Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Notices 7785

1. HPK Financial Corporation,

Chicago, Illinois; to acquire Mortgage

Service America, Inc., Lombard, Illinois,

and thereby engage in making and

servicing loans, pursuant to §

225.25(b)(1) of the Board’s Regulation Y.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

System, February 13, 1997.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 97–4155 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-F

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 952–3029]

Splitfire, Inc.; Analysis to Aid Public

Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposal 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

Northbrook, Illinois-based spark-plug

marketer from making deceptive claims

about the fuel economy, emissions,

horsepower, or cost savings gained from

using its ‘‘split electrode’’ spark plugs

and from misrepresenting the results of

tests, studies, or research and of

testimonials. The complaint

accompanying the consent agreement

alleges that Splitfire made false or

unsubstantiated economy, efficiency,

and improved performance claims for

its spark plugs.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 21, 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:

Laura Fremont, 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 Pace (for February 11, 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

provisionally accepted an agreement to

a proposed consent order from

respondent SplitFire, Inc., an Illinois

corporation that markets automotive

products.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for receipt 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 make

final the agreement’s proposed order, or

withdraw from the agreement and take

other appropriate action.

This matter concerns the advertising

of SplitFire’s ‘‘SplitFire’’ spark plug,

which has one v-shaped, or ‘‘split’’

electrode. The Commission’s complaint

charges that SplitFire’s advertising

represented, without a reasonable basis,

that use of SplitFire Spark Plugs results

in significantly better fuel economy,

significantly greater horsepower, and

significantly lower emissions than use

of either conventional (non splitelectrode) spark plugs of platinumtipped spark plugs. The Commission’s

complaint also charges that respondent

represented, without a reasonable basis,

that use of SplitFire Spark Plugs will

result in significant cost savings over

use of either conventional or platinumtipped spark plugs.

In addition, the complaint alleges that

the company lacked a reasonable basis

for its claim that 70% of SplitFire Spark

Plugs users achieve a gas mileage

increase of from 1 to 6 more miles per

gallon. Further, the complaint alleges as

false SplitFire’s claim that these figures

were based on competent and reliable

studies or surveys.

Lastly, the Commission’s complaint

charges that respondent represented,

without a reasonable basis, that the

testimonials or endorsements from

consumers appearing in advertisements

and promotional materials for its spark

plugs reflect the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public

who use SplitFire Spark Plugs.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions designed to remedy the

violations charged and to prevent the

respondent from engaging in similar

acts and practices in the future.

Part I of the proposed order prohibits

SplitFire, Inc., from representing,

without competent and reliable

scientific evidence, the effect of any

motor vehicle product on a vehicle’s

fuel economy, emissions, or

horsepower. Part I also prohibits the

company from representing, without

competent and reliable scientific

evidence, the comparative or absolute

cost savings that any motor vehicle

product will contribute to or achieve.

Part II of the proposed order prohibits

respondent, when advertising any motor

vehicle product, from misrepresenting

the existence, contents, validity, results,

conclusions or interpretations of any

test, study, or research.

Part III of the proposed order

addresses claims made through

endorsements or testimonials. Under

Part III, respondent may make such

representations if respondent possesses

and relies upon competent and reliable

scientific evidence that substantiates the

representations; or respondent must

disclose either what the generally

expected results would be for users of

the advertised product, or the limited

applicability of the endorser’s

experience to what consumers may

generally expect to achieve. The

proposed order’s treatment of

testimonial claims is in accordance with

the Commission’s ‘‘Guides Concerning

Use of Endorsements and Testimonials

in Advertising,’’ 16 C.F.R. 255.2(a).

Part IV of the proposed order requires

respondent to possess adequate

substantiation for any representation

regarding the performance, benefits, or

efficacy of any motor vehicle product.

The proposed order also requires

respondent to maintain advertising

materials and materials relied upon to

substantiate claims covered by the

order; to provide a copy of the consent

agreement to certain personnel in the

company; to notify the Commission of

any change in the corporate structure

that might affect compliance with the

order; and to file one or more reports

detailing compliance with the order.
7786 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 34 / Thursday, February 20, 1997 / Notices

Under Part IX, the order terminates 20

years from the date of issuance, except

under certain specified conditions.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comment on the

proposed order. 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. 97–4145 Filed 2–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

[File No. 962–3118]

Zale Corporation; Analysis to Aid

Public Comment

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement.

