses. Under

section 242, small businesses now can

seek judicial review of Commission

compliance with RFA requirements.

Compliance Guides

As required by section 212, each rule

promulgated by the Commission in the

future that significantly affects a

substantial number of small businesses

will include a ‘‘compliance guide’’ to

assist small businesses in complying

with that rule. The content of the

compliance guide may be taken into

account by a reviewing court ‘‘as

evidence of the reasonableness or

appropriateness’’ of any proposed

penalties for noncompliance with the

rule.

Negative Certifications and Regulatory

Flexibility Analyses

The RFA requires federal agencies

either to certify that a ‘‘ * * * rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities’’, or to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis. Because there are no

developed standards or decisional

guidelines available for measuring

‘‘significant economic impact’’ or

‘‘substantial number of small entities’’,

the meaning of those terms will be

developed on a case by case basis.

If a proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

either adverse or beneficial, an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required. In these instances, the RFA

authorizes the Commission’s Chairman

to make a negative certification with

respect to that rulemaking. To make this

threshold determination, the

Commission will undertake a

preliminary analysis to evaluate the

economic impact of a proposed rule on

small business entities. Once this

preliminary analysis is completed, the

Commission either will make a negative

certification or undertake an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis. A

certification of a finding of no

significant impact on a substantial

number of entities will be published

with the proposed rule in the Federal

Register and will be accompanied by an

explanation of the factual and economic

bases for the certification. The negative
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices 67371

certification is subject to judicial

review.

When a proposed rule is expected to

have a significant economic impact,

beneficial or adverse, on a substantial

number of small entities, an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis will be

prepared. The initial regulatory

flexibility analysis or a summary of it

will be published in the Federal

Register with the proposed rule.

Under section 603(b) of the RFA, each

initial regulatory flexibility analysis is

required to address: (1) reasons why the

agency is considering the action, (2) the

objectives and legal basis for the

proposed rule, (3) the kind and number

of small entities to which the proposed

rule will apply, (4) the projected

reporting, record keeping and other

compliance requirements of the

proposed rule, and (5) federal rules that

may duplicate, overlap or conflict with

the proposed rule. In addition, each

initial regulatory flexibility analysis

must describe any significant

alternatives to the proposal that

accomplish the statutory objectives and

minimize the significant negative

economic impact of the proposal on

small entities.

When the Commission issues a final

rule, it will prepare a final regulatory

flexibility analysis or certify that the

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A final

regulatory flexibility analysis will

discuss the comments received, the

alternatives considered and the

rationale for the final rule. The analysis

itself or a summary thereof will be

published in the Federal Register with

the final rule. The final regulatory

flexibility analysis is subject to judicial

review.

Programs and Policies To Address

Small Business Concerns

SBREFA requires:

(1) That the Commission establish a

program for responding to informal

compliance inquiries from small

businesses (section 213); and (2) That

the Commission establish a policy or

program for reduction or waiver of civil

penalties for violations by small

businesses of statutory or regulatory

requirements (section 223).

Program to Respond To Informal

Inquiries From Small Businesses

The staff of the Commission has

always responded informally to

telephonic inquiries from the regulated

public. Such inquiries are received

daily, and often are handled routinely.

Many inquiries involve simple

questions regarding matters such as

tariff filings, licensing and bonding, as

well as procedural matters. Others are

far more complex and time consuming,

involving contingencies and variables

that must be clarified or resolved even

before the precise issue can be

identified. Most often, the latter type

inquiries, and those requiring lengthy

discussions and follow-up discussions,

are from VOCCs, PVOs and MTOs

through their retained counsel. For the

same reasons discussed above, the

Commission does not consider inquiries

from these sources to be within the

contemplation of the informal inquiry

program required by SBREFA.

While the Commission will continue

to provide informal assistance to all

persons subject to its jurisdiction, with

respect to inquiries from small

businesses, current practices are being

augmented because of SBREFA’s new

requirements that:

(1) After 2 years, the Commission

must report on the scope of the

Commission’s program and the

achievements of the program in

assisting small businesses to comply

with agency statutes and regulations;

and

(2) The agency may be held

accountable for the content of its advice

regarding an inquirer’s compliance with

statutory or regulatory requirements.

The substance of such advice can be

raised in any subsequent appeal of a

civil penalty imposed against a

participating small business entity.

In accordance with SBREFA, and

because of its reporting and

accountability provisions, the

Commission is establishing the

following procedures:

Small businesses subject to

Commission jurisdiction are invited to

make informal inquiries regarding the

lawfulness of their own activities. This

program will apply to those small

busineses that, at the time fo the

inquiry, identify themselves and the

type of their business operations, for

example, NVOCC or OFF.

Inquiries may be submitted by

telephone, letter or e-mail depending

upon the nature and complexity of the

inquiry as determined, ultimately, by

the person receiving the inquiry.

Additional information may be required

and requested. Responses will be

prvovided by telephone, letter or e-mail,

as appropriate in the opinion of the

person responding.

The program goal is to provide

prompt telephonic advice when

possible, or a written response within

20 days of the date that all necessary

information has been received. The

Commission will make and retain

records of each informal inquiry made

under this program in order to

document the name and description of

the inquirer, relevant dates, and the

substance of the inquiry and the

response thereto.

Depending on subject matter,

inquiries by entities that are small

businesses shall be submitted to the

following individuals at the Federal

Maritime Commission, 800 North

Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20573–0001; or at the telephone number

or e-mail address listed below:

PASSENGER VESSEL CERTIFICATION

Theodore A. Zook ....................202–523–5856;

Theoz@fmc.gov

Curt L. Ohlsson ........................202–523–5856;

Curto@fmc.gov

OCEAN FREIGHT FORWARDERS

Betty J. Bennett ........................202–523–5843;

Bettyb@fmc.gov

Elnora V. Howard ....................202–523–5843;

Elnora@fmc.gov

VOCC, NVOCC and MTO TARIFF

MATTERS

James G. Cannon ......................202–523–5818;

Jamesg@fmc.gov

Roland E. Ramlow ...................202–523–5818;

Rolandr@fmc.gov

Martin W. Wilson.....................202–523–5818;

Martinw@fmc.gov

Ernest L. Estes ..........................202–523–5818;

Erneste@fmc.gov

James H. McEachin ..................202–523–5818;

Jamesmc@fmc.gov

SERVICE CONTRACT MATTERS

Theodore A. Zook ....................202–523–5856;

Theoz@fmc.gov

Mamie H. Black........................202–523–5856;

Mamieb@fmc.gov

Roland E. Ramlow ...................202–523–5856;

Rolandr@fmc.gov

AUTOMATED TARIFF FILING AND

INFORMATION (‘‘ATFI’’)

REGISTRATIONS

Anne E. Trotter ........................202–523–5818;

Anne@fmc.gov

Hattie R. Broadnax...................202–523–5818;

Hattieb@fmc.gov

ATFI ACCESS, USE AND FEES

Pat N. Gorski ......202–523–5834; Pat@fmc.gov

AGREEMENT MATTERS

Jeremiah D. Hospital................202–523–5793;

Jeremiah@fmc.gov

TRADE MONITORING MATTERS

Frank J. Schwarz ......................202–523–5845;

Franks@fmc.gov

The Office of Informal Inquiries,

Complaints and Informal Dockets

(‘‘OIIC’’) (Telephone: 202–523–5807, Email: Josephf@fmc.gov) will continue to

receive informal complaints and will

attempt informally to resolve related

disputes. OIIC also will be the
67372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1997 / Notices

designated recipient of inquiries from

small businesses under SBREFA with

respect to subjects not specified above.

Questions regarding the Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, 46 CFR

Part 502, do not fall within the scope of

this program and should be directed to

the Office of the Secretary (202–523–

5725). Other requests for assistance from

persons not covered by SBREFA, as in

the past, may be directed, as applicable,

to the Office of the General Counsel

(202–523–5740), Bureau of Enforcement

(202–523–5783), Bureau of Economics

and Agreement Analysis (202–523–

5787) or the Bureau of Tariffs,

Certification and Licensing (202–523–

5796; FMCBTCL@fmc.gov).

Reduction or Waiver Of Civil Penalties

for Violations by Small Business

As stated above, SBREFA (§ 223)

requires that the Commission establish

a policy for reduction or waiver of civil

penalties for statutory or regulatory

violations by small businesses. Within

two years, the Commission must report

to four Congressional Committees on:

(1) The scope of the policy or program;

(2) the number of enforcement actions

that qualified or failed to quality for the

program or policy; and (3) the total

amount of penalty reductions and

waivers granted. SBREFA and its

legislative history suggest certain

approaches, i.e., consider ability to pay;

consider good faith shown by the small

business; require that the violation be

discovered through an agency supported

compliance assistance program; and

allow for violations to be corrected

within a reasonable time. Repeat

offenses or violations involving willful

or criminal conduct are not intended to

be included within the policy.

Reduction of Civil Penalties

The Commission already is subject to

statutory requirements with regard to

civil penalties, including consideration

of a respondent’s ability to pay, as well

as its size and financial condition and

the circumstances of the violation. The

Commission has followed those

requirements in the past and will

continue to do so in the future. In

addition, appropriate records will be

maintained so that the Commission can

fulfill its responsibility to file requisite

reports to Congress.

Voluntary Compliance and Waiver of

Civil Penalties

The Commission has established an

internal policy, to be used in

appropriate cases, to obtain ‘‘voluntary’’

compliance by, and waiver of civil

penalties against, small businesses

found to be violating Commission

statutes or regulations.

Under this program, each subject of

an investigation will be evaluated to

determine whether, in the

circumstances of that particular case, a

demand for civil penalties, or

compliance and waiver of civil

penalties, would be the more effective

regulatory tool. In making this

determination, the following factors will

be considered:

1. Whether the violation was knowing

and willful, involved fraud or financial

gain or caused injury to the public;

2. The subject’s history of prior

offenses;

3. Extent to which the subject

demonstrates a good faith desire to

comply with Commission requirements

in the future; and

4. The subject’s ability to pay a civil

penalty.

Appropriate records will be

maintained in order for the Commission

to fulfill its responsibility for filing

required reports to Congress.

By the Commission.

Ronald D. Murphy,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–33560 Filed 12–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 962–3154]

Honeywell Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public

Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Consent Agreement.

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this

matter settles alleged violations of

federal law prohibiting unfair or

deceptive acts or practices or unfair

methods of competition. The attached

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes both the allegations in the

draft complaint that accompanies the

consent agreement and the terms of the

consent order—embodied in the consent

agreement—that would settle these

allegations.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 23, 1998.

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:

Linda K. Badger, Federal Trade

Commission, San Francisco Regional

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San

Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356–5270.

Kerry O’Brien, Federal Trade

Commission, San Francisco Regional

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San

Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356–5270.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade

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

46, and Section 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 December 17, 1997), on

the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/actions97.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, subject to final

approval, to a proposed consent order

from respondent Honeywell Inc.

(‘‘Honeywell’’) a Delaware corporation.

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.

Honeywell manufacturers and

markets various types of air cleaning

products, including a line of portable,

room air cleaners. These ‘‘Honeywell

Air Purifiers’’ include an ‘‘enviracaire

True HEPA filter.’’ The Commission’s

complaint charges that respondent’s

advertising for the Honeywell Air

Purifier included unsubstantiated

claims of efficacy and allergy relief.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that

the respondent did not possess adequate