Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order, 39673-39675 [06-6168]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
39673
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Notices
percentage of overall Commission
oversight program costs. This
adjustment reduces the costs so that, as
a percentage of total Commission SRO
oversight program costs, they are in line
with the pro rata percentage for that
SRO of United States industry-wide
contract volume.
The calculation made is as follows:
The fee required to be paid to the
Commission by each DCM is equal to
the lesser of actual costs based on the
three-year historical average of costs for
that DCM or one-half of average costs
incurred by the Commission for each
DCM for the most recent three years,
plus a pro rata share (based on average
trading volume for the most recent three
years) of the aggregate of average annual
costs of all DCMs for the most recent
three years. The formula for calculating
the second factor is: 0.5a + 0.5 vt =
current fee. In this formula, ‘‘a’’ equals
the average annual costs, ‘‘v’’ equals the
percentage of total volume across DCMs
over the last three years, and ‘‘t’’ equals
the average annual costs for all DCMs.
NFA has no contracts traded; hence, its
fee is based simply on costs for the most
recent three fiscal years.
This table summarizes the data used
in the calculations and the resulting fee
for each entity:
3-year average actual
costs
3-year % of
volume
Average year
2006 fee
Chicago Board of Trade ..............................................................................................................
Chicago Mercantile Exchange .....................................................................................................
New York Mercantile Exchange ..................................................................................................
Kansas City Board of Trade ........................................................................................................
New York Board of Trade ............................................................................................................
Minneapolis Grain Exchange .......................................................................................................
OneChicago .................................................................................................................................
72,286
201,763
144,899
16,985
115,320
21,490
35,695
34.4803
51.4928
10.7381
0.8216
1.9397
0.1193
0.1489
72,286
201,763
105,117
10,992
63,561
11,108
18,301
Subtotal .................................................................................................................................
National Futures Association .......................................................................................................
608,438
277,661
99.7407
N/A
483,128
277,661
Total ......................................................................................................................................
886,099
99.7407
760,789
An example of how the fee is
calculated for one exchange, the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange, is set forth
here:
a. Actual three-year average costs
equal $21,490.
b. The alternative computation is: (.5)
($21,490) + (.5) (.001193) ($608,438) =
$11,108.
c. The fee is the lesser of a or b; in
this case $11,108.
As noted above, the alternative
calculation based on contracts traded is
not applicable to NFA because it is not
a DCM and has no contracts traded. The
Commission’s average annual cost for
conducting oversight review of the NFA
rule enforcement program during fiscal
years 2003 through 2005 was $277,661
(one-third of $832,983). The fee to be
paid by the NFA for the current fiscal
year is $277,661.
Payment Method
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
The Debt Collection Improvement Act
(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to
the government by electronic transfer of
funds (See 31 U.S.C. 3720). For
information about electronic payments,
please contact Stella Lewis at (202) 418–
5186 or slewis@cftc.gov, or see the CFTC
Web site at https://www.cftc.gov,
specifically, https://www.cftc.gov/cftc/
cftcelectronicpayments.htm.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires agencies to
consider the impact of rules on small
business. The fees implemented in this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
release affect contract markets (also
referred to as exchanges) and registered
futures associations. The Commission
has previously determined that contract
markets and registered futures
associations are not ‘‘small entities’’ for
purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. Accordingly, the Chairman, on
behalf of the Commission, certifies
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the fees
implemented here will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Settlement Agreement with Family
Dollar, a corporation, containing a civil
penalty of $100,000.
DATES: Any interested person may ask
the Commission not to accept this
agreement or otherwise comment on its
contents by filing a written request with
the Office of the Secretary by July 28,
2006.
[CPSC Docket No. 06–C0004]
Persons wishing to
comment on this Settlement Agreement
should sent written comments to the
Comment 06–C0004, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard N. Tarnoff, Trial Attorney,
Office of Compliance, Consumer
Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301)
504–7589.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of
the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation,
Provisional Acceptance of a
Settlement Agreement and Order
Dated: July 7, 2006.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2006,
by the Commission.
Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–6109 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ADDRESSES:
In the Matter of Family Dollar, Inc., a
Corporation; Settlement Agreement and
Order
1. This Settlement Agreement is made by
and between the staff (the ‘‘staff’’) of the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) and Family Dollar, Inc.
(‘‘Family Dollar’’), a corporation, in
accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the
Commission’s procedures for Investigations,
Inspections, and Inquiries under the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). This
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
39674
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Notices
Settlement Agreement and the incorporated
attached Order settle the staff’s allegations set
forth below.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
The Parties
2. The Commission is an independent
federal regulatory agency responsible for the
enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084.
3. Family Dollar is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal corporate office
located in Matthews, North Carolina. At all
times relevant herein, Family Dollar sold, or
offered for sale, consumer products.
Staff Allegations
4. From approximately November 2003–
February 2004, Family Dollar sold
approximately 8,976 electric blankets
(models BST–03–A–F; BST–03–A–K; BST–
03–A–Q; BST–03–A–T) that it purchased
from International Home Fashions, Inc.
(a/k/a Bilt-Safe Technologies, Inc.) [‘‘IHF’’].
These electric blankets will hereinafter be
referred to as ‘‘the Electric Blankets’’.
5. The Electric Blankets are ‘‘consumer
products’’ and, at the times relevant herein,
Family Dollar was a ‘‘retailer’’ of ‘‘consumer
products,’’ which were ‘‘distributed in
commerce’’ as those terms are defined in
sections 3(a)(1), (6), (11), and (12) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (6), (11), and
(12).
6. The Electric Blankets are defective
because they have a tendency to overheat and
catch on fire.
7. Between December 2003 and June 2004,
Family Dollar learned about approximately
40 reports of malfunction with the Electric
Blankets. Among these incidents, there were
numerous alleged instances of fire, scorching,
or smoke damage to consumers’ property and
nine alleged personal injuries. The alleged
injuries consisted mainly of minor skin
burns. Family Dollar did not inform the
Commission about these incidents until
September 1, 2004, when it submitted a
Section 15 report (in response to the staff’s
request), and August 25, 2005, when it
submitted additional information (again in
response to the staff’s request).
8. By February 2004, Family Dollar had
decided to undertake a consumer level recall
of the Electric Blankets. Family Dollar
stopped selling the Electric Blankets in midFebruary 2004, and it posted a recall poster
at its retail outlets in early-March 2004.
9. Although Family Dollar had obtained
sufficient information to reasonably support
the conclusion that the Electric Blankets
contained a defect which could create a
substantial product hazard, or created an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death,
long before September 1, 2004, it failed to
immediately inform the Commission of such
defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(2)
and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and
(3). In failing to do so, Family Dollar
‘‘knowingly’’ violated section 19(a)(4) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term
‘‘knowingly’’ is defined in section 20(d) of
the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
10. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2069, Family Dollar is subject to civil
penalties for its failure to make a timely
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
report pursuant to section 15(b) of the CPSA,
15 U.S.C. 2064(b).
Response of Family Dollar
11. Family Dollar denies the allegations of
the staff that the Electric Blankets contain a
defect which could create a substantial
product hazard, or create an unreasonable
risk of serious injury or death, and denies
that it violated the reporting requirements of
section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).
Family Dollar further did not ‘‘knowingly’’
violate any reporting requirements under the
CPSA.
12. Family Dollar further states that, when
it first learned of allegations of blanket
failures in December 2003, it consulted IHF,
the party most knowledgeable about the
design and operation of the blankets, to
ascertain the severity of the problem. IHF
responded that its contacts with customers
who made the allegations indicated that the
blankets got hot, rather than caught fire.
13. In February 2004, after receiving
reports of additional alleged incidents,
Family Dollar stopped the sale of the
blankets and again consulted with IHF about
the significance of the incidents. IHF
expressly represented that its legal counsel
had advised that neither the number nor the
severity of the reported incidents warranted
a recall, and that internal mechanisms in the
controllers of blankets involved in incidents
appeared to have shut the controllers off
before serious damage occurred.
Nevertheless, Family Dollar, as a matter of
good customer relations, decided to recall the
blankets from consumers.
14. At the time it considered whether to
conduct the recall, Family dollar also
reviewed the information available to
determine whether it was required to report
that information to the Commission. Based
on that information and IHF’s
representations, it concluded that it did not
have an obligation to report.
15. To effectuate its recall, Family Dollar
displayed posters announcing the recall in its
stores in March 2004. When the Commission
and IHF announced the recall of the Electric
Blankets in November 2004, Family Dollar
again displayed posters announcing the
recall in its stores.
Agreement of the Parties
16. The Commission has jurisdiction over
this matter and over Family Dollar under the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084.
17. In settlement of the staff’s allegations,
Family Dollar agrees to pay a civil penalty of
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
This payment shall be made by check
payable to the order of the United States
Treasury within twenty (20) calendar days of
service upon Family Dollar of the Final Order
of the Commission accepting this Settlement
Agreement.
18. The parties enter into this Settlement
Agreement for settlement purposes only. The
Settlement Agreement does not constitute an
admission by Family Dollar or a
determination by the Commission that
Family Dollar has violated the CPSA’s
reporting requirements.
19. Upon provisional acceptance of this
Settlement Agreement and Order by the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commission, the Commission shall place this
Agreement and Order on the public record
and shall publish it in the Federal Register
in accordance with the procedure set forth in
16 CFR 1118.20(e). If the Commission does
not receive any written request not to accept
the Settlement Agreement and Order within
15 days, the Agreement and Order shall be
deemed finally accepted on the 16th day after
the date it is published in the Federal
Register.
20. Upon final acceptance of this
Settlement Agreement by the Commission
and issuance of the Final Order, Family
Dollar knowingly, voluntarily and
completely waives any rights it may have in
this matter to the following: (i) An
administrative or judicial hearing; (ii)
judicial review or other challenge or contest
of the validity of the Commission’s actions;
(iii) a determination by the Commission as to
whether Family Dollar failed to comply with
the CPSA and its underlying regulations; (iv)
a statement of findings of fact and
conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under
the Equal Access to Justice Act.
21. The Commission may publicize the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and
Order.
22. This Settlement Agreement and Order
shall apply to, and be binding upon, Family
Dollar and each of its successors and assigns.
23. The Commission’s Order in this matter
is issued under the provisions of the CPSA,
15 U.S.C. 2051–2084, and a violation of the
Order may subject Family Dollar to
appropriate legal action.
24. This Settlement Agreement may be
used in interpreting the Order. Agreements,
understandings, representations, or
interpretations made outside of this
Settlement Agreement and Order may not be
used to vary or to contradict its terms.
25. This Settlement Agreement and Order
shall not be waived, changed, amended,
modified, or otherwise altered without
written agreement thereto executed by the
party against whom such amendment,
modification, alteration, or waiver is sought
to be enforced and approval by the
Commission.
26. If, after the effective date hereof, any
provision of this Settlement Agreement and
Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future laws
effective during the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and Order, such provision shall
be fully severable. The rest of the Settlement
Agreement and Order shall remain in full
effect, unless the Commission and Family
Dollar determine that severing the provision
materially changes the purpose of the
Settlement Agreement and Order.
Family Dollar, Inc.
June 8, 2006.
Janet G. Kelley,
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, &
Secretary, Family Dollar, Inc., 10401
Monroe Road, Matthews, North Carolina
28105.
June 12, 2006.
Michael J. Gidding,
Brown & Gidding, P.C., 3201 New Mexico
Ave., NW., Suite 24, Washington, DC
20016, Counsel for Family Dollar, Inc.
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 134 / Thursday, July 13, 2006 / Notices
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
John Gibson Mullan,
Director,
Office of Compliance and Field Operations.
Ronald G. Yelenik,
Acting Director, Legal Division, Office of
Compliance and Field Operations.
June 13, 2006.
Howard N. Tarnoff,
Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of
Compliance and Field Operations.
In the Matter of Family Dollar, Inc., a
Corporation; Order
Upon consideration of the Settlement
Agreement entered into between Family
Dollar, Inc. (‘‘Family Dollar’’) and the staff of
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), and the
Commission having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and over Family Dollar, and it
appearing that the Settlement Agreement is
in the public interest, it is
I
Ordered that the Settlement Agreement be,
and hereby is, accepted; and it is
II
Furthered Ordered that Family Dollar shall
pay a civil penalty of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000). This payment shall be
made by check payable to the order of the
United States Treasury within twenty (20)
calendar days of service upon Family Dollar
of the Final Order of the Commission. Upon
the failure of Family Dollar to make this
payment in the prescribed time, interest on
the outstanding balance shall accrue and be
paid at the federal legal rate of interest under
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b).
Provisionally accepted and Provisional
Order issued on the 7th day of July 2006.
By Order of the Commission.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–6168 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Intent To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed SunCreek Project, in
Sacramento County, CA
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District,
will prepare a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Corps
authorization actions on the proposed
SunCreek Specific Plan project, which
as proposed would result in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:46 Jul 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
permanent loss of approximately 18.25
acres of waters of the United States,
including vernal pools and other
wetlands. The overall project purpose is
to construct large scale mixed-use
development in Sacramento County.
DATES: A public scoping meeting will be
held on July 26, 2006 from 6:30 p.m. to
8 p.m. The projected date for public
release of the DEIS is Summer 2007.
ADDRESSES: The public scoping meeting
will be held at Rancho Cordova City
Hall, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho
Cordova, CA 95670. Written comments
may be mailed to Mr. William Ness at
1325 J Street, Room 1480, Sacramento
CA 95814–2922. All comments must be
received by August 26, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about the proposed action
and DEIS can be answered by Mr.
William Ness, telephone (916) 557–
5268, or e-mail at
william.w.ness@usace.army.mil. Please
refer to identification number
200500888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
applicants have applied for a
Department of the Army permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
construct a mixed-use development
project. The proposed project would be
developed on approximately 1,253 acres
south of Douglas Road, north of Jackson
Highway (State Route 16), west of Grant
Line Road, and east of Sunrise
Boulevard. The proposed project
consists of approximately 5,600
residential homes, 20 acres of retail/
commercial offices, 6 parks, 4 schools,
and wetland preserve and other open
space areas. The proposed project site is
generally undeveloped and has a history
of occasional use for dry land farming
and grazing on spring grasses.
A total of 36.915 acres of waters of the
United States have been identified on
the project site, including 17.505 acres
of vernal pools, 9.156 acres of nonvernal pool wetland, 2.056 acres of
ponds, and 8.198 acres of drainage/
stream channels. The applicants have
applied to fill approximately 18.252
acres of these waters to construct the
project. A 216.5-acre wetland preserve
would be created in the central potion
of the project, generally following the
Laguna Creek drainage. The preserve
would contain 18.663 acres of waters of
the United States.
The proposed project may affect
federally-listed threatened or
endangered species or their critical
habitat, including vernal pool fairy
shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp,
Sacramento orcutt grass, and slender
orcutt grass. Once a biological
assessment is completed the Corps will
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39675
initiate Section 7 consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Corps will also consult with the State
Historic Preservation Office under
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act for properties listed or
potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places, as
appropriate.
A number of on-site and off-site
project alternatives, including the noaction alternative, will be evaluated in
the DEIS in accordance with NEPA and
the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Potentially significant issues to be
analyzed in depth in the DEIS include
loss of waters of the United States
(including wetlands), cultural resources,
biological resources, air quality,
hydrology and water quality, noise,
traffic, aesthetics, utilities and service
systems, and socio-economic effects.
The Environmental Impact Statement
will be prepared as a joint document
with the City of Rancho Cordova. The
City is the local agency responsible for
preparing an Environmental Impact
Report in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The above determinations are based
on information provided by the
applicant and the Corp’s Preliminary
review. The Corps is soliciting verbal
and written comments from the public,
Federal, State, local agencies and
officials, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties in order to consider
and evaluate the impacts of this
proposed activity. The Corps’ public
involvement program includes several
opportunities to provide oral and
written comments. Affected Federal,
State, and local agencies, Indian tribes,
and other interested private
organizations and the general public are
invited to participate.
Dated: June 29, 2006.
Ronald N. Light,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.
[FR Doc. 06–6193 Filed 7–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–EH–M
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services National
Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research—Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects
and Centers Program—Disability
Rehabilitation Research Projects
(DRRPs)
Notice of final priorities;
correction.
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39673-39675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 06-C0004]
Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation, 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
Family Dollar, a corporation, containing a civil penalty of $100,000.
DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this
agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written
request with the Office of the Secretary by July 28, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement
should sent written comments to the Comment 06-C0004, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard N. Tarnoff, Trial Attorney,
Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,
DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7589.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Dated: July 7, 2006.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
In the Matter of Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation; Settlement
Agreement and Order
1. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between the staff
(the ``staff'') of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the
``Commission'') and Family Dollar, Inc. (``Family Dollar''), a
corporation, in accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20 of the Commission's
procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the
Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). This
[[Page 39674]]
Settlement Agreement and the incorporated attached Order settle the
staff's allegations set forth below.
The Parties
2. The Commission is an independent federal regulatory agency
responsible for the enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act,
15 U.S.C. 2051-2084.
3. Family Dollar is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal corporate
office located in Matthews, North Carolina. At all times relevant
herein, Family Dollar sold, or offered for sale, consumer products.
Staff Allegations
4. From approximately November 2003-February 2004, Family Dollar
sold approximately 8,976 electric blankets (models BST-03-A-F; BST-
03-A-K; BST-03-A-Q; BST-03-A-T) that it purchased from International
Home Fashions, Inc. (a/k/a Bilt-Safe Technologies, Inc.) [``IHF''].
These electric blankets will hereinafter be referred to as ``the
Electric Blankets''.
5. The Electric Blankets are ``consumer products'' and, at the
times relevant herein, Family Dollar was a ``retailer'' of
``consumer products,'' which were ``distributed in commerce'' as
those terms are defined in sections 3(a)(1), (6), (11), and (12) of
the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1), (6), (11), and (12).
6. The Electric Blankets are defective because they have a
tendency to overheat and catch on fire.
7. Between December 2003 and June 2004, Family Dollar learned
about approximately 40 reports of malfunction with the Electric
Blankets. Among these incidents, there were numerous alleged
instances of fire, scorching, or smoke damage to consumers' property
and nine alleged personal injuries. The alleged injuries consisted
mainly of minor skin burns. Family Dollar did not inform the
Commission about these incidents until September 1, 2004, when it
submitted a Section 15 report (in response to the staff's request),
and August 25, 2005, when it submitted additional information (again
in response to the staff's request).
8. By February 2004, Family Dollar had decided to undertake a
consumer level recall of the Electric Blankets. Family Dollar
stopped selling the Electric Blankets in mid-February 2004, and it
posted a recall poster at its retail outlets in early-March 2004.
9. Although Family Dollar had obtained sufficient information to
reasonably support the conclusion that the Electric Blankets
contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, long
before September 1, 2004, it failed to immediately inform the
Commission of such defect or risk as required by sections 15(b)(2)
and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3). In failing to do
so, Family Dollar ``knowingly'' violated section 19(a)(4) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d).
10. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Family
Dollar is subject to civil penalties for its failure to make a
timely report pursuant to section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b).
Response of Family Dollar
11. Family Dollar denies the allegations of the staff that the
Electric Blankets contain a defect which could create a substantial
product hazard, or create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or
death, and denies that it violated the reporting requirements of
section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Family Dollar further
did not ``knowingly'' violate any reporting requirements under the
CPSA.
12. Family Dollar further states that, when it first learned of
allegations of blanket failures in December 2003, it consulted IHF,
the party most knowledgeable about the design and operation of the
blankets, to ascertain the severity of the problem. IHF responded
that its contacts with customers who made the allegations indicated
that the blankets got hot, rather than caught fire.
13. In February 2004, after receiving reports of additional
alleged incidents, Family Dollar stopped the sale of the blankets
and again consulted with IHF about the significance of the
incidents. IHF expressly represented that its legal counsel had
advised that neither the number nor the severity of the reported
incidents warranted a recall, and that internal mechanisms in the
controllers of blankets involved in incidents appeared to have shut
the controllers off before serious damage occurred. Nevertheless,
Family Dollar, as a matter of good customer relations, decided to
recall the blankets from consumers.
14. At the time it considered whether to conduct the recall,
Family dollar also reviewed the information available to determine
whether it was required to report that information to the
Commission. Based on that information and IHF's representations, it
concluded that it did not have an obligation to report.
15. To effectuate its recall, Family Dollar displayed posters
announcing the recall in its stores in March 2004. When the
Commission and IHF announced the recall of the Electric Blankets in
November 2004, Family Dollar again displayed posters announcing the
recall in its stores.
Agreement of the Parties
16. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Family Dollar under the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084.
17. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Family Dollar
agrees to pay a civil penalty of one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000). This payment shall be made by check payable to the order
of the United States Treasury within twenty (20) calendar days of
service upon Family Dollar of the Final Order of the Commission
accepting this Settlement Agreement.
18. The parties enter into this Settlement Agreement for
settlement purposes only. The Settlement Agreement does not
constitute an admission by Family Dollar or a determination by the
Commission that Family Dollar has violated the CPSA's reporting
requirements.
19. Upon provisional acceptance of this Settlement Agreement and
Order by the Commission, the Commission shall place this Agreement
and Order on the public record and shall publish it in the Federal
Register in accordance with the procedure set forth in 16 CFR
1118.20(e). If the Commission does not receive any written request
not to accept the Settlement Agreement and Order within 15 days, the
Agreement and Order shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th day
after the date it is published in the Federal Register.
20. Upon final acceptance of this Settlement Agreement by the
Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Family Dollar knowingly,
voluntarily and completely waives any rights it may have in this
matter to the following: (i) An administrative or judicial hearing;
(ii) judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity
of the Commission's actions; (iii) a determination by the Commission
as to whether Family Dollar failed to comply with the CPSA and its
underlying regulations; (iv) a statement of findings of fact and
conclusions of law; and (v) any claims under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
21. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and Order.
22. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall apply to, and be
binding upon, Family Dollar and each of its successors and assigns.
23. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the
provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, and a violation of the
Order may subject Family Dollar to appropriate legal action.
24. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the
Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or
interpretations made outside of this Settlement Agreement and Order
may not be used to vary or to contradict its terms.
25. This Settlement Agreement and Order shall not be waived,
changed, amended, modified, or otherwise altered without written
agreement thereto executed by the party against whom such amendment,
modification, alteration, or waiver is sought to be enforced and
approval by the Commission.
26. If, after the effective date hereof, any provision of this
Settlement Agreement and Order is held to be illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and Order, such provision shall be
fully severable. The rest of the Settlement Agreement and Order
shall remain in full effect, unless the Commission and Family Dollar
determine that severing the provision materially changes the purpose
of the Settlement Agreement and Order.
Family Dollar, Inc.
June 8, 2006.
Janet G. Kelley,
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, & Secretary, Family Dollar,
Inc., 10401 Monroe Road, Matthews, North Carolina 28105.
June 12, 2006.
Michael J. Gidding,
Brown & Gidding, P.C., 3201 New Mexico Ave., NW., Suite 24,
Washington, DC 20016, Counsel for Family Dollar, Inc.
[[Page 39675]]
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
John Gibson Mullan,
Director,
Office of Compliance and Field Operations.
Ronald G. Yelenik,
Acting Director, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field
Operations.
June 13, 2006.
Howard N. Tarnoff,
Trial Attorney, Legal Division, Office of Compliance and Field
Operations.
In the Matter of Family Dollar, Inc., a Corporation; Order
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into
between Family Dollar, Inc. (``Family Dollar'') and the staff of the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (the ``Commission''), and
the Commission having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over
Family Dollar, and it appearing that the Settlement Agreement is in
the public interest, it is
I
Ordered that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby is,
accepted; and it is
II
Furthered Ordered that Family Dollar shall pay a civil penalty
of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). This payment shall be
made by check payable to the order of the United States Treasury
within twenty (20) calendar days of service upon Family Dollar of
the Final Order of the Commission. Upon the failure of Family Dollar
to make this payment in the prescribed time, interest on the
outstanding balance shall accrue and be paid at the federal legal
rate of interest under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1961(a) and (b).
Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 7th
day of July 2006.
By Order of the Commission.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 06-6168 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
