30784 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

information to a third party. Section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies 

to provide a 60-day notice in the 

Federal Register concerning each 

proposed collection of information 

before submitting the collection to OMB 

for approval. To comply with this 

requirement, the CPSC is publishing 

notice of the proposed collection of 

information set forth in this document. 

With respect to the following 

collection of information, the CPSC 

invites comments on these topics: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Title: Safety Standard for Infant Bath 

Seats—16 CFR 1215 

Description: The rule would require 

each infant bath seat to comply with 

ASTM F 1967–08a, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Infant Bath 

Seats.’’ Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F 

1967–08a contain requirements for 

marking and instructional literature. 

We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

of responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total burden 

hours 

1215.2(a) .............................................................................. 2 1 2 0.5 1 

There are no capital costs or operating 

and maintenance costs associated with 

this collection of information. 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

Proposed 16 CFR 1215.2(a) would 

require each infant bath seat to comply 

with ASTM F 1967–08a. Sections 8 and 

9 of ASTM F 1967–08a contain 

requirements for marking and 

instructional literature that are 

disclosure requirements, thus falling 

within the definition of ‘‘collections of 

information’’ at 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

Section 8.6.1 of ASTM F 1967–08a 

requires that the name and ‘‘either the 

place of business (city, State, and 

mailing address, including zip code) or 

telephone number, or both’’ of the 

manufacturer, distributor, or seller be 

clearly and legibly marked on ‘‘each 

product and its retail package.’’ Section 

8.6.2 of ASTM F 1967–08a requires that 

‘‘a code mark or other means that 

identifies the date (month and year as a 

minimum) of manufacture’’ be clearly 

and legibly marked on ‘‘each product 

and its retail package.’’ In both cases, the 

information must be placed on both the 

product and the retail package. 

There are three known firms 

supplying bath seats to the United 

States market. One of the three firms is 

known to already produce labels that 

comply with sections 8.6.1 and 8.6.2 of 

the standard, so there would be no 

additional burden on this firm. The 

remaining two firms are assumed to 

already use labels on both their 

products and their packaging, but might 

need to make some modifications to 

their existing labels. The estimated time 

required to make these modifications is 

about 30 minutes per model. Each of 

these firms supplies an average of one 

model of infant bath seat, therefore, the 

estimated burden hours associated with 

labels is 30 minutes × 2 firms × 1 model 

per firm = 60 minutes or 1 annual hour. 

The Commission estimates that 

hourly compensation for the time 

required to create and update labels is 

$27.78 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

September 2009, all workers, goodsproducing industries, Sales and office, 

Table 9). Therefore, the estimated 

annual cost associated with the 

Commission-recommended labeling 

requirements is approximately $27.78. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM F 1967–08a 

requires instructions to be supplied 

with the product. Infant bath seats are 

products that generally require some 

installation and maintenance, and 

products sold without such information 

would not be able to successfully 

compete with products supplying this 

information. Under OMB’s regulations 

(5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, 

and financial resources necessary to 

comply with a collection of information 

that would be incurred by persons in 

the ‘‘normal course of their activities’’ 

are excluded from a burden estimate 

where an agency demonstrates that the 

disclosure activities needed to comply 

are ‘‘usual and customary.’’ Therefore, 

because the CPSC is unaware of infant 

bath seats that: (a) Generally require 

some installation, but (b) lack any 

instructions to the user about such 

installation, we tentatively estimate that 

there are no burden hours associated 

with the instruction requirement in 

section 9.1 of ASTM F 1967–08a 

because any burden associated with 

supplying instructions with an infant 

bath seat would be ‘‘usual and 

customary’’ and not within the 

definition of ‘‘burden’’ under OMB’s 

regulations. 

Based on this analysis, the 

requirements of the bath seat rule would 

impose a burden to industry of 1 hour 

at a cost of $27.78. 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Todd Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13087 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 10–C0004] 

Schylling Associates, 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 Schylling 

Associates, Inc., containing a civil 

penalty of $400,000.00. 

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 June 17, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to the 

Comment 10–C0004, Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30785 

1At the time of the alleged violations stated in 

this Settlement Agreement, the permissible limit of 

0.06 percent was in effect for the Lead-Paint Ban. 

As of August 14, 2009, the limit was amended to 

0.009 percent pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1278a(f)(1). 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Dennis, Attorney, Division of 

Enforcement and Information, Office of 

the General Counsel, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408; telephone (301) 504–7817. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

United States of America 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC Docket No. 10–C0004 

In the Matter of Schylling Associates, Inc.; 

Settlement Agreement 

1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, 

Schylling Associates, Inc. (‘‘Schylling’’) and 

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘CPSC’’ or the ‘‘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 Safety 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089 (‘‘CPSA’’). 

3. Schylling is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with 

principal offices located in Rowley, 

Massachusetts. At all times relevant hereto, 

Schylling designed, imported and sold toys 

and children’s products. 

Staff Allegations 

A. Introduction/Distribution in Commerce of 

Banned Toys 

4. From January 24, 2002 through March 

2002, Schylling imported approximately 

10,200 units of certain tin pail toys (‘‘Pails’’), 

consisting of Thomas and Friends, Curious 

George, and Primary Colors (red/yellow) 

styles, which had been produced in China by 

one of its Hong Kong manufacturers, Eway 

Enterprises, Ltd. (‘‘Eway’’). Schylling 

distributed approximately 4,700 units of the 

Pails to its customers in February and March 

2002. The Pails were sold or offered for sale 

to consumers at toy stores and gift shops 

nationwide in February and March 2002, for 

about $6 per unit. 

5. Between June 2001 and June 2002, 

Schylling imported approximately 66,000 

units of certain spinning top toys (‘‘Tops’’), 

consisting of Thomas and Friends, Curious 

George, and Circus styles, which had been 

produced in China by another of its Hong 

Kong manufacturers, Sanda Kan Industrial, 

Ltd. (‘‘Sanda Kan’’). Schylling distributed 

these Tops to its U.S. customers from July 

2001 until at least September 2002. The Tops 

were sold or offered for sale to consumers at 

toy stores and gift shops nationwide from 

July 2001 until at least September 2002, for 

about $13 per unit. 

6. Between April 2003 and May 2003, 

Schylling imported approximately 3,600 

units of certain Winnie-the-Pooh style 

spinning top toys, which also had been 

produced in China by Sanda Kan. Schylling 

distributed these Winnie-the-Pooh tops to its 

U.S. customers from April until November 

2003. The Winnie-the-Pooh tops were sold or 

offered for sale to consumers at toy stores and 

gift shops nationwide from April until 

November 2003, for about $12 per unit. 

7. The Pails, Tops and Winnie-the-Pooh 

tops described in paragraphs 4 through 6 

above (collectively, the ‘‘Subject Products’’) 

are ‘‘consumer product(s),’’ and, at all times 

relevant hereto, Schylling was a 

‘‘manufacturer’’ of those consumer products, 

which were ‘‘distributed in commerce,’’ as 

those terms are defined in CPSA sections 

3(a)(3), (5), (8), and (11), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(3), 

(5), (8), and (11). 

8. The Subject Products are articles 

intended to be entrusted to or for use by 

children, and, therefore, are subject to the 

requirements of the Commission’s Ban of 

Lead-Containing Paint and Certain Consumer 

Products Bearing Lead-Containing Paint, 16 

CFR Part 1303 (the ‘‘Lead-Paint Ban’’). Under 

the Lead-Paint Ban, toys and other children’s 

articles must not bear ‘‘lead-containing 

paint,’’ defined as paint or other surface 

coating materials whose lead content is more 

than 0.06 percent of the weight of the total 

nonvolatile content of the paint or the weight 

of the dried paint film. 16 CFR 1303.2(b)(1) 1

9. On March 7, 2002, as a result of testing 

conducted in Hong Kong at its behest, 

Schylling obtained a test report from an 

independent laboratory demonstrating that 

the wooden handles of as many as 12 

production samples of the Primary Colors 

(red/yellow) style tin pail toys bore paint or 

other surface coating materials whose lead 

content exceeded the permissible limit of 

0.06 percent set forth in the Lead-Paint Ban. 

In late March 2002, without furnishing any 

copy of the associated test report, Eway 

informed Schylling that the supplier of the 

yellow and red paints used on the Pails had 

conducted re-testing and confirmed that the 

paints failed to comply with the Lead-Paint 

Ban. 

10. Shortly after March 2002, following a 

brief evaluation of possibly purchasing 

additional pails from Eway having a clear 

(lacquer) finish instead of paint, Schylling 

reportedly severed its business relationship 

with Eway due to the referenced lead paint 

test failures. Beginning March 26, 2002, 

Schylling, without informing CPSC, initiated 

a unilateral recall of the Pails from its 

customers, as further discussed in paragraphs 

19 and 20 below. 

11. On June 30 and July 1, 2002, as a result 

of testing conducted in Hong Kong at its 

behest, Schylling obtained three test reports 

from an independent laboratory 

demonstrating that the wooden handles of 

production samples from each of the Thomas 

and Friends, Curious George, and Circus 

style spinning top toys respectively, 

representing altogether as many as 9 samples, 

bore paint or other surface coating materials 

whose lead content exceeded the permissible 

limit of 0.06 percent set forth in the LeadPaint Ban. On July 15, 2002, as a result of retesting conducted in Hong Kong at its behest, 

Schylling obtained an additional three failing 

test reports from an independent laboratory 

that confirmed the June 30th and July 1st 

results with respect to another set of 

production samples from each of these three 

styles of spinning top toys. For the reasons 

further discussed in paragraphs 21 and 22 

below, however, Schylling reportedly 

concluded at the time that it had resolved the 

lead-containing paint problem before any 

non-compliant Tops were imported into the 

United States. In order to avoid any lead-inpaint problems in the future, Schylling then 

instructed its manufacturer, Sanda Kan, that 

henceforth all spinning top toys had to be 

made with unpainted plastic rather than 

wooden handles, and had to pass applicable 

testing for the presence of lead. 

12. Some five years later, in early August 

2007, a Chicago Tribune news reporter 

contacted Schylling and informed it that a 

sample of the Thomas and Friends style Top, 

purchased from a U.S. consumer via a Web 

site, had been tested by an independent 

laboratory for the presence of lead-containing 

paint and yielded failing results. Upon 

learning this information, Schylling 

submitted reports to CPSC under Section 

15(b) with respect to the subject Tops and 

Pails, as further discussed in paragraph 24 

below. On August 22, 2007, the Commission 

and Schylling announced a recall of about 

66,000 Tops and about 4,700 Pails because 

‘‘Surface paints on the wooden handles of the 

tops and pails contain excessive levels of 

lead, which violates the federal lead paint 

standard. Lead is toxic if ingested by young 

children and can cause adverse health 

effects.’’ 

13. On September 28, 2007, a 

representative of one of Schylling’s licensors, 

the Walt Disney Company, informed 

Schylling that at Disney’s behest a sample of 

the Winnie-the-Pooh style spinning top toys 

had been tested by an independent 

laboratory, which determined that the top’s 

wooden handle bore red paint whose lead 

content exceeded the permissible limit of 

0.06 percent set forth in the Lead-Paint Ban. 

Until that time Schylling reportedly was 

unaware that it had sold any Winnie-thePooh tops with wooden handles, as it 

supposedly had ordered the Winnie-the-Pooh 

tops from Sanda Kan with unpainted plastic 

rather than wooden handles, and the noncompliant tops reportedly had not been 

detected during Schylling’s normal quality 

control review of incoming shipments. Even 

though it had sold this toy only in 2003, 

Schylling was able to locate in storage a pair 

of the Winnie-the-Pooh tops that it believed 

to be from the same shipment as the sample 

tested by Disney, and the items were sent to 

an independent laboratory for confirmatory 

testing. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
30786 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 

14. On October 22, 2007, as a result of 

testing conducted in Hong Kong at its behest, 

Schylling obtained a test report from an 

independent laboratory demonstrating that 

the wooden handles of both samples of the 

Winnie-the-Pooh tops bore red paint whose 

lead content exceeded the permissible limit 

of 0.06 percent set forth in the Lead-Paint 

Ban. Schylling promptly submitted a report 

to CPSC under Section 15(b) with respect to 

the Winnie-the-Pooh tops, and on November 

7, 2007, the Commission and Schylling 

announced an expansion of the original 

recall of Tops and Pails to include about 

3,600 of these tops because ‘‘Surface paint on 

the wooden handle of the top contains 

excessive levels of lead, violating the federal 

lead paint standard.’’ 

15. Although Schylling reported no 

incidents or injuries associated with the 

presence of excessive lead in the paint or 

other surface coatings of the Subject 

Products, it failed to take adequate action to 

ensure that none would bear or contain leadcontaining paint. That created a risk of lead 

poisoning and adverse health effects to 

children. 

16. The Subject Products constitute 

‘‘banned hazardous products’’ under CPSA 

section 8 and the Lead-Paint Ban, 15 U.S.C. 

2057 and 16 CFR 1303.1(a)(1), 1303.4(b), in 

that they bear or contain paint or other 

surface coating materials whose lead content 

exceeds the permissible limit of 0.06 percent 

of the weight of the total nonvolatile content 

of the paint or the weight of the dried paint 

film. 

17. Between June 2001 and November 

2003, Schylling sold, manufactured for sale, 

offered for sale, distributed in commerce, or 

imported into the United States, or caused 

one or more of such acts, with respect to the 

Subject Products, in violation of section 

19(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(1). 

Schylling committed these prohibited acts 

‘‘knowingly,’’ as that term is defined in 

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

18. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2069, Schylling is subject to civil 

penalties for the violations described in 

paragraph 17. 

B. Failure To Report 

19. Upon receiving the March 7, 2002 

failing test results on certain samples of the 

tin pail toys, Schylling reportedly halted 

shipments immediately and locked-down its 

relevant inventory to prevent any further 

shipments of all three styles of the Pails, and 

contacted Eway to investigate the matter. 

Although it reportedly never obtained any 

failing lead test reports for them, Schylling 

included the Thomas and Friends and 

Curious George styles of Pails because it had 

reason to suspect they were also noncompliant as they had come from the same 

manufacturer, been part of the same 

shipments, and had similar red and yellow 

painted wooden handles. Schylling and 

Eway determined the scope of product units 

affected by this non-compliance issue 

encompassed shipments from Hong Kong to 

the United States initiated on January 24, 

2002 and February 28, 2002, relating to a 

single Schylling purchase order from early 

December 2001. Schylling further determined 

that out of the nearly 10,200 imported Pails 

affected by this issue, only about 4,700 units 

had been shipped to its U.S. customers, the 

shipments occurred in February and March 

2002, and that hundreds of its customers had 

received some quantity of these units. 

20. At the conclusion of its investigation of 

this matter, beginning on March 26, 2002, 

Schylling reportedly notified every customer, 

by telephone and mail, that they should 

return the Pails in their possession. However, 

Schylling did not inform the Commission of 

the non-compliance or other related 

information that could have allowed the 

CPSC staff to assess the attendant risks and 

any need for corrective action. While this 

unilateral recall of the Pails reportedly 

succeeded in recovering approximately 84% 

(or 3,948) of the shipped units, the rest of the 

Pails were not recovered by Schylling at the 

time and for at least 5 years thereafter. 

21. Upon receiving the June 30 and July 1, 

2002 failing test results on certain samples of 

the spinning top toys, Schylling reportedly 

contacted Sanda Kan immediately to inform 

the factory that it was rejecting these tops 

because they could not be sold in the United 

States, and to investigate the matter. In 

response to Schylling’s inquiries about the 

status of its then-existing inventory of Tops 

and these failing test results, Sanda Kan 

reportedly explained that it had recently 

changed paint suppliers and suspected that 

the new supplier had been the source of the 

lead-containing paint. Sanda Kan assured 

Schylling that these failed samples were from 

a new production run involving this new 

supplier, indicating that the scope of 

spinning top toys affected by this noncompliance issue included the most recent 

Schylling purchase order, which had not yet 

been imported into the United States. 

Schylling also had in its possession at the 

time two earlier passing test results that it 

believed to be pertinent: A November 1997 

test report showed that various paint colors 

from several Thomas and Friends style top 

samples complied with the Lead-Paint Ban’s 

regulatory limit for total lead content; and a 

January 2000 test report showed that various 

paints used on the same style tops likewise 

complied. 

22. Even though it had recently 

encountered a similar non-compliance issue 

involving the Pails and Eway, Schylling 

reportedly concluded that it had resolved the 

lead-containing paint problem regarding the 

Tops before any non-compliant units of these 

toys were imported into the United States. 

This conclusion was reportedly based on 

Sanda Kan’s assurances, Schylling’s longstanding business relationship with and 

perception of that supplier as a reliable 

source in the industry, the passing test 

results from 1997 and 2000, and its 

instructions to Sanda Kan to switch to plastic 

handles. Schylling did not conduct testing 

for the presence of lead on any Tops (with 

wooden handles) in its warehouse at the 

time, and continued to ship them to its U.S. 

customers for several more months until at 

least September 2002. 

23. As previously described in paragraph 

12, Schylling was contacted on August 7, 

2007, by a Chicago Tribune news reporter 

who informed the company that a sample of 

the Thomas and Friends style Top had been 

purchased from a U.S. consumer via an 

Internet auction Web site in relation to an 

upcoming news story, and had subsequently 

failed independent lab testing for the 

presence of lead-containing paint. 

Specifically, Schylling learned that the 

University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory had 

tested the sample twice, and results 

demonstrated that the Top’s wooden handle 

bore red paint with a lead content of 2.4 

percent. Schylling reportedly was surprised 

to learn this information, and upon further 

investigation received from Sanda Kan a 

passing test result obtained in 2001 that 

showed six bottles of wet paint, intended for 

use on the spinning top toys, had passed 

testing for compliance with the European 

Standard on Safety of Toys (EN71) limits for 

soluble lead (albeit not total lead) content. 

After reviewing the situation, Schylling 

determined that the Thomas and Friends 

style Top in question had been purchased 

from Sanda Kan prior to July 2002, when 

Schylling instructed that the handles be 

changed to plastic. 

24. On August 9, 2007, Schylling filed a 

Section 15(b) report with the CPSC 

concerning the subject Tops. The next day, 

on August 10, 2007, reportedly ‘‘out of an 

abundance of caution,’’ Schylling filed a 

Section 15(b) report with the CPSC 

concerning the subject Pails. 

25. By dates well before August 2007, 

Schylling knew or should have known that 

at least a proportion of the subject Tops and 

Pails distributed in commerce did not 

comply with the Lead-Paint Ban, in that they 

bear or contain paint or other surface coating 

materials whose lead content exceeds the 

permissible limit of 0.06 percent of the 

weight of the total nonvolatile content of the 

paint or the weight of the dried paint film. 

Accordingly, Schylling had obtained 

information that reasonably supported the 

conclusion that the subject Tops and Pails 

failed to comply with an applicable 

consumer product safety rule. CPSA section 

15(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(1), required 

Schylling to immediately inform the 

Commission of each of these failures to 

comply. 

26. Schylling’s failure to furnish 

information to CPSC as required by CPSA 

section 15(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(1), 

violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), with respect to these toys. 

Schylling committed these prohibited acts 

‘‘knowingly,’’ as that term is defined in 

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

27. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. § 2069, Schylling is subject to civil 

penalties for the violations described in 

paragraph 26. 

Responsive Allegations of Schylling 

28. Schylling denies that it violated 

Sections 15(b)(1), 19(a)(1) or 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(1), 2068(a)(1), or 

2068(a)(4), and further denies that it did so 

‘‘knowingly’’ (as defined in section 20(d) of 

the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d)). Schylling 

further denies the factual or legal conclusions 

or characterizations in the Staff Allegations, 

in paragraphs 4–27, including that Schylling 

had any knowledge prior to August 2007 that 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 2, 2010 / Notices 30787 

it had imported or sold any spinning tops 

that did not comply with the lead paint 

standard. 

29. Schylling never intentionally or 

knowingly imported, sold or offered for sale 

any products that did not comply with the 

lead paint standard or other legal 

requirement. At all times relevant to this 

matter, Schylling’s actions were reasonable, 

were based on its good faith understanding 

of the operative facts and fully satisfied any 

and all standards of care. 

30. Schylling has entered into the 

Agreement for settlement purposes only, to 

avoid incurring additional expenses and the 

distraction of litigation. Accordingly, the 

Agreement and Order do not constitute, and 

are not evidence of, any fault or wrongdoing 

on the part of Schylling. 

Agreement of the Parties 

31. Under the CPSA, the Commission has 

jurisdiction over this matter and over 

Schylling. 

32. The parties enter into the Agreement 

for settlement purposes only. The Agreement 

does not constitute an admission by 

Schylling, or a determination by the 

Commission, that Schylling knowingly 

violated the CPSA. 

33. In settlement of the Staff’s allegations, 

Schylling shall pay a civil penalty in the total 

amount of Four Hundred Thousand 

($400,000.00) dollars. The civil penalty shall 

be paid in four (4) installments as follows: 

$75,000.00 shall be paid within twenty (20) 

calendar days of service of the Commission’s 

final Order accepting the Agreement; 

$75,000.00 shall be paid on or before the oneyear anniversary of the Commission’s final 

Order accepting the Agreement; $125,000.00 

shall be paid on or before the two-year 

anniversary of service of the Commission’s 

final Order accepting the Agreement; and 

$125,000.00 shall be paid on or before the 

three-year anniversary of service of the 

Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement. Each payment shall be made by 

check payable to the order of the United 

States Treasury. 

34. Upon the Commission’s 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) days, the 

Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted 

on the sixteenth (16th) day after the date it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

35. Upon the Commission’s final 

acceptance of the Agreement and issuance of 

the final Order, Schylling 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 Commission’s 

Order or actions; (3) a determination by the 

Commission of whether Schylling 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. 

36. The Commission may publish the terms 

of the Agreement and Order. 

37. The Agreement and Order shall apply 

to, and be binding upon, Schylling and each 

of its successors and assigns. 

38. The Commission issues the Order 

under the provisions of the CPSA, and 

violation of the Order may subject those 

referenced in paragraph 37 to appropriate 

legal action. 

39. The Agreement may be used in 

interpreting the Order. Understandings, 

agreements, representations, or 

interpretations apart from those contained in 

the Agreement and Order may not be used to 

vary or contradict its terms. The Agreement 

shall not be waived, amended, modified, or 

otherwise altered, except in a writing that is 

executed by the party against whom such 

waiver, amendment, modification, or 

alteration is sought to be enforced. 

40. If any provision of the Agreement and 

Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or 

unenforceable under present or future laws 

effective during the terms of the Agreement 

and Order, such provision shall be fully 

severable. The balance of the Agreement and 

Order shall remain in full force and effect, 

unless the Commission and Schylling agree 

that severing the provision materially affects 

the purpose of the Agreement and Order. 

Schylling Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May 17, 2010. 

Jack Schylling, 

President, Schylling Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May 18, 2010. 

Victor E. Schwartz, 

Cary Silverman, 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, 1155 F Street, 

NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20004– 

1305. Counsel for Schylling Associates, Inc. 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Staff. 

Cheryl A. Falvey, 

General Counsel, Office of the General 

Counsel. 

Dated: May 18, 2010. 

Melissa V. Hampshire, 

Assistant General Counsel, 

Alex Dennis, 

Attorney, Division of Enforcement and 

Information, Office of the General Counsel. 

United States of America 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC Docket No. 10–C0004 

In the Matter of Schylling Associates, Inc.; 

Order 

Upon consideration of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into between Schylling 

Associates, Inc. (‘‘Schylling’’), and the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) staff, and the Commission 

having jurisdiction over the subject matter 

and over Schylling, and it appearing that the 

Settlement Agreement and Order are in the 

public interest, it is ordered, that the 

Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is, 

accepted; and it is further ordered, that 

Schylling shall pay a civil penalty in the total 

amount of Four Hundred Thousand 

($400,000.00) dollars. The civil penalty shall 

be paid in four (4) installments as follows: 

$75,000.00 shall be paid within twenty (20) 

calendar days of service of the Commission’s 

final Order accepting the Agreement; 

$75,000.00 shall be paid on or before the oneyear anniversary of service of the 

Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement; $125,000.00 shall be paid on or 

before the two-year anniversary of service of 

the Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement; and $125,000.00 shall be paid on 

or before the three-year anniversary of service 

of the Commission’s final Order accepting 

the Agreement. Each payment shall be made 

by check payable to the order of the United 

States Treasury. Upon the failure of Schylling 

to make any of the foregoing payments when 

due, (i) the entire amount of the civil penalty 

shall become due and payable, and (ii) 

interest on the outstanding balance shall 

accrue and be paid by Schylling 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 26th day of May, 2010. 

By Order of the Commission. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13088 Filed 6–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 10–06] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification 

to fulfill the requirements of section 155 

of Public Law 104–164 dated 21 July 

1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 10–06 with 

attached transmittal, policy justification, 

and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Mitchell S. Bryman, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES