Rules and Regulations. Notice of public meeting, request for comments

11,057 words·~50 min read·/register/2007/01/24/07-292

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

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA-07-26833] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems Child Restraint Anchorage Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of public meeting, request for comments. SUMMARY: NHTSA is having a public meeting to bring together a roundtable of child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians, researchers and consumer groups to discuss ways to improve child safety through improving the design and increasing the use of child restraint systems.

Through a combination of presentations by invited speakers and group discussions among roundtable attendees, the group will focus on the following topics at this meeting: improving *L* ower *A* nchors and *T* ethers for *Ch* ildren (LATCH) system designs, improving child side impact safety, and educating the public about LATCH. This notice announces the date, time and location of the meeting. DATES: *Public Meeting:* The public meeting will be held on February 8, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. *Comments:* Written comments may be submitted to the agency and must be received no later than April 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debbie Ascone, Office of Vehicle Safety, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-4383, e-mail *Debbie.Ascone@dot.gov* , or Ms. Deirdre Fujita, Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA, telephone 202-366-2992, e-mail *Dee.Fujita@dot.gov.* Both officials may also be reached at 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. ADDRESSES: *Public meeting:* The public meeting will be held at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone 202-484-1000. *Written comments:* Written comments must refer to the docket number of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility;

U.S. DOT, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324 and visit the Docket from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion under the heading “How do I prepare and submit comments?” at the end of this notice. Please see also the discussion there of confidential business information. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In March 1999, NHTSA issued a final rule that established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” which requires motor vehicle manufacturers to provide motorists with a new means of installing child restraints (64 FR 10786;

March 5, 1999) in nearly all new passenger vehicles. The new means, named the “LATCH” 1 system by industry, is a standardized child restraint anchorage system designed to be used exclusively for securing child restraints. Each vehicle LATCH system consists of an upper anchor point (top tether anchor) and two lower anchor points. Each lower anchor point includes a six millimeter

(mm)diameter straight rod, or “bar,” that is located near the intersection of the seat cushion and seat back (“seat bight”) in a recessed position where they will not be felt by seated adult occupants. 1 *L* ower *A* nchors and *T* ethers for *Ch* ildren (LATCH) system. Each vehicle with at least two seating positions behind the front seat must have full LATCH systems (consisting of the two rigid lower bars and the top tether anchor) in at least two rear seating positions. If the vehicle has a third rear seating position, the vehicle must also have a top tether anchor at a third rear seating position. The rule also required child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to have components capable of attaching to the LATCH system. In addition, the rule required child restraints manufactured after that date to continue to be capable of being attached to a vehicle by way of the vehicle's belt system. The LATCH system was phased into new vehicles from 1999 to 2002, beginning with the tether anchor in passenger cars in 1999 and ending with full implementation of the LATCH system for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles (including sport utility vehicles

(SUVs)and vans), and light trucks and buses in September 2002. 2 *Id.* 2 NHTSA estimated the benefits of the rule to be 36 to 50 lives saved per year, and 1,231 to 2,929 injuries prevented. Based on an estimated average total annual cost of $152 million, the cost per equivalent life saved was estimated to be from $2.1 to $3.7 million. Implementing LATCH The agency recognized early on that educating consumers about the new LATCH system would be crucial to the success of the system. After issuing the LATCH final rule, NHTSA met regularly with vehicle and child restraint manufacturers, retailers, and consumer groups on developing public information and marketing strategies to educate consumers about the new LATCH products becoming available on the market, including the correct use of the products. The groups last met in June and July 2002, in the months leading up to September 1 date on which the LATCH regulation became fully effective. LATCH Use Survey and Report To assess the progress made since 2002 and identify the possible needs for additional steps, NHTSA conducted a survey from April to October 2005 on the types of restraint systems that were being used to keep children safe while riding in passenger vehicles. The results of that survey were discussed in a report on the use and misuse of LATCH (“Child Restraint Use Survey—LATCH Use and Misuse,” Docket 26735) published in December 2006. NHTSA was interested in whether drivers of LATCH-equipped vehicles were using LATCH to secure their child restraints to the vehicle, and if so, whether they were properly installing the restraints. In the survey, the make/model and the type of restraint installed in each seating position were recorded for each vehicle, and the demographic characteristics and the type of child restraint system were collected for each occupant. In addition, information was gathered about the drivers' knowledge of booster seats and LATCH, along with their opinions on how easy it was for them to use LATCH. A key finding of the survey was that of the child restraints located in a seating position equipped with an upper tether anchor, 55 percent were attached to the vehicle using the upper tether. Other findings included:

(a)In 13 percent of the LATCH equipped vehicles in which there was a child restraint, the restraint was placed in a seat position not equipped with lower anchors—instead, the vehicle seat belt was used to secure the restraint to the vehicle.

(b)Among the 87 percent who placed the child safety seat at a position equipped with lower anchors, 60 percent used the lower attachments to secure the restraint to the vehicle.

(c)Of those drivers with experience using both lower attachments and seat belts,

(1)81 percent of upper tether users and 74 percent of lower attachment users said upper tether and/or lower attachments were easy to use, and

(2)75 percent preferred the lower attachments over seat belts.

(d)Sixty-one

(61)percent of upper tether nonusers and 55 percent of lower attachment nonusers cited their lack of knowledge—not knowing what the anchorages were, that they were available in the vehicle, the importance of using them, or how to use them properly—as the reason for not using them. The LATCH report found that consumers who have experience with LATCH like it, and that LATCH is helping to reduce the insecure installation of child restraints. However, the report also indicated that proper use of LATCH is not inherently evident to parents. Many parents do not use LATCH because they do not know about it or understand its importance. Some use both the LATCH system and the seat belt system to install their child restraints. There is also some confusion about where LATCH anchors can be found. In addition, there were differing degrees of difficulty using the anchors depending on location and configuration of the child seat hardware. Public Meeting In light of the LATCH report, NHTSA is having a public meeting to bring together a roundtable of child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, technicians, researchers and consumer groups to discuss ways to make LATCH easier to use and better known. Through a combination of presentations by invited speakers and group discussions among roundtable participants, the group will focus on the following topics at this meeting: LATCH design improvements, child side impact safety improvements, and initiatives to educate the public about LATCH and seat belt use. The meeting will be open to the public, but participation in the roundtable will be limited and by invitation only in order to ensure that all of the topics can be addressed in the time available. However, the floor will be open to the audience attending the meeting during the final part of the meeting. Anyone wishing to supplement their oral comments may do so by submitting written comments. Roundtable participants should focus on the issues and questions listed below. Regarding LATCH Design The requirements for the top tether anchor were harmonized with Canadian and Australian requirements, particularly with respect to the zones within which the anchor may be located. The lower LATCH anchor bars must be located not so far forward on the vehicle seat so as to injure an adult occupant sitting on the seat, but not so rearward as to be too difficult to access. The presence of lower bars that are not visible without compressing the seat cushion or seat back must be indicated by a permanent mark on the vehicle seat back at each bar's location to help parents locate and use the bars. NHTSA allows vehicle manufacturers to decide which rear seating positions are equipped with the two full LATCH systems. It does not require a full LATCH system to be in a center rear seating position. This flexibility was provided because, if two full LATCH systems are provided in the rear seat of a sedan-type vehicle, it may not be feasible to fit the lower anchor bars of the two LATCH systems side-by-side in two adjacent seating positions, or practical to fit two child restraints adjacent to each other in the rear seat of small vehicles. NHTSA does require the top tether anchor at the third rear seating position to be at the center position, to provide parents an improved means of attaching child restraints in a center rear seat. Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions: Tether Anchors • What are the design considerations/constraints for locating tether anchors in various types of vehicles? Why do some SUVs, vans and trucks have tether anchors under the seat, etc., which consumers have found difficult to access when installing their child restraints? • What can be done to make access to the upper and lower anchors easier or make the anchors more visible? • What would be the feasibility and/or implications of further restricting where tether anchors may be placed by amending Standard 225? Lower Anchors • What feedback are you obtaining from consumers? Are you getting complaints? • NHTSA has not had any complaints that the lower anchors are causing occupant discomfort. Would it be feasible and desirable to amend the seat bight depth requirement to require that anchors be located more forward in the seat bight? Would this make the installation and/or removal of child restraint systems easier? • Are there any technical or other reasons why consumers who wish to place their child restraint in a rear center seat location using the inboard lower anchors from the outboard seating locations should not do so? If the child restraint can be snugly secured with this installation to “create” a middle LATCH seating position, is there any reason that doing this should be considered misuse? • Will you be increasing over time the proportion of your fleet that is equipped with lower anchors in the center-rear position? Child Seat Designs • Are there child restraint hook designs that consumers find easier to install/remove? • What would be the feasibility and/or implications of incorporating the most consumer friendly hooks in all child restraints? Regarding LATCH Ease-of-Use NHTSA is interested in improving information in its ease-of-use ratings for child restraints and could include information about features of LATCH hardware. We are also considering exploring the addition of information to the annual NHTSA publication, “Buying a Safer Car for Child Passengers,” on the number of seating positions with LATCH and on other matters related to LATCH, such as the degree of accessibility of the anchors. Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions: • What are the considerations in developing more consumer-friendly child restraint hooks or other features (e.g., what are the trade-offs in child restraint cost, ease-of-use ratings, and retail sales)? • NHTSA is considering providing consumer information on LATCH anchor locations and the numbers of lower anchor-equipped seating positions in each vehicle make/model. What are your comments on this initiative? • Should NHTSA provide consumer information on including use of inboard lower anchors to “create” a middle LATCH seating position? • In the past, the agency has determined that given the number of child restraints and vehicle make/models, it was not feasible for the agency to test and provide vehicle child restraint ease-of-use ratings. Are there other approaches the agency should consider? Are there voluntary initiatives underway or being jointly considered by the child restraint and vehicle manufacturers that would provide useful consumer information regarding child restraint and vehicle ease-of-use compatibility? Regarding Child Side Impact Protection In 2002, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on work in developing a child restraint side impact protection standard (67 FR 21836; May 1, 2002; Docket 12151). The rulemaking was withdrawn because considerably more work was needed to support a Federal motor vehicle standard on child side impact, including data analyses as to how children are being injured or killed in side impacts, potential countermeasures that would be available to reduce side impact intrusion, and the appropriate child test dummy and associated injury criteria for side impact testing (68 FR 37620, 37624). NHTSA's research into side impact protection has continued as an ongoing agency program. NHTSA will present the status of its current research effort, and other panelists that have knowledge of the side impact issue will be invited to participate on the panel. Regarding LATCH Education NHTSA would like to develop educational messages to improve consumers' awareness of the benefits of the top tether and the convenience of the LATCH lower anchors. We also seek cooperation and coordination of efforts between NHTSA, child restraint and vehicle manufacturers, retailers, and educators, to develop and promote communications strategies that will reach parents and caregivers of young children. Invited speakers are asked to speak to the following questions: • What questions have users asked your organization with regard to— Tether use; Lower anchor use; Center rear seat use? • What public information and marketing strategies are being conducted to inform consumers of proper or optimal use of child restraints? • What could organizations do to reach consumers more broadly and provide more useful information to consumers about child restraint installation? • What information should we provide consumers regarding the effectiveness of seat belts versus LATCH in securing child restraints? Other Procedural Matters The meeting will be open to the public with advanced registration for seating on a space-available basis. Individuals wishing to register to assure a seat in the public seating area should provide their name, affiliation, phone number and e-mail address to Ms. Ascone using the contact information at the beginning of this notice. Should it be necessary to cancel the meeting due to inclement weather or other emergency, NHTSA will take all available measures to notify registered participants by e-mail or telephone. The meeting will be held at a site accessible to individuals with disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations such as sign language interpreters should contact Ms. Ascone by January 31, 2007. A transcript of the meeting and other information received by NHTSA at the meeting will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date. Draft Agenda 8:30-9 Welcome and Opening Remarks. 9-9:10 *Panel I. LATCH systems* (overview)—NHTSA. 9:10-10:15 Invited speakers on LATCH systems. 10:15-10:30 Break. 10:30-10:40 *Panel II. Ease-of-use issues/initiatives* —NHTSA. 10:40-11:30 Invited speakers on LATCH ease-of-use (EOU). 11:30-12 Roundtable discussion and questions from floor. 12-1 Lunch on your own. 1-1:10 *Panel III. Child side impact safety* (overview)—NHTSA. 1:10-1:50 Invited speakers on side impact. 1:50-2:05 Break. 2:10-2:20 *Panel IV. Educational needs* (overview)—NHTSA. 2:20-3:20 Invited speakers on LATCH education. 3:20-3:50 Roundtable discussion and open floor. 3:50-4:15 Next steps; wrap-up. How can I submit comments on this subject? It is not necessary to attend or to speak at the public meeting to be able to comment on the issues. NHTSA invites readers to submit written comments which the agency will consider in its deliberations on LATCH. How do I prepare and submit comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* How can I be sure that my comments were received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How do I submit confidential business information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically, in the manner described at the beginning of this notice. Will the agency consider late comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the docket for new material. How can I read the comments submitted by other people? You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. *You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:* Go to the Docket Management System

(DMS)Web page of the Department of Transportation ( *http://dms.dot.gov* ). On that page, click on “Simple Search.” On the next page ( *http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/* ) type in the five-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on “Search.” On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on January 19, 2007. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-1021 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 72 15 Wednesday, January 24, 2007 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Florida Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the Florida Advisory Committee will convene at 2 p.m. EST and adjourn at 4 p.m. EST on Tuesday, February 13, 2007. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss plans for the Committee's upcoming briefing to be held in April 2007 on religious freedom for prisoners and the restoration of their voting rights. This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 866-393-1381. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number. To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Peter Minarik, Southern Regional Office, at 404-562-7000, by Tuesday, February 6, 2007. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. Dated at Washington, DC, January 19, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit [FR Doc. E7-979 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Carolina Advisory Committee Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the North Carolina Advisory Committee will convene at 1 p.m. EST and adjourn at 3 p.m. EST on Monday, February 26, 2007. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss plans for the Committee's upcoming briefing to be held in April 2007 on religious freedom for prisoners and the restoration of their voting rights. This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 866-743-9936. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number. To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Peter Minarik, Southern Regional Office, at 404-562-7000, by Monday, February 19, 2007. The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. Dated at Washington, DC, January 19, 2007. Ivy L. Davis, Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. [FR Doc. E7-980 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Request for Comment on Agency Practice AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Request for comment on agency practice EFFECTIVE DATE: January 24, 2007. SUMMARY: When conducting a countervailing duty changed circumstances review for purposes of determining the appropriate cash deposit rate in light of a change in a company's name, structure, or ownership, the Department's general approach has been to apply the “successor in interest” analysis that it uses for considering similar types of changes in antidumping duty changed circumstances reviews. The Department has conducted relatively few changed circumstances reviews involving the successorship of companies in the context of countervailing duty measures. However, based on recent experience, the Department is now considering whether its practice regarding such reviews should be revised or clarified. This notice highlights various considerations relevant to this issue, and provides an opportunity for public comment on whether any changes to the Department's current practice regarding countervailing duty changed circumstances reviews would be warranted and, specifically, what those changes should entail. DATES: Comments should be submitted within 30 days of the publication date of this request for comment. ADDRESSES: An original and six copies of all written comments should be sent to Gregory W. Campbell, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street NW, Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory W. Campbell, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3712, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20230,

(202)482-2239. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In accordance with section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and 19 CFR 351.221, the Department of Commerce (Department) may conduct a review of an antidumping

(AD)or countervailing duty

(CVD)measure where, *inter alia* , an interested party requests such a review and there are changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. In the context of an AD “changed circumstances review” involving a change in a company's name, structure or ownership, the Department relies on its successor-in-interest criteria to determine whether the newly named or structured company (“successor company”) remains essentially the same as the predecessor company. *See* , *e.g.* , *Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review* , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994) (“ *Industrial Phosphoric Acid* ”); *Notice of Final Results of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Certain Pasta from Italy* , 68 FR 41553, 41553 (July 14, 2003). Under this analysis, where the evidence demonstrates that the successor company operates as the “same business entity” as its predecessor with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the Department will assign to the successor company the existing cash deposit rate of its predecessor. *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 5128, 5129 (February 12, 1992). The Department generally bases its successorship/business entity determination in AD changed circumstances reviews on an analysis of the following factors:

(1)management,

(2)production facilities,

(3)supplier relationships, and

(4)customer base. *Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). While none of these factors is dispositive of the issue, the Department generally considers the new company to be the successor company to the predecessor company if its resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of the predecessor. *Industrial Phosphoric Acid* , 59 FR 6944, 6945. However, to the extent that this AD analysis is concerned with the pricing behavior of the successor company it might not be entirely relevant in the CVD context where price discrimination is not the analytical focus. Other factors or considerations ( *e.g.* , factors that focus on whether subsidies to the predecessor are attributable to the successor, or on increased participation in or eligibility for new subsidy programs as a result of the changed circumstance) might be more relevant. In addition, there is also a broader question of whether a successorship/business entity analysis generally is too narrowly focused when reviewing the changed circumstances of a subsidized company. An examination that focuses largely or solely on changes in the legal or managerial structure or the productive capacity of a company may overlook other important considerations that also may be relevant in the context of subsidies and countervailing duties. For instance, whether the change ( *e.g.* , name change or merger) was accompanied or preceded by new subsidies, or had an impact on any existing subsidies to the companies involved, also might be a relevant consideration. One hypothetical example in which a strict successorship/business entity analysis might fall short of accurately determining the appropriate deposit rate (or level of subsidization) is where a producer of subject merchandise, who has been excluded from the order, purchases or merges with an unrelated, subsidized producer who has a company-specific rate under the order. Even if the combined entity ( *i.e.* , the successor company) in this hypothetical example operated as the same business entity as its predecessor, the changed circumstance itself might have resulted in a fundamental change in the nature and extent of the subsidization of the successor company. Under this scenario, one option might be to assign the rate of the one subsidized producer to the successor company. Another option would be to continue to exclude the entries of the successor company. This second approach, however, might foreclose any possibility of a future administrative review of the successor company whose (expanded) operations have already been determined to be subsidized, at least in part. In circumstances such as these, it might be appropriate for the Department to take into account other factors that go beyond a strict business entity analysis to determine the appropriate cash deposit rate for the successor company in a CVD proceeding. A related question is whether, if the subsidy levels have been affected by the changed circumstances, the Department should calculate a new cash deposit rate in the changed circumstances review that reflects the new level of subsidization or, alternatively, whether the Department should self-initiate an administrative review. Another approach would be for the Department to simply select a rate from among existing cash deposit rates ( *e.g.* , the predecessor's rate, the all others rate, some combination of the existing rates). In commenting on these issues, we invite commenters to identify and discuss the criteria that they consider most appropriate for a successorship/business entity analysis in the CVD context, whether they may be the same as the AD criteria, some mix of those criteria and others, or an entirely different set of criteria. We further invite commenters to address whether and how the Department's analysis might extend beyond the successorship/business entity analysis to consider more directly any changes in the company's level of subsidization occasioned by the changed circumstance. Such comments should also address the feasibility of identifying or even quantifying changes in subsidy levels given the shorter deadlines of changed circumstances reviews and the potentially significant increase in required information ( *e.g.* , detailed sales and subsidy data), participatory burden ( *e.g.* , of the respondent company and government), and administrative burden such an analysis might entail. Suggested practical solutions for addressing possible feasibility concerns are encouraged. For example, one possible approach to mitigating the burden might be to conduct a staged analysis where, if the initial data indicate that the only change has been to the name of a company ( *i.e.* , the change was not accompanied or prompted by a substantial change to the company's ownership or operations), no further analysis of changes in the subsidy levels would be necessary and the successor company would receive the predecessor's cash deposit rate. However, if the changed circumstances entail more than a simple name change, and the evidence indicates that the changes could have a significant impact on the level of subsidy benefits to the successor company, then the successor company could be assigned the all others rate until the subsidy levels could be fully analyzed in the course of an administrative review. Comments Persons wishing to comment should file a signed original and six copies of each set of comments by 5:00 p.m. on the above-referenced deadline date. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered, if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department requires that comments be submitted in written form. All comments responding to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying at Import Administration's Central Records Unit, Room B-099, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on business days. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them in development of any changes to its practice. The Department also recommends submission of comments in electronic form to accompany the required paper copies. Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted either by e-mail to the webmaster below, or on CD-ROM, as comments submitted on diskettes are likely to be damaged by postal radiation treatment. Comments received in electronic form will be made available to the public in Portable Document Format

(PDF)on the Internet at the Import Administration Web site at the following address: *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/.* Any questions concerning file formatting, document conversion, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import Administration Webmaster, at

(202)482-0866, e-mail address: webmaster-support@ita.doc.gov. All written comments should be sent to Gregory W. Campbell, Office of Policy, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street NW., Washington, DC 20230, Subject: Countervailing Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews; Request for Comment on Agency Practice. Dated: January 17, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E7-1015 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Restoring America's Travel Brand: A National Strategy To Compete for International Visitors; Request for Information General Information Document Type Special Notice. Solicitation Number Reference-Number. Posted Date December 27, 2006. Original Response Date January 24, 2007. Current Response Date February 9, 2007. Original Archive Date: Current Archive Date: Classification Code: NAICS Code: Requesting Office Address Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries (OTTI), 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 1003, Washington, DC 20230. Description/Background In support of competitive goals established by the President of the United States, and in response to the white paper entitled Restoring America's Brand, A National Strategy to Compete for International Visitors, that was recently submitted to the Secretary of Commerce by the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (TTAB), the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), International Trade Administration (ITA), Office of Travel & Tourism Industries (OTTI), is issuing this Request for Information

(RFI)for assistance by interested government agencies, organizations, and industry businesses. The information requested may include: • An assessment of, or comment on, the white paper presented by the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, which can be found at: *http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/TTAB/docs/2006_FINALTTAB_National_Tourism_Strategy.pdf* . • Respondents are highly encouraged to provide specific comments on the recommendations that are covered in the white paper, organized by the sections: ○ Making it easier for people to visit by balancing hospitality with security, ○ Asking people to visit the United States through a nationally coordinated marketing program, and ○ Demonstrating the value of travel and tourism to the nation's economy. • In addition, respondents are encouraged to provide comments/observations related to other areas of concern or issues that are not addressed in the white paper, such as: ○ Sustainable tourism development, ○ Medical tourism, ○ Cultural heritage tourism development, ○ Technical training/tours for business-to-business development, ○ Education exchanges or attendance, ○ Public-private partnerships, or ○ Infrastructure challenges, to name a few. Comments will serve in the development of policies and programs to be implemented by the federal government concerning the tourism sector. The Government encourages both rigorous and creative solutions in response to this RFI. How To Respond The Department of Commerce is asking respondents to provide written input concerning any and all recommendations contained within the white paper submitted by the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and other aspects of travel and tourism that may not be addressed in the white paper. All responses should be *e-mailed* to either of the following members of the Office of Travel and Tourism Industries: *julie.heizer@mail.doc.gov* or *Cynthia.warshaw@mail.doc.gov* . Please use reference: 2006 RFI Restoring America's Travel Brand, A National Strategy to Compete for International Visitors in the subject line of all correspondence. Please submit responses by January 19, 2007. Input provided through this RFI may be representative of the collective opinion from a membership-wide survey of a travel and tourism industry trade association, or it can be submitted as the opinion of a single person. Any opinions or information received that are not specific to travel and tourism related issues will not be considered. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. All information received in response to this RFI that is marked “Proprietary” will be handled accordingly. Responses to the RFI will not be returned. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice will not be considered an offer and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Interested parties are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFI. Additional information on the Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and the white paper submission may also be found at the Office of Travel & Tourism Industries Web site at: *http://www.tinet.ita.doc.gov* . Points of Contact Julie Heizer, Deputy Director, Industry Relations, Phone 202.482.4904, Fax 202.482.2887, E-mail *julie.heizer@mail.doc.gov* . Cynthia Warshaw, International Trade Specialist, Phone 202.482.4601, Fax 202.482.2887, E-mail *Cynthia.warshaw@mail.doc.gov* . Place of Performance Address Washington, DC. Postal Code 20230. Country United States. You will find the RFI on the OTTI Web site at *http://www.tinet.ita.doc.gov/* Dated: January 16, 2007. Helen N. Marano, Director, Office of Travel & Tourism Industries. [FR Doc. E7-948 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 050412107-7004-03] Ernest F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship Program AGENCY: Office of Education (OEd), Office of the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere (USEC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of scholarship opportunity. SUMMARY: NOAA announces the Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program for FY 2007, and sets forth eligibility criteria and selection guidelines for the program. The Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program was established through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447). This Scholarship Program will provide approximately 100 undergraduate applicants selected for the program with scholarships to participate in oceanic and atmospheric science, research, technology, and education. There is no guarantee that funds will be available to make awards to all qualified applicants. DATES: Completed applications must be received by February 22, 2007, at 5 p.m. eastern standard time. ADDRESSES: Applications for the Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program will be available through NOAA at *http://www.oesd.noaa.gov/Hollings_info.html* . If an applicant does not have Internet access, hardcopy applications may be requested by contacting NOAA Office of Education, Hollings Scholarship Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 10703, Silver Spring, MD 20910. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: NOAA Hollings Scholarship at *StudentScholarshipPrograms@noaa.gov* or call 301-713-9437 x125. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program was established through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447). The purposes of the program include:

(1)To increase undergraduate training in oceanic and atmospheric science, research, technology, and education and to foster multidisciplinary training opportunities;

(2)to increase public understanding and support for stewardship of the ocean and atmosphere and to improve environmental literacy;

(3)to recruit and prepare students for public service careers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other natural resource and science agencies at the Federal, State and local and tribal levels of government; and,

(4)to recruit and prepare students for careers as teachers and educators in oceanic and atmospheric science and to improve scientific and environmental education in the United States. The Hollings Scholarship Program will provide successful undergraduate applicants with awards that include academic assistance (up to a maximum of $8,000 per year) for full-time study during the 9-month academic year; a 10-week, full-time internship position ($650/week) during the summer at a NOAA facility; and, if reappointed, academic assistance (up to a maximum of $8,000) for full-time study during a second 9-month academic year. The internship between the first and second years of the award provides the Scholars with “hands-on” practical educational training experience in NOAA-related scientific, research, technology, policy, management, and education activities. Awards will also include travel expenses to attend a mandatory Hollings Scholarship Program orientation, approved conferences where students present a paper or poster, and a housing subsidy for scholars who do not reside at home during the summer internship. Authority The Ernest F. Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship Program is established by the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under authority of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447). Funding Availability Approximately $3.5 million may be available for the award of a maximum of 100 two-year scholarships, dependent on the availability of appropriations. There is no guarantee that funds will be available to provide scholarships for all qualified students. Eligibility Any undergraduate student who is a U.S. citizen; enrolled as a full-time student in the Fall 2007 as a junior, at an accredited college or university within the United States or U.S. Territories; possesses at least a 3.0 grade point average per semester/quarter and cumulative on a 4.0 scale (or equivalent on other identified scale) in all completed undergraduate courses and in their major field of study; and has declared a major in a NOAA-related discipline, including, but not limited to, oceanic, environmental, and atmospheric sciences, mathematics, engineering, remote sensing technology, marine policy, physical and social sciences including, geography, physics, hydrology, meteorology, oceanography or teacher education that support NOAA's programs and mission may apply to this notification. The Hollings Scholarship Program will consider applications from all students that meet the above eligibility requirements. Evaluation Criteria Application will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Relevant coursework (30%). 2. Education plan and statement of career interest (40%). 3. Recommendations and/or endorsements (reference forms) (20%). 4. Additional relevant experience related to diversity of education; extracurricular activities; honors and awards; non-academic and volunteer work; written and oral communications skills (10%). Selection Process An initial administrative review of applications is conducted to determine compliance with requirements and completeness of applications. Only complete applications in compliance with the requirements will be considered for review. Applications identified as incomplete or not in compliance with the requirements will be destroyed. All applications that meet the requirements and are complete will be evaluated and scored individually in accordance with the assigned weights of the evaluation criteria by an independent peer review panel, comprised of Federal and nonfederal employees. No consensus advice or recommendations will be given. A numerical ranking will be assigned to each application based on the average of the panelist's ratings. The Program Officer will conduct a review of the rank order and make recommendations to the Selecting Official based on the panel ratings and the selection factors listed below. The Selecting Official, the Director of NOAA Education, will consider merit reviews and recommendations and award in rank order unless the application is justified to be selected out of rank order based on one or more of the following selection factors: Selection Factors In determining final awards, the selecting official reserves the right to consider the following selection factors: 1. Availability of funds. 2. Balance/distribution of funds: a. Geographically. b. By type of institutions. c. Across academic disciplines. 3. Program-specific objectives. 4. Degree in scientific area and type of degree sought. Repayment Requirement A Hollings Scholarship recipient shall be required to repay the full amount of the scholarship to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration if it is determined that the individual, in obtaining or using the scholarship, engaged in fraudulent conduct or failed to comply with any term or condition of the scholarship. Cost Sharing Requirements There are no cost-sharing requirements. Intergovernmental Review Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal programs.” Limitation of Liability In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program is cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funding for the Fiscal Year 2007 program is contingent upon the availability of Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations. National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)As defined in sections 5.05 and Administrative or Programmatic Functions of NAO 216-6, 6.03.c.3, this is an undergraduate scholarship and internship program for which there are no cumulative effects. Thus, it has been categorically excluded from the need to prepare an Environmental Assessment. Paperwork Reduction Act Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)control number. The Hollings Undergraduate Scholarship application form has been approved under OMB Control No. 1910-5125. Executive Order 12866 This notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for rules concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements for the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared. Dated: January 17, 2007. John J. Kelly, Jr., Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E7-1010 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-12-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011807B] Draft

(2007)Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments. SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of and seeks public comment on the draft

(2007)Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires the Secretary of Commerce to develop, triennially, a strategic plan for fisheries research for the subsequent years. Any written comments on the draft plan will be considered by NMFS in the development of the final 2007 Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research. DATES: Comments on the plan must be received on or before February 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on and requests for the draft NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research

(2007)should be directed to Mark Chandler, Office of Science and Technology, NMFS, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. phone:

(301)713-2367 ext. 152, fax:

(301)713-1875, e-mail: *NSPFR.comments@noaa.gov* . *Electronic Access:* The draft NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research

(2007)may be reviewed in its entirety online at *http://www.st.nmfs.gov/* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Chandler at 301-713-2367 ext. 152, e-mail: *NSPFR.comments@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 404 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to publish triennially in the **Federal Register** a five-year strategic plan for fisheries research. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the plan address four major areas of research:

(1)research to support fishery conservation and management;

(2)conservation engineering research;

(3)research on the fisheries; and

(4)information management research. The 2007 draft Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research is based upon and entirely consistent with NMFS' “New Priorities for the 21st Century: National Marine Fisheries Service Strategic Plan Updated for FY 2005-FY 2010” located on the internet at *http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/strategic/* . The 2007 draft document is a component of the all-encompassing NMFS Strategic Plan, focusing on science research activities. The objectives found under the “Major Fishery Research Goals and Objectives” section of the Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research can be matched with those in the NMFS Strategic Plan. In addition, the strategies, goals and objectives of the draft Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research are consistent with NOAA's “New Priorities for the 21st Century: NOAA's Strategic Plan- Updated for FY 2006-2011” available online at *http://www.spo.noaa.gov/* . The scope of the 2007 draft document is solely fisheries research to support the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It does not include the regulatory and enforcement components of NMFS' mission. NMFS currently conducts a comprehensive program of fisheries research and involves industry and others interested in planning and implementing its fisheries objectives. NMFS intends that the final version of the Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research will take advantage of information and recommendations from all interested parties. Therefore, comments and suggestions on this draft NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research are hereby solicited from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested parties. Dated: January 18, 2007. Steven A. Murawski, Director of Scientific Programs and Chief Science Advisor, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-1017 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 011107G] Endangered Species; File No. 1596 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508 has been issued a permit to take leatherback ( *Dermochelys coriacea* ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research. ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s): Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone

(301)713-2289; fax

(301)427-2521; Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone

(562)980-4001; fax

(562)980-4018. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Amy Hapeman,

(301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 20, 2006, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 61960) that a request for a scientific research permit to take leatherback sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). The researchers will continue long-term monitoring of the status of leatherback sea turtles off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington to determine their abundance, distribution, size ranges, sex ratio, health status, diving behavior, local movements, habitat use, and migration routes. Up to 38 animals will be captured using a breakaway hoop net and be measured, weighed, blood and tissue sampled, photographed, and flipper and passive integrated transponder

(PIT)tagged. A subset of animals are to have biotelemetry devices (e.g., transmitters) attached to them. An additional 40 animals will be approached (but not captured) and have a VHF/TDR/sonic tag unit attached to them by suction cup using a long pole or these animals would be tissue sampled with a biopsy pole. The primary goal is to address priorities outlined in the U.S. Pacific leatherback Recovery Plan and identify critical forage habitats, genetic stock structure, migratory corridors, and potential fishery impacts on this species in the Pacific. This information is necessary to make informed management decisions concerning these turtles and their habitat. The permit is issued for 5 years. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit

(1)was applied for in good faith,

(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and

(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: January 18, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-1014 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. PTO-P-2006-0050] Grant of Interim Extension of the Term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787; Sanvar® AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Interim Patent Term Extension. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a certificate under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a second one-year interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Till by telephone at

(571)272-7755; by mail marked to her attention and addressed to the Commissioner for Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE., P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; by fax marked to her attention at

(571)273-7755, or by e-mail to *Mary.Till@uspto.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 156 of Title 35, United States Code, generally provides that the term of a patent may be extended for a period of up to five years if the patent claims a product, or a method of making or using a product, that has been subject to certain defined regulatory review, and that the patent may be extended for interim periods of up to a year if the regulatory review is anticipated to extend beyond the expiration date of the patent. On March 23, 2006, Debiovision Inc., the exclusive agent of Debiopharm S.A. and Debio Recherche Pharmaceutique S.A., who is the exclusive licensee of the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund of New Orleans, Louisiana, the patent owner, timely filed an application under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a second interim extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787. The patent claims the human drug product Sanvar® (vapreotide acetate). The application indicates that a New Drug Application for the human drug product Sanvar® (vapreotide acetate) has been filed and is currently undergoing regulatory review before the Food and Drug Administration for permission to market or use the product commercially. Review of the application indicates that except for permission to market or use the product commercially, the subject patent would be eligible for an extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should be extended for one year as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). Because it is apparent that the regulatory review period has and will continue beyond the extended expiration date of the patent (April 25, 2006), a second interim extension of the patent term under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. A second interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,650,787 is granted for a period of one year from the extended expiration date of the patent, i.e., until April 25, 2007. Dated: January 17, 2007. Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. E7-1008 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 07-C0003] Hoover Company, Inc., a Corporation, 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 Hoover Company, Inc., a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $750,000. 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 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 07-C0003, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle F. Gillice, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7667. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: January 18, 2007. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC Docket No. 07-C0003] In the Matter of Hoover Company, Inc. a Corporation; Settlement Agreement and Order 1. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the staff (the “staff”) of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the “Commission”) and Hoover Company, Inc. (“Hoover”), a corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections and Inquiries under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”). This Settlement Agreement and the incorporated attached Order resolve the staff's allegations set forth below. The Parties 2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency responsible for the enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 3. Hoover is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal corporate office located in North Canton, Ohio. At all times relevant herein, Hoover designed and manufactured vacuum cleaners subject to the Settlement Agreement and Order. Staff Allegations 4. Between may 1998 and November 1999, Hoover manufactured approximately 636,000 Self-Propelled Wind Tunnel Upright vacuum cleaners under the following model numbers: U6423-900; U6445-900; U6425-900; U6445-960; U6451-900; U6425-950; U6449-900; and U6455-900, (hereinafter “vacuum cleaners”). 5. The vacuum cleaners are “consumer product(s)” and, at the times relevant herein, Hoover was a “manufacturer” of “consumer product(s)” which were “distributed in commerce” as those terms are defined in 3(a)(1), (4), (11), and

(12)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (4),

(11)and (12). 6. The vacuum cleaners are defective because of a poor crimp connection at the wire termination which could cause overheating, melting and ultimately, fire in the switch/handle area. The vacuum cleaners could catch fire while in use and switched to the “ON” position and while switched to “Off” if plugged in to an outlet. 7. On or about April 14, 1999, Hoover first learned of a vacuum cleaner switch overheating and melting. 8. Between October and November 1999, after receiving notice of at least four incidents, Hoover made several design changes to eliminate overheating in the switch area. Hoover also directed that all vacuum cleaners in inventory and any brought in by customers for repair for any reason be reworked in order to eliminate the switch overheating problem. 9. On February 26, 2001, Hoover's Safety Committee met and reviewed the vacuum cleaner incidents. At this time, Hoover had received notice of at least 46 incidents with the vacuum cleaners, 23 of which were allegations that the switch/handle area caught on fire. At least two reports indicated that the vacuum cleaner ignited while switched to the “OFF” position and consumers believed the vacuum cleaners to be off. The Safety Committee, however, decided that no report should be made to the Commission. 10. On June 11, 2002, the Safety Committee met again to review 80 new incidents involving the switch defect. By this time, Hoover had received notice of at least 127 incidents. In 73 of these incidents, consumers reported that the vacuum cleaners caught on fire. 11. On or about September 24, 2002, Hoover hired an outside consulting firm to examine and test the vacuum cleaners to determine the cause of the switch failures. 12. On March 12, 2003, the consulting firm issued a report confirming that a poor crimp connection caused the switch to melt and malfunction. By this time, Hoover had received notice of 171 incidents pertaining to switch overheating and/or melting. In 96 of these incidents, consumers reported that their vacuum cleaners caught on fire. 13. On June 7, 2004, after receiving notice of several vacuum cleaner incidents, Commission staff sent Hoover a letter requesting submission of a full report pursuant to section 15(b) of the CPSA. 14. On July 9, 2004, Hoover submitted a report in response to the staff's request. At this time of its report, Hoover had received notice of at least 260 consumer incidents, of which 141 involved reports of fire. Other than one report of minor burns to hands, there were no report consumer injuries. 15. Although Hoover had obtained sufficient information which could reasonably support the conclusion that the vacuum cleaners contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, it failed to immediately inform the Commission of such defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(2) and

(3)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). In failing to do so, Hoover “knowingly” violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term “knowingly” is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). 16. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Hoover is subject to civil penalties for its failure to make a timely report under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Response of Hoover 17. Hoover denies that the vacuum cleaners contain a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or create a substantial risk of serious injury or death, and denies that it violated the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Agreement of the Parties 18. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Hoover under the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 19. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Hoover agrees to pay a civil penalty of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000.00) within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission accepting this Settlement Agreement. This payment shall be made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury. 20. The parties enter this Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission by Hoover or a determination by the Commission that Hoover violated the CPSA's reporting requirements. 21. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and Order by the Commission, the Commission shall place this Agreement and Order on the public record and shall publish it in the **Federal Register** in accordance with the procedure set forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written requests not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 calendar days, the Settlement Agreement and Order shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day after the date it is published in the **Federal Register** , in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f). 22. Upon final acceptance of the Settlement Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Hoover knowingly, voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following :(i) An administrative or judicial hearing;

(ii)judicial review or other challenge or contest of the Commission's actions;

(iii)a determination by the Commission as to whether Hoover failed to comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations;

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

(v)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 23. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order. 24. The Settlement Agreement shall apply to, and be binding upon Hoover and each of its successors and assigns, its parent entity, its parent's subsidiaries, and each of their respective successors and assigns. 25. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and a violation of the Order may subject those referenced in paragraph 24 above to appropriate legal action. 26. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations made outside of this Settlement Agreement and Order may not be used to vary or to contradict its terms. 27. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall not be waived, changed, amended, modified, or otherwise altered, without written agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such amendment, modification, alteration, or waiver is sought to be enforced, and approval by the Commission. 28. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of this Settlement Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, such provision shall be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and Hoover determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose of the Settlement Agreement and Order. Dated: January 2, 2007. Hoover Corporation. *Karl R. Milam,* *Chief Executive Officer.* Dated: January 4, 2007. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. John Gibson Mullan, *Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations.* Ronald G. Yelenik, *Acting Legal Director, Compliance Legal Division.* Michelle Faust Gillice, *Trial Attorney, Compliance Legal Division.* United States of America Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC Docket No. 07-C0003] In the Matter of Hoover Company, Inc., A Corporation Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Hoover Company, Inc. (``Hoover'') and the staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the ``Commission''), and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Hoover, and it appearing the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest, it is *Ordered,* that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, accepted; and it is *Further ordered,* that Hoover shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of seven hundred fifty thousand dollars ($750,000.00). This payment shall be made payable to the United States Treasury within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission upon Hoover. Upon the failure of Hoover to make full payment in the prescribed time, interest on the outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid at the federal rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 18th day of January, 2007. By Order of the Commission. *Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.* [FR Doc. 07-292 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code