28030 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

5http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/ 

@newsroom/documents/file/pr5403- 

07_ecmreport.pdf.) 

6ECM Study at 11. 

7 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

8 7 U.S.C.19(a). 

9 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

10 66 FR 42256, 42268 (Aug. 10, 2001). 

It appears that the ICE Henry 

Financial LD1 Fixed Price contract may 

satisfy the material liquidity, price 

linkage, and arbitrage criteria for SPDC 

determination. With regard to material 

liquidity, the high average daily trading 

volume indicates that the subject 

contract is relatively liquid. With 

respect to the price linkage and arbitrage 

tests, it is noted above that the ICE 

Henry Financial LD1 Fixed Price 

contract and the NYMEX’s physicallydelivered Natural Gas futures contract 

have the same final settlement prices. 

Moreover, ICE uses the NYMEX’s 

forward settlement curve when 

conducting its mark-to-market 

accounting procedures to settle the 

subject contract on daily basis. An 

October 2007 CFTC publication entitled 

Report on the Oversight of Trading on 

Regulated Futures Exchanges and 

Exempt Commercial Markets (‘‘ECM 

Study’’) stated that traders and voice 

brokers view the subject ICE contract as 

economically equivalent to the NYMEX 

physically-delivered Natural Gas futures 

contract. 5 The ICE and NYMEX 

contracts essentially comprise a single 

market for natural gas derivatives 

trading, and traders look to both the ICE 

and to the NYMEX when determining 

where to execute a trade at the best 

price. The ECM Study also stated that 

the ICE natural gas contract acts as price 

discovery market. To this end, the ECM 

Study referenced an analysis 6 of 

whether the NYMEX, ICE, or both 

facilities exhibit price leadership with 

respect to their natural gas contracts. If 

a particular exchange’s prices lead those 

on another exchange, then the former 

exchange’s contract is thought of as a 

price discovery market. In 2006, the 

ICE’s natural gas contract exhibited 

price leadership on 20 percent of the 

contract days; the NYMEX’s physicallydelivered natural gas contract, on the 

other hand, exhibited price leadership 

on 63 percent of the contract days. 

Based on these factors, the ECM Study 

concluded that the ICE and the NYMEX 

contracts are both price discovery 

venues for natural gas trading. 

III. Request for Comment 

In evaluating whether an ECM’s 

agreement, contract, or transaction 

performs a significant price discovery 

function, section 2(h)(7) of the CEA 

directs the Commission to consider, as 

appropriate, four specific criteria: Price 

linkage, arbitrage, material price 

reference, and material liquidity. As it 

explained in Appendix A to the part 36 

rules, the Commission, in making SPDC 

determinations, will apply and weigh 

each factor, as appropriate, to the 

specific contract and circumstances 

under consideration. In addition, as part 

of its evaluation, the Commission will 

consider the written data, views, and 

arguments from the ECM that lists the 

potential SPDC and from any other 

interested parties. 

The Commission requests comment 

on whether the ICE’s Henry Financial 

LD1 Fixed Price contract performs a 

significant price discovery function. 

Commenters’ attention is directed 

particularly to Appendix A of the 

Commission’s part 36 rules for a 

detailed discussion of the factors 

relevant to SPDC determination. The 

Commission notes that comments which 

analyze the contract in terms of these 

factors will be especially helpful to the 

determination process. In order to 

determine the relevance of comments 

received, the Commission requests that 

commenters explain in what capacity 

are they knowledgeable about the Henry 

Financial LD1 Fixed Price contract. 

IV. Related Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(‘‘PRA’’) 7 imposes certain requirements 

on Federal agencies, including the 

Commission, in connection with their 

conducting or sponsoring any collection 

of information, as defined by the PRA. 

Certain provisions of final Commission 

rule 36.3 impose new regulatory and 

reporting requirements on ECMs, 

resulting in information collection 

requirements within the meaning of the 

PRA; OMB previously has approved and 

assigned OMB control number 3038– 

0060 to this collection of information. 

B. Cost-Benefit Analysis 

Section 15(a) of the CEA 8 requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its actions before issuing an 

order under the Act. By its terms, 

section 15(a) does not require the 

Commission to quantify the costs and 

benefits of an order or to determine 

whether the benefits of the order 

outweigh its costs; rather, it requires 

that the Commission ‘‘consider’’ the 

costs and benefits of its action. Section 

15(a) further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall be evaluated in light of 

five broad areas of market and public 

concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness, and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations. 

The bulk of the costs imposed by the 

requirements of Commission Rule 36.3 

relate to significant and increased 

information-submission and reporting 

requirements adopted in response to the 

Reauthorization Act’s directive that the 

Commission take an active role in 

determining whether contracts listed by 

ECMs qualify as SPDCs. The enhanced 

requirements for ECMs will permit the 

Commission to acquire the information 

it needs to discharge its newly 

mandated responsibilities and to ensure 

that ECMs with SPDCs are identified as 

entities with the elevated status of 

registered entity under the CEA and are 

in compliance with the statutory terms 

of the core principles of section 

2(h)(7)(C) of the Act. The primary 

benefit to the public is to enable the 

Commission to discharge its statutory 

obligation to monitor for the presence of 

SPDCs and extend its oversight to the 

trading of SPDCs. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) 9 requires that agencies 

consider the impact of their rules on 

small businesses. The requirements of 

part 36 affect exempt commercial 

markets. The Commission previously 

has determined that exempt commercial 

markets are not small entities for 

purposes of the RFA.10 Accordingly, the 

Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, 

hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this Order, taken in 

connection with the part 36 rules, will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Issued in Washington, DC on June 9, 2009 

by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13871 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. 09–C0019] 

Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price, Inc., 

Provisional Acceptance of a 

Settlement Agreement and Order 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28031 

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 Mattel, Inc. 

and Fisher-Price, Inc., containing a civil 

penalty of $2,300,000.00. 

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 29, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to 

comment on this Settlement Agreement 

should send written comments to the 

Comment 09–C0019, Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Room 502, Bethesda, Maryland 20814– 

4408. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. 

Reza Malihi, Trial Attorney, Division of 

Compliance, Office of the General 

Counsel, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814–4408; 

telephone (301) 504–7733. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the Agreement and Order appears 

below. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

Settlement Agreement 

1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, 

Mattel, Inc. (‘‘Mattel’’) and Fisher-Price, 

Inc. (‘‘Fisher-Price’’) 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. Mattel is a corporation organized 

and existing under the laws of the state 

of Delaware, with principal offices 

located in El Segundo, California. 

Fisher-Price, a wholly-owned subsidiary 

of Mattel, is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of the state of 

Delaware, with principal offices located 

in East Aurora, New York. At all times 

relevant hereto, Mattel and Fisher-Price 

(collectively, the ‘‘Firms’’) designed, 

imported and sold toys and children’s 

products. 

Staff Allegations Regarding Mattel 

4. Between January 19, 2007 and July 

27, 2007, Mattel imported into the 

United States approximately 253,000 

units of ‘‘Sarge’’ die cast toy cars with 

markings of ‘‘China’’ and a ‘‘7EA’’ date 

code on the bottom (‘‘Toy Cars’’). Mattel 

shipped the Toy Cars to retailers from 

May 2007 to August 2007, and, in turn, 

they were sold to consumers at retail 

stores nationwide during that period for 

between $7 and $20 per unit. 

5. Between September 30, 2006 and 

August 20, 2007, Mattel imported into 

the United States approximately 

633,000 units of Barbie® accessory toys 

consisting of the following models: 

Barbie Dream Puppy House Playset; 

Barbie Dream Kitty Condo Playset; 

Barbie Table & Chairs Kitchen Playset; 

Barbie Bathtub & Toilet Bathroom 

Playset; Barbie Living Room Playset; 

Barbie Desk & Chair Bedroom Playset; 

and Barbie Couch & Table Living Room 

Playset (collectively, ‘‘Accessory Toys’’). 

Mattel shipped 439,000 of the Accessory 

Toys to retailers during that period, and, 

in turn, they were sold to consumers at 

retail stores nationwide from October 

2006 to August 2007 for about $10 per 

unit. 

6. The Toy Cars and the Accessory 

Toys (collectively, ‘‘Mattel Products’’) 

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

times relevant hereto, Mattel 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). 

7. The Mattel 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 ‘‘leadcontaining 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). 

8. During the summer of 2007, 

samples of the Mattel Products were 

tested for the presence of lead pursuant 

to the Lead Paint Ban. The test results 

demonstrated that certain samples of 

each of the Mattel Products contained 

levels of lead in excess of the 

permissible 0.06 percent limit set forth 

in the Lead Paint Ban. 

9. On August 14, 2007, the 

Commission and Mattel announced a 

recall of the Toy Cars because ‘‘[s]urface 

paints on the toys could contain levels 

of lead in excess of federal standards.’’ 

Similarly, on September 4, 2007, the 

Commission and Mattel announced a 

recall of the Accessory Toys because 

‘‘[s]urface paints on the toys contain 

excessive levels of lead which is 

prohibited under federal law.’’ At the 

time of each of the aforementioned 

recalls Mattel reported no incidents or 

injuries associated with the Mattel 

Products and excessive lead. Lead is 

toxic if ingested by young children and 

can cause adverse health consequences. 

10. Mattel failed to ensure that the 

Mattel Products complied with the Lead 

Paint Ban. 

11. The Mattel 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. 

12. Between September 2006 and 

August 2007, Mattel 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 Mattel 

Products, in violation of section 19(a)(1) 

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

Mattel committed these prohibited acts 

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

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

2069(d). 

13. Pursuant to section 20 of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Mattel is subject 

to civil penalties for the aforementioned 

violations. 

Staff Allegations Regarding FisherPrice 

14. Between April 19, 2007 and July 

6, 2007, Fisher-Price imported 

approximately 967,000 units of various 

‘‘Sesame Street,’’ ‘‘Dora the Explorer,’’ 

and other licensed character toys, 

comprising 83 different models 

(collectively, ‘‘Licensed Character 

Toys’’). Fisher-Price shipped about 

678,000 of the Licensed Character Toys 

to retailers from May 2007 to August 

2007 and, in turn, they were sold to 

consumers at retail stores nationwide 

during that period for between $5 and 

$40 per unit. 

15. Between May 19, 2007 and August 

1, 2007, Fisher-Price imported into the 

United States approximately 8,900 units 

of Big Big World 6-in-1 Bongo Band toys 

(‘‘Bongo Band Toys’’). Fisher-Price 

28032 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 

shipped the Bongo Band Toys to 

retailers from May 2007 to August 2007, 

and, in turn, they were sold to 

consumers at retail stores nationwide 

from July 2007 to August 2007 for about 

$20 per unit. 

16. Between July 31, 2006 and 

September 4, 2006, Fisher-Price 

imported into the United States 

approximately 3,000 units of GEOTRAX 

Freightway Transport locomotive toys 

and 80,000 units of GEOTRAX Special 

Track Pack locomotive toys 

(collectively, ‘‘GEOTRAX Toys’’). 

Fisher-Price shipped the GEOTRAX 

Toys to retailers from August 2006 to 

July 2007, and in turn, they were sold 

to consumers at retail stores nationwide 

from September 2006 to August 2007 for 

between $3 and $16 per unit. 

17. Between May 17, 2007 and August 

11, 2007, Fisher-Price imported into the 

United States approximately 37,500 

units of Go Diego Go Animal Rescue 

Boat toys (‘‘Boat Toys’’). Fisher-Price 

shipped the Boat Toys to retailers 

during that period, and in turn, they 

were sold to consumers at retail stores 

nationwide from June 2007 through 

October 2007 for about $20 per unit. 

18. The Licensed Character Toys, 

Bongo Band Toys, GEOTRAX Toys, and 

Boat Toys (collectively, ‘‘Fisher-Price 

Products’’) are ‘‘consumer product(s),’’ 

and, at all times relevant hereto, FisherPrice 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). 

19. The Fisher-Price Products are 

articles intended to be entrusted to or 

for use by children, and, therefore, are 

subject to the requirements of the Lead 

Paint Ban. 

20. During the summer and fall of 

2007, samples of the Fisher-Price 

Products were tested for the presence of 

lead pursuant to the Lead Paint Ban. 

The test results demonstrated that 

certain samples of each of the FisherPrice Products contained levels of lead 

in excess of the permissible 0.06 percent 

limit set forth in the Lead Paint Ban. 

21. On August 2, 2007, the 

Commission and Fisher-Price 

announced the recall of the Licensed 

Character Toys because ‘‘[s]urface paints 

on the toys could contain excessive 

levels of lead.’’ Similarly, on September 

4, 2007, a recall was announced 

regarding the Bongo Band Toys and the 

GEOTRAX Toys, because surface paints 

on the toys contain levels of lead in 

excess of the permissible 0.06 percent 

limit set forth in the Lead Paint Ban. 

This was followed by the October 25, 

2007 announcement of a recall of the 

Boat Toys because ‘‘[s]urface paints on 

the toys contain excessive levels of lead, 

which violates the federal standard 

prohibiting lead paint on children’s 

toys.’’ At the time of each of the 

aforementioned recalls Fisher-Price 

reported no incidents or injuries 

associated with the Fisher-Price 

Products. Lead is toxic if ingested by 

young children and can cause adverse 

health consequences. 

22. Fisher-Price failed to ensure that 

the Fisher-Price Products complied with 

the Lead Paint Ban. 

23. The Fisher-Price 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. 

24. Between July 2006 and August 

2007, Fisher-Price 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 Fisher-Price 

Products, in violation of section 19(a)(1) 

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

Fisher-Price committed these prohibited 

acts ‘‘knowingly,’’ as that term is 

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

U.S.C. 2069(d). 

25. Pursuant to section 20 of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Fisher-Price is 

subject to civil penalties for the 

aforementioned violations. 

The Firms’ Response 

26. Mattel denies the Staff’s 

allegations set forth above that it 

knowingly violated the CPSA. 

27. Fisher-Price denies the Staff’s 

allegations set forth above that it 

knowingly violated the CPSA. 

Agreement of the Parties 

28. Under the CPSA, the Commission 

has jurisdiction over this matter and 

over the Firms. 

29. The parties enter into the 

Agreement for settlement purposes only. 

The Agreement does not constitute an 

admission by the Firms, or a 

determination by the Commission, that 

either of the Firms knowingly violated 

the CPSA. 

30. In settlement of the Staff’s 

allegations, Mattel shall pay, for and on 

behalf of both Firms, a civil penalty in 

the total amount of two million three 

hundred thousand dollars 

($2,300,000.00) within twenty (20) 

calendar days of service of the 

Commission’s final Order accepting the 

Agreement. This payment shall be made 

by check payable to the order of the 

United States Treasury. 

31. The Commission will not seek 

civil penalties for possible violations of 

sections 19(a)(1) and 19(a)(4) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(1) and (4), 

regarding any information as to which 

the Firms, between March 1, 2007 and 

January 28, 2009, have adequately 

informed the CPSC (i) by submitting a 

Full Report under CPSA section 15(b), 

15 U.S.C. 2064(b), and 16 CFR 

1115.13(d), and/or (ii) by submitting 

complete information voluntarily by 

agreement with the Office of 

Compliance and Field Operations 

during said period. The Commission’s 

agreement not to seek penalties will not 

relieve the Firms from the continuing 

duty to report to CPSC any new, 

additional or different information as 

required by CPSA section 15(b), 15 

U.S.C. 2064(b) and the regulations at 16 

CFR Part 1115. Regarding any 

information adequately and timely 

reported to CPSC by the Firms after 

January 28, 2009, whether submitted by 

agreement or otherwise, the Firms 

remain potentially liable for possible 

violations of section 19(a) of the CPSA, 

15 U.S.C. 2068(a), other than subsection 

19(a)(4), 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Except as 

expressly provided herein, nothing in 

this Agreement is intended nor may be 

construed to preclude, limit, or 

otherwise reduce the Firms’ potential 

liabilities under any and all applicable 

laws, statutory provisions, regulations, 

rules, standards, and/or bans enforced 

or administered by CPSC. 

32. 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. 

33. Upon the Commission’s final 

acceptance of the Agreement and 

issuance of the final Order, the Firms 

knowingly, voluntarily, and completely 

waive any rights they 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 the Firms failed to comply with 

the CPSA and its underlying 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices 28033 

regulations; (4) a statement of findings 

of fact and conclusions of law; and (5) 

any claims under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act. 

34. The Commission may publicize 

the terms of the Agreement and Order. 

35. The Agreement and Order shall 

apply to, and be binding upon, the 

Firms and each of their successors and 

assigns. 

36. The Commission issues the Order 

under the provisions of the CPSA, and 

violation of the Order may subject those 

referenced in paragraph 35 to 

appropriate legal action. 

37. 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. 

38. 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 the Firms agree that 

severing the provision materially affects 

the purpose of the Agreement and 

Order. 

Mattel, Inc. 

Dated: 5–28–09 

By: 

Robert Normile 

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and 

Secretary 

Mattel, Inc. 

Fisher-Price, Inc. 

Dated: 5–28–09 

By: 

Robert Normile 

Senior Vice President and Secretary 

Fisher-Price, Inc. 

Dated: 5–28–09 

By: 

Neil A. Goldberg, Esq. 

Goldberg Segalla LLP. 

665 Main Street, Suite 400, Buffalo, New 

York 14203 

Counsel for Mattel, Inc. and for Fisher-Price, 

Inc. 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Staff 

Cheryl A. Falvey 

General Counsel 

Office of the General Counsel 

Dated: 5–29–09 

By: 

Ronald G. Yelenik 

Assistant General Counsel 

Office of the General Counsel 

Dated: 5–29–09 

By: 

M. Reza Malihi 

Trial Attorney 

Division of Compliance 

Office of the General Counsel 

Order 

Upon consideration of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into between Mattel, 

Inc. (‘‘Mattel’’) and Fisher-Price, Inc. 

(collectively referred to as the ‘‘Firms’’), 

and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) staff, and 

the Commission having jurisdiction 

over the subject matter and over the 

Firms, 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 Mattel shall 

pay, for and on behalf of the Firms, a 

civil penalty in the amount of two 

million three hundred thousand dollars 

($2,300,000.00) 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 Mattel to make the foregoing payment 

when due, interest on the unpaid 

amount shall accrue and be paid by 

Mattel 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 8th day of June 2009. 

By Order of the Commission. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–13879 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Availability of GovernmentOwned Inventions; Available for 

Licensing 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below 

are assigned to the United States 

Government as represented by the 

Secretary of the Navy and are available 

for licensing by the Department of the 

Navy. U.S. Patent Application Number 

11/417,283 filed on June 1, 2006, Navy 

Case Number 83036 entitled ‘‘Imagery 

Analysis Tool’’; U.S. Patent Application 

Number 10/956,522 filed on September 

23, 2004, Navy Case Number 83683 

entitled ‘‘Method for Comparing Tabular 

Data’’; U.S. Patent Application Number 

11/251,535 filed on September 29, 2005, 

Navy Case Number 85000 entitled ‘‘Just 

In Time Wiring Information System’’; 

U.S. Patent Application Number 11/ 

357,460 filed on February 14, 2006, 

Navy Case Number 96400 entitled 

‘‘Apparatus and Method to Amalgamate 

Substances’’; U.S. Patent Application 

Number 11/482,303 filed on July 11, 

2006, Navy Case Number 97495 entitled 

‘‘Hoisting Harness Assembly Tool’’; U.S. 

Patent Application Number 11/998,863 

filed on November 28, 2007, Navy Case 

Number 97722 entitled ‘‘Method and 

Apparatus for Non-Invasively 

Estimating Body Core Temperature’’; 

U.S. Patent Application Number 11/ 

481,227 filed on July 7, 2006, Navy Case 

Number 97763 entitled ‘‘Portable 

Medical Equipment Suite’’; U.S. Patent 

Application Number 11/296,723 filed 

on December 6, 2006, Navy Case 

Number 97798 entitled ‘‘Global 

Visualization Process for Personal 

Computer Platforms (GVP+); U.S. Patent 

Application Number 11/789,118 filed 

on April 5, 2007, Navy Case Number 

98491B entitled ‘‘Method of Producing 

and Controlling the Atomization of an 

Output Flow from a C–D Nozzle’’; U.S. 

Patent Application Number 12/432,019 

filed on April 28, 2009, Navy Case 

Number PAX06 entitled ‘‘Method for 

Producing Nanoparticles’’; U.S. Patent 

Application Number 12/469,197 filed 

on May 20, 2009, Navy Case Number 

PAX14 entitled ‘‘Fast Rope’’; U.S. Patent 

Number 5,520,331 entitled ‘‘Liquid 

Atomizing Nozzle’’ issued May 28, 

1996; U.S. Patent Number 6,233,740 

entitled ‘‘Aircrew Integrated Recovery 

Survival Vest’’ issued May 22, 2001; 

U.S. Patent Number 6,240,742 entitled 

‘‘Modular Portable Air-Conditioning 

System’’ issued June 5, 2001; U.S. 

Patent Number 6,241,164 entitled 

‘‘Effervescent Liquid Fine Mist 

Apparatus and Method’’ issued June 5, 

2001; U.S. Patent Number 6,484,072 

entitled ‘‘Embedded Terrain Awareness 

Warning System for Aircraft’’ issued 

November 19, 2002; U.S. Patent Number 

6,598,802 entitled ‘‘Effervescent Liquid 

Fine Mist Apparatus and Method’’ 

issued July 29, 2003; U.S. Patent 

Number 6,659,963 entitled ‘‘Apparatus 

for Obtaining Temperature and 

Humidity Measurements’’ issued 

December 9, 2003; U.S. Patent Number 

7,176,812 B1 entitled ‘‘Wireless Blade 

Monitoring System and Process’’ issued 

February 13, 2007; U.S. Patent Number 

7,225,999 entitled ‘‘Spray Array 

Apparatus’’ issued June 5, 2007; U.S. 

Patent Number 7,331,183 B2 entitled