Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20669 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Continued 

Parties: APL Co. Pte. Ltd.; American 

President Lines, Ltd.; A.P. MollerMaersk A/S; CMA CGM, S.A.; Atlantic 

Container Line; China Shipping 

Container Lines Co., Ltd; China 

Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) 

Co., Ltd.; Companhia Libra de 

Navegacao; Compania Libra de 

Navegacion Uruguay S.A.; Compania 

Sud Americana de Vapores, S.A.; 

COSCO Container Lines Company 

Limited; Crowley Maritime Corporation; 

Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; 

Hamburg-Su ̈d; Hapag-Lloyd AG; HapagLloyd USA LLC; Hanjin Shipping Co., 

Ltd.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. 

Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; 

Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A.; 

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd.; Nippon Yusen 

Kaisha Line; Norasia Container Lines 

Limited; Orient Overseas Container Line 

Limited; Yang Ming Marine Transport 

Corp.; and Zim Integrated Shipping 

Services, Ltd. 

Filing Party: Jeffrey F. Lawrence, Esq. 

and Donald J. Kassilke, Esq.; Cozen 

O’Connor; 1627 I Street, NW.; Suite 

1100; Washington, DC 20006. 

Synopsis: The amendment would 

clarify the authority of members to 

discuss and agree on matters relating to 

how chassis are made available to the 

market place. 

Agreement No.: 012072–001. 

Title: NYK/Yang Ming Americas 

North-South Service Slot Charter 

Agreement. 

Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha; and 

Yan Ming (America) Corp. 

Filing Party: Patricia M. O’Neill, Esq.; 

Corporate Counsel; NYK Line (North 

America) Inc.; 300 Lighting Way, 5th 

Floor; Secaucus, NJ 07094. 

Synopsis: The amendment deletes 

Hanjin Shipping as a party to the 

Agreement. 

Agreement No.: 012105–001. 

Title: SCM Lines Transportes/CCNI 

Agreement. 

Parties: Compania Chilena de 

Navegacion Interoceanica S.A. and SCM 

Lines Transportes Maritimos Sociedade 

Unipessoal, LDA. 

Filing Party: John P. Vayda, Esq.; 

Nourse & Bowles, LLP; One Exchange 

Plaza; 55 Broadway; New York, NY 

10006–3030. 

Synopsis: The amendment expands 

the geographic scope of the agreement to 

include the U.S. East Coast, Mexico, 

Colombia, Venezuela, Jamaica, and the 

Dominican Republic. The parties have 

requested expedited review. 

By Order of the Federal Maritime 

Commission. 

Dated: April 8, 2011. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9003 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of 

the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than April 28, 

2011. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of San 

Francisco (Kenneth Binning, Vice 

President, Applications and 

Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–1579: 

1. Susan Marie Horton, Cheney, 

Washington; Raymond Lee Pittman, Jr., 

Mesa, Arizona; Rosa Maria Pittman, 

Spokane, Washington; Ted Davis 

Rhodes, Spokane Valley, Washington; 

and Wheatland Bank Employee Stock 

Ownership Plan, Spokane, Washington; 

together as a group acting in concert to 

retain voting shares of Community 

Financial Group, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly retain voting shares of 

Wheatland Bank, both of Spokane, 

Washington. 

2. Wheatland Bank Employee Stock 

Ownership Plan, Spokane, Washington, 

and its trustees, Susan Marie Horton, 

Cheney, Washington; Dennis Dale Bly, 

Davenport, Washington; and Jayne 

Therese Deife, Marlin, Washington; to 

retain voting shares of Community 

Financial Group, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly retain voting shares of 

Wheatland Bank, both of Spokane, 

Washington. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 8, 2011. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8821 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 102 3033] 

Oreck Corporation; Analysis of 

Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 9, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to a ‘‘Oreck, File 

No. 102 3033’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. Please note 

that your comment—including your 

name and your state—will be placed on 

the public record of this proceeding, 

including on the publicly accessible 

FTC Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm. 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’s Social Security Number; 

date of birth; driver’s license number or 

other State identification number, or 

foreign country equivalent; passport 

number; financial account number; or 

credit or debit card number. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. * * *,’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 

16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

20670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See FTC 

Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

Because paper mail addressed to the 

FTC is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening, please 

consider submitting your comments in 

electronic form. Comments filed in 

electronic form should be submitted by 

using the following weblink: https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/oreck 

and following the instructions on the 

Web-based form. To ensure that the 

Commission considers an electronic 

comment, you must file it on the Webbased form at the weblink https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/oreck. 

If this Notice appears at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/index.jsp, 

you may also file an electronic comment 

through that Web site. The Commission 

will consider all comments that 

regulations.gov forwards to it. You may 

also visit the FTC Web site at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/ to read the Notice and the 

news release describing it. 

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Oreck, File No. 102 

3033’’ reference both in the text and on 

the envelope, and should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex D), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act 

(‘‘FTC Act’’) and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC Web 

site, to the extent practicable, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. 

As a matter of discretion, the 

Commission makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Gold (415–848–5176), FTC, 

Western Region, San Francisco, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for April 7, 2010), on the 

World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

os/actions.shtm. A paper copy can be 

obtained from the FTC Public Reference 

Room, Room 130–H, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, 

either in person or by calling (202) 326– 

2222. 

Public comments are invited, and may 

be filed with the Commission in either 

paper or electronic form. All comments 

should be filed as prescribed in the 

ADDRESSES section above, and must be 

received on or before the date specified 

in the DATES section. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, 

subject to final approval, an Agreement 

Containing Consent Order from Oreck 

Corporation (‘‘respondent’’). The 

proposed consent order has been placed 

on the public record for thirty (30) days 

for receipt of comments by interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After thirty (30) days, the 

Commission will again review the 

agreement and the comments received, 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement and take 

appropriate action or make final the 

agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter involves the advertising, 

marketing, and sale of the Oreck Halo 

vacuum cleaner and the Oreck 

ProShield Plus portable air cleaner. 

Oreck has marketed these products 

directly to consumers through 

numerous Web sites, as well as through 

company-owned and franchised retail 

stores and third-party retail outlets. 

The Oreck Halo is an upright vacuum 

cleaner that has a built-in light chamber 

and a HEPA filter bag. The light 

chamber generates ultraviolet light in 

the C spectrum onto floor surfaces while 

vacuuming. According to the FTC 

complaint, Oreck has promoted the 

Oreck Halo as effective, through normal 

use, in killing virtually all bacteria, 

viruses, germs, mold and allergens that 

exist on carpets and other floor surfaces. 

Specifically, the FTC complaint 

alleges that respondent represented, in 

various advertisements, that the Oreck 

Halo: 

(1) Substantially reduces the risk of or 

prevents the flu; (2) substantially 

reduces the risk of or prevents other 

illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, 

viruses, molds, and allergens, such as 

the common cold, diarrhea, upset 

stomachs, asthma, and allergy 

symptoms; and (3) will eliminate all or 

virtually all common germs and 

allergens found on the floors in users’ 

homes. The complaint also alleges that 

Oreck claimed that the Oreck Halo’s 

UV–C light is effective against germs, 

bacteria, dust mites, mold and viruses 

embedded in carpets. The complaint 

alleges that all of these claims are 

unsubstantiated and thus violate the 

FTC Act. 

The FTC complaint also alleges that 

Oreck represented, in various 

advertisements, that the Oreck 

ProShield Plus portable air cleaner: 

(1) Substantially reduces the risk of or 

prevents the flu; (2) substantially 

reduces the risk of or prevents other 

illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, 

viruses, molds, and allergens, such as 

the common cold, asthma, and allergy 

symptoms; and (3) will eliminate all or 

virtually all airborne particles from a 

typical household room under normal 

living conditions. The complaint alleges 

that all of these claims are 

unsubstantiated and thus violate the 

FTC Act. 

The complaint further alleges that 

Oreck claimed that scientific tests prove 

that users of the Oreck Halo will 

eliminate or virtually eliminate many 

common germs and allergens found on 

the floors in their homes; and that 

scientific tests prove that the Oreck 

ProShield Plus will eliminate or 

virtually eliminate many common 

viruses, germs and allergens from a 

typical household room under normal 

living conditions. According to the 

complaint, these claims are false and 

thus violate the FTC Act. 

Finally, the complaint alleges that 

Oreck provided advertisements to its 

franchised stores for use in their 

marketing and sale of the Oreck Halo 

and the Oreck ProShield. According to 

the complaint, Oreck thereby provided 

means and instrumentalities to 

distributors of its products in 

furtherance of the deceptive and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Notices 20671 

misleading acts or practices alleged in 

the complaint. 

The proposed consent order contains 

provisions designed to prevent 

respondent from engaging in similar 

acts or practices in the future. 

Specifically, Part I of the proposed order 

addresses the allegedly unsubstantiated 

claims regarding the Oreck Halo. Part I 

covers any representation that the Oreck 

Halo or any other vacuum cleaner: 

(1) Reduces the risk of or prevents the 

flu; (2) reduces the risk of or prevents 

illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, 

viruses, molds, or allergens, such as the 

common cold, diarrhea, upset stomachs, 

asthma and allergy symptoms; (3) will 

eliminate all or virtually all germs, 

bacteria, dust mites, molds, viruses or 

allergens from a user’s floor; and (4) will 

eliminate any percent or numerical 

quantity of germs, bacteria, dust mites, 

molds, viruses or allergens from a user’s 

floor. Part I also applies to 

representations that ultraviolet light is 

effective against germs, bacteria, dust 

mites, molds, viruses or allergens 

embedded in carpets. Part I prohibits 

Oreck from making any of the above 

representations unless the 

representation is non-misleading and, at 

the time of making such representation, 

Oreck possesses and relies upon 

competent and reliable scientific 

evidence that is sufficient in quality and 

quantity based on standards generally 

accepted in the relevant scientific fields, 

when considered in light of the entire 

body of relevant and reliable scientific 

evidence, to substantiate that the 

representation is true. The proposed 

order defines ‘‘competent and reliable 

scientific evidence’’ as ‘‘tests, analyses, 

research or studies that have been 

conducted and evaluated in an objective 

manner by qualified persons and are 

generally accepted in the profession to 

yield accurate and reliable results.’’ 

Part II of the proposed order addresses 

the allegedly unsubstantiated claims 

regarding the Oreck ProShield Plus. Part 

II covers any representation that the 

Oreck ProShield Plus or any other air 

cleaner: (1) Reduces the risk of or 

prevents the flu; (2) reduces the risk of 

or prevents illnesses or ailments caused 

by bacteria, viruses, molds, or allergens, 

such as the common cold, asthma and 

allergy symptoms; (3) will eliminate all 

or virtually all indoor airborne particles 

under normal living conditions; and 

(4) will eliminate any percent or 

numerical quantity of indoor air 

contaminants under normal living 

conditions. Part II prohibits Oreck from 

making any of the above representations 

unless the representation is nonmisleading and, at the time of making 

such representation, Oreck possesses 

and relies upon competent and reliable 

scientific evidence that is sufficient in 

quality and quantity based on standards 

generally accepted in the relevant 

scientific fields, when considered in 

light of the entire body of relevant and 

reliable scientific evidence, to 

substantiate that the representation is 

true. 

Part III of the proposed order 

prohibits respondent from making 

representations, other than 

representations covered under Parts I or 

II, about the absolute or comparative 

health benefits of any product, unless 

the representation is non-misleading, 

and, at the time of making such 

representation, respondent possesses 

and relies upon competent and reliable 

scientific evidence that is sufficient in 

quality and quantity based on standards 

generally accepted in the relevant 

scientific fields, when considered in 

light of the entire body of relevant and 

reliable scientific evidence, to 

substantiate that the representation is 

true. 

Part IV of the proposed order 

addresses the allegedly false claims that 

scientific tests prove that the Oreck Halo 

or ProShield Plus eliminate or virtually 

eliminate many common germs, viruses 

or allergens from the user’s floor or air. 

Part IV prohibits respondent, when 

advertising any product, from 

misrepresenting the existence, contents, 

validity, results, conclusions, or 

interpretations of any test, study, or 

research. 

Part VI of the proposed order requires 

the payment of $750,000 intended for 

redress to consumers. To facilitate the 

payment of redress, Part V of the 

proposed order requires Oreck to 

provide to the Commission a searchable 

electronic file containing the name and 

contact information of all consumers 

who purchased the Oreck Halo or the 

Oreck ProShield Plus from January 1, 

2009 through August 31, 2010. 

Part VII of the proposed order requires 

Oreck to send a letter to all of its 

franchisees requesting that they 

immediately stop using all advertising 

and marketing materials previously 

provided to them by Oreck. The 

required letter is appended to the 

proposed order as Attachment A. 

Parts VIII, IX, X and XI of the 

proposed order require respondent to 

keep copies of relevant advertisements 

and materials substantiating claims 

made in the advertisements; to provide 

copies of the order to its personnel; to 

notify the Commission of changes in 

corporate structure that might affect 

compliance obligations under the order; 

and to file compliance reports with the 

Commission. Part XII provides that the 

order will terminate after twenty (20) 

years, with certain exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order, and it is not intended 

to constitute an official interpretation of 

the agreement and proposed order or to 

modify their terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8757 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

[Document Identifier: OS–0990–0321] 

30-Day Notice; Agency Information 

Collection Request; 30-Day Public 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

In compliance with the requirement 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 

Office of the Secretary (OS), Department 

of Health and Human Services, is 

publishing the following summary of a 

proposed collection for public 

comment. Interested persons are invited 

to send comments regarding this burden 

estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including any 

of the following subjects: (1) The 

necessity and utility of the proposed 

information collection for the proper 

performance of the agency’s functions; 

(2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (4) the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology to 

minimize the information collection 

burden. 

To obtain copies of the supporting 

statement and any related forms for the 

proposed paperwork collections 

referenced above, e-mail your request, 

including your address, phone number, 

OMB number, and OS document 

identifier, to 

Sherette.funncoleman@hhs.gov, or call 

the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 

690–5683. Send written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections within 30 days 

of this notice directly to the OS OMB 

Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202–395– 

5806. 

Title: HHS Web Site Customer 

Satisfaction Survey—0990–0321— 

Reinstatement with change—Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Public 

Affairs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES