Notices. Proposed collection; comment request

3,613 words·~16 min read·/register/2005/01/21/05-1049

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-07-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Advocacy Questionnaire AGENCY: International Trade Administration, DOC. ACTION: Proposed collection; comment request. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)).

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 22, 2005. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th & Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230, or e-mail *dHynek@doc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Request for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Joe Enright, The Advocacy Center, Room 3814A, Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230;

Phone number:

(202)482-3896, and fax number;

(202)501-2895. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The U.S. Department of Commerce invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed extension of the use of the advocacy questionnaire by the Trade Promotion Coordination Committee's

(TPCC)Advocacy Network. The questionnaire is used to evaluate requests for United States Government

(USG)advocacy in connection with overseas commercial bids, offers, and proposals. The International Trade Administration's Advocacy Center marshals federal resources to assist U.S. commercial interests competing for foreign government commercial projects, procurements, investments, business ventures worldwide. The mission of the Advocacy Center is to coordinate USG commercial advocacy in order to promote U.S. exports, trade which both creates and sustains U.S. employment. The Advocacy Center works with and coordinates activities within TPCC which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes 19 federal agencies involved in export promotion. The purpose of the advocacy questionnaire is to collect the information necessary to evaluate a commercial I interest's ( *e.g.* , a company's) eligibility for USG advocacy assistance. There are clear, well-established USG advocacy guidelines that describe the various situations in which the USG can provide advocacy support for a specific commercial interest. The questionnaire was developed to collect only the information necessary to determine if a commercial interest meets the eligibility requirements set forth in the advocacy guidelines. The Advocacy Center, appropriate ITA officials, U.S. Embassy/Consulate officials worldwide, and other federal government agencies (the Advocacy Network) that provide advocacy support, will require firms seeking USG advocacy support to complete the questionnaire. Without the information, the USG would be unable to determine the eligibility of commercial interests seeking USG advocacy support. II. Method of Collection When U.S. commercial interests request USG advocacy assistance, they are either sent Form ITA-4133P or referred to the Advocacy Center's Web site from which Form ITA-4133P may be down-loaded completed, signed, and filed. III. Data *OMB Number:* 0625-0220. *Form Number:* ITA-4133P. *Type of Review:* Regular Submission. *Affected Public:* Commercial Interests seeking USG advocacy. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 200. *Estimated Time Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 205. *Estimated Total Annual Costs:* $15,300.00 ($9,175.00 for respondents and $6,125.00 for federal government). IV. Request for Comments 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 (including hours and costs) 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 or forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. Dated: January 13, 2005. Madeleine Clayton, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E5-197 Filed 1-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-868] Amended Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Folding Metal Tables and Chairs From the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 21, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amber Musser, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-1777. Amendment to Final Results In accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), on December 20, 2004, the Department published the final results of the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on folding metal tables and chairs from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), in which we determined that the cooperative respondent, Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd. and Maxchief Investments, Ltd. (“Shichang”), sold subject merchandise to the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (“POR”) (69 FR 75913). On December 20, 2004, we received an allegation, timely filed pursuant to section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(C)(2), from Shichang that the Department made a ministerial error in its final results. The petitioner 1 did not comment on the alleged ministerial error. 1 The petitioner is Meco Corporation. After analyzing Shichang's submission, we have determined, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224, that we made a ministerial error in our final margin calculation for Shichang. Specifically, we incorrectly calculated the selling, general, and administrative (“SG&A”) and profit financial ratios because we did not include the line item “Purchase of Traded Goods” in the denominator of these ratios. For a detailed discussion of the ministerial error, as well as the Department's analysis, *see* the memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, from Amber Musser, analyst, dated January XX, 2005. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the final results of the first antidumping duty administrative review of the order on folding metal tables and chairs from the PRC. The revised dumping margin is as follows: Exporter/manufacturer Original final margin percentage Revised final margin percentage Dongguan Shichang Metals Factory Co., Ltd. and Maxchief Investments, Ltd. 4.27 3.30 We will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) of the revised cash deposit rate for Shichang. Scope of the Order The products covered by this order consist of assembled and unassembled folding tables and folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal, as described below:

(1)Assembled and unassembled folding tables made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (“folding metal tables”). Folding metal tables include square, round, rectangular, and any other shapes with legs affixed with rivets, welds, or any other type of fastener, and which are made most commonly, but not exclusively, with a hardboard top covered with vinyl or fabric. Folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of folding metal tables are the following: a. Lawn furniture; b. Trays commonly referred to as “TV trays”; c. Side tables; d. Child-sized tables; e. Portable counter sets consisting of rectangular tables 36″ high and matching stools; and f. Banquet tables. A banquet table is a rectangular table with a plastic or laminated wood table top approximately 28″ to 36″ wide by 48″ to 96″ long and with a set of folding legs at each end of the table. One set of legs is composed of two individual legs that are affixed together by one or more cross-braces using welds or fastening hardware. In contrast, folding metal tables have legs that mechanically fold independently of one another, and not as a set.

(2)Assembled and unassembled folding chairs made primarily or exclusively from steel or other metal (“folding metal chairs”). Folding metal chairs include chairs with one or more cross-braces, regardless of shape or size, affixed to the front and/or rear legs with rivets, welds or any other type of fastener. Folding metal chairs include: Those that are made solely of steel or other metal; those that have a back pad, a seat pad, or both a back pad and a seat pad; and those that have seats or backs made of plastic or other materials. The subject merchandise is commonly, but not exclusively, packed singly, in multiple packs of the same item, or in five piece sets consisting of four chairs and one table. Specifically excluded from the scope of folding metal chairs are the following: a. Folding metal chairs with a wooden back or seat, or both; b. Lawn furniture; c. Stools; d. Chairs with arms; and e. Child-sized chairs. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 9401710010, 9401710030, 9401790045, 9401790050, 9403200010, 9403200030, 9403708010, 9403708020, and 9403708030 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive. These amended final results of this new shipper review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e). Dated: January 11, 2005. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-209 Filed 1-19-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 05-C0005] Polaris Industries Inc., Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: It is the policy of the Commission to publish settlements which it provisionally accepts under the Consumer Product Safety Act in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with Polaris Industries Inc., containing a civil penalty of $950,000.00. DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written request with the Office of the Secretary by February 7, 2005. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 05-C005, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth B. Popkin, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone

(301)504-7612. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: January 13, 2005. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. Settlement Agreement and Order 1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) and the staff (“Staff”) of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement and the incorporated attached Order (“Order”) settle the Staff's allegations set forth below. Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for the enforcement of, the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084 (“CPSA”). 3. Polaris is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Its principal offices are located at 2100 Highway 55, Medina, MN 55340. Polaris designs and manufactures all terrain vehicles

(ATVs)and other vehicles. Staff Allegations Throttle Control 4. From December 1998 through July 2000, Polaris manufactured and/or sold a total of approximately 13,600 units of certain 1999 Scrambler 400, Sport 400, and Xplorer 400 ATVs, and of certain 2000 Scrambler 400 and Xplorer 400 ATV's (“400cc ATVs”). 5. Each 400cc ATV is a “consumer product” that Polaris “distributed in commerce,” and Polaris is a “manufacturer” of a consumer product, as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and

(12)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 6. The throttle on the 400cc ATVs could stick as a result of the throttle cable becoming caught on the throttle control cover, preventing the ATVs from slowing down or stopping when riders released the throttle lever. A stuck throttle can cause an ATV rider to lose control and crash, possibly resulting in severe injury or death. 7. From December 1998 to May 2000, Polaris received 88 reports of 400cc ATV throttles that stuck as a direct or apparent result of the cable becoming caught on the throttle control cover. In 19 of the 88 reports, the stuck throttle caused crashes, other accidents, or damage, and in 7 of the 88 reports, the stuck throttle caused injuries. The injuries included, among others, a dislocated hip, a broken shoulder, and torn back muscles. 8. From September 1999 to May 2000, Polaris obtained knowledge about the 400cc ATVs' throttle defect, hazard, and risk, and Polaris made 3 engineering changes to address the defect. As of the end of September 1999, Polaris had received 47 of the 88 stuck throttle reports, it had received several reports from dealers who specifically noted the defect's characteristics, and it had begun engineering changes to address the defect. As of January 2000, Polaris had received additional reports, made 2 engineering changes, decided on a further engineering change, and successfully tested revised parts. 9. By September 30, 1999, Polaris had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the 400cc ATVs contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. Sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Polaris to immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk. 10. Polaris did not report to the Commission regarding the 400cc ATVs until May 23, 2000, thereby failing to immediately inform the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 11. Polaris knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the 400cc ATVs' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Polaris to civil penalties. Oil Line 12. From January 1999 through August 2000, Polaris manufactured and/or sold a total of approximately 55,500 units of 2000 and 2001 Xpedition 325, Trail Boss 325, and Magnum 325 ATVs (“325cc ATVs”). 13. Each 325cc ATV is a “consumer product” that Polaris “distributed in commerce,” and Polaris is a “manufacturer” of a consumer product, as those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and

(12)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4), (11), and (12). 14. The oil lines on the 325cc ATVs disconnected, blew off, loosened, or leaked, spraying or otherwise discharging hot pressurized oil. The discharging oil could cause the ATV and its surroundings to catch on fire, and the hot oil and fires could cause severe injury or death. 15. From March 1999 to February 2001, Polaris received at least 1,447 reports of 325cc ATV oil lines that disconnected, blew off, loosened, or leaked. In 61 of the 1,447 reports, the discharging hot oil caused smoke, fire, melting, or accidents, and in 42 of those 61 reports the discharging hot oil caused the 325cc ATVs and/or their surroundings to catch on fire. In 18 of the 1,447 reports, the discharging hot oil caused injuries, including 2nd and 3rd degree burns and scarring. 16. From February 2000 to January 2001, Polaris acquired extensive knowledge about the 325cc ATV's oil line defect, hazard and risk. Polaris monitored claim reports, conducted engineering analyses, and made 4 engineering changes to address the defect. 17. From May 2000 to January 2001, Polaris sent at least 5 alerts to its dealers about the 325cc ATVs' oil line defect. 18. By February 2000, Polaris had obtained information that reasonably supported the conclusion that the 325cc ATVs contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or that they created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. Sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3), required Polaris to immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk. 19. Polaris did not report to the Commission regarding the 325cc ATVs until after the Staff requested a report in December 2000. Polaris submitted a report in February 2001. As a result, Polaris failed to immediately inform the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). This failure violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 20. Polaris knowingly failed to immediately inform the Commission of the 325cc ATVs' defect or risk, as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure subjected Polaris to civil penalties. Polaris Response 21. Polaris vigorously contests and denies the Staff's allegations set forth above in this Agreement. Polaris enters into this Agreement to resolve the Staff's claims without the expense and distraction of litigation. By agreeing to this settlement, Polaris does not admit any of the allegations set forth above in this Agreement, or any fault, liability, or statutory or regulatory violation. Agreement of the Parties 22. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Polaris. 23. The parties enter into this Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Polaris, or a determination by the Commission, that Polaris has violated the CPSA. 24. In settlement of the Staff's allegations, Polaris shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($950,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting this Agreement. The payment shall be by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 25. Upon the Commission's provisional acceptance of the Agreement, the Agreement shall be placed on the public record and published in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Agreement within fifteen

(15)days, the Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the sixteenth

(16th)day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** . 26. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of the final Order, Polaris knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following:

(1)An administrative or judicial hearing;

(2)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's Order or actions;

(3)a determination by the Commission of whether Polaris failed to comply with the CPSA and its underlying regulations;

(4)a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law; and

(5)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 27. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and Order. 28. The Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon, Polaris and each of the successors and assigns. 29. The Commission issues the Order under the provisions of the CPSA, and violation of the Order may subject Polaris to appropriate legal action. 30. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart from those contained in the Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or contradict their terms. The Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, except in a writing that is executed by the party against whom such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be enforced, and that is approved by the Commission. 31. If after the effective date hereof, any provision of the Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Agreement and Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the Commission and Polaris determine that severing the provision materially affects the purpose of the Agreement and Order. Polaris Industries Inc. Dated: December 13, 2004. Mary P. McConnell, *Vice President and General Counsel, Polaris Industries Inc., 2100 Highway 55, Medina, MN 55340* . Granta Y. Nakayama, Esq., *Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, Counsel for Polaris Industries Inc* . U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Staff. Nicholas V. Marchica, *Acting Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance* . Eric L. Stone, *Director, Legal Division, Office of Compliance* . Dated: December 14, 2004. Seth B. Popkin, *Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance* . Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) staff, and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Polaris, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public interest, it is Ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is Further ordered, that Polaris shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($950,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the final Order upon Polaris. The payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. Upon the failure of Polaris to make the foregoing payment when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid by Polaris at the federal legal rate of interest set forth in the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 13th day of January, 2005. By order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 05-1049 Filed 1-19-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

U.S. Code