Battat Incorporated, Provisional Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement and Order, 42702-42704 [2012-17704]
Download as PDF
42702
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Notices
NSN: 7045–00–NIB–0390—19.0″ Widescreen
NSN: 7045–00–NIB–0391—24.0″ Widescreen
NPA: Wiscraft, Inc., Milwaukee, WI
Contracting Activity: General Services
Administration, New York, NY
Coverage: A-List for the Total Government
Requirement as aggregated by the
General Services Administration.
Service
Service Type/Location: Custodial/Janitorial
Services, Vancouver US Armed Forces
Reserve Center (AFRC)/WA070, 15005
NE 65th Street, Vancouver, WA.
NPA: Portland Habilitation Center, Inc.,
Portland, OR
Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army,
W6QM MICC–ARCC North, Fort McCoy, WI
Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012–17707 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 12–C0007]
Battat Incorporated, Provisional
Acceptance of a Settlement Agreement
and Order
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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 Battat
Incorporated, containing a civil penalty
of $400,000.00, within twenty (20) days
of service of the Commission’s final
Order accepting the Settlement
Agreement.
DATES: Any interested person may ask
the Commission not to accept this
agreement or otherwise comment on its
contents by filing a written request with
the Office of the Secretary by August 6,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to
comment on this Settlement Agreement
should send written comments to the
Comment 12–C0007, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814–
4408.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah C. Wang, General Attorney,
Division of Enforcement and
Information, Office of the General
Counsel, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:18 Jul 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
Bethesda, Maryland 20814–4408;
telephone (301) 504–7807.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of
the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Dated: July 17, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
Settlement Agreement and Order
1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20,
Battat Incorporated (‘‘Battat’’ or the
‘‘Firm’’) and staff (‘‘Staff’’) of the United
States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’)
hereby enter into this Settlement
Agreement (‘‘Agreement’’) under the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’).
The Agreement and the incorporated
attached Order resolve Staff’s
allegations set forth below.
The Parties
2. Staff is the staff of the Commission,
an independent federal regulatory
agency established pursuant to, and
responsible for, enforcement of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089.
3. Battat is a privately-held company,
organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Delaware, with its principal
office located at 1560 Military Turnpike,
Plattsburgh, New York, 12901.
Staff Allegations
4. Between August 2004 and February
2008, Battat distributed approximately
132,000 Magnabild magnetic building
sets (‘‘Subject Products’’) in U.S.
commerce. On January 23, 2008, Battat
announced a recall for the Subject
Products bearing model numbers
BB1431H and BB1502H. On March 13,
2008, Battat announced a recall for the
Subject Products bearing model
numbers BB1439H and BAT–34. The
Subject Products sold for approximately
$20—$40 through online and
nationwide retailers.
5. The Subject Products are
‘‘consumer products’’ and, at all
relevant times, Battat was a
‘‘distributor’’ of these consumer
products, which were ‘‘distribute[d] in
commerce,’’ as those terms are defined
or used in sections 3(a)(5), (7), and (8)
of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7),
and (8).
6. The Subject Products, which are
labeled for ages three and up, are
defective because small, powerful
magnets can loosen and fall out of the
components with normal use. Magnets
found by young children can be
swallowed or aspirated. If more than
one magnet is swallowed, the magnets
can attract each other and cause
intestinal perforations or blockages,
which can be fatal.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7. Battat received its first complaint of
magnets coming loose from the Subject
Products in October 2005.
8. By March 31, 2006, Battat had
received seven consumer reports of
magnet liberation and two consumer
reports of children ingesting nonmagnetized steel balls. Some consumers
described multiple magnet liberations
from the Subject Products.
9. On March 31, 2006, the
Commission announced the recall of
Rose Art Magnetix Building Sets, which
involved one death, four serious
injuries, and 34 incidents involving
small magnets.
10. In April 2006, Battat received two
additional consumer complaints of
magnet liberation. Battat has
represented to the Commission that, ‘‘At
some point, likely April or May [2006],
Battat became aware of the Magnetix
recall and only then became aware of
the possibility that small magnets could
cause intestinal injury.’’
11. Between November 2006 and July
2007, the Commission re-announced the
Rose Art Magnetix Building Sets recall
due to additional serious injuries to
children; the Commission issued a
‘‘Magnet Safety Alert,’’ warning parents
of the risk of serious injury and death
to children from magnet ingestion; and
the Commission announced five
separate recalls for several million toys
containing magnets due to the potential
for magnet liberation.
12. Despite being aware of the danger
posed to children by the ingestion of
magnets such as those in the Subject
Products, and with full awareness that
the CPSC and industry were actively
working to address the hazards posed to
children by the ingestion of magnets,
Battat failed to notify the CPSC or
inform consumers of the Subject
Products’ defect and resulting potential
hazard.
13. Staff contacted Battat on July 9,
2007, to request a full report pursuant
to CPSA section 15(b) (‘‘Section 15
Report’’). With this request, Staff
enclosed two in-depth investigation
reports of consumer reports describing
magnets liberating from the Subject
Products.
14. Battat did not immediately
provide the requested Section 15 Report
on the Subject Products. As a result,
Staff reiterated its request at least two
more times from July 2007 to October
2007. Battat did not file the requested
Section 15 Report on the Subject
Products until October 12, 2007, after at
least three requests from Staff.
15. Battat failed to inform the
Commission of the defect and resulting
potential hazard present in the Subject
Products bearing model numbers
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BB1431H and BB1502H until October
12, 2007. Subject Products bearing those
model numbers were recalled on
January 23, 2008.
16. The January 23, 2008, recall did
not encompass all Subject Products
posing the magnet liberation hazard in
U.S. commerce. Battat failed to inform
the Commission of the defect and
resulting potential hazard in two
additional models of the Subject
Products, those bearing model numbers
BB1439H and BAT–34, until it filed an
additional Section 15 Report on
February 11, 2008.
17. Although Battat had obtained
sufficient information to reasonably
support the conclusion that the Subject
Products contained a defect that could
create a substantial product hazard, or
created an unreasonable risk of serious
injury or death, Battat failed to inform
the Commission immediately of such
defect or risk, as required by sections
15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b)(3) and (4). In failing to inform
the Commission immediately of the
defect or advising that the defect
involved the Subject Products, Battat
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).
18. Pursuant to section 20 of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Battat is subject
to civil penalties for its knowing failure
to report, as required under section
15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).
Response of Battat
19. Battat denies Staff’s allegations
that Battat knowingly or otherwise
violated the reporting requirements of
section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b). Battat further disputes the staff
position that Battat obtained
information that reasonably supported
the conclusion that the subject products
contain a defect that could create a
substantial product hazard or create an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or
death.
20. The Magnabild toys were
manufactured in 2004 and 2005 and
tested to all existing CPSC safety
standards, including the use and abuse
testing requirements used by CPSC and
the toy industry to determine whether
toys would break during reasonably
foreseeable use and abuse. Furthermore,
the Magnabild toys were labeled
‘‘Warning: Choking Hazard; Toy
Contains Small Parts & Small Balls; Not
For Children Under 3 years.’’
21. When Battat learned about the
Magnetix recall, it examined its product
to determine whether its product
presented the same risks as the
Magnetix toys and concluded that it did
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:18 Jul 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
not because most of the Magnabild
products did not contain the small
magnets that were present in the
Magnetix products and Battat believed
its magnets were better retained in its
toys and much less likely to come out
even under foreseeable misuse and
abuse. Unlike the Magnetix product that
used only tiny magnets, Battat’s
predominant magnetic component was a
one inch magnet molded into a fulllength plastic sheath.
22. Battat had received very few
complaints of magnets coming out of its
Magnabild toys and no reports of injury,
unlike other manufacturers whose
products—according to CPSC press
releases and legal documents—had
released well over a thousand magnets
and allegedly caused a death and more
than two dozen serious intestinal
injuries.
23. At some point before being
contacted by CPSC in July 2007, Battat
became aware that CPSC was working
prospectively on a labeling rule for
magnet toys with ASTM that allowed
the sale of loose magnets, as long as a
warning label was present telling
consumers about the risk of infection
and death from magnets sticking
together across intestines. Battat did not
use loose magnets in its toy and had
received very few complaints of magnet
release. Battat believed that its existing
warning label about a choking hazard
was likely to be no less effective at
advising parents to keep the product
away from small children.
24. Battat did not receive any
complaints about magnets coming out of
its toys for a period of approximately 14
months before it was contacted by the
CPSC in July 2007 and had not received
any reports about magnet ingestion or
injury. This increased the firm’s
confidence that it did not have a
significant problem with magnets
coming out of its Magnabild toys.
25. From the time it was first
contacted by the CPSC compliance staff,
Battat believed that the CPSC staff was
adequately informed of the alleged
defect or risk in its product. Battat knew
that CPSC had samples of the Magnabild
product and had investigated incidents
where magnets allegedly came out.
Further, the staff contended the product
presented a substantial product hazard
and sought a recall. Battat made its ‘‘full
report’’ in October 2007 to provide
details of its recall proposal. Although
Battat did not agree with the CPSC staff
view of the alleged hazard, Battat agreed
to recall 125,000 Magnabild toy sets,
84,430 of which had only the one inch
rod magnets Battat believed would not
come out of their sheathes.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42703
26. In February 2008, Battat learned
that another 7,000 Magnabild products
in models BB1439H and BAT 34, had
been shipped to the United States by the
Chinese manufacturer several years
before. Although both of these models
only contained the fully sheathed one
inch magnets Battat believed would not
come out, Battat reported its discovery
to CPSC and offered to recall these
products as well. In total, only 31% of
the 132,000 total units Battat ultimately
recalled had any small magnets and
Battat believed they were well retained
in the Battat design.
27. Battat believes its judgment that
the Magnabild product did not contain
reportable defects or unreasonable risks
was reasonable. That judgment was
supported by technical and design
differences from products that
experienced large numbers of failures
and caused injuries. Battat’s judgment
has been further borne out by the lack
of any injuries associated with magnets
coming out of Magnabild toys and by a
lack of reports of magnet release for
several years since its recall. Battat
settles this matter not because it has
violated the reporting obligation in
section 15(b) of the CPSA, or because it
believes the settlement amount is
reasonably related to the statutory
criteria for penalties set forth in the
CPSA, but to avoid the negative
publicity associated with CPSC pursuit
of a penalty through litigation and the
costs and interference with its business
activities that would likely result from
such litigation even if pursued to a
successful conclusion.
Agreement of the Parties
28. The CPSC has jurisdiction over
this matter under the CPSA and for the
purposes of this settlement agreement
only, over Battat.
29. In settlement of Staff’s allegations,
and while specifically and strenuously
denying those allegations, Battat
consents to the entry of the attached
Order (‘‘Order’’) as set forth below and
will pay a civil penalty in the amount
of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00) over a period of 12
months of the date this Order becomes
final. The payment shall be made to the
CPSC via www.pay.gov with equal
installments of $100,000.00 paid
quarterly starting within 20 days of
service upon Battat of the final Order in
this matter.
30. The parties further agree that if
Battat fails to make timely payments as
agreed to in paragraph 29, such conduct
will be considered a violation of this
Agreement and Order.
31. The parties enter into this
Agreement for settlement purposes only.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42704
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Notices
The Agreement does not constitute an
admission by Battat or a determination
by the Commission that Battat violated
the CPSA’s reporting requirements. This
agreement completely and finally
resolves the staff allegations set forth in
paragraphs 2–18 with respect to Battat
Incorporated, and its officers, directors,
and related companies.
32. Upon provisional acceptance of
the Agreement by the Commission, 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). If the Commission does not
receive any written request not to accept
the Agreement within fifteen (15)
calendar days, the Agreement shall be
deemed finally accepted on the 16th
calendar day after the date it is
published in the Federal Register, in
accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20(f).
33. Upon the Commission’s final
acceptance of the Agreement and
issuance of the Order, Battat knowingly,
voluntarily, and completely waives any
rights it may have in this matter to the
following: (a) An administrative or
judicial hearing; (b) judicial review or
other challenge or contest of the
Commission’s actions; (c) a
determination by the Commission of
whether Battat failed to comply with the
CPSA and the underlying regulations;
(d) a statement of findings of fact and
conclusions of law; and (e) any claims
under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
34. The Commission may publicize
the terms of the Agreement and the final
Order.
35. The Agreement and the final
Order shall apply to, and be binding
upon, Battat, and each of its successors
and/or assigns, until the obligations
described in paragraph 29 has been
fulfilled to the satisfaction of the
Commission.
36. The Commission issues the final
Order under the provisions of the CPSA,
and a violation of the final Order may
subject Battat, and each of its successors
and/or assigns, to appropriate legal
action.
37. The Agreement may be used in
interpreting the final Order.
Understandings, agreements,
representations, or interpretations apart
from those contained in the Agreement
and the Order may not be used to vary
or contradict the terms or the Agreement
and the final Order. The Agreement
shall not be waived, amended,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:18 Jul 19, 2012
Jkt 226001
modified, or otherwise altered without
written agreement thereto, executed by
the party against whom such waiver,
amendment, modification, or alteration
is sought to be enforced.
38. If any provision of the Agreement
or the final Order is held to be illegal,
invalid, or unenforceable under present
or future laws effective during the terms
of the Agreement and the final Order,
such provision shall be fully severable.
The balance of the Agreement and the
final Order shall remain in full force
and effect, unless the Commission and
Battat agree that severing the provision
materially affects the purpose of the
Agreement and final Order.
39. This Agreement may be executed
in counterparts.
Battat Incorporated
Dated: June 27, 2012.
By:
llllllllllllllllll
l
Joseph Battat.
Dated June 27, 2012
By:
llllllllllllllllll
l
Anthony T. Pavel, Jr.,
Counsel to Battat Incorporated, K&L
Gates LLP, 1601 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006–1600.
12 months of service of the
Commission’s Order upon counsel for
Battat, identified in the Settlement
Agreement. The payments shall be made
electronically to the CPSC via
www.pay.gov in equal quarterly
installments of $100,000.00
commencing within 20 days of service
upon Battat of this final order. Upon the
failure of Battat to make the foregoing
payments when due, interest on the
unpaid amount shall accrue and be paid
by Battat at the federal legal rate of
interest set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a)
and (b). If Battat fails to make such
payments, as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, such conduct will be
considered a violation of this Agreement
and Order.
Provisionally accepted and
provisional Order issued on the 13th
day of July, 2012.
By Order of the Commission.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–17704 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION STAFF
Office of the Secretary
Cheryl A. Falvey,
General Counsel.
Mary B. Murphy,
Assistant General Counsel
Dated: July 12, 2012.
By:
llllllllllllllllll
l
Sarah C. Wang,
Trial Attorney, Division of Compliance,
Office of the General Counsel.
[Transmittal Nos. 12–10]
Order
Upon consideration of the Settlement
Agreement entered into between Battat,
Incorporated (‘‘Battat’’), and U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) staff, and the
Commission having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and over Battat, and
it appearing that the Settlement
Agreement and the Order are in the
public interest, it is ordered that the
Settlement Agreement be, and is,
hereby, accepted; and it is further
ordered, that Battat shall pay a civil
penalty in the amount of four hundred
thousand dollars ($400,000.00) within
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification
Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of Defense is
publishing the unclassified text of a
section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.
This is published to fulfill the
requirements of section 155 of Public
Law 104–164 dated July 21, 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, Transmittals 12–10
with attached transmittal, policy
justification, and Sensitivity of
Technology.
SUMMARY:
Dated: July 17, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42702-42704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17704]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 12-C0007]
Battat Incorporated, 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
Battat Incorporated, containing a civil penalty of $400,000.00, within
twenty (20) days of service of the Commission's final Order accepting
the Settlement Agreement.
DATES: Any interested person may ask the Commission not to accept this
agreement or otherwise comment on its contents by filing a written
request with the Office of the Secretary by August 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement
should send written comments to the Comment 12-C0007, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Room 820, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah C. Wang, General 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) 504-7807.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Dated: July 17, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
Settlement Agreement and Order
1. In accordance with 16 CFR 1118.20, Battat Incorporated
(``Battat'' or the ``Firm'') and staff (``Staff'') of the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'' or ``CPSC'') hereby
enter into this Settlement Agreement (``Agreement'') under the Consumer
Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). The Agreement and the incorporated
attached Order resolve Staff's allegations set forth below.
The Parties
2. Staff is the staff of the Commission, an independent federal
regulatory agency established pursuant to, and responsible for,
enforcement of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089.
3. Battat is a privately-held company, organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal office located at
1560 Military Turnpike, Plattsburgh, New York, 12901.
Staff Allegations
4. Between August 2004 and February 2008, Battat distributed
approximately 132,000 Magnabild magnetic building sets (``Subject
Products'') in U.S. commerce. On January 23, 2008, Battat announced a
recall for the Subject Products bearing model numbers BB1431H and
BB1502H. On March 13, 2008, Battat announced a recall for the Subject
Products bearing model numbers BB1439H and BAT-34. The Subject Products
sold for approximately $20--$40 through online and nationwide
retailers.
5. The Subject Products are ``consumer products'' and, at all
relevant times, Battat was a ``distributor'' of these consumer
products, which were ``distribute[d] in commerce,'' as those terms are
defined or used in sections 3(a)(5), (7), and (8) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2052(a)(5), (7), and (8).
6. The Subject Products, which are labeled for ages three and up,
are defective because small, powerful magnets can loosen and fall out
of the components with normal use. Magnets found by young children can
be swallowed or aspirated. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the
magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal perforations or
blockages, which can be fatal.
7. Battat received its first complaint of magnets coming loose from
the Subject Products in October 2005.
8. By March 31, 2006, Battat had received seven consumer reports of
magnet liberation and two consumer reports of children ingesting non-
magnetized steel balls. Some consumers described multiple magnet
liberations from the Subject Products.
9. On March 31, 2006, the Commission announced the recall of Rose
Art Magnetix Building Sets, which involved one death, four serious
injuries, and 34 incidents involving small magnets.
10. In April 2006, Battat received two additional consumer
complaints of magnet liberation. Battat has represented to the
Commission that, ``At some point, likely April or May [2006], Battat
became aware of the Magnetix recall and only then became aware of the
possibility that small magnets could cause intestinal injury.''
11. Between November 2006 and July 2007, the Commission re-
announced the Rose Art Magnetix Building Sets recall due to additional
serious injuries to children; the Commission issued a ``Magnet Safety
Alert,'' warning parents of the risk of serious injury and death to
children from magnet ingestion; and the Commission announced five
separate recalls for several million toys containing magnets due to the
potential for magnet liberation.
12. Despite being aware of the danger posed to children by the
ingestion of magnets such as those in the Subject Products, and with
full awareness that the CPSC and industry were actively working to
address the hazards posed to children by the ingestion of magnets,
Battat failed to notify the CPSC or inform consumers of the Subject
Products' defect and resulting potential hazard.
13. Staff contacted Battat on July 9, 2007, to request a full
report pursuant to CPSA section 15(b) (``Section 15 Report''). With
this request, Staff enclosed two in-depth investigation reports of
consumer reports describing magnets liberating from the Subject
Products.
14. Battat did not immediately provide the requested Section 15
Report on the Subject Products. As a result, Staff reiterated its
request at least two more times from July 2007 to October 2007. Battat
did not file the requested Section 15 Report on the Subject Products
until October 12, 2007, after at least three requests from Staff.
15. Battat failed to inform the Commission of the defect and
resulting potential hazard present in the Subject Products bearing
model numbers
[[Page 42703]]
BB1431H and BB1502H until October 12, 2007. Subject Products bearing
those model numbers were recalled on January 23, 2008.
16. The January 23, 2008, recall did not encompass all Subject
Products posing the magnet liberation hazard in U.S. commerce. Battat
failed to inform the Commission of the defect and resulting potential
hazard in two additional models of the Subject Products, those bearing
model numbers BB1439H and BAT-34, until it filed an additional Section
15 Report on February 11, 2008.
17. Although Battat had obtained sufficient information to
reasonably support the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a
defect that could create a substantial product hazard, or created an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Battat failed to inform
the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by
sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3) and (4). In
failing to inform the Commission immediately of the defect or advising
that the defect involved the Subject Products, Battat 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).
18. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Battat is
subject to civil penalties for its knowing failure to report, as
required under section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b).
Response of Battat
19. Battat denies Staff's allegations that Battat knowingly or
otherwise violated the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b). Battat further disputes the staff position
that Battat obtained information that reasonably supported the
conclusion that the subject products contain a defect that could create
a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious
injury or death.
20. The Magnabild toys were manufactured in 2004 and 2005 and
tested to all existing CPSC safety standards, including the use and
abuse testing requirements used by CPSC and the toy industry to
determine whether toys would break during reasonably foreseeable use
and abuse. Furthermore, the Magnabild toys were labeled ``Warning:
Choking Hazard; Toy Contains Small Parts & Small Balls; Not For
Children Under 3 years.''
21. When Battat learned about the Magnetix recall, it examined its
product to determine whether its product presented the same risks as
the Magnetix toys and concluded that it did not because most of the
Magnabild products did not contain the small magnets that were present
in the Magnetix products and Battat believed its magnets were better
retained in its toys and much less likely to come out even under
foreseeable misuse and abuse. Unlike the Magnetix product that used
only tiny magnets, Battat's predominant magnetic component was a one
inch magnet molded into a full-length plastic sheath.
22. Battat had received very few complaints of magnets coming out
of its Magnabild toys and no reports of injury, unlike other
manufacturers whose products--according to CPSC press releases and
legal documents--had released well over a thousand magnets and
allegedly caused a death and more than two dozen serious intestinal
injuries.
23. At some point before being contacted by CPSC in July 2007,
Battat became aware that CPSC was working prospectively on a labeling
rule for magnet toys with ASTM that allowed the sale of loose magnets,
as long as a warning label was present telling consumers about the risk
of infection and death from magnets sticking together across
intestines. Battat did not use loose magnets in its toy and had
received very few complaints of magnet release. Battat believed that
its existing warning label about a choking hazard was likely to be no
less effective at advising parents to keep the product away from small
children.
24. Battat did not receive any complaints about magnets coming out
of its toys for a period of approximately 14 months before it was
contacted by the CPSC in July 2007 and had not received any reports
about magnet ingestion or injury. This increased the firm's confidence
that it did not have a significant problem with magnets coming out of
its Magnabild toys.
25. From the time it was first contacted by the CPSC compliance
staff, Battat believed that the CPSC staff was adequately informed of
the alleged defect or risk in its product. Battat knew that CPSC had
samples of the Magnabild product and had investigated incidents where
magnets allegedly came out. Further, the staff contended the product
presented a substantial product hazard and sought a recall. Battat made
its ``full report'' in October 2007 to provide details of its recall
proposal. Although Battat did not agree with the CPSC staff view of the
alleged hazard, Battat agreed to recall 125,000 Magnabild toy sets,
84,430 of which had only the one inch rod magnets Battat believed would
not come out of their sheathes.
26. In February 2008, Battat learned that another 7,000 Magnabild
products in models BB1439H and BAT 34, had been shipped to the United
States by the Chinese manufacturer several years before. Although both
of these models only contained the fully sheathed one inch magnets
Battat believed would not come out, Battat reported its discovery to
CPSC and offered to recall these products as well. In total, only 31%
of the 132,000 total units Battat ultimately recalled had any small
magnets and Battat believed they were well retained in the Battat
design.
27. Battat believes its judgment that the Magnabild product did not
contain reportable defects or unreasonable risks was reasonable. That
judgment was supported by technical and design differences from
products that experienced large numbers of failures and caused
injuries. Battat's judgment has been further borne out by the lack of
any injuries associated with magnets coming out of Magnabild toys and
by a lack of reports of magnet release for several years since its
recall. Battat settles this matter not because it has violated the
reporting obligation in section 15(b) of the CPSA, or because it
believes the settlement amount is reasonably related to the statutory
criteria for penalties set forth in the CPSA, but to avoid the negative
publicity associated with CPSC pursuit of a penalty through litigation
and the costs and interference with its business activities that would
likely result from such litigation even if pursued to a successful
conclusion.
Agreement of the Parties
28. The CPSC has jurisdiction over this matter under the CPSA and
for the purposes of this settlement agreement only, over Battat.
29. In settlement of Staff's allegations, and while specifically
and strenuously denying those allegations, Battat consents to the entry
of the attached Order (``Order'') as set forth below and will pay a
civil penalty in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars
($400,000.00) over a period of 12 months of the date this Order becomes
final. The payment shall be made to the CPSC via www.pay.gov with equal
installments of $100,000.00 paid quarterly starting within 20 days of
service upon Battat of the final Order in this matter.
30. The parties further agree that if Battat fails to make timely
payments as agreed to in paragraph 29, such conduct will be considered
a violation of this Agreement and Order.
31. The parties enter into this Agreement for settlement purposes
only.
[[Page 42704]]
The Agreement does not constitute an admission by Battat or a
determination by the Commission that Battat violated the CPSA's
reporting requirements. This agreement completely and finally resolves
the staff allegations set forth in paragraphs 2-18 with respect to
Battat Incorporated, and its officers, directors, and related
companies.
32. Upon provisional acceptance of the Agreement by the Commission,
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). If the Commission does not receive any written request not
to accept the Agreement within fifteen (15) calendar days, the
Agreement shall be deemed finally accepted on the 16th calendar day
after the date it is published in the Federal Register, in accordance
with 16 CFR 1118.20(f).
33. Upon the Commission's final acceptance of the Agreement and
issuance of the Order, Battat knowingly, voluntarily, and completely
waives any rights it may have in this matter to the following: (a) An
administrative or judicial hearing; (b) judicial review or other
challenge or contest of the Commission's actions; (c) a determination
by the Commission of whether Battat failed to comply with the CPSA and
the underlying regulations; (d) a statement of findings of fact and
conclusions of law; and (e) any claims under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
34. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Agreement and the
final Order.
35. The Agreement and the final Order shall apply to, and be
binding upon, Battat, and each of its successors and/or assigns, until
the obligations described in paragraph 29 has been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Commission.
36. The Commission issues the final Order under the provisions of
the CPSA, and a violation of the final Order may subject Battat, and
each of its successors and/or assigns, to appropriate legal action.
37. The Agreement may be used in interpreting the final Order.
Understandings, agreements, representations, or interpretations apart
from those contained in the Agreement and the Order may not be used to
vary or contradict the terms or the Agreement and the final Order. The
Agreement shall not be waived, amended, modified, or otherwise altered
without written agreement thereto, executed by the party against whom
such waiver, amendment, modification, or alteration is sought to be
enforced.
38. If any provision of the Agreement or the final Order is held to
be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws
effective during the terms of the Agreement and the final Order, such
provision shall be fully severable. The balance of the Agreement and
the final Order shall remain in full force and effect, unless the
Commission and Battat agree that severing the provision materially
affects the purpose of the Agreement and final Order.
39. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts.
Battat Incorporated
Dated: June 27, 2012.
By:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Battat.
Dated June 27, 2012
By:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony T. Pavel, Jr.,
Counsel to Battat Incorporated, K&L Gates LLP, 1601 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20006-1600.
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION STAFF
Cheryl A. Falvey,
General Counsel.
Mary B. Murphy,
Assistant General Counsel
Dated: July 12, 2012.
By:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah C. Wang,
Trial Attorney, Division of Compliance, Office of the General Counsel.
Order
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between
Battat, Incorporated (``Battat''), and U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (``Commission'') staff, and the Commission having
jurisdiction over the subject matter and over Battat, and it appearing
that the Settlement Agreement and the Order are in the public interest,
it is ordered that the Settlement Agreement be, and is, hereby,
accepted; and it is further ordered, that Battat shall pay a civil
penalty in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000.00)
within 12 months of service of the Commission's Order upon counsel for
Battat, identified in the Settlement Agreement. The payments shall be
made electronically to the CPSC via www.pay.gov in equal quarterly
installments of $100,000.00 commencing within 20 days of service upon
Battat of this final order. Upon the failure of Battat to make the
foregoing payments when due, interest on the unpaid amount shall accrue
and be paid by Battat at the federal legal rate of interest set forth
at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(a) and (b). If Battat fails to make such
payments, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, such conduct will
be considered a violation of this Agreement and Order.
Provisionally accepted and provisional Order issued on the 13th day
of July, 2012.
By Order of the Commission.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-17704 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P