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged

violation 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

require, among other things, the Irving,

Texas-based jewelry retailer to disclose,

clearly and prominently, the nature of

the pearl jewelry it sells and would

mandate that company stores display

consumer information about the

definition of natural, cultured, imitation

pearls. The complaint accompanying

the consent agreement alleges that Zale

deceptively advertised its ‘‘Ocean

Treasures’’ line of limitation pearl

jewelry as composed of cultured pearls.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 21, 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:

Jeffrey Klurfeld, Federal Trade

Commission, San Francisco Regional

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San

Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356–5275.

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 February 10, 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

accepted an agreement, subject to final

approval, to a proposed consent order

from Zale Corporation, (hereinafter

‘‘Zale’’). Zale is the largest retailer of

fine jewelry products in the United

States.

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for sixty

(60) days for the 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 any 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 proposed complaint alleges

violations of Section 5 of the Federal

Trade Commission Act. This matter

focused on Zale’s advertisements for the

‘‘Ocean Treasures’’ line of imitation

pearl jewelry. The advertisements

depicted Ocean Treasures earrings,

necklaces, rings and pendants, and

described them as follows: ‘‘Ocean

Treasures Fine Jewelry. Created by

nature, enhanced by man.’’ The

advertisements also included the

following statement: ‘‘Zales. The

Diamond, semi-precious and pearl

store.’’ The proposed complaint alleges

that, through these depictions and

statements, Zale violated Section 5 of

the Federal Trade Commission Act by

falsely claiming that the Ocean

Treasures line of jewelry is composed of

cultured pearls.

The Federal Trade Commission

recently revised its Guides for the

Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter

Industries, 16 C.F.R. Part 23, 61 F.R.

27212 (May 30, 1996) (the ‘‘Jewelry

Guides’’). The previous version of the

Guides as well as the revised Guides

address various advertising practices in

the jewelry industry, including those

employed by Zale. See, e.g., § 23.2

(Misleading Illustrations); § 23.20

(Misuse of terms such as ‘‘cultured

pearl,’’ ‘‘seed pearl,’’ ‘‘Oriental pearl,’’

‘‘natura,’’ ‘‘kultured,’’ ‘‘real,’’ ‘‘gem,’’

‘‘synthetic,’’ and regional designations);

§ 23.19 (Misuse of the word ‘‘pearl’’);

and § 23.18 (Definitions of various

pearls). These industry guides are

administrative interpretations of laws

administered by the Commission for the

guidance of the public in conducting its

affairs in conformity with legal

requirements. While the Guides are

referenced in the complaint, they do not

create a separate cause of action.

Part I of the proposed order would

require that Zale not represent that

imitation pearls are cultured pearls. Part

II would prevent Zale from representing

that imitation pearl jewelry is or

contains one or more pearls unless Zale

designates the jewelry as ‘‘artificial,’’

‘‘imitation,’’ ‘‘simulated,’’ or by some

other word or phrase of like meaning.

Part III would prevent Zale from

representing that cultured pearl jewelry

is or contains one or more pearls unless

Zale designates the jewelry as

‘‘cultured’’ or ‘‘cultivated,’’ or by some

other word or phrase of like meaning.

Part IV would prohibit the company

from misrepresenting the composition

or origin of any jewelry product

composed partially or entirely of natural

pearls, cultured pearls, or imitation

pearls.

Part V of the proposed order would

require Zale, for a period of three years,

to make available, at each of its stores

that sells natural, cultured or imitation

pearls, a brief fact sheet entitled ‘‘Your

Guide to Pearls.’’ This fact sheet briefly

defines the differences among the three

general categories of pearls.

The proposed order also would

require Zale to maintain materials

related to its advertising of pearl,

cultured pearl, and imitation pearl

jewelry. The proposed order would also

require Zale to provide a copy of the

consent agreement to all employees or

representatives with duties affecting

compliance with the terms of the order;

to notify the Commission of any changes

in corporate structure that might affect

compliance with the order; and to file

one or more reports detailing

compliance with the order.

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