40570 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 

4Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding 

and Referencing (TIGER) is available at http:// 

www.census.gov. 

5 In light of the clarification regarding reporting 

of availability data at a census block or street 

segment level rather than street address level, the 

definition of ‘‘Confidential Information’’ in section 

III of the Notice published on July 8, 2009, shall no 

longer include the identification of a service 

provider’s specific Service Area. A service 

provider’s ‘‘footprint’’ will likewise no longer be 

included in the definition of ‘‘Confidential 

Information.’’ Notice, 74 FR at 32549. 

NTIA, for each facilities-based provider 

of broadband service in their state, a list 

of all census blocks of no greater than 

two square miles in area in which 

broadband service is available to end 

users, along with the associated service 

characteristics identified in the 

Technical Appendix. For those census 

blocks larger in area than two square 

miles, Awardees must provide NTIA, for 

each facilities-based provider of 

broadband service in their state, either 

the address-specific data as described in 

the original Notice or a list of all street 

segments with address ranges in such 

census blocks, as contained within the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s TIGER4/Line Files 

or such other database of at least 

equivalent granularity, in which 

broadband service is available to end 

users, along with the associated service 

characteristics identified in the 

Technical Appendix. Awardees are not 

required to report the 11 fields of data 

expressly denominated as ‘‘End User’’ 

fields in the Record Format chart. 

Additionally, Awardees are not required 

to provide Maximum Advertised 

Downstream or Maximum Advertised 

Upstream Speed at the address level and 

may satisfy this requirement by 

providing such speeds across each 

service area or local franchise area, by 

Metropolitan or Rural Statistical Area. 

(b) Availability by Shapefile—Wireless 

Services not Provided to a Specific 

Address 

With respect to the ‘‘Availability Area 

Shapefile Details,’’ item 4 will be 

satisfied if each polygon indicates the 

subscriber broadband service authorized 

maximum downstream and upstream 

speed available. 

2. Residential Broadband Service 

Pricing in Provider’s Service Area 

(a) Average Revenue per End User and 

Weighted Average Speed 

Awardees are not required to report 

average revenue per end user. Awardees 

must satisfy the remaining conditions of 

this section, provided that such data 

may be reported across a provider’s 

service or local franchise area, by 

Metropolitan or Rural Statistical Area. 

3. Broadband Service Infrastructure in 

Provider’s Service Area 

(a) Last-Mile Connection Points 

Awardees are not required to report 

the data identified in this section. 

Nevertheless, to the extent an Awardee 

is unable to reasonably verify the 

network service area availability data 

required under Section 1 of the 

Technical Appendix by other means, 

the Awardee should be prepared to 

conduct verification by reference to the 

first points of aggregation in the 

networks (serving facilities) used by 

facilities-based providers to provide 

broadband service to end users, as 

described in this section of the 

Technical Appendix. 

Clarification With Respect to Use of 

Data 

NTIA intends no changes to the use 

of data collected hereunder, except to 

the extent that the clarifications and 

deferrals provided in this Notice may 

affect the type and level of detail of the 

data reported, or as otherwise expressly 

provided in this Notice. In light of these 

clarifications and deferrals, NTIA 

intends to identify all broadband 

providers by name on the broadband 

map, rather than leaving such 

identification to the discretion of the 

provider.5 Thus, an address-specific 

search of the map shall identify the 

names of all providers whose service is 

available in the corresponding census 

block or street segment. 

With respect to nondisclosure 

agreements between broadband service 

providers and awardees (see Notice 

Section V(B)), NTIA expects awardees to 

enter into such agreements upon the 

request of the service provider. Further, 

NTIA will condition its disclosure of 

Confidential Information to the FCC or 

other Federal agencies upon the 

agency’s agreement to treat the data as 

confidential as provided in the Notice 

and as otherwise consistent with 

applicable law. 

All other requirements provided in 

the Notice published on July 8, 2009, 

remain unchanged. 

Dated: August 7, 2009. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

[FR Doc. E9–19326 Filed 8–7–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3560–60–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 09–C0031] 

Ross Stores, Inc., Provisional 

Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement 

and Order 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: It is the policy of the 

Commission to publish settlements 

which it provisionally accepts under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act in the 

Federal Register in accordance with the 

terms of 16 CFR 1118.20(e). Published 

below is a provisionally accepted 

Settlement Agreement with Ross Stores, 

Inc., containing a civil penalty of 

$500,000.00. 

DATES: Any interested person may ask 

the Commission not to accept this 

agreement or otherwise comment on its 

contents by filing a written request with 

the Office of the Secretary by August 27, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to 

Comment 09–C0031, Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Renee K. Haslett, Trial Attorney, 

Division of Compliance, Office of the 

General Counsel, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408; telephone (301) 504–7673. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below. 

Dated: August 6, 2009. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

In the Matter of Ross Stores, Inc.; 

Settlement Agreement 

1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, 

Ross Stores, Inc. (‘‘Ross’’) and the staff 

(‘‘Staff’’) of the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) enter into this 

Settlement Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’). 

The Agreement and the incorporated 

attached Order (‘‘Order’’) settle the 

Staff’s allegations set forth below. 

Parties 

2. The Commission is an independent 

federal regulatory agency established 

pursuant to, and responsible for the 

enforcement of, the Consumer Product 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 40571 

Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089 

(‘‘CPSA’’). 

3. Ross is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of Delaware, 

with its principal offices located in 

Pleasanton, California. At all times 

relevant hereto, Ross sold apparel. 

Staff Allegations 

4. From September to December, 

2006, Ross held for sale and/or sold the 

following children’s upper outerwear 

product with drawstrings at the neck: 

Seena International, Inc., Brooklyn 

Express children’s hooded sweatshirts. 

From July 2007 to January 2008, Ross 

held for sale and/or sold the following 

children’s upper outerwear products 

with drawstrings at the neck: Scope 

Imports, Inc., boys’ hooded sweatshirts; 

Liberty Apparel Company, Inc., Jewel 

brand girls’ hooded sweatshirts; and 

Siegfried & Parzifal, Inc., Karl Kani 

boys’ fleece hooded sweatshirts. The 

products identified in this paragraph are 

collectively referred to herein as 

‘‘Sweatshirts.’’ 

5. Ross sold Sweatshirts to 

consumers. 

6. The Sweatshirts are ‘‘consumer 

product[s],’’ and, at all times relevant 

hereto, Ross was a ‘‘retailer’’ of those 

consumer products, which were 

‘‘distributed in commerce,’’ as those 

terms are defined in CPSA sections 

3(a)(5), (8), and (13), 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(5), (8), and (13). 

7. In February 1996, the Staff issued 

the Guidelines for Drawstrings on 

Children’s Upper Outerwear 

(‘‘Guidelines’’) to help prevent children 

from strangling or entangling on neck 

and waist drawstrings. The Guidelines 

state that drawstrings can cause, and 

have caused, injuries and deaths when 

they catch on items such as playground 

equipment, bus doors, or cribs. In the 

Guidelines, the Staff recommends that 

there be no hood and neck drawstrings 

in children’s upper outerwear sized 2T 

to 12. 

8. In June 1997, ASTM adopted a 

voluntary standard, ASTM F1816–97, 

that incorporated the Guidelines. The 

Guidelines state that firms should be 

aware of the hazards and should be sure 

Sweatshirts they sell conform to the 

voluntary standard. 

9. On May 19, 2006, the Commission 

posted on its Web site a letter from the 

Commission’s Director of the Office of 

Compliance to manufacturers, 

importers, and retailers of children’s 

upper outerwear. The letter urges them 

to make certain that all children’s upper 

outerwear sold in the United States 

complies with ASTM F1816–97. The 

letter states that the Staff considers 

children’s upper outerwear with 

drawstrings at the hood or neck area to 

be defective and to present a substantial 

risk of injury to young children under 

Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(‘‘FHSA’’) section 15(c), 15 U.S.C. 

1274(c). The letter also notes the CPSA’s 

section 15(b) reporting requirements. 

10. Ross informed the Commission 

that there had been no incidents or 

injuries associated with the Sweatshirts. 

11. Ross’s distribution in commerce of 

the Sweatshirts did not meet the 

Guidelines or ASTM F1816–97, failed to 

comport with the Staff’s May 2006 

defect notice, and posed a strangulation 

hazard to children. 

12. Recalls have been announced 

regarding the Sweatshirts. 

13. Ross had presumed and actual 

knowledge that the Sweatshirts 

distributed in commerce posed a 

strangulation hazard and presented a 

substantial risk of injury to children 

under FHSA section 15(c)(1), 15 U.S.C. 

1274(c)(1). Ross had obtained 

information that reasonably supported 

the conclusion that the Sweatshirts 

contained a defect that could create a 

substantial product hazard or that they 

created an unreasonable risk of serious 

injury or death. CPSA sections 15(b)(3) 

and (4), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), 

required Ross to immediately inform the 

Commission of the defect and risk. 

14. Ross knowingly failed to 

immediately inform the Commission 

about the Sweatshirts as required by 

CPSA sections 15(b)(3) and (4), 15 

U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4), and as the 

term ‘‘knowingly’’ is defined in CPSA 

section 20(d), 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). This 

failure violated CPSA section 19(a)(4), 

15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Pursuant to CPSA 

section 20, 15 U.S.C. 2069, this failure 

subjected Ross to civil penalties. 

Ross’s Responsive Allegations 

15. Ross denies the Staff’s allegations 

above, including, but not limited to, any 

allegation that Ross knowingly violated 

the CPSA. 

16. Ross has entered into this 

Agreement solely to avoid protracted 

litigation. The Agreement and Order do 

not constitute and are not evidence of 

any fault or wrongdoing on the part of 

Ross. 

Agreement of the Parties 

17. Under the CPSA, the Commission 

has jurisdiction over this matter and 

over Ross. 

18. The parties enter into the 

Agreement for settlement purposes only. 

The Agreement does not constitute an 

admission by Ross, or a determination 

by the Commission, that Ross 

knowingly violated the CPSA. 

19. In settlement of the Staff’s 

allegations, Ross shall pay a civil 

penalty in the amount of five hundred 

thousand dollars ($500,000.00) within 

twenty (20) calendar days of service of 

the Commission’s final Order accepting 

the Agreement. The payment shall be by 

check payable to the order of the United 

States Treasury. 

20. Upon provisional acceptance of 

the Agreement, the Agreement shall be 

placed on the public record and 

published in the Federal Register in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 16 CFR 1118.20(e). In 

accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f), if 

the Commission does not receive any 

written request not to accept the 

Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar 

days, the Agreement shall be deemed 

finally accepted on the sixteenth (16th) 

calendar day after the date it is 

published in the Federal Register. 

21. Upon the Commission’s final 

acceptance of the Agreement and 

issuance of the final Order, Ross 

knowingly, voluntarily, and completely 

waives any rights it may have in this 

matter to the following: (1) An 

administrative or judicial hearing; (2) 

judicial review or other challenge or 

contest of the validity of the Order or of 

the Commission’s actions; (3) a 

determination by the Commission of 

whether Ross failed to comply with the 

CPSA and its underlying regulations; (4) 

a statement of findings of fact and 

conclusions of law; and (5) any claims 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

22. The Commission may publicize 

the terms of the Agreement and the 

Order. 

23. The Agreement and the Order 

shall apply to, and be binding upon, 

Ross and each of its successors and 

assigns. 

24. The Commission issues the Order 

under the provisions of the CPSA, and 

violation of the Order may subject Ross 

and each of its successors and assigns to 

appropriate legal action. 

25. The Agreement may be used in 

interpreting the Order. Understandings, 

agreements, representations, or 

interpretations apart from those 

contained in the Agreement and the 

Order may not be used to vary or 

contradict their terms. The Agreement 

shall not be waived, amended, 

modified, or otherwise altered without 

written agreement thereto executed by 

the party against whom such waiver, 

amendment, modification, or alteration 

is sought to be enforced. 

26. If any provision of the Agreement 

and the Order is held to be illegal, 

invalid, or unenforceable under present 

or future laws effective during the terms 

of the Agreement and the Order, such 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
40572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 154 / Wednesday, August 12, 2009 / Notices 

1The Reactor Safety Study, October 1975 

(sometimes known as the ‘‘Rasmussen Report’’). 

2The NRC approach is summarized at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/riskinformed.html. 

3NASA’s policies and methods can be found at 

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/ 

index.htm. 

provision shall be fully severable. The 

balance of the Agreement and the Order 

shall remain in full force and effect, 

unless the Commission and Ross agree 

that severing the provision materially 

affects the purpose of the Agreement 

and the Order. 

Ross Stores, Inc. 

Dated: 6/25/09 

By: 

Mark LeHocky, 

Senior Vice President 

General Counsel & Corporate Secretary 

ROSS STORES, INC. 

4440 Rosewood Drive 

Pleasanton, CA 94588 

Dated: 6/26/09 

By: 

Jeffrey B. Margulies, 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Counsel for Ross Stores, Inc. 

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION STAFF 

Cheryl A. Falvey, 

General Counsel. 

Ronald G. Yelenik, 

Assistant General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel. 

Dated: 6/29/09 

By: 

Renee K. Haslett, 

Trial Attorney 

Division of Compliance, 

Office of the General Counsel. 

In the Matter of Ross Stores, Inc.; Order 

Upon consideration of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into between Ross Stores, 

Inc. (‘‘Ross’’) and the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘Commission’’) staff, 

and the Commission having jurisdiction over 

the subject matter and over Ross, and it 

appearing that the Settlement Agreement and 

the Order are in the public interest, it is 

ordered, that the Settlement Agreement be, 

and hereby is, accepted; and it is 

further ordered, that Ross shall pay a civil 

penalty in the amount of five hundred 

thousand dollars ($500,000.00) within twenty 

(20) calendar days of service of the 

Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement. The payment shall be made by 

check payable to the order of the United 

States Treasury. Upon the failure of Ross to 

make the foregoing payment when due, 

interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue 

and be paid by Ross at the federal legal rate 

of interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and 

(b). 

Provisionally accepted and provisional 

Order issued on the 5th day August, 2009. 

BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

[FR Doc. E9–19370 Filed 8–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

[Recommendation 2009–1] 

Risk Assessment Methodologies at 

Defense Nuclear Facilities 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice, recommendation. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board has made a 

recommendation to the Secretary of 

Energy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(a)(5) 

which identifies the need for adequate 

policies and associated standards and 

guidance on the use of quantitative risk 

assessment methodologies at the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) defense 

nuclear facilities. 

DATES: Comments, data, views, or 

arguments concerning the 

recommendation are due on or before 

September 11, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning this 

recommendation to: Defense Nuclear 

Faculties Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004–2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Grosner or Andrew L. Thibadeau 

at the address above or telephone 

number (202–694–7000). 

Dated: August 5, 2009. 

Joseph F. Bader, 

Acting Vice Chairman. 

RECOMMENDATION 2009–1 TO THE 

SECRETARY OF ENERGY 

Risk Assessment Methodologies at Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

2286(a)(5), Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As 

Amended 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Overview 

Quantitative risk assessment techniques 

are widely used to improve the safety of 

complex engineering systems. Such 

techniques have been relied upon in the 

nuclear industry for decades. One of the 

seminal documents, known as WASH–1400, 

used an event-tree, fault-tree methodology to 

assess the risk of accidents at nuclear power 

reactors operating in the United States.1

Today, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) employs a more 

sophisticated set of risk assessment tools and 

methodologies.2 Likewise, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) has developed and implemented a 

detailed policy on the use of quantitative risk 

assessment for its missions.3

The Department of Energy (DOE) has 

historically endorsed a ‘‘bounding’’ or 

deterministic approach to hazard and 

accident analysis, which continues to have 

important applications at defense nuclear 

facilities. Beginning in the early 1990s, the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(Board) observed increasing use of 

quantitative risk assessment techniques by 

DOE. This increased use was not viewed by 

the Board as objectionable in itself; the 

Board’s concern was that DOE was using 

quantitative risk assessment methods without 

having in place a clear policy and set of 

procedures to govern the application of these 

methods at facilities that perform work 

ranging from assembly and disassembly of 

nuclear weapons to nuclear waste processing 

and storage operations. For this reason, the 

Board wrote to the Secretary of Energy on 

April 5, 2004, and made the following 

observation: 

‘‘[T]he Board has reviewed the DOE’s use 

of risk management tools at defense nuclear 

facilities. This review revealed that DOE and 

its contractors have employed risk 

assessment in a variety of activities, 

including the development of documented 

safety analyses and facility-level decision 

making. The level of formality of these 

assessments varies over a wide range. The 

Board’s review also revealed that DOE does 

not have mechanisms (such as standards or 

guides) to control the use of risk management 

tools nor does it have an internal 

organization assigned to maintain cognizance 

and ensure the adequacy and consistency of 

risk assessments. Finally, the Board’s review 

showed that other Federal agencies involved 

in similar high-risk activities (e.g., National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission) have, to 

varying degrees, formalized the use of 

quantitative risk assessment in their 

operations and decision-making activities. 

These agencies have relevant standards and 

defined organizational elements, procedures, 

and processes for the development and use 

of risk management tools.’’ 

On this basis, the Board requested that the 

Secretary ‘‘brief the Board within 60 days of 

receipt of this letter as to DOE’s ongoing and 

planned programs and policies for assessing, 

prioritizing, and managing risk.’’ 

The Board’s initial concerns on this issue 

have been reiterated in letters dated 

November 23, 2005, and May 16, 2007. In the 

Board’s 2006 Annual Report to Congress, the 

section on Risk Assessment Methodologies 

noted ‘‘the slow pace of its development,’’ 

and the 2008 report noted that ‘‘all progress 

[has come] to a halt.’’ The Board’s most 

recent annual report stated that at ‘‘a time 

when governments, financial institutions and 

industries worldwide are expediting the 

implementation of enterprise-wide risk 

governance programs, DOE’s slow pace for 

developing a policy is of serious concern.’’ 

DOE’s most recent correspondence on this 

issue, dated January 9, 2007, outlined plans 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES