Notices. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

5,602 words·~25 min read·/register/2008/01/17/08-153·

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

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service San Juan National Forest; Columbine Ranger District; Colorado; Hermosa Landscape Grazing Analysis AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. SUMMARY: The San Juan National Forest proposes to continue to authorize livestock grazing on all or portions of the Missionary Ridge-Lakes Landscape in a manner that moves resource conditions toward desired on-the-ground conditions and is consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

The analysis area encompasses approximately 119,000 acres on 12 active cattle allotments: Bear Creek, Coon Creek, Elkhorn, Graham Creek, Haflin Creek, Jack Creek, Lemon, Lion Creek, Red Creek, Stevens/Shearer, Vallecito, and Waldner Allotments. The area is located north of Durango and Bayfield, Colorado; from the Animas Valley on the west to just past the La Plata County line on the east; in T35N and T36N, R5-9W, N.M.P.M. and is within the Columbine Ranger District, San Juan National Forest, Colorado.

The proposed action is designed to increase the flexibility of livestock grazing systems through adaptive management, which will allow quicker and more effective response to problems areas when they are revealed. Problems will be revealed through the use of short and long term monitoring. Application of adaptive management practices should result in healthier soil, watershed, and vegetative conditions. DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received on or before February 19, 2008.

The draft environmental impact statement is expected in June 2008 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in September 2008. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Cam Hooley, Environmental Coordinator, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail *chooley@fs.fed.us* . For further information, mail correspondence to Rowdy Wood, Rangeland Management Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO 81122; e-mail *rwood03@fs.fed.us* .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rowdy Wood, Rangeland Management Specialist, Columbine Public Lands, 970-884-1416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this project is to reauthorize grazing on all or portions of the Hermosa Landscape in such a manner that will move resource conditions toward desired conditions and be consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. There is a need to move some existing conditions towards desired conditions.

Livestock grazing has been identified in the Forest Plan as an appropriate use of the Forest and falls under the multiple-use mandate of the Forest Service. This action is needed at this time because in the early 1990's, the courts determined that livestock grazing permits should not be re-issued without a NEPA analysis. This put many livestock operations at risk until such time as these analyses could be completed. In response, Congress passed the Rescissions Act of 1995, which provided for continuation of permit issuance if the only reason they could not be issued was lack of a NEPA analysis.

The Act directed the Forest Service to develop and adhere to a schedule for completion of the analyses. This project analysis is being undertaken as part of the schedule that was developed for the San Juan National Forest. Proposed Action The proposed action is to continue to permit livestock grazing by incorporating adaptive management strategies across the Hermosa Landscape. Adaptive Management is defined as the process of making use of monitoring information to determine if management changes are needed, and if so, what changes, and to what degree.

An adaptive management strategy would define the desired resource conditions, monitoring requirements, resource triggers or thresholds, and actions to be taken if triggers are reached. Site-specific actions to move the existing ground conditions toward desired conditions could also be identified. Possible Alternatives The following alternatives have been preliminarily identified: No Action Alternative. The proposed project as described above would not occur. Grazing would not be reauthorized on these allotments.

Traditional Management Alternative (No change from current). This alternative is based on analyzing a specific number of livestock and specific grazing dates in specific pastures. This has been the conventional approach to grazing analysis. Adaptive Management Alternative (Proposed Action). Described above. This alternative is based on meeting certain resource conditions using a variety of “tools”, or actions, to reach or maintain those conditions. Responsible Official Pauline E.

Ellis, Columbine District Ranger/Field Office Manager, POB 439, 367 South Pearl Street, Bayfield, CO, 81122. Nature of Decision To Be Made Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: Will livestock grazing will proceed as proposed, as modified, or not at all, on all or part of the Missionary Ridge-Lakes landscape? If livestock grazing proceeds: Where will on-the-ground activities occur, and what types of associated activities will occur? What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will the Forest Service apply to the project? If Adaptive Management is chosen, how will monitoring be used to guide when adaptive options will be activated? Scoping Process Scoping is initiated with the publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** .

A news release will be issued and scoping letters will be mailed to affected individuals during January 2008, and the project has been posted in the San Juan National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions since January 2008. A meeting with the current term grazing permit holders in the project landscape was held on March 15, 2007, and another will be held on January 25, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. the Lavena McCoy Public Library in Bayfield, Colorado. Preliminary Issues During internal review and analysis of monitoring data, the Columbine District/Field Office has already identified the following concerns or issues with the proposal:

Livestock can affect plant community species composition and vigor; Livestock can impact riparian areas and watershed conditions; Livestock can impact wildlife habitat, including habitat for special status species such as Canada lynx and Colorado River cutthroat trout; Livestock can conflict with recreation in developed campgrounds and trailheads. Comment Requested This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

Comments regarding the scope of issues to be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement are requested, and should be relevant to the nature of the decision to be made. *Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review:* A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the **Federal Register** .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.* v. *NRDC* , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978).

Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. *City of Angoon* v. *Hodel* , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and *Wisconsin Heritages, Inc.* v. *Harris* , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21) Dated: January 9, 2008. Pauline E. Ellis, District Ranger/Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E8-749 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-849] Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China;

Initiation of New Shipper Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) has determined that a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length steel plate (“CTL steel plate”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), received in November 2007, meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for initiation.

The period of review (“POR”) of this new shipper review is November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demitrios Kalogeropoulos or Blanche Ziv, AD/CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-2623 and

(202)482-4207, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on CTL steel plate from the PRC was published on October 21, 2003. *See Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From the People's Republic of China; Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order* , 68 FR 60081 (October 21, 2003). On November 30, 2007, we received a timely request for a new shipper review from Hunan Valin Xiangtan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (“Hunan Valin”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d)(2). Hunan Valin has certified that it produced and exported the CTL steel plate on which it based its request for a new shipper review. The Department initially denied Hunan Valin's request for a new shipper review in this case. However, as a result of subsequent information submitted by the requester, the Department has reconsidered its decision and is now initiating the new shipper review. Initiation of New Shipper Reviews Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Hunan Valin certified that it did not export CTL steel plate to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”). Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Hunan Valin certified that, since the initiation of the investigation, it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported CTL steel plate to the United States during the POI, including those not individually examined during the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Hunan Valin also certified that its export activities were not controlled by the central government of the PRC. In addition to the certifications described above, the exporter submitted documentation establishing the following:

(1)The date on which it first shipped CTL steel plate for export to the United States and the date on which the CTL steel plate was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption;

(2)the volume of its first shipment; and

(3)the date of its first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating this new shipper review for shipments of CTL steel plate from the PRC produced and exported by Hunan Valin. The POR is November 1, 2006, through October 31, 2007. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B). We intend to issue preliminary results of these reviews no later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. *See* section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. On August 17, 2006, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“H.R. 4”) was signed into law. Section 1632 of H.R. 4 temporarily suspends the authority of the Department to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect a bond or other security in lieu of a cash deposit in new shipper reviews during the period April 1, 2006, through June 30, 2009. Therefore, the posting of a bond or other security under section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act in lieu of a cash deposit is not available in this case. Importers of CTL steel plate manufactured and exported by Hunan Valin must continue to pay a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on each entry of subject merchandise at the current PRC-wide rate of 128.59 percent. Interested parties requiring access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). Dated: January 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-788 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-803] Heavy Forged Hand Tools From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On November 20, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination issued by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final results of the twelfth administrative review of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools from the People's Republic of China. *See Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation, Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation, and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation* v. *United States* , Slip Op. 07-169 (CIT, 2007) (“ *Shandong Huarong II* ”). On January 8, 2008, the CIT released the public version of this opinion. This case arises out of the Department's final results in the administrative review covering the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. *See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, and Determination Not to Revoke in Part* , 69 FR 55581 (September 15, 2004) (“ *Final Results* ”). Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) in *Timken Co.* v. *United States* , 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ *Timken* ”), the Department is notifying the public that *Shandong Huarong II* is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3936. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In *Shandong Huarong Machinery Co. Ltd., Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corp. Ltd., Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corp., and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corp.* v. *United States and Ames True Temper* , Court No. 04-00460, Slip Op. 06-88 (June 9, 2006) (“ *Shandong Huarong I* ”), the CIT remanded the underlying final results of review to the Department to:

(1)Explain why the failure of Shandong Huarong Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Huarong”) and Tianjin Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“Tianjin”) to report information on scrapers and forged tampers, respectively, justifies the use of total adverse facts available (“AFA”), rather than just partial AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Act”), for the axe/adze order for Huarong and the bar/wedge order for Tianjin;

(2)provide a factual basis showing that the rate calculated for Tianjin is a reasonable estimate of its actual rate plus an added amount to encourage cooperation;

(3)explain how the Department's commercial quantities methodology fulfills the purpose of 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), in relation to its refusal to revoke Shandong Machinery Import & Export Corporation (“SMC”) from the hammers/sledges order;

(4)analyze further the issue of valuation of steel pallets manufactured by certain hand tool factories;

(5)revisit its decision that certain miscellaneous handling expenses are not included in the surrogate price of foreign brokerage and handling and, if the Department continues to find that the handling expenses in question are not in the surrogate price of brokerage and handling, to provide a thorough explanation;

(6)explain why its decision to analyze market economy (“ME”) purchases of ocean freight in aggregate is reasonable; and

(7)explain further its decision to deny the request for a circumstance of sale (“COS”) adjustment to Tianjin's normal value (“NV”). The Department released the *Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* (“ *Draft Redetermination* ”) to the petitioner, Ames True Temper (“Ames”), and the respondents for comment on December 15, 2006. The Department received comments from both Ames and the respondents on December 29, 2006. On January 12, 2007, the Department issued to the CIT its final results of redetermination pursuant to *Shandong Huarong I* . *See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand* , Court No. 04-00460, (January 12, 2007) (“ *Final Redetermination* ”), found at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/06-88.pdf* . In the remand redetermination the Department did the following: (1)(a) Explained that AFA was applied to all of Huarong's sales of axes/adzes, pursuant to sections 776(a) and

(b)of the Act, because it failed to report requested information regarding its production and sales of scrapers, which are subject to the axes/adzes order; (1)(b) explained that total AFA was applied to Tianjin's sales of bars/wedges because, in part, it failed to report its sales of forged tampers, which are subject to the bars/wedges order;

(2)redetermined an AFA rate for Tianjin's sales of merchandise covered by the bars/wedges order;

(3)explained that the period of investigation (“POI”) sales quantity is a valid benchmark for determining whether the respondent sold in commercial quantities because it represents the respondent's behavior without the discipline of an antidumping order;

(4)included in the Department's calculation of NV the cost of labor and welding rod consumed in making steel pallets;

(5)examined the record of *Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India; Final Results of Administrative Review* , 63 FR 48184 (September 9, 1998), and concluded that the brokerage and handling surrogate value included all expenses noted by the petitioner, except those that the record does not show were incurred;

(6)chose to continue to apply the respondents' average ME ocean freight expense to sales shipped with non-market economy (“NME”) carriers; and

(7)continued to deny the petitioner's request for a COS adjustment to Tianjin's NV because there was insufficient detail to determine whether there was a correlation between the expenses incurred by Tianjin and the surrogate producer. The Department recalculated the antidumping duty rates applicable to SMC's sale of bars/wedges and Tianjin's sales of axes/adzes, bars/wedges, hammers/sledges, and picks/mattocks as a result of the Department's modifications to NV. The Department made no change to the antidumping duty rates of Huarong's and Liaoning Machinery Import & Export Corporation's sales of bars/wedges. On November 20, 2007, the CIT sustained all aspects of the remand redetermination made by the Department pursuant to the CIT's remand of the *Final Results* . In its decision in *Timken* , 893 F.2d at 341, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. As a result of the Department's addition of the cost of labor and welded rod consumed in making steel pallets in the remand redetermination, the CIT's decision in this case on November 20, 2007, constitutes a final decision of the court that is not in harmony with the Department's *Final Results* . This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of *Timken* . Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the Federal Circuit, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to revise the cash deposit rates covering the subject merchandise. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 11, 2008. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-789 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-913] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is aligning the final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR Tires) from the People's Republic of China

(PRC)with the final determination in the companion antidumping investigation. EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hoadley, Jack Zhao, or Nicholas Czajkowski, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:

(202)482-3148,

(202)482-1396, and

(202)482-1395, respectively. *Background:* On August 7, 2007, the Department initiated the countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations on OTR Tires from PRC. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation,* 72 FR 44122 (August 7, 2007), and *Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China,* 72 FR 43591 (August 7, 2007). The countervailing duty and antidumping duty investigations have the same scope with regard to the subject merchandise covered. On December 17, 2007, the Department published the preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination pertaining to OTR Tires from the PRC. *See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination,* 72 FR 71360 (December 17, 2007). On December 11, 2007, the petitioners, Titan Tire Corporation and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, submitted a letter, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), requesting alignment of the final countervailing duty determination with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation of OTR Tires from the PRC. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), we are aligning the final countervailing duty determination on OTR Tires from the PRC with the final determinations in the companion antidumping duty investigation of OTR Tires from the PRC. The final countervailing duty determination will be issued on the same date as the final antidumping duty determination currently scheduled for April 21, 2008, the first business day following the April 20, 2008 deadline for the final antidumping duty determination. This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act. Dated: January 10, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8-790 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [CPSC Docket No. 08-C0002] Stamina Products, 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 Stamina Products, Inc., a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $105,000. 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 1, 2008. ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement should send written comments to the Comment 08-0002, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis C. Kacoyanis; Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408; telephone

(301)504-7587. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears below. Dated: January 14, 2008. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary. In the Matter of Stamina Products, Inc., a corporation. CPSC Docket No. 08-C0002 I. 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 Stamina Products, Inc. (“Stamina”), a corporation, in accordance with the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), 16 CFR 1118.20. This Settlement Agreement and the incorporated attached Order settle the staff's allegations set forth below. II. 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. Stamina is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, with its principal corporate office located in Springfield, MO. At all times relevant, Stamina imported and/or distributed exercise equipment and sporting and recreational products. II. Allegations of the Staff 4. Between August 2000 and March 2006, Stamina imported for sale nationwide approximately 668,000 In-Motion Trampolines (“trampolines”), Model Numbers 35-1625, 35-1625A-LC, 35-1625AW, and 36-1625AW-LC. 5. The trampolines are ``consumer products'' and, at the times relevant herein, Stamina was a ``manufacturer'' of those consumer products, which were ``distributed in commerce,'' 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 trampolines are defective because the trampoline's folding/unfolding instructions did not adequately warn consumers of the hazards resulting from use of the product. 7. On or about April 11, 2002, Stamina received a report from a consumer who alleged that while folding/unfolding the trampoline, it popped up and hit her in the mouth knocking a veneer off her tooth. 8. On or about January 2, 2004, Stamina received another report from a consumer who alleged chin lacerations requiring nine sutures when the trampoline sprang back during the folding/unfolding process. 9. From September 2004 through June 2005, Stamina received seven additional complaints from consumers who alleged that the trampoline sprang back during the folding/unfolding process. In six of these complaints, consumers alleged serious injuries consisting of facial lacerations requiring sutures, bruises, headaches, neck pain, broken facial bones, loss of mouth sensation, and blurred vision. 10. All but one of the injuries described in paragraphs 7-9, above constitute `serious' injuries as that term is defined in 16 CFR 1115.6(c). 11. Although Stamina obtained sufficient information to reasonably support the conclusion that the trampolines contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Stamina 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). 12. By failing to furnish information in a timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), Stamina 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). 13. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Stamina 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). III. Stamina's Response 14. Stamina denies the staff's allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 through 13 above. 15. Stamina denies that the trampoline product contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or created an unreasonable 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). 16. Stamina reported to the Commission on July 11, 2005. 17. The trampoline's folding/unfolding instructions adequately warned consumers of the hazards that could result from misuse or misassembly of the product. 18. The trampoline product contained assembly and disassembly instructions that Stamina contends, if followed, would have prevented the alleged incidents identified in paragraphs 7 through 9. 19. Stamina contends the incidents identified in paragraphs 7 through 9 were the result of consumer misuse or misassembly. 20. Stamina denies the alleged injuries were ‘serious’ injuries as that term is defined in 16 CFR 1115.6(c). IV. Agreement of the Parties 21. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over Stamina under the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. 22. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Stamina agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $105,000.00 as set forth in the attached incorporated Order. 23. The parties enter this Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only. Neither the Settlement Agreement nor the Order constitute an admission by Stamina or a determination by the Commission that Stamina violated the CPSA's reporting requirements or that the trampoline contained a defect. 24. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement 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 procedures set forth in 16 CFR. 1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 calendar days, the Agreement 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). 25. This Settlement Agreement and Order resolves the alleged violations of the CPSA set forth in paragraphs 4 through 12, above. 26. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Stamina 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 validity of the Commission's actions,

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

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

(v)any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 27. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order. 28. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be binding upon Stamina and each of its successors and assigns. 29. 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 this Order may subject those referenced in paragraph 24 to appropriate legal action. 30. 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 contradict its terms. 31. 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. 32. 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 provisions shall be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and Stamina jointly determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose of the Settlement Agreement Order Stamina Products, Inc. Dated: November 29, 2007 Kevin Gerschefske, Vice-President & Secretary, Stamina Products, Inc., 2040 N. Alliance, Springfield, MO 65803. Dated: November 30, 2007 Randall E. Hindricks, Esquire, Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esquire, Rouse, Hendricks, German May, P.C., Attorneys for Stamina Products, Inc., 1010 Walnut, Suite 400, Kansas City, MO 64106. Consumer Product Safety Commission John Gibson Mullan, Assistant Executive Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. Ronald G. Yelenik, Acting Director, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. Dated: November 30, 2007 Dennis C. Kacoyanis, Trial Attorney, Office of Compliance and Field Operations. In the Matter of Stamina Products, Inc., a corporation [CPSC DOCKET NO. 08-C0002] Order Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between Stamina Products, Inc. (“Stamina”) and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“the Commission”); and the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and Stamina; and it appearing that 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 Stamina shall pay a civil penalty of *one hundred five-thousand dollars* ($105,000.00) to the order of the United States Treasury within twenty

(20)calendar days of service of the Final Order of the Commission upon Stamina. Upon the failure of Stamina to make full payment in the prescribed time, interest on the outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid of the Federal legal rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b). Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 11th day of January, 2008. By order of the Commission. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, *Consumer Product Safety Commission.* [FR Doc. 08-153 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

CFR