24584 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

Agreement, the Settling Party will pay 

the entire proceeds of an insurance 

claim in the amount of $672,397 to EPA 

and NJDEP and transfer title to the 

Property to EPA. The Settling Party will 

remit 85% of the insurance proceeds to 

EPA and 15% of the proceeds to NJDEP. 

In exchange, EPA will grant a covenant 

not to sue or take administrative action 

against the Settling Party for 

reimbursement of past or future 

response costs pursuant to Section 

107(a) of CERCLA. 

EPA will consider any comments 

received during the comment period 

and may withdraw or withhold consent 

to the proposed settlement if comments 

disclose facts or considerations that 

indicate the proposed settlement is 

inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. 

EPA’s response to any comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Regional 

Counsel, 290 Broadway—17th Floor, 

New York, NY 10007–1866. Telephone: 

(212) 637–3111. 

DATES: Comments must be provided 

within June 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 

Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866 and should refer to: Dover 

Municipal Well ι4 Superfund Site, U.S. 

EPA Docket No. CERCLA–02–2006– 

2002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Regional Counsel, 290 

Broadway—17th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866. Telephone: (212) 637– 

3111. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of 

the proposed administrative settlement 

may be obtained in person or by mail 

from Diego Garcia, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—19th 

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866. 

Telephone: (212) 637–4947. 

George Pavlou, 

Director, Emergency and Remedial Response 

Division, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E7–8441 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisition of Shares of Bank or Bank 

Holding Companies 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and §

225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank 

holding company. The factors that are 

considered in acting on the notices are 

set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 

U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The notices are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank indicated. The notices 

also will be available for inspection at 

the office of the Board of Governors. 

Interested persons may express their 

views in writing to the Reserve Bank 

indicated for that notice or to the offices 

of the Board of Governors. Comments 

must be received not later than May 18, 

2007. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 

(Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs 

Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, 

Missouri 63166-2034: 

1. Wilson–Gardner Family Control 

Group, Jackson, Mississippi, which 

consists of Alice King Harrison, Forrest 

City, Arkansas; Fred Gillaspy Wilson, 

Jackson, Mississippi; John Frederick 

Wilson, Jackson, Mississippi; Margaret 

Gardner Wilson, Ridgeland, Mississippi; 

Margaret Wilson Ethridge, Madison, 

Mississippi; Ermis King Wilson, 

Sterlington, Louisiana; Edna Earl 

Douglas, Memphis, Tennessee; Alison 

Wilson Page, Sterlington, Louisiana; and 

Ermis M. Wilson, Sterlington, 

Louisiana; to retain control of 

Commerce Bancorp, Inc., and thereby 

indirectly retain voting shares of Bank 

of Commerce, both of Greenwood, 

Mississippi. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 30, 2007. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–8481 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Notice of Proposals to Engage in 

Permissible Nonbanking Activities or 

to Acquire Companies that are 

Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking 

Activities 

The companies listed in this notice 

have given notice under section 4 of the 

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 

CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to 

acquire or control voting securities or 

assets of a company, including the 

companies listed below, that engages 

either directly or through a subsidiary or 

other company, in a nonbanking activity 

that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation 

Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 

determined by Order to be closely 

related to banking and permissible for 

bank holding companies. Unless 

otherwise noted, these activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

Each notice is available for inspection 

at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. 

The notice also will be available for 

inspection at the offices of the Board of 

Governors. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

question whether the proposal complies 

with the standards of section 4 of the 

BHC Act. Additional information on all 

bank holding companies may be 

obtained from the National Information 

Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding the applications must be 

received at the Reserve Bank indicated 

or the offices of the Board of Governors 

not later than May 18, 2007. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas 

(W. Arthur Tribble, Vice President) 2200 

North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201- 

2272: 

1. Professional Capital, Inc., Dallas, 

Texas; to engage de novo in 

management consulting activities, 

pursuant to section 225.28(b)(9)(i)(A) of 

Regulation Y. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, April 30, 2007. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Deputy Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–8482 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–S 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 062 3066] 

InPhonic, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order to Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘InPhonic, 

Inc., File No. 062 3066,’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. A comment 

filed in paper form should include this 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope, and should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24585 

1 The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

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

Federal Trade Commission/Office of the 

Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, must be clearly 

labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must 

comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 

16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. Comments that do not 

contain any nonpublic information may 

instead be filed in electronic form as 

part of or as an attachment to e-mail 

messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments, whether filed in 

paper or electronic form, will be 

considered by the Commission, and will 

be available to the public on the FTC 

Web site, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

ftc/privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew D. Gold, FTC Western Regional 

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San 

Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 848–5100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

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

46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for April 27, 2007), on the 

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

os/2007/04/index.htm. A paper copy 

can be obtained from the FTC Public 

Reference Room, Room 130–H, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580, either in person 

or by calling (202) 326–2222. 

Public comments are invited, and may 

be filed with the Commission in either 

paper or electronic form. All comments 

should be filed as prescribed in the 

ADDRESSES section above, and must be 

received on or before the date specified 

in the DATES section. 

Analysis of Agreement Containing 

Consent Order to Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission has 

accepted, subject to final approval, an 

agreement containing a consent order 

from InPhonic, Inc. (‘‘InPhonic’’). 

The proposed consent order has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

(30) days for reception of comments by 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty (30) days, 

the Commission will again review the 

agreement and the comments received 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement or make 

final the agreement’s proposed order. 

InPhonic, located in Washington, DC, 

is an online marketer of wireless 

telephone packages. Each wireless 

telephone package includes a namebrand wireless device and a wireless 

service contract with a national or 

regional wireless carrier. This matter 

concerns allegedly deceptive and unfair 

practices regarding InPhonic’s 

advertised mail-in rebates. 

The FTC complaint alleges that in 

representing that substantial mail-in 

rebates were available to purchasers of 

its wireless telephone packages, 

InPhonic failed to disclose, or failed to 

adequately disclose that: (1) Consumers 

would not be able to submit a rebate 

request until at least three or six months 

after purchase; (2) consumers would be 

required to submit wireless bills 

establishing three or six months of 

continuous wireless service in good 

standing; (3) consumers would not 

receive their rebate check until 

approximately six or nine months after 

purchase; (4) an e-mail address would 

be required to be eligible for the rebate; 

(5) consumers who changed their 

wireless phone numbers after purchase 

would be disqualified from receiving a 

rebate; and (6) any rebate submission 

that did not strictly comply with all 

rebate terms and conditions or that was 

deemed in any way illegible could be 

rejected with little or no opportunity to 

resubmit. The complaint alleges that the 

failure to disclose or adequately disclose 

these material facts is a deceptive 

practice. 

The complaint also alleges that 

InPhonic misrepresented that 

consumers seeking to redeem its 

‘‘customer appreciation rebate’’ needed 

to establish that their first three months 

of wireless service had been paid in full. 

According to the complaint, numerous 

consumers who waited to submit their 

fourth wireless bill in order to establish 

that their first three months of wireless 

service had been paid in full were 

unable to submit the rebate request 

within the 120-day time period 

specified in the offer, and InPhonic 

rejected such rebate requests as 

untimely. The complaint further alleges 

that Inphonic misrepresented that 

consumers whose rebate requests 

contained missing, incorrect, or illegible 

information would be given a 

reasonable opportunity to resubmit their 

request. 

According to the FTC complaint, in 

numerous cases, InPhonic rejected 

rebate requests, or consumers were 

prevented from submitting valid 

requests, because InPhonic failed to 

supply to consumers with one or more 

pieces of required documentation and 

consumers, despite their best efforts, 

were unable to obtain such 

documentation from InPhonic. 

According to the complaint, many 

consumers did not receive the required 

rebate redemption form, a box 

containing a required UPC code, and/or 

a required ‘‘Guide to Wireless Service’’ 

and, despite repeated attempts to 

contact respondent, were unable to 

obtain the documentation. The 

complaint alleges that this constitutes 

an unfair practice. 

Finally, according to the complaint, 

InPhonic promised to provide 

consumers with rebate checks within 12 

weeks of rebate submission, if they 

purchased a wireless phone and service 

plan, and submitted a valid rebate 

request with supporting documentation. 

The complaint alleges that after 

receiving rebate requests in 

conformance with these terms, InPhonic 

extended the time period in which it 

would deliver the rebates without 

consumers agreeing to this extension of 

time and failed to deliver the rebates to 

consumers within the promised time 

period. According to the complaint, this 

constitutes an unfair business practice. 

