[Federal Register: November 3, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64035-64039]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03no04-55]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[CPSC Docket No. 05-C0003]
Dynacraft BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, Formally Known
as Dynacraft Industries, Inc., 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.
Published below is a provisionally-accepted Settlement Agreement with
Dynacraft BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, formally known as
Dynacraft Industries, Inc., containing a civil penalty of $1,400,000.
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 November 18, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to comment on this Settlement Agreement
should send written comments to the Comment 05-C0003, Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis C. Kacoyanis, Trial Attorney,
Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,
DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7587.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Agreement and Order appears
below.
Dated: October 28, 2004.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
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 Dynacraft BSC, Inc., formally known as Dynacraft
Industries, Inc. (``Dynacraft'' or ``Respondent''), 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 Settlement Agreement and the incorporated
attached Order settle the staff's allegations set forth below.
I. 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 et seq.
3. Dynacraft is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal corporate
offices located at 2550 Kerner Boulevard, San Rafael, CA 94901.
Dynacraft imports bicycle products from China for sale in the United
States.
II. Allegations of the Staff
A. Vertical XL2 Mountain Bicycle
4. In July 1999, Respondent manufactured for nationwide
distribution 3,562 Vertical XL2, 26'' Mountain Bicycles, Model Number
8526-26. Respondent also manufactured
[[Page 64036]]
the JY906 bicycle fork (``fork'') and incorporated it into these
bicycles.
5. The bicycles described in paragraph 4 above are sold and/or are
used by consumers in or around a permanent or temporary household or
residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise and are therefore,
``consumer products'' as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Respondent was a
``manufacturer'' of the bicycles described in paragraph 4, which were
``distributed in commerce'' as those terms are defined in sections
3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and
(12).
6. Some of the front suspension forks for these bicycles had
defective welds that allegedly broke apart during normal and
foreseeable use of the bicycles. The flaws in these forks are
``defects'' under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064.
7. If the fork breaks during use, it may cause the rider to lose
control, fall and suffer serious injuries such as facial abrasions,
concussions, other head injuries, chipped or lost teeth, broken bones,
and lacerations requiring sutures. Death is also possible.
8. On or about February 29, 2000, Respondent announced the recall
of 19,000 Vertical XL2 Bicycles, Model No. 8526-26 with a manufacturing
date of October 11, 1999. At the time, the firm was aware of at least
two failures of the bicycles with a manufacturing date of July 1999,
but did not provide that information to the Commission staff. In the
staff's letter of February 14, 2000 accepting Respondent's corrective
action plan, the staff said, ``If the firm [Respondent] receives or
learns of any information concerning other incidents or injuries, or
information affecting the scope, prevalence or seriousness of the
reported problem, it must report to [the Office of Compliance]
immediately.''
9. Between January 2000 and July 2000, Respondent received five
incident reports involving Vertical XL2, Model 8526-26 bicycles' forks
allegedly breaking part during normal and foreseeable use of the
bicycles, causing riders to lose control and fall to the ground. These
bicycles had a manufacturing date of July 1999. Dynacraft knew about
injuries including broken and lost teeth, fractures, and lacerations
requiring sutures. Dynacraft did not report this pattern of defect to
the Commission until on or about July 26, 2000.
10. Before July 26, 2000, Dynacraft had obtained information which
reasonably supported the conclusion that the bicycles' forks described
in paragraph 4 above contained a defect which could create a
substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious
injury or death, but failed to report such information in a timely
manner to the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and (3) of
the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) and (c).
11. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a
timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b), Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
12. Dynacraft committed this failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting
Dynacraft to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2069.
B. Magna Electroshock Mountain Bicycle
13. Between July 1999 and October 1999, Respondent manufactured for
nationwide distribution 21,888 Magna Electroshock 24'' and 26''
Mountain Bicycles, Model Numbers 8504-90, 8504-96, 8548-78, and 8548-
94. Respondent also manufactured the JY906 fork (``fork'') and
incorporated it into these bicycles.
14. The bicycles described in paragraph 13 above were sold to and/
or are used by consumers in or around a permanent or temporary
household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise and are,
therefore, ``consumer products'' as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Respondent
was a ``manufacturer'' of the bicycles described in paragraph 13, which
were ``distributed in commerce'' as those terms are defined in sections
3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and
(12).
15. Some of the bicycles manufactured from July 1999 through
October 1999 had forks that were allegedly not properly welded and
could break apart during normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the
bicycles. These flaws in the forks constituted ``defects'' within the
meaning of section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064.
