Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64035

removed on January 1, 2005: (1) 

Whether cotton trouser imports from 

China are entering, or are expected to 

enter, the United States at prices that are 

substantially below prices of the like or 

directly competitive U.S. product, and 

whether those imports are likely to have 

a significant depressing or suppressing 

effect on domestic prices of the like or 

directly competitive U.S. product or are 

likely to increase demand for further 

imports from China; (2) Whether exports 

of Chinese-origin cotton trousers to the 

United States are likely to increase 

substantially and imminently (due to 

existing unused production capacity, 

due to capacity that can easily be shifted 

from the production of other products to 

the production of cotton trousers, or due 

to an imminent and substantial increase 

in production capacity or investment in 

production capacity), taking into 

account the availability of other markets 

to absorb any additional exports; (3) 

Whether Chinese-origin cotton trousers 

that are presently sold in the Chinese 

market or in third-country markets will 

be diverted to the U.S. market in the 

imminent future (for example, due to 

more favorable pricing in the U.S. 

market or to existing or imminent 

import restraints into third country 

markets); (4) The level and the extent of 

any recent change in inventories of 

cotton trousers in China or in U.S. 

bonded warehouses; (5) Whether 

conditions of the domestic industry of 

the like or directly competitive product 

demonstrate that market disruption is 

likely (as may be evident from any 

anticipated factory closures or decline 

in investment in the production of 

cotton trousers), and whether actual or 

anticipated imports of Chinese-origin 

cotton trousers are likely to affect the 

development and production efforts of 

the U.S. cotton trouser industry; and (6) 

Whether U.S. managers, retailers, 

purchasers, importers, or other market 

participants have recognized Chinese 

producers of cotton trousers as potential 

suppliers (for example, through prequalification procedures or framework 

agreements).

Comments may be submitted by any 

interested person. Comments must be 

received no later than December 3, 

2004. Interested persons are invited to 

submit ten copies of such comments to 

the Chairman, Committee for the 

Implementation of Textile Agreements, 

Room 3001A, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th and Constitution 

Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

The Committee will protect any 

business confidential information that is 

marked ‘‘business confidential’’ from 

disclosure to the full extent permitted 

by law. To the extent that business 

confidential information is provided, 

two copies of a non-confidential version 

must also be provided in which 

business confidential information is 

summarized or, if necessary, deleted. 

Comments received, with the exception 

of information marked ‘‘business 

confidential’’, will be available for 

inspection between Monday - Friday, 

8:30 a.m and 5:30 p.m in the Trade 

Reference and Assistance Center Help 

Desk, Suite 800M, USA Trade 

Information Center, Ronald Reagan 

Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW, Washington, DC, (202) 482-3433.

The Committee will make a 

determination within 60 calendar days 

of the close of the comment period as 

to whether the United States will 

request consultations with China. If the 

Committee is unable to make a 

determination within 60 calendar days, 

it will cause to be published a notice in 

the Federal Register, including the date 

by which it will make a determination. 

If the Committee makes a negative 

determination, it will cause this 

determination and the reasons therefore 

to be published in the Federal Register. 

If the Committee makes an affirmative 

determination that imports of Chinese 

origin cotton trousers threaten to disrupt 

the U.S. market, the United States will 

request consultations with China with a 

view to easing or avoiding the 

disruption.

James C. Leonard III,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation 

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 04–24653 Filed 11–1–04; 1:31 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 05–C0003] 

Dynacraft BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts 

Corporation, Formally Known as 

Dynacraft Industries, Inc., Provisional 

Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement 

and Order

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the 

Commission to publish settlements 

which it provisionally accepts under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act in the 

Federal Register in accordance with the 

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20. Published 

below is a provisionally-accepted 

Settlement Agreement with Dynacraft 

BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, 

formally known as Dynacraft Industries, 

Inc., containing a civil penalty of 

$1,400,000.

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 November 

18, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to the 

Comment 05–C0003, Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis C. Kacoyanis, Trial Attorney, 

Office of Compliance, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 

504–7587.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below.

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary.

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 

Dynacraft BSC, Inc., formally known as 

Dynacraft Industries, Inc. (‘‘Dynacraft’’

or ‘‘Respondent’’), 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 settle the staff’s 

allegations set forth below. 

I. The Parties 

2. The Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency responsible for 

the enforcement of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051 et 

seq.

3. Dynacraft is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

with its principal corporate offices 

located at 2550 Kerner Boulevard, San 

Rafael, CA 94901. Dynacraft imports 

bicycle products from China for sale in 

the United States. 

II. Allegations of the Staff 

A. Vertical XL2 Mountain Bicycle 

4. In July 1999, Respondent 

manufactured for nationwide 

distribution 3,562 Vertical XL2, 26′′

Mountain Bicycles, Model Number 

8526–26. Respondent also manufactured 

64036 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

the JY906 bicycle fork (‘‘fork’’) and 

incorporated it into these bicycles. 

5. The bicycles described in 

paragraph 4 above are sold and/or are 

used by consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise and are therefore, ‘‘consumer 

products’’ as defined in section 3(a)(1) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). 

Respondent was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of 

the bicycles described in paragraph 4, 

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

as those terms are defined in sections 

3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and (12). 

6. Some of the front suspension forks 

for these bicycles had defective welds 

that allegedly broke apart during normal 

and foreseeable use of the bicycles. The 

flaws in these forks are ‘‘defects’’ under 

section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064. 

7. If the fork breaks during use, it may 

cause the rider to lose control, fall and 

suffer serious injuries such as facial 

abrasions, concussions, other head 

injuries, chipped or lost teeth, broken 

bones, and lacerations requiring sutures. 

Death is also possible. 

8. On or about February 29, 2000, 

Respondent announced the recall of 

19,000 Vertical XL2 Bicycles, Model No. 

8526–26 with a manufacturing date of 

October 11, 1999. At the time, the firm 

was aware of at least two failures of the 

bicycles with a manufacturing date of 

July 1999, but did not provide that 

information to the Commission staff. In 

the staff’s letter of February 14, 2000 

accepting Respondent’s corrective 

action plan, the staff said, ‘‘If the firm 

[Respondent] receives or learns of any 

information concerning other incidents 

or injuries, or information affecting the 

scope, prevalence or seriousness of the 

reported problem, it must report to [the 

Office of Compliance] immediately.’’

9. Between January 2000 and July 

2000, Respondent received five incident 

reports involving Vertical XL2, Model 

8526–26 bicycles’ forks allegedly 

breaking part during normal and 

foreseeable use of the bicycles, causing 

riders to lose control and fall to the 

ground. These bicycles had a 

manufacturing date of July 1999. 

Dynacraft knew about injuries including 

broken and lost teeth, fractures, and 

lacerations requiring sutures. Dynacraft 

did not report this pattern of defect to 

the Commission until on or about July 

26, 2000. 

10. Before July 26, 2000, Dynacraft 

had obtained information which 

reasonably supported the conclusion 

that the bicycles’ forks described in 

paragraph 4 above contained a defect 

which could create a substantial 

product hazard or created an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, but failed to report such 

information in a timely manner to the 

Commission as required by sections 

15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b) and (c). 

11. By failing to provide the 

information to the Commission in a 

timely manner as required by section 

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 

Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 

12. Dynacraft committed this failure 

to timely report to the Commission 

‘‘knowingly’’ as the term ‘‘knowingly’’ is 

defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting 

Dynacraft to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069.

B. Magna Electroshock Mountain 

Bicycle 

13. Between July 1999 and October 

1999, Respondent manufactured for 

nationwide distribution 21,888 Magna 

Electroshock 24′′ and 26′′ Mountain 

Bicycles, Model Numbers 8504–90, 

8504–96, 8548–78, and 8548–94. 

Respondent also manufactured the 

JY906 fork (‘‘fork’’) and incorporated it 

into these bicycles. 

14. The bicycles described in 

paragraph 13 above were sold to and/or 

are used by consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise and are, therefore, ‘‘consumer 

products’’ as defined in section 3(a)(1) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). 

Respondent was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of 

the bicycles described in paragraph 13, 

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

as those terms are defined in sections 

3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and (12). 

15. Some of the bicycles 

manufactured from July 1999 through 

October 1999 had forks that were 

allegedly not properly welded and 

could break apart during normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use of the 

bicycles. These flaws in the forks 

constituted ‘‘defects’’ within the 

meaning of section 15 of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2064. 

16. If the fork breaks during use, it 

could cause the rider to lose control, fall 

and suffer injuries such as facial 

abrasions, concussions, other head 

injuries, broken or lost teeth, broken 

bones, and lacerations requiring sutures. 

Death is also possible. 

17. Between January 8, 2000 and 

August 4, 2000, the date of Dynacraft’s 

report to the Commission, Dynacraft had 

received 35 reports alleging that the 

Magna Electroshock, Model Nos. 8504–

90, 8504–96, 8548–78, and 8548–94 

bicycles’ forks had broken apart during 

normal and foreseeable use of the 

bicycles, causing riders to lose control 

and fall to the ground. The 

manufacturing dates of the bicycles 

ranged from July 1999 to October 1999. 

Respondent had learned of several 

injuries in these incidents including 

concussions, fractures, abrasions, back 

strain, and chipped and lost teeth. 

18. In each of the instances described 

in paragraphs 13 through 17 above, 

Dynacraft obtained information which 

reasonably supported the conclusion 

that the bicycles’ forks described above 

contained a defect which would create 

a substantial product hazard or created 

an unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, but failed to report such 

information in a timely manner to the 

Commission as required by sections 

15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b) and (c). 

19. By failing to provide the 

information to the Commission in a 

timely manner as required by section 

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 

Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 

20. Dynacraft committed this failure 

to timely report to the Commission 

‘‘knowingly’’ as the term ‘‘knowingly’’ is 

defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting 

Dynacraft to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069. 

C. Next Shockzone Mountain Bicycle 

21. From September 1999 through 

March 2001, Dynacraft manufactured for 

nationwide distribution about 38,000 

Next Shockzone 20′′ Boys’ Mountain 

Bicycles, Model Number 8536–33. The 

bicycle’s color was orange. Respondent 

also manufactured the JY906 fork 

(‘‘fork’’) and incorporated it into these 

bicycles.

22. The bicycles described in 

paragraph 21 above were sold to and/or 

are used by consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise, and are, therefore, 

‘‘consumer products’’ as defined in 

section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). 

Respondent was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of 

the bicycles described in paragraph 21, 

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

as those terms are defined in sections 

3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and (12). 

23. Some of the forks of these bicycles 

could break apart during normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use of the 

bicycles. The flaws in the forks 

constitute ‘‘defects’’ under section 15 of 

the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64037

24. If the fork breaks during use, it 

could cause a rider to lose control, fall, 

and suffer serious injuries such as facial 

abrasions, concussions, other head 

injuries, broken or lost teeth, broken 

bones, and lacerations requiring sutures. 

Death is also possible. 

25. Between March and September 

2000—the time Dynacraft was 

formulating its corrective action plan to 

expand its recall of the Vertical XL2 

bicycles and its Magna Electroshock 

bicycles—Dynacraft learned of 19 

incident reports alleging fork breakage 

during normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use of its Next Shockzone 

Bicycle, Model No. 8536–33, causing 

riders to lose control and fall to the 

ground. Dynacraft also learned about 

fractures, lacerations requiring sutures, 

and broken or lost teeth. 

26. Between September 2000 and 

March 16, 2001, the date Dynacraft 

reported to the Commission, Dynacraft 

received an additional 12 reports 

alleging fork breakage involving its Next 

Shockzone bicycle. By the time 

Dynacraft reported to the Commission, 

Dynacraft had received at least 31 

incident reports alleging the Next 

Shockzone’s, Model No. 8536–33 

bicycles’ forks breaking apart during 

normal and reasonably foreseeable use 

of the bicycles, causing riders to lose 

control and fall to the ground. Injuries 

alleged and known to Dynacraft 

included a blood clot to the brain, 

fractures, lacerations requiring sutures, 

and chipped teeth. 

27. In each of the instances described 

in paragraphs 21 through 26 above, 

Dynacraft obtained information which 

reasonably supported the conclusion 

that the bicycles’ forks contained a 

defect which could create a substantial 

product hazard or created an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, but failed to report such 

information in a timely manner to the 

Commission as required by sections 

15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b) and (c). 

28. By failing to provide the 

information to the Commission in a 

timely manner as required by section 

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 

Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 

29. Dynacraft committed this failure 

to timely report to the Commission 

‘‘knowingly’’ as the term ‘‘knowingly’’ is 

defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting 

Dynacraft to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069. 

D. Next Ultra Shock Mountain Bicycle 

30. Between September 1999 and 

March 2001, Respondent manufactured 

for nationwide distribution about 

132,000 Next Ultra Shock Mountain 

Bicycles. Respondent also manufactured 

the Ballistic 105 bicycle fork (‘‘fork’’) 

and incorporated it into these bicycles.

31. The bicycles described in 

paragraph 30 were sold to and/or are 

used by consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise, and are, therefore, 

‘‘consumer products’’ as defined in 

section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). 

Respondent was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of 

the bicycles described in paragraph 30, 

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce’’

as those terms are defined in sections 

3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and (12). 

32. Some of the forks of these bicycles 

could break apart during normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use of the 

bicycles. The flaws in the forks 

constitute ‘‘defects’’ under section 15 of 

the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064. 

33. If the fork breaks during use, it 

could cause a rider to lose control, fall 

and suffer serious injuries such as facial 

abrasions, concussions, other head 

injuries, damaged teeth, broken bones, 

and lacerations requiring sutures. Death 

was also possible. 

34. Between November 1999 and 

November 2001, Respondent received 

21 incident reports alleging the Next 

Ultra Shock bicycles’ forks breaking 

apart during normal and foreseeable use 

of the bicycles, causing riders to lose 

control and fall to the ground. Injuries 

known to Dynacraft included abrasions, 

concussions, and chipped teeth. 

35. Dynacraft did not report to the 

Commission until March 18, 2002 about 

the defect and incidents regarding the 

Next Ultra Shock bicycles’ forks. When 

it did report, it did not disclose that one 

of the incidents allegedly had resulted 

in the death of the rider. 

36. In each of the instances described 

in paragraphs 30 through 35 above, 

Dynacraft obtained information which 

reasonably supported the conclusion 

that the bicycles’ forks described in 

paragraph 30 above contained a defect 

which could create a substantial 

product hazard or created an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, but failed to report such 

information in a timely manner to the 

Commission as required by sections 

15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b)(2) and (3). 

37. By failing to provide the 

information to the Commission in a 

timely manner as required by section 

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 

Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 

38. Dynacraft committed this failure 

to timely report to the Commission 

‘‘knowingly’’ as the term ‘‘knowingly’’ is 

defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting 

Dynacraft to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA, 15 IUS.C. 2069. 

E. Magna Equator Mountain Bicycle 

39. Between December 1999, and May 

31, 2000, Dynacraft manufactured for 

nationwide distribution about 54,000 

Magna Equator Mountain Bicycles, 

Model Nos. 8547–19 and 8546–84. 

40. The bicycles described in 

paragraph 39 above are sold to and/or 

are used by consumers in or around a 

permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise, and are, therefore, 

‘‘consumer products’’ as defined in 

section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). 

Respondent was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ of 

the bicycles described in paragraph 39 

above, which were ‘‘distributed in 

commerce’’ as those terms are defined 

in sections 3(a)(4), and (12) of the CPSA, 

15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and (12). 

41. Some of the pedals of the bicycles 

are defective because improper drilling 

and tapping of the holes caused the 

pedals to loosen and fall off, causing 

riders to lose control, fall to the ground, 

and suffer serious injuries such as 

concussions, chest trauma, broken 

bones, sprains, abrasions, lacerations 

requiring sutures, and muscle strains. 

Thus, the flaws in the pedals constitute 

‘‘defects’’ under section 15 of the CPSA, 

15 U.S.C. 2064. 

42. Between December 1999 and June 

2000, Dynacraft received about six 

incident reports alleging the Magna 

Equator’s bicycle pedals falling off 

during normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use of the bicycles, causing 

riders to lose control and fall to the 

ground. Injuries known to Dynacraft 

include concussions, broken bones, 

sprains, abrasions, lacerations requiring 

sutures, and muscle strains. 

43. On or about June 13, 2000, a 

retailer of the bicycles faxed an 

engineering report the retailer had 

commissioned to Dynacraft. The 

engineering report concluded that 

premature loosening of the bicycle’s 

pedals was attributable to 

manufacturing defects in the pedal 

cranks associated with those pedals. 

Dynacraft did not report to the 

Commission at that time. 

44. By the time Dynacraft reported to 

the Commission in April 2001, 

Dynacraft had learned of at least 31 

incident reports alleging the bicycles’

pedals falling off. 

64038 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 

45. In each of the instances described 

in paragraph 39 through 44 above, 

Dynacraft obtained information which 

reasonably supported the conclusion 

that the bicycles’ pedals contained a 

defect which could create a substantial 

product hazard or created an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, but failed to report such 

information in a timely manner to the 

Commission as required by sections 

15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064(b) and (3).

46. By failing to provide the 

information to the Commission in a 

timely manner as required by section 

15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), 

Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 

47. Dynacraft committed this failure 

to timely report to the Commission 

‘‘knowingly’’ as the term ‘‘knowingly’’ is 

defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting 

Dynacraft to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069. 

III. Dynacraft’s Response 

48. Dynacraft denies the staff’s 

allegations of bicycle defects and that it 

violated the CPSA as set forth in 

paragraphs 4 through 47 above. 

49. Dynacraft asserts that it is the 

importer and distributor of the bicycles 

and all incorporated parts referenced in 

the allegations above. 

50. Dynacraft denies the allegations of 

the Staff that the Vertical XL2, Magna 

Electroshock, Next Shockzone, Next 

Ultra Shock, and Magna Equator 

bicycles contain or contained a defect or 

defects which could create a substantial 

product hazard or create an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death. 

51. Dynacraft denies that it obtained 

information that reasonably supported 

the conclusion that its bicycles 

identified above might have contained a 

defect or defects which could create a 

substantial product hazard or creates an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, or that Dynacraft failed to report 

in a timely manner in violation of the 

reporting requirements of section 15(b) 

of the CPSA. Dynacraft further denies 

that it violated section 19(a) of the CPSA 

in relation to the bicycles mentioned 

above and that its failure to timely 

report to the Commission ‘‘knowingly’’

subjected it to civil penalties under 

section 20 of the CPSA. 

52. Dynacraft denies the casual link 

alleged in paragraph 35 between a 

rider’s death and the Next Ultra Shock 

or any other Dynacraft product. 

53. Dynacraft enters this Settlement 

Agreement and Order for settlement 

purposes only, to avoid incurring 

additional legal costs and expenses. In 

settling this matter, Dynacraft does not 

admit any fault, liability, or statutory or 

regulatory violation, and this Agreement 

and Order do not constitute nor are they 

evidence of any fault or wrongdoing on 

the part of Dynacraft. 

54. Notwithstanding its denial that 

the bicycles contained defects or created 

an unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, Dynacraft, nevertheless, launched 

appropriate and timely recalls and 

cooperated with the Staff in recalling 

the products. 

55. Dynacraft further asserts as a 

general matter that it received very few 

complaints concerning the abovementioned products relative to the 

numbers of products in distribution; 

that it implemented product 

improvements to address the complaints 

on the bicycles in question; that it 

considered the complaints and the 

reporting requirements of the CPSA; and 

that it made its judgments, about 

reporting in good faith based on its 

understanding of the requirements of 

the law and that it did not ‘‘knowingly’’

violate any reporting requirements. 

56. Dynacraft denies that any of its 

bicycles have caused any injuries and 

does not admit to the truth of any claims 

or other matters alleged or otherwise 

stated by the Commission or any other 

person with respect to its bicycles. 

Nothing contained in this Agreement 

and Order precludes Dynacraft from 

raising any defense in any future 

litigation. 

IV. Agreement of the Parties 

57. The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission has jurisdiction over this 

matter and over Dynacraft under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 

2051 et seq.

58. This Agreement is entered into for 

settlement purposes only and does not 

constitute an admission by Dynacraft or 

a determination by the Commission that 

the products referenced in paragraphs 4 

through 47 contain or contained a defect 

or defects which could create a 

substantial product hazard or create an 

unreasonable risk of serious injury or 

death, or that Dynacraft knowingly 

violated the CPSA’s reporting 

requirement. 

59. In settlement of the staff’s 

allegations, Dynacraft agrees to pay a 

civil penalty in the amount of one 

million, four hundred thousand dollars 

($1,400,000.00) as set forth in the 

incorporated Order. 

60. This Settlement Agreement and 

Order settle all outstanding issues 

against Dynacraft relating to the staff’s 

allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 

through 47 above. 

61. Upon final acceptance of this 

Agreement by the Commission and 

issuance of the Final Order, Respondent 

knowingly, voluntarily, and completely 

waives any rights it may have in this 

matter to (a) an administrative or 

judicial hearing, (b) to judicial review or 

other challenge or contest of the validity 

of the Commission’s actions, (c) to a 

determination by the Commission as to 

whether Respondent failed to comply 

with the CPSA and the underlying 

regulations, (d) to a statement of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

and (e) to any claims under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act.

62. Upon provisional acceptance of 

this Agreement by the Commission, this 

Agreement shall be placed on the public 

record and shall be published 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 objections within 15 

days, the Agreement will be deemed 

finally accepted on the 16th day after 

the date it is published in the Federal 

Register. 

63. The Commission may publicize 

the terms of the Settlement Agreement 

and Order. 

64. The Commission’s Order in this 

matter is issued under the provisions of 

the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., and 

that a violation of this Order may 

subject Dynacraft to appropriate legal 

action. 

65. This Settlement Agreement may 

be used in interpreting the Order. 

Agreements, understandings, 

representations, or interpretations apart 

form those contained in this Settlement 

Agreement and Order may not be used 

to vary or contradict its terms. 

66. The provisions of this Settlement 

Agreement and Order shall apply to 

Dynacraft and each of its successors and 

assigns.

Respondent, Dynacraft BSC, Inc. 

Dated: October 5, 2004.

Jerome A. Berman,

President.

Dynacraft BSC, Inc., 2550 Kerner Road, San 

Rafael, CA 94901.

Dated: October 7, 2004.

Daniel C. Schwartz, Esquire 

Jill M. Zucker, Esquire 

Brooke E. Geller, Esquire

Attorneys for Respondent, Dynacraft BSC, 

Inc.

Bryan Cave, LLP, 700 Thirteenth Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20005–3960. 

Commission Staff 

Nicholas V. Machica,

Acting Assistant Executive Director.

Office of Compliance, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Washington, DC 

20207–0001.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2004 / Notices 64039

Eric L. Stone,

Legal Division, Office of Compliance.

Dated: October 12, 2004.

Dennis C. Kacoyanis,

Trial Attorney.

Legal Division, Office of Compliance.

Order 

Upon consideration of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into between 

Dynacraft BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts 

corporation, formally known as 

Dynacraft Industries, Inc., (‘‘Dynacraft’’

or ‘‘Respondent’’) and the staff of the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission; 

and the Commission having jurisdiction 

over the subject matter and Dynacraft; 

and it appearing that the Settlement 

Agreement and Order is in the public 

interest, it is 

Ordered that the Settlement 

Agreement be, and hereby, is accepted; 

and it is 

Further Ordered that upon final 

acceptance of the Settlement Agreement 

and Order, Dynacraft shall pay to the 

Commission a civil penalty in the 

amount of One Million, Four Hundred 

Thousand Dollars ($1,400,000.00) in 

four (4) payments each. Payment shall 

be made upon the following schedule: 

The first payment of $350,000 shall be 

made within twenty (20) days after 

service upon Respondent of this Final 

Order of the Commission. The second 

payment of $350,000 shall be made 

within 110 days of service of the Final 

Order, the third payment of $350,000 

shall be made within 200 days of service 

of the Final Order, and the fourth 

payment of $350,000 shall be made 

within 365 days of the date of service of 

the Final Order. Upon the failure by 

Dynacraft to make a payment or upon 

the making of a late payment by 

Dynacraft, (a) the entire amount of the 

civil penalty shall be due and payable, 

and (b) interest on the outstanding 

balance shall accrue and be paid at 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 28th day of October, 

2004.

By Order of the Commission. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24580 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense 

DOD Advisory Group on Electron 

Devices; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Defense, 

Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The DoD Advisory Group on 

Electron Devices (AGED) announces a 

closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 

0830, Tuesday, November 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Palisades Institute for Research 

Services, 241 18 Street, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Eric Carr, AGED Secretariat, 1745 

Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square 

Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 

22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

mission of the Advisory Group is to 

provide advice to the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics to the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and 

through the DDR&E to the Director, 

Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency and the Military Departments in 

planning and managing an effective and 

economical research and development 

program in the area of electron devices. 

The AGED meeting will be limited to 

review of research and development 

programs which the Military 

Departments propose to initiate with 

industry, universities or in their 

laboratories. The agenda for this 

meeting will include programs on 

microwave technology, 

microelectronics, electro-optics, and 

electronics materials. 

In accordance with Section 10(d) of 

Public Law No. 92–463, as amended, (5 

U.S.C. App. § 10(d)), it has been 

determined that this Advisory Group 

meeting concerns matters listed in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, 

this meeting will be closed to the 

public.

Dated: October 25, 2004. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04–24474 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary 

Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee 

Meeting Cancellations. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 

Task Force on Identification 

Technologies of the Future meeting 

scheduled for November 4–5, 2004, has 

been canceled.

Dated: October 28, 2004. 

Jeannette Owings-Ballard, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04–24471 Filed 11–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary; Membership of 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense; 

Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

This notice announces the 

appointment of the members of the 

Performance Review Board (PRB) of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint staff, the U.S. Mission to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 

Defense Advance Research Projects 

Agency, the Defense Commissary 

Agency, the Defense Security Service, 

the Defense Security Assistance Agency, 

the Missile Defense Agency, the Defense 

Field Activities and the U.S. Court of 

Appeals of the Armed Forces. The 

publication of PRB membership is 

required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 

The Performance Review Board (PRB) 

provides fair and impartial review of 

Senior Executive Service performance 

appraisals and makes recommendations 

regarding performance ratings and 

performance awards to the Secretary of 

Defense.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Burrell, Executive and Political 

Personnel Division, Directorate for 

Personnel and Security, Washington 

Headquarters Services, Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Department of 

Defense, The Pentagon, (703) 693–8347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 

following executives are appointed to 

the office of the Secretary of Defense 

PRB: specific PRB panel assignments 

will be made from this group. 

Executives listed will serve a one-year