The proposed consent order contains 

provisions designed to prevent InPhonic 

from engaging in similar acts and 

practices in the future and to redress 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24586 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

1 The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

applicable law and the public interest. See 

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

consumers. Part I.A. of the proposed 

order prohibits InPhonic from making a 

claim about the amount of any rebate, 

unless it discloses, clearly and 

conspicuously, unavoidably, and prior 

to consumers incurring any financial 

obligation: any time period that 

consumers must wait before submitting 

a rebate request; that consumers who 

change their wireless phone numbers 

after purchase are disqualified from 

receiving a rebate, if that is the case; that 

any rebate submission that does not 

strictly comply with all rebate terms and 

conditions, or that is deemed in any 

way illegible, may be rejected with little 

or no opportunity to resubmit, if that is 

the case; any requirement for submitting 

bills, records, or any other 

documentation, with a rebate request; 

when consumers can expect to receive 

their rebates; and that an e-mail address 

is required to be eligible for the rebate, 

if that is the case. Part I.B. of the 

proposed order prohibits InPhonic from 

making a claim about the amount of any 

rebate unless it also discloses, clearly 

and prominently, on any rebate coupon 

or form, all terms, conditions, or other 

limitations of the rebate offer. 

Part II of the proposed order prevents 

InPhonic from misrepresenting what 

documentation consumers must submit 

with any rebate request and from 

misrepresenting any material terms of 

any rebate program. 

Part III of the proposed order 

prohibits InPhonic from representing 

that consumers will have the 

opportunity to resubmit deficient rebate 

requests, unless it gives consumers a 

reasonable period of time in which to 

resubmit such requests and notifies 

them precisely how to correct any 

deficiencies. 

Part IV.A. of the proposed order 

prohibits InPhonic from failing to 

provide, or to make reasonably available 

to consumers, all required rebate 

documentation. Part IV.B. prohibits 

InPhonic from making any 

representation about the time in which 

any rebate will be mailed, or otherwise 

provided to purchasers, unless it has a 

reasonable basis for the representation 

at the time it is made. Part IV.C. 

prohibits InPhonic from failing to 

provide any rebate within the time 

specified or, if no time is specified, 

within thirty days. 

Part V of the proposed order requires 

InPhonic to send rebates to eligible 

purchasers. Eligible purchasers include 

consumers whose rebate requests were 

previously denied solely on the basis of 

one or more of the following reasons: (1) 

The consumer changed his/her wireless 

phone number; (2) the signature on the 

rebate form was illegible; (3) InPhonic 

failed to provide the consumer with 

required information or documents; (4) 

the e-mail address was missing from the 

rebate form; or (5) the request was late 

due to the consumer’s submission of a 

fourth wireless bill. In addition, eligible 

purchasers include consumers whose 

requests were denied due to a curable 

deficiency, but where the consumer was 

not given at least thirty days to resubmit 

the request. 

Parts VI through IX of the proposed 

order are reporting and compliance 

provisions. Part X of the proposed order 

is a ‘‘sunset’’ provision, dictating that 

the order will terminate twenty years 

from the date it is issued or twenty years 

after a complaint is filed in Federal 

court, by either the United States or the 

FTC, alleging any violation of the order. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order. It is not intended to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the agreement and proposed order or to 

modify in any way their terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–8403 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 062 3094] 

Soyo, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices or unfair 

methods of competition. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

draft complaint and the terms of the 

consent order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 29, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Soyo, Inc., 

File No. 062 3094,’’ to facilitate the 

organization of comments. A comment 

filed in paper form should include this 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope, and should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission/Office of the 

Secretary, Room 159–H, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, must be clearly 

labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ and must 

comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c). 

16 CFR 4.9(c) (2005).1 The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. Comments that do not 

contain any nonpublic information may 

instead be filed in electronic form as 

part of or as an attachment to e-mail 

messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments, whether filed in 

paper or electronic form, will be 

considered by the Commission, and will 

be available to the public on the FTC 

Web site, to the extent practicable, at 

http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC Web site. More information, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s 

privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

ftc/privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda K. Badger, FTC Western Regional 

Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San 

Francisco, CA 94103, (415) 848–5100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

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

46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement, and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

Home Page (for April 27, 2007), on the 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB