Britax Child Safety, Inc.; Complaints, 8457-8459 [2018-03934]
Download as PDF
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Notices
removed that contain comments on the
merits of the ICR will be retained in the
public comment file and will be
considered as required under the
Administrative Procedure Act and other
applicable laws, and may be accessible
under the Freedom of Information Act.
A copy of the supporting statements
for the collection of information
discussed herein may be obtained by
visiting https://RegInfo.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jocelyn Partridge, Special Counsel,
Division of Clearing and Risk, (202)
418–5926, email: jpartridge@cftc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Financial Resource
Requirements for Derivatives Clearing
Organizations (OMB Control No. 3038–
0066). This is a request for an extension
of a currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: This collection of
information involves the financial
resource reporting requirements set
forth in section 39.11 of the
Commission’s regulations. Section
5b(c)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(‘‘CEA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) 2 sets forth certain
core principles with which a derivatives
clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’) must
comply in order to become registered
with the Commission and to maintain
such registration. One of these core
principles, core principle B, sets forth
the financial resource requirements
applicable to DCOs. Section 5b(c)(2)
also requires DCOs to comply with the
regulations promulgated by the
Commission pursuant to section 8a(5) of
the Act.3 Section 39.11 of the
Commission’s regulations, which
implements core principle B, includes
the financial resource reporting
requirements that are the subject of this
information collection. The information
collection is necessary for, and would
be used by, the Commission to evaluate
a DCO’s compliance with the financial
resource requirements for DCOs
prescribed in the CEA, including core
principle B, and the Commission’s
regulations.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
number. On December 5, 2017, the
Commission published in the Federal
Register notice of the proposed
extension of this information collection
27
U.S.C. 7a–1(c)(2).
3 Section 8a(5) of the CEA authorizes the
Commission to promulgate such rules and
regulations as, in the judgement of the Commission,
are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the
provisions or to accomplish any of the purposes of
the CEA. 7 U.S.C. 12a(5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
and provided 60 days for public
comment on the proposed extension, 82
FR 57430, December 5, 2017 (‘‘60-Day
Notice’’). The Commission did not
receive any comments. Accordingly, it
has not altered the burden estimates set
forth in the 60-Day Notice.
Burden Statement
As noted above, this information
collection renewal involves the
financial reporting requirement
contained in section 39.11 of the
Commission’s regulations. Specifically,
it involves the requirements that a DCO
that is registered with the Commission
report certain information regarding the
DCO’s financial resources, the value
thereof, and the basis for these
calculations that is necessary to assess
the DCO’s compliance with the financial
resources requirements of the CEA and
Commission regulations. The
Commission has revised its estimate of
the total annual burden hours for this
collection to account for an increase in
the number of respondents (from 14 to
17), but has maintained the original
burden hour estimate of 10 hours per
quarterly report as the reporting
requirements have remain unchanged.
The respondent burden for this
information collection is estimated to be
as follows:
• Estimated Annual Number of
Respondents: 17.
• Estimated Annual Number of
Reports per Respondent: 4.
• Estimated Total Annual Number of
Responses: 68.
• Estimated Average Number of
Hours per Response: 10.
• Estimated Average Annual Burden
Hours per Respondent: 40.
• Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 680 hours.
• Frequency of collection: Quarterly
and on occasion.
• Type of Respondents: derivatives
clearing organizations.
There are no capital or start-up costs
associated with this information
collection, nor are there any operating
or maintenance costs associated with
this information collection.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Dated: February 22, 2018.
Robert N. Sidman,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–03950 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8457
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 18–1]
Britax Child Safety, Inc.; Complaints
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Publication of a Complaint
under the Consumer Product Safety Act.
AGENCY:
Under provisions of its Rules
of Practice for Adjudicative Proceeding,
the Consumer Product Safety
Commission must publish in the
Federal Register Complaints which it
issues. Published below is a Complaint:
In the matter of Britax Child Safety,
Inc.1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of
the Complaint appears below.
SUMMARY:
Dated: February 22, 2018.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
United States of America
Consumer Product Safety Commission
In the Matter of: Britax Child Safety, Inc.
Respondent.
CPSC Docket No.: 18–1
COMPLAINT
Nature of the Proceedings
1. This is an administrative enforcement
proceeding pursuant to Section 15 of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’), as
amended, 15 U.S.C. § 2064, for public
notification and remedial action to protect
the public from the substantial risks of injury
presented by various models of single and
double occupant B.O.B. jogging strollers
designed with a dropout fork assembly and
quick release mechanism (‘‘Strollers’’), which
were imported and distributed by B.O.B.
Trailers, Inc. (‘‘B.O.B.’’) and Britax Child
Safety, Inc. (‘‘Respondent’’).
2. This proceeding is governed by the
Rules of Practice for Adjudicative
Proceedings before the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’), 16
C.F.R. Part 1025.
Jurisdiction
3. This proceeding is instituted pursuant to
the authority contained in Sections 15(c), (d),
and (f) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(c), (d),
and (f).
Parties
4. Complaint Counsel is the staff of the
Division of Compliance within the Office of
the General Counsel of the Commission
(‘‘Complaint Counsel’’). The Commission is
an independent federal regulatory agency
1 The Commission voted 3–1 to authorize
issuance of this Complaint. Commissioners Robert
S. Adler, Marietta S. Robinson, and Elliot F. Kaye
voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint.
Acting Chairman Buerkle voted to not authorize
issuance of the Complaint.
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
8458
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Notices
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
established pursuant to Section 4 of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2053.
5. Respondent is a South Carolina
corporation with its principal place of
business located at 4140 Pleasant Road, Fort
Mill, South Carolina 29708.
6. Upon information and belief,
Respondent acquired B.O.B. in October 2011.
Prior to its acquisition by Respondent, B.O.B.
was a ‘‘manufacturer’’ and ‘‘distributor’’ of a
‘‘consumer product’’ that is ‘‘distribute[d] in
commerce,’’ as those terms are defined in
Sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5), (7), (8), and
(11).
7. B.O.B. was merged into Respondent in
or around December 2011. Respondent
assumed all assets and liabilities of B.O.B.
and is the successor to B.O.B.
8. As successor to B.O.B., Respondent is
responsible for any remedial action or other
relief ordered by the Commission in this
matter related to Strollers imported or
distributed by B.O.B. or Respondent.
9. As an importer and distributor of the
Strollers, Respondent is a ‘‘manufacturer’’
and ‘‘distributor’’ of a ‘‘consumer product’’
that is ‘‘distribute[d] in commerce,’’ as those
terms are defined in Sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8),
and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5),
(7), (8), and (11).
The Consumer Product
10. The Strollers are various models of
single and double occupant 3-wheeled B.O.B.
jogging strollers designed with a dropout fork
assembly and quick release (‘‘QR’’)
mechanism.
11. Upon information and belief, the
Strollers include the following models:
Revolution, Sport Utility Stroller, Ironman,
SUS Duallie, Ironman Duallie, Revolution
SE, Revolution CE, Stroller Strides,
Revolution SE Duallie, Stroller Strides
Duallie, Revolution Pro, Revolution Pro
Duallie, Revolution Flex, Revolution SE Plus,
Revolution Flex Duallie, Revolution SE
Duallie Plus, and Revolution SE Demo.
12. The Strollers are consumer products
that were imported and distributed in U.S.
commerce and offered for sale to consumers
for their personal use in or around a
permanent or temporary household or
residence, a school, in recreation, or
otherwise.
13. Upon information and belief, the
Strollers were manufactured by Fran Wheel
Enterprise, Co., LTD in Shen Zhen City,
Guang Dong, China.
14. Upon information and belief, B.O.B.
designed the Strollers and imported and
distributed an undetermined number of
Strollers in U.S. commerce between 1997 and
December 2011.
15. Upon information and belief, following
B.O.B.’s merger into Respondent in or about
December 2011, Respondent imported or
distributed approximately 493,000 of the
Strollers in U.S. commerce.
16. Upon information and belief,
Respondent ceased importation of the
Strollers in or about September 2015.
17. Upon information and belief, the
Strollers were sold at mass retailers and
independent stores nationwide for $400 to
$650.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
18. Upon information and belief, the
Strollers are available for sale in second-hand
markets.
19. Upon information and belief, the
Strollers are designed with a dropout fork
assembly that enables consumers to quickly
detach and remove the wheel by engaging the
QR lever. The QR lever is a device that
supplies the clamping force required to hold
the Stroller wheel securely in place.
20. Upon information and belief, the QR
consists of two end nuts and springs on a
skewer that is threaded through the center of
the front wheel. An adjustment lever is
attached to the end of the skewer.
21. Upon information and belief, the QR
connects the front wheel to the front fork of
the Stroller. The front fork consists of
dropouts where the wheel is inserted and
additional ridges that protrude from the fork
ends to function as a secondary retention
device.
22. A consumer who is assembling the
Stroller for first use or who has detached the
front wheel after using the Stroller must
attach the front wheel and engage the QR
correctly.
23. Upon information and belief, the same
dropout assembly design is present on all
Stroller models imported by B.O.B. and
Respondent from 1997 through September
2015.
The Defect Present in the Strollers
24. The design of the Strollers allows a
consumer to operate the Stroller without the
front wheel being secured correctly.
25. The Strollers are defective because the
QR can fail to secure the front wheel to the
fork, allowing the front wheel to detach
suddenly during use.
26. The design of the Strollers allows
consumers to attach the front wheel and
engage the QR in a manner that indicates that
the wheel is secured to the fork, when it is
not.
27. If the QR is not engaged correctly, the
front wheel can separate from the front fork
of the Stroller during use, leading to sudden
detachment.
28. Visual inspection does not enable
consumers to determine whether the QR is
engaged correctly and the front wheel is
secured.
29. A consumer can believe that the QR is
engaged correctly and will only discover the
failure when the wheel detaches from the
front fork while the Stroller is in use and the
Stroller stops suddenly and unexpectedly.
30. When the front wheel of the Stroller
detaches suddenly during use, the fork can
plant or dig into the ground, causing the
Stroller to come to an abrupt stop and tip
over.
31. When the front wheel of the Stroller
detaches suddenly, child occupants and
adults who are operating the Strollers may
suffer serious injuries.
32. In numerous instances, the instructions
accompanying the Strollers do not mitigate
this risk.
33. Upon information and belief, the
instructions accompanying the Strollers
include but are not limited to the following
statement: ‘‘[t]he front wheel is correctly
clamped in place by the force generated
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
when the quick release lever is closed and
the cam action pulls the lever housing
against one dropout, and pulls the adjusting
nut against the other dropout, clamping the
hub between the dropouts.’’
34. Upon information and belief, although
Strollers sold after approximately June 2013
included a removable hang tag that addressed
the hazard of an incorrectly adjusted QR, that
warning is not available to consumers
following first use.
35. Consumers may not read, may fail to
follow, or may misunderstand the
instructions on how to tighten the QR and
secure the front wheel.
36. Despite following the instructions,
consumers may nevertheless fail to correctly
engage the QR lever.
The Substantial Risk of Injury Posed by the
Strollers
37. Upon information and belief,
consumers have sustained injuries, some of
which required medical treatment and
surgery, when the QR failed to secure the
front wheel of the Stroller, causing it to
detach suddenly during use.
38. Upon information and belief, children
have been injured when the QR failed to
secure the front wheel of the Stroller, causing
it to detach suddenly during use, and have
sustained injuries including a concussion,
injuries to the head and face requiring
stitches, dental injuries, contusions, and
abrasions.
39. Upon information and belief, adults
have been injured when the QR failed to
secure the front wheel of the Stroller, causing
it to detach suddenly during use, and have
sustained injuries including a torn labrum,
fractured bones and torn ligaments,
contusions, and abrasions.
40. Upon information and belief, children
and adults were injured because the defective
design of the Strollers allowed the front
wheel to detach suddenly while the Stroller
was in use.
41. The defect present in the Strollers
creates a substantial risk of injury to adults
and children when the QR fails to secure the
front wheel to the fork, allowing the front
wheel to detach suddenly during use.
42. The design defect presents a substantial
risk of injury, because injuries, including
serious injuries as defined in 16 C.F.R.
§ 1115.6(c), are likely to occur and have
occurred when the front wheel detaches.
Legal Authority Under the CPSA
43. Under the CPSA, the Commission may
order a firm to provide notice to the public
and take remedial action if the Commission
determines that a product ‘‘presents a
substantial product hazard.’’ 15 U.S.C.
§ 2064(c) and (d).
44. Under CPSA Section 15(a)(2), a
‘‘substantial product hazard’’ is ‘‘a product
defect which (because of the pattern of
defect, the number of defective products
distributed in commerce, the severity of the
risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk
of injury to the public.’’ 15 U.S.C.
§ 2064(a)(2).
45. A product may contain a design defect
even if it is manufactured exactly in
accordance with its design and specifications
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 2018 / Notices
if the design presents a risk of injury to the
public. 16 C.F.R. § 1115.4.
46. A design defect may also be present if
a risk of injury occurs as a result of the
operation or use of the product, or the failure
of the product to operate as intended. 16
C.F.R. § 1115.4.
Count I
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
The Strollers Are a Substantial Product
Hazard Under Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA,
15 U.S.C. § 2064(a)(2), Because They Contain
a Product Defect That Creates a Substantial
Risk of Injury to the Public
47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are hereby
realleged and incorporated by reference as if
fully set forth herein.
48. The Strollers are a consumer product.
49. The Respondent and B.O.B. imported
and distributed Strollers which contain a
product defect because the QR can fail to
secure the front wheel to the fork, allowing
the front wheel to detach suddenly during
use.
50. The defect creates a substantial risk of
injury to the public because of the pattern of
defect, the number of defective products
distributed in commerce, the severity of the
risk, or otherwise.
51. Therefore, because the Strollers are
defective and create a substantial risk of
injury, the Strollers present a substantial
product hazard within the meaning of
Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
§ 2064(a)(2).
Relief Sought
Wherefore, in the public interest,
Complaint Counsel requests that the
Commission:
A. Determine that the Strollers present a
‘‘substantial product hazard’’ within the
meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. § 2064(a)(2).
B. Determine that extensive and effective
public notification under Section 15(c) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(c), is required to
adequately protect the public from the
substantial product hazard presented by the
Strollers, and order Respondents under
Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
§ 2064(c), to:
(1) Cease distribution of the Strollers;
(2) Notify all persons that transport, store,
distribute, or otherwise handle the Strollers,
or to whom such Strollers have been
transported, sold, distributed or otherwise
handled, to immediately cease distribution of
the Strollers;
(3) Notify appropriate state and local
public health officials;
(4) Give prompt public notice of the defect
in the Strollers, including the incidents and
injuries associated with the use of the
Strollers, including posting clear and
conspicuous notice on Respondent’s website,
and providing notice to any third party
website on which Respondent has placed the
Strollers for sale, and provide further
announcements in languages other than
English and on radio and television;
(5) Mail notice to each distributor or
retailer of the Strollers; and
(6) Mail notice to every person to whom
the Strollers were delivered or sold.
C. Determine that action under Section
15(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(d), is in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:49 Feb 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
the public interest and additionally order
Respondent to:
(1) Repair the defect in the Strollers;
(2) Replace the Strollers with a like or
equivalent product which does not contain
the defect;
(3) Refund the purchase price of the
Stroller;
(4) Make no charge to consumers, and to
reimburse consumers, for any reasonable and
foreseeable expenses incurred in availing
themselves of any remedy provided under
any Commission Order issued in this matter,
as provided by Section 15(e)(1) of the CPSA,
15 U.S.C. § 2064(e)(1);
(5) Reimburse retailers for expenses in
connection with carrying out any
Commission Order issued in this matter,
including the costs of returns, refunds and/
or replacements, as provided by Section
15(e)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2064(e)(2);
(6) Submit a plan satisfactory to the
Commission, within ten (10) days of service
of the Final Order, directing that actions
specified in Paragraphs B(1) through (6), and
C(1) through (5) above be taken in a timely
manner;
(7) To submit monthly reports, in a format
satisfactory to the Commission, documenting
the progress of the corrective action program;
(8) For a period of five (5) years after
issuance of the Final Order in this matter, to
keep records of its actions taken to comply
with Paragraphs B(1) through (6), C(1)
through (5), above, and supply these records
to the Commission for the purpose of
monitoring compliance with the Final Order;
and
(9) For a period of five (5) years after
issuance of the Final Order in this matter, to
notify the Commission at least sixty (60) days
prior to any change in its business (such as
incorporation, dissolution, assignment, sale,
or petition for bankruptcy) that results in, or
is intended to result in, the emergence of a
successor corporation, going out of business,
or any other change that might affect
compliance obligations under a Final Order
issued by the Commission in this matter.
D. Order that Respondent shall take other
and further actions as the Commission deems
necessary to protect the public health and
safety and to comply with the CPSA.
ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:
8459
Summary of Documentary Evidence upon all
parties of record in these proceedings by
mailing, certified mail and Federal Express,
postage prepaid, a copy to each at their
principal place of business, and e-mailing a
courtesy copy to counsel, as follows:
Britax Child Safety, Inc.
4140 Pleasant Road
Fort Mill, SC 29708
Erika Z. Jones
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
ejones@mayerbrown.com
lllllllllllllllllllll
Mary B. Murphy, Complaint Counsel for U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–03934 Filed 2–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
[Docket ID: USA–2018–HQ–0003]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Department of Army, DoD.
Information collection notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army
announces a proposed public
information collection and seeks public
comment on the provisions thereof.
Comments are invited on: Whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the information collection on
respondents, including through the use
Dated this 16th day of February, 2018
of automated collection techniques or
lllllllllllllllllllll
other forms of information technology.
By: Robert Kaye,
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
Assistant Executive Director.
comments received by April 30, 2018.
Office of Compliance and Field Investigation
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
(301) 504–6960.
identified by docket number and title,
Mary B. Murphy,
by any of the following methods:
Assistant General Counsel.
Philip Z. Brown,
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
Trial Attorney.
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Gregory M. Reyes,
instructions for submitting comments.
Trial Attorney, Complaint Counsel.
• Mail: Department of Defense, Office
Office of General Counsel, Division of
of Chief Management Officer,
Compliance, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Directorate for Oversight and
Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814, Tel: (301)
Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
504–7809.
Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
VA 22350–1700.
Instructions: All submissions received
I hereby certify that on February 16, 2018,
I served the foregoing Complaint and List and must include the agency name, docket
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8457-8459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03934]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 18-1]
Britax Child Safety, Inc.; Complaints
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Publication of a Complaint under the Consumer Product Safety
Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under provisions of its Rules of Practice for Adjudicative
Proceeding, the Consumer Product Safety Commission must publish in the
Federal Register Complaints which it issues. Published below is a
Complaint: In the matter of Britax Child Safety, Inc.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission voted 3-1 to authorize issuance of this
Complaint. Commissioners Robert S. Adler, Marietta S. Robinson, and
Elliot F. Kaye voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint. Acting
Chairman Buerkle voted to not authorize issuance of the Complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Complaint appears below.
Dated: February 22, 2018.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
United States of America
Consumer Product Safety Commission
In the Matter of: Britax Child Safety, Inc. Respondent.
CPSC Docket No.: 18-1
COMPLAINT
Nature of the Proceedings
1. This is an administrative enforcement proceeding pursuant to
Section 15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''), as
amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064, for public notification and remedial
action to protect the public from the substantial risks of injury
presented by various models of single and double occupant B.O.B.
jogging strollers designed with a dropout fork assembly and quick
release mechanism (``Strollers''), which were imported and
distributed by B.O.B. Trailers, Inc. (``B.O.B.'') and Britax Child
Safety, Inc. (``Respondent'').
2. This proceeding is governed by the Rules of Practice for
Adjudicative Proceedings before the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (the ``Commission''), 16 C.F.R. Part 1025.
Jurisdiction
3. This proceeding is instituted pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 15(c), (d), and (f) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 2064(c), (d), and (f).
Parties
4. Complaint Counsel is the staff of the Division of Compliance
within the Office of the General Counsel of the Commission
(``Complaint Counsel''). The Commission is an independent federal
regulatory agency
[[Page 8458]]
established pursuant to Section 4 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2053.
5. Respondent is a South Carolina corporation with its principal
place of business located at 4140 Pleasant Road, Fort Mill, South
Carolina 29708.
6. Upon information and belief, Respondent acquired B.O.B. in
October 2011. Prior to its acquisition by Respondent, B.O.B. was a
``manufacturer'' and ``distributor'' of a ``consumer product'' that
is ``distribute[d] in commerce,'' as those terms are defined in
Sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2052(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11).
7. B.O.B. was merged into Respondent in or around December 2011.
Respondent assumed all assets and liabilities of B.O.B. and is the
successor to B.O.B.
8. As successor to B.O.B., Respondent is responsible for any
remedial action or other relief ordered by the Commission in this
matter related to Strollers imported or distributed by B.O.B. or
Respondent.
9. As an importer and distributor of the Strollers, Respondent
is a ``manufacturer'' and ``distributor'' of a ``consumer product''
that is ``distribute[d] in commerce,'' as those terms are defined in
Sections 3(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2052(a)(5), (7), (8), and (11).
The Consumer Product
10. The Strollers are various models of single and double
occupant 3-wheeled B.O.B. jogging strollers designed with a dropout
fork assembly and quick release (``QR'') mechanism.
11. Upon information and belief, the Strollers include the
following models: Revolution, Sport Utility Stroller, Ironman, SUS
Duallie, Ironman Duallie, Revolution SE, Revolution CE, Stroller
Strides, Revolution SE Duallie, Stroller Strides Duallie, Revolution
Pro, Revolution Pro Duallie, Revolution Flex, Revolution SE Plus,
Revolution Flex Duallie, Revolution SE Duallie Plus, and Revolution
SE Demo.
12. The Strollers are consumer products that were imported and
distributed in U.S. commerce and offered for sale to consumers for
their personal use in or around a permanent or temporary household
or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise.
13. Upon information and belief, the Strollers were manufactured
by Fran Wheel Enterprise, Co., LTD in Shen Zhen City, Guang Dong,
China.
14. Upon information and belief, B.O.B. designed the Strollers
and imported and distributed an undetermined number of Strollers in
U.S. commerce between 1997 and December 2011.
15. Upon information and belief, following B.O.B.'s merger into
Respondent in or about December 2011, Respondent imported or
distributed approximately 493,000 of the Strollers in U.S. commerce.
16. Upon information and belief, Respondent ceased importation
of the Strollers in or about September 2015.
17. Upon information and belief, the Strollers were sold at mass
retailers and independent stores nationwide for $400 to $650.
18. Upon information and belief, the Strollers are available for
sale in second-hand markets.
19. Upon information and belief, the Strollers are designed with
a dropout fork assembly that enables consumers to quickly detach and
remove the wheel by engaging the QR lever. The QR lever is a device
that supplies the clamping force required to hold the Stroller wheel
securely in place.
20. Upon information and belief, the QR consists of two end nuts
and springs on a skewer that is threaded through the center of the
front wheel. An adjustment lever is attached to the end of the
skewer.
21. Upon information and belief, the QR connects the front wheel
to the front fork of the Stroller. The front fork consists of
dropouts where the wheel is inserted and additional ridges that
protrude from the fork ends to function as a secondary retention
device.
22. A consumer who is assembling the Stroller for first use or
who has detached the front wheel after using the Stroller must
attach the front wheel and engage the QR correctly.
23. Upon information and belief, the same dropout assembly
design is present on all Stroller models imported by B.O.B. and
Respondent from 1997 through September 2015.
The Defect Present in the Strollers
24. The design of the Strollers allows a consumer to operate the
Stroller without the front wheel being secured correctly.
25. The Strollers are defective because the QR can fail to
secure the front wheel to the fork, allowing the front wheel to
detach suddenly during use.
26. The design of the Strollers allows consumers to attach the
front wheel and engage the QR in a manner that indicates that the
wheel is secured to the fork, when it is not.
27. If the QR is not engaged correctly, the front wheel can
separate from the front fork of the Stroller during use, leading to
sudden detachment.
28. Visual inspection does not enable consumers to determine
whether the QR is engaged correctly and the front wheel is secured.
29. A consumer can believe that the QR is engaged correctly and
will only discover the failure when the wheel detaches from the
front fork while the Stroller is in use and the Stroller stops
suddenly and unexpectedly.
30. When the front wheel of the Stroller detaches suddenly
during use, the fork can plant or dig into the ground, causing the
Stroller to come to an abrupt stop and tip over.
31. When the front wheel of the Stroller detaches suddenly,
child occupants and adults who are operating the Strollers may
suffer serious injuries.
32. In numerous instances, the instructions accompanying the
Strollers do not mitigate this risk.
33. Upon information and belief, the instructions accompanying
the Strollers include but are not limited to the following
statement: ``[t]he front wheel is correctly clamped in place by the
force generated when the quick release lever is closed and the cam
action pulls the lever housing against one dropout, and pulls the
adjusting nut against the other dropout, clamping the hub between
the dropouts.''
34. Upon information and belief, although Strollers sold after
approximately June 2013 included a removable hang tag that addressed
the hazard of an incorrectly adjusted QR, that warning is not
available to consumers following first use.
35. Consumers may not read, may fail to follow, or may
misunderstand the instructions on how to tighten the QR and secure
the front wheel.
36. Despite following the instructions, consumers may
nevertheless fail to correctly engage the QR lever.
The Substantial Risk of Injury Posed by the Strollers
37. Upon information and belief, consumers have sustained
injuries, some of which required medical treatment and surgery, when
the QR failed to secure the front wheel of the Stroller, causing it
to detach suddenly during use.
38. Upon information and belief, children have been injured when
the QR failed to secure the front wheel of the Stroller, causing it
to detach suddenly during use, and have sustained injuries including
a concussion, injuries to the head and face requiring stitches,
dental injuries, contusions, and abrasions.
39. Upon information and belief, adults have been injured when
the QR failed to secure the front wheel of the Stroller, causing it
to detach suddenly during use, and have sustained injuries including
a torn labrum, fractured bones and torn ligaments, contusions, and
abrasions.
40. Upon information and belief, children and adults were
injured because the defective design of the Strollers allowed the
front wheel to detach suddenly while the Stroller was in use.
41. The defect present in the Strollers creates a substantial
risk of injury to adults and children when the QR fails to secure
the front wheel to the fork, allowing the front wheel to detach
suddenly during use.
42. The design defect presents a substantial risk of injury,
because injuries, including serious injuries as defined in 16 C.F.R.
Sec. 1115.6(c), are likely to occur and have occurred when the
front wheel detaches.
Legal Authority Under the CPSA
43. Under the CPSA, the Commission may order a firm to provide
notice to the public and take remedial action if the Commission
determines that a product ``presents a substantial product hazard.''
15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(c) and (d).
44. Under CPSA Section 15(a)(2), a ``substantial product
hazard'' is ``a product defect which (because of the pattern of
defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce,
the severity of the risk, or otherwise) creates a substantial risk
of injury to the public.'' 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(a)(2).
45. A product may contain a design defect even if it is
manufactured exactly in accordance with its design and
specifications
[[Page 8459]]
if the design presents a risk of injury to the public. 16 C.F.R.
Sec. 1115.4.
46. A design defect may also be present if a risk of injury
occurs as a result of the operation or use of the product, or the
failure of the product to operate as intended. 16 C.F.R. Sec.
1115.4.
Count I
The Strollers Are a Substantial Product Hazard Under Section 15(a)(2)
of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(a)(2), Because They Contain a Product
Defect That Creates a Substantial Risk of Injury to the Public
47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are hereby realleged and
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
48. The Strollers are a consumer product.
49. The Respondent and B.O.B. imported and distributed Strollers
which contain a product defect because the QR can fail to secure the
front wheel to the fork, allowing the front wheel to detach suddenly
during use.
50. The defect creates a substantial risk of injury to the
public because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective
products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or
otherwise.
51. Therefore, because the Strollers are defective and create a
substantial risk of injury, the Strollers present a substantial
product hazard within the meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(a)(2).
Relief Sought
Wherefore, in the public interest, Complaint Counsel requests
that the Commission:
A. Determine that the Strollers present a ``substantial product
hazard'' within the meaning of Section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2064(a)(2).
B. Determine that extensive and effective public notification
under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(c), is
required to adequately protect the public from the substantial
product hazard presented by the Strollers, and order Respondents
under Section 15(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(c), to:
(1) Cease distribution of the Strollers;
(2) Notify all persons that transport, store, distribute, or
otherwise handle the Strollers, or to whom such Strollers have been
transported, sold, distributed or otherwise handled, to immediately
cease distribution of the Strollers;
(3) Notify appropriate state and local public health officials;
(4) Give prompt public notice of the defect in the Strollers,
including the incidents and injuries associated with the use of the
Strollers, including posting clear and conspicuous notice on
Respondent's website, and providing notice to any third party
website on which Respondent has placed the Strollers for sale, and
provide further announcements in languages other than English and on
radio and television;
(5) Mail notice to each distributor or retailer of the
Strollers; and
(6) Mail notice to every person to whom the Strollers were
delivered or sold.
C. Determine that action under Section 15(d) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2064(d), is in the public interest and additionally
order Respondent to:
(1) Repair the defect in the Strollers;
(2) Replace the Strollers with a like or equivalent product
which does not contain the defect;
(3) Refund the purchase price of the Stroller;
(4) Make no charge to consumers, and to reimburse consumers, for
any reasonable and foreseeable expenses incurred in availing
themselves of any remedy provided under any Commission Order issued
in this matter, as provided by Section 15(e)(1) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2064(e)(1);
(5) Reimburse retailers for expenses in connection with carrying
out any Commission Order issued in this matter, including the costs
of returns, refunds and/or replacements, as provided by Section
15(e)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2064(e)(2);
(6) Submit a plan satisfactory to the Commission, within ten
(10) days of service of the Final Order, directing that actions
specified in Paragraphs B(1) through (6), and C(1) through (5) above
be taken in a timely manner;
(7) To submit monthly reports, in a format satisfactory to the
Commission, documenting the progress of the corrective action
program;
(8) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final
Order in this matter, to keep records of its actions taken to comply
with Paragraphs B(1) through (6), C(1) through (5), above, and
supply these records to the Commission for the purpose of monitoring
compliance with the Final Order; and
(9) For a period of five (5) years after issuance of the Final
Order in this matter, to notify the Commission at least sixty (60)
days prior to any change in its business (such as incorporation,
dissolution, assignment, sale, or petition for bankruptcy) that
results in, or is intended to result in, the emergence of a
successor corporation, going out of business, or any other change
that might affect compliance obligations under a Final Order issued
by the Commission in this matter.
D. Order that Respondent shall take other and further actions as
the Commission deems necessary to protect the public health and
safety and to comply with the CPSA.
ISSUED BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION:
Dated this 16th day of February, 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Robert Kaye,
Assistant Executive Director.
Office of Compliance and Field Investigation (301) 504-6960.
Mary B. Murphy,
Assistant General Counsel.
Philip Z. Brown,
Trial Attorney.
Gregory M. Reyes,
Trial Attorney, Complaint Counsel.
Office of General Counsel, Division of Compliance, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814, Tel: (301) 504-7809.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 16, 2018, I served the
foregoing Complaint and List and Summary of Documentary Evidence
upon all parties of record in these proceedings by mailing,
certified mail and Federal Express, postage prepaid, a copy to each
at their principal place of business, and e-mailing a courtesy copy
to counsel, as follows:
Britax Child Safety, Inc.
4140 Pleasant Road
Fort Mill, SC 29708
Erika Z. Jones
Mayer Brown LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
[email protected]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary B. Murphy, Complaint Counsel for U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-03934 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P