Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices 9345

advertising falsely represented that

Indigo earnings data described in the

ads represent trades that were actually

made and that resulted in the profits

stated in the advertisements; that the

annual returns for the years 1990

through 1999 enumerated in the

advertisements were actually achieved

by users of respondents’ Indigo trading

program; and that users of respondents’

Indigo investment trading program can

reasonably expect to trade with little

financial risk. According to the

complaint, the Inidgo earnings data

described on the site do not represent

trades that were actually made and that

resulted in the profits stated in the

advertisements; instead, the data

represent results of hypothetical trading

and are prepared with the benefit of

hindsight using historical data. The

annual returns for the years 1990

through 1999 enumerated in the

advertisements were not actually

achieved by users of respondents’

Indigo trading program; instead, the

annual returns are based upon

hypothetical trades using historical

data. Indeed, respondents’ Indigo

trading program did not exist until

1995. Additionally, the complaint

alleges, users of respondents’ Indigo

trading program cannot reasonably

expect to trade with little financial risk;

indeed, consumers who trade in stocks

risk a substantial loss of capital, and

trading some Indigo models represents a

high risk speculative investment.

The complaint further alleges that

respondents made several

unsubstantiated claims. It alleges that

respondents’ advertising represented

that most users of respondents’ Indigo

trading program who have invested in

conservative portfolios have achieved

an annual return of 40% over the past

three years; that most users of

respondents’ Indigo trading program

who have invested in aggressive

portfolios with ‘‘hot’’ Internet stocks

have achieved returns of several

hundred percent; that testimonials

appearing in the advertisements for

respondents’ Indigo trading program

reflect the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public

who use the program; and that users of

respondents’ Indigo trading program can

reasonably expect to achieve substantial

profits on a consistent basis, whether

pursuing a conservative or aggressive

trading strategy. Respondents, however,

lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate

these claims, according to the

complaint.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions designed to prevent

respondents from engaging in similar

acts and practices in the future. Part I of

the order would require, with regard to

the sale of any trading program, that

respondents posses a reasonable basis

for future representations about the

amount of earnings, income, or profit, or

the rate of return, that a user of such

trading program could reasonably

expect to attain; the usual or typical

earnings, income, profit, or rate of

return, achieved by users of such

trading program or any part thereof; or

any financial benefit or other benefit of

any kind from the purchase or use of

such trading program.

Part II of the order prohibits

respondents, in connection with sale of

any trading program, from

misrepresenting that hypothetical or

simulated earnings data represent actual

trading results; that users of such

trading program can reasonably expect

to trade with little risk; or the extent of

risk to which users of the trading

program are exposed.

Part III requires that future benefits

claims be accompanied by the statement

that ‘‘STOCK [or CURRENCY,

OPTIONS, ETC., as applicable]

TRADING involves high risks and YOU

can LOSE a significant amount of

money.’’ Part IV prohibits respondents

from representing that the experience

represented by any user, testimonial or

endorsement of the trading program

represents the typical or ordinary

experience of members of the public

who use the trading program unless

respondents can substantiate the

typicality representation or they

disclose either what the generally

expected results would be for users of

the trading program, or the limited

applicability of the endorser’s

experience to what users may generally

expect to achieve.

The remaining parts of the order

contain standard record keeping, order

distribution, reporting, compliance, and

sunsetting provisions.

The purpose of this analysis is to

facilitate public comments 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.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3192 Filed 2–06–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[File No. 992 3263]

Sharp Electronics Corp.; 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 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary,

Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kerry O’Brien or Matthew Gold, Federal

Trade Commission, Western Regional

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San

Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356–5266.

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 thirty (30) days. The following

Analysis to Aid Public Comment

describes the terms of the consent

agreement, and the allegations in the

complaint. An electronic copy of the

full text of the consent agreement

package can be obtained from the FTC

Home Page (for January 25, 2001), on

the World Wide Web, at ‘‘http://

www.ftc.gov/os/2001/01/index.htm.’’ A

paper copy can be obtained from the

FTC Public Reference Room, Room H–

130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20580, either in

person or by calling (202) 326–3627.

Public comment is invited. Comments

should be directed to: FTC/Office of the

Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania,

Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. Two

paper copies of each comment should

be filed, and should be accompanied, if

possible, by a 31⁄2 inch diskette

containing an electronic copy of the

comment. Such comments or views will

be considered by the Commission and

9346 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Notices

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, subject to final approval, an

agreement containing a consent order

from Sharp Electronics Corporation

(‘‘Sharp’’).

The proposed consent order has been

placed on the public record for thirty

(30) days for receipt of comments by

interested persons. Comments received

during this period will become part of

the public record. After thirty (30) 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.

Sharp advertises and sells the

‘‘Mobilon’’ line of hand-held personal

computers (‘‘HPCs’’). Sharp’s Mobilon

HPCs, as well as similar devices from

several other manufacturers, use the

Microsoft Windows CE operating

system. This operating system and

several applications, including a word

processor, a spreadsheet, and a

database, are installed on these devices’

ROM board. HPCs are designed to be

upgradeable to newer versions of the

operating system and/or applications

through the purchase and installation of

a new ROM board.

This matter concerns allegedly false

and deceptive advertising of Sharp’s

Mobilon HPCs. The Commission’s

proposed complaint alleges that Sharp

claimed that it would offer to its

Mobilon customers an upgrade to a later

version of the Microsoft Windows CE

operating system when such a later

version became available. In fact, Sharp

never offered to its Mobilon customers

an upgrade to a later version of the

Microsoft Windows CE operating system

when such a later version became

available. Further, the company

continued to represent that its Mobilon

HPCs were upgradeable for several

months after deciding not to offer an

upgrade.

The proposed consent order contains

provisions designed to prevent Sharp

from engaging in similar acts and

practices in the future. Part I of the

proposed Order prohibits the company

from misrepresenting the availability of

any upgrade product. Part II of the

proposed order requires Sharp to offer

the promised upgrade to consumers

who purchased a Mobilon 4100, 4500,

or 4600 handheld PC. Under this

provision, Mobilon owners may obtain

the upgrade for the payment of a

shipping and handling charge of $10.

Parts III through VI of the proposed

order are reporting and compliance

provisions. Part VII is a provision

‘‘sunsetting’’ the order after twenty

years, with certain exceptions.

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.

By the direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–3193 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue

Debts

January 31, 2001.

Section 30.13 of the Department of

Health and Human Services’ claims

collection regulations (45 CFR part 30)

provides that the Secretary shall charge

an annual rate of interest as fixed by the

Secretary of the Treasury after taking

into consideration private consumer

rates of interest prevailing on the date

that HHS becomes entitled to recovery.

The rate generally cannot be lower than

the Department of Treasury’s current

value of funds rate or the applicable rate

determined from the ‘‘Schedule of

Certified Interest Rates with Range of

Maturities.’’ This rate may be revised

quarterly by the Secretary of the

Treasury and shall be published

quarterly by the Department of Health

and Human Services in the Federal

Register.

The Secretary of the Treasury has

certified a rate of 141⁄8% for the quarter

ended December 31, 2000. This interest

rate will remain in effect until such time

as the Secretary of the Treasury notifies

HHS of any change.

Dated: January 31, 2001.

George Strader,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Finance.

[FR Doc. 01–3154 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention

[60Day–01–19]

Proposed Data Collections Submitted

for Public Comment and

Recommendations

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for

opportunity for public comment on

proposed data collection projects, the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic

summaries of proposed projects. To

request more information on the

proposed projects or to obtain a copy of

the data collection plans and

instruments, call the CDC Reports

Clearance Officer on (404) 639–7090.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the collection of information

on respondents, including through the

use of automated collection techniques

for other forms of information

technology. Send comments to Anne

O’Connor, CDC Assistant Reports

Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road,

MS–D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written

comments should be received within 60

days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Evaluating HIV Prevention Programs

in Community-Based Organizations

(CBOs)—New—The Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC), National

Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

(NCHSTP) proposes to develop and test

a model of HIV prevention communitybased organization (CBO) functioning

using a one time data collection

questionnaire. Each CBO will be asked

to answer questions related to the

existence and importance of factors

affecting their HIV prevention

interventions. This data collection is

necessary for CDC to better (a) assess

CBO applications systematically for

funding, (b) develop materials CBOs can

use to assess their own programmatic

needs and create a social map of their

target populations, including a CBO

profile of organizational, environmental,

target population, intervention program