16. If the fork breaks during use, it could cause the rider to lose
control, fall and suffer injuries such as facial abrasions,
concussions, other head injuries, broken or lost teeth, broken bones,
and lacerations requiring sutures. Death is also possible.
17. Between January 8, 2000 and August 4, 2000, the date of
Dynacraft's report to the Commission, Dynacraft had received 35 reports
alleging that the Magna Electroshock, Model Nos. 8504-90, 8504-96,
8548-78, and 8548-94 bicycles' forks had broken apart during normal and
foreseeable use of the bicycles, causing riders to lose control and
fall to the ground. The manufacturing dates of the bicycles ranged from
July 1999 to October 1999. Respondent had learned of several injuries
in these incidents including concussions, fractures, abrasions, back
strain, and chipped and lost teeth.
18. In each of the instances described in paragraphs 13 through 17
above, Dynacraft obtained information which reasonably supported the
conclusion that the bicycles' forks described above contained a defect
which would create a substantial product hazard or created an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, but failed to report such
information in a timely manner to the Commission as required by
sections 15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) and (c).
19. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a
timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b), Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
20. Dynacraft committed this failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting
Dynacraft to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2069.
C. Next Shockzone Mountain Bicycle
21. From September 1999 through March 2001, Dynacraft manufactured
for nationwide distribution about 38,000 Next Shockzone 20'' Boys'
Mountain Bicycles, Model Number 8536-33. The bicycle's color was
orange. Respondent also manufactured the JY906 fork (``fork'') and
incorporated it into these bicycles.
22. The bicycles described in paragraph 21 above were sold to and/
or are used by consumers in or around a permanent or temporary
household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, and are,
therefore, ``consumer products'' as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Respondent
was a ``manufacturer'' of the bicycles described in paragraph 21, which
were ``distributed in commerce'' as those terms are defined in sections
3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and
(12).
23. Some of the forks of these bicycles could break apart during
normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the bicycles. The flaws in the
forks constitute ``defects'' under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064.
[[Page 64037]]
24. If the fork breaks during use, it could cause a rider to lose
control, fall, and suffer serious injuries such as facial abrasions,
concussions, other head injuries, broken or lost teeth, broken bones,
and lacerations requiring sutures. Death is also possible.
25. Between March and September 2000--the time Dynacraft was
formulating its corrective action plan to expand its recall of the
Vertical XL2 bicycles and its Magna Electroshock bicycles--Dynacraft
learned of 19 incident reports alleging fork breakage during normal and
reasonably foreseeable use of its Next Shockzone Bicycle, Model No.
8536-33, causing riders to lose control and fall to the ground.
Dynacraft also learned about fractures, lacerations requiring sutures,
and broken or lost teeth.
26. Between September 2000 and March 16, 2001, the date Dynacraft
reported to the Commission, Dynacraft received an additional 12 reports
alleging fork breakage involving its Next Shockzone bicycle. By the
time Dynacraft reported to the Commission, Dynacraft had received at
least 31 incident reports alleging the Next Shockzone's, Model No.
8536-33 bicycles' forks breaking apart during normal and reasonably
foreseeable use of the bicycles, causing riders to lose control and
fall to the ground. Injuries alleged and known to Dynacraft included a
blood clot to the brain, fractures, lacerations requiring sutures, and
chipped teeth.
27. In each of the instances described in paragraphs 21 through 26
above, Dynacraft obtained information which reasonably supported the
conclusion that the bicycles' forks contained a defect which could
create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of
serious injury or death, but failed to report such information in a
timely manner to the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and
(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) and (c).
28. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a
timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b), Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
29. Dynacraft committed this failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting
Dynacraft to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2069.
D. Next Ultra Shock Mountain Bicycle
30. Between September 1999 and March 2001, Respondent manufactured
for nationwide distribution about 132,000 Next Ultra Shock Mountain
Bicycles. Respondent also manufactured the Ballistic 105 bicycle fork
(``fork'') and incorporated it into these bicycles.
31. The bicycles described in paragraph 30 were sold to and/or are
used by consumers in or around a permanent or temporary household or
residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, and are, therefore,
``consumer products'' as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Respondent was a
``manufacturer'' of the bicycles described in paragraph 30, which were
``distributed in commerce'' as those terms are defined in sections
3(a)(4), (11), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and
(12).
32. Some of the forks of these bicycles could break apart during
normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the bicycles. The flaws in the
forks constitute ``defects'' under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064.
33. If the fork breaks during use, it could cause a rider to lose
control, fall and suffer serious injuries such as facial abrasions,
concussions, other head injuries, damaged teeth, broken bones, and
lacerations requiring sutures. Death was also possible.
34. Between November 1999 and November 2001, Respondent received 21
incident reports alleging the Next Ultra Shock bicycles' forks breaking
apart during normal and foreseeable use of the bicycles, causing riders
to lose control and fall to the ground. Injuries known to Dynacraft
included abrasions, concussions, and chipped teeth.
35. Dynacraft did not report to the Commission until March 18, 2002
about the defect and incidents regarding the Next Ultra Shock bicycles'
forks. When it did report, it did not disclose that one of the
incidents allegedly had resulted in the death of the rider.
36. In each of the instances described in paragraphs 30 through 35
above, Dynacraft obtained information which reasonably supported the
conclusion that the bicycles' forks described in paragraph 30 above
contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or
created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, but failed to
report such information in a timely manner to the Commission as
required by sections 15(b)(2) and (3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2)
and (3).
37. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a
timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b), Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
38. Dynacraft committed this failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting
Dynacraft to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 IUS.C.
2069.
E. Magna Equator Mountain Bicycle
39. Between December 1999, and May 31, 2000, Dynacraft manufactured
for nationwide distribution about 54,000 Magna Equator Mountain
Bicycles, Model Nos. 8547-19 and 8546-84.
40. The bicycles described in paragraph 39 above are sold to and/or
are used by consumers in or around a permanent or temporary household
or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, and are,
therefore, ``consumer products'' as defined in section 3(a)(1) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). Respondent
was a ``manufacturer'' of the bicycles described in paragraph 39 above,
which were ``distributed in commerce'' as those terms are defined in
sections 3(a)(4), and (12) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(4), (11), and
(12).
41. Some of the pedals of the bicycles are defective because
improper drilling and tapping of the holes caused the pedals to loosen
and fall off, causing riders to lose control, fall to the ground, and
suffer serious injuries such as concussions, chest trauma, broken
bones, sprains, abrasions, lacerations requiring sutures, and muscle
strains. Thus, the flaws in the pedals constitute ``defects'' under
section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064.
42. Between December 1999 and June 2000, Dynacraft received about
six incident reports alleging the Magna Equator's bicycle pedals
falling off during normal and reasonably foreseeable use of the
bicycles, causing riders to lose control and fall to the ground.
Injuries known to Dynacraft include concussions, broken bones, sprains,
abrasions, lacerations requiring sutures, and muscle strains.
43. On or about June 13, 2000, a retailer of the bicycles faxed an
engineering report the retailer had commissioned to Dynacraft. The
engineering report concluded that premature loosening of the bicycle's
pedals was attributable to manufacturing defects in the pedal cranks
associated with those pedals. Dynacraft did not report to the
Commission at that time.
44. By the time Dynacraft reported to the Commission in April 2001,
Dynacraft had learned of at least 31 incident reports alleging the
bicycles' pedals falling off.
[[Page 64038]]
45. In each of the instances described in paragraph 39 through 44
above, Dynacraft obtained information which reasonably supported the
conclusion that the bicycles' pedals contained a defect which could
create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of
serious injury or death, but failed to report such information in a
timely manner to the Commission as required by sections 15(b)(2) and
(3) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b) and (3).
46. By failing to provide the information to the Commission in a
timely manner as required by section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2064(b), Dynacraft violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
47. Dynacraft committed this failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in
section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d), thus, subjecting
Dynacraft to civil penalties under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.
2069.
III. Dynacraft's Response
48. Dynacraft denies the staff's allegations of bicycle defects and
that it violated the CPSA as set forth in paragraphs 4 through 47
above.
49. Dynacraft asserts that it is the importer and distributor of
the bicycles and all incorporated parts referenced in the allegations
above.
50. Dynacraft denies the allegations of the Staff that the Vertical
XL2, Magna Electroshock, Next Shockzone, Next Ultra Shock, and Magna
Equator bicycles contain or contained a defect or defects which could
create a substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of
serious injury or death.
51. Dynacraft denies that it obtained information that reasonably
supported the conclusion that its bicycles identified above might have
contained a defect or defects which could create a substantial product
hazard or creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or
that Dynacraft failed to report in a timely manner in violation of the
reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the CPSA. Dynacraft further
denies that it violated section 19(a) of the CPSA in relation to the
bicycles mentioned above and that its failure to timely report to the
Commission ``knowingly'' subjected it to civil penalties under section
20 of the CPSA.
52. Dynacraft denies the casual link alleged in paragraph 35
between a rider's death and the Next Ultra Shock or any other Dynacraft
product.
53. Dynacraft enters this Settlement Agreement and Order for
settlement purposes only, to avoid incurring additional legal costs and
expenses. In settling this matter, Dynacraft does not admit any fault,
liability, or statutory or regulatory violation, and this Agreement and
Order do not constitute nor are they evidence of any fault or
wrongdoing on the part of Dynacraft.
54. Notwithstanding its denial that the bicycles contained defects
or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Dynacraft,
nevertheless, launched appropriate and timely recalls and cooperated
with the Staff in recalling the products.
55. Dynacraft further asserts as a general matter that it received
very few complaints concerning the above-mentioned products relative to
the numbers of products in distribution; that it implemented product
improvements to address the complaints on the bicycles in question;
that it considered the complaints and the reporting requirements of the
CPSA; and that it made its judgments, about reporting in good faith
based on its understanding of the requirements of the law and that it
did not ``knowingly'' violate any reporting requirements.
56. Dynacraft denies that any of its bicycles have caused any
injuries and does not admit to the truth of any claims or other matters
alleged or otherwise stated by the Commission or any other person with
respect to its bicycles. Nothing contained in this Agreement and Order
precludes Dynacraft from raising any defense in any future litigation.
IV. Agreement of the Parties
57. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has jurisdiction over
this matter and over Dynacraft under the Consumer Product Safety Act,
15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.
58. This Agreement is entered into for settlement purposes only and
does not constitute an admission by Dynacraft or a determination by the
Commission that the products referenced in paragraphs 4 through 47
contain or contained a defect or defects which could create a
substantial product hazard or create an unreasonable risk of serious
injury or death, or that Dynacraft knowingly violated the CPSA's
reporting requirement.
59. In settlement of the staff's allegations, Dynacraft agrees to
pay a civil penalty in the amount of one million, four hundred thousand
dollars ($1,400,000.00) as set forth in the incorporated Order.
60. This Settlement Agreement and Order settle all outstanding
issues against Dynacraft relating to the staff's allegations set forth
in paragraphs 4 through 47 above.
61. Upon final acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission and
issuance of the Final Order, Respondent knowingly, voluntarily, and
completely waives any rights it may have in this matter to (a) an
administrative or judicial hearing, (b) to judicial review or other
challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's actions, (c)
to a determination by the Commission as to whether Respondent failed to
comply with the CPSA and the underlying regulations, (d) to a statement
of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (e) to any claims under
the Equal Access to Justice Act.
62. Upon provisional acceptance of this Agreement by the
Commission, this Agreement shall be placed on the public record and
shall be published in the Federal Register in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 16 CFR Sec. 1118.20(e). If the Commission does
not receive any written objections within 15 days, the Agreement will
be deemed finally accepted on the 16th day after the date it is
published in the Federal Register.
63. The Commission may publicize the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and Order.
64. The Commission's Order in this matter is issued under the
provisions of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., and that a violation of
this Order may subject Dynacraft to appropriate legal action.
65. This Settlement Agreement may be used in interpreting the
Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations
apart form those contained in this Settlement Agreement and Order may
not be used to vary or contradict its terms.
66. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement and Order shall
apply to Dynacraft and each of its successors and assigns.
Respondent, Dynacraft BSC, Inc.
Dated: October 5, 2004.
Jerome A. Berman,
President.
Dynacraft BSC, Inc., 2550 Kerner Road, San Rafael, CA 94901.
Dated: October 7, 2004.
Daniel C. Schwartz, Esquire
Jill M. Zucker, Esquire
Brooke E. Geller, Esquire
Attorneys for Respondent, Dynacraft BSC, Inc.
Bryan Cave, LLP, 700 Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-
3960.
Commission Staff
Nicholas V. Machica,
Acting Assistant Executive Director.
Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC 20207-0001.
[[Page 64039]]
Eric L. Stone,
Legal Division, Office of Compliance.
Dated: October 12, 2004.
Dennis C. Kacoyanis,
Trial Attorney.
Legal Division, Office of Compliance.
Order
Upon consideration of the Settlement Agreement entered into between
Dynacraft BSC, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, formally known as
Dynacraft Industries, Inc., (``Dynacraft'' or ``Respondent'') and the
staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission; and the Commission
having jurisdiction over the subject matter and Dynacraft; and it
appearing that the Settlement Agreement and Order is in the public
interest, it is
Ordered that the Settlement Agreement be, and hereby, is accepted;
and it is
Further Ordered that upon final acceptance of the Settlement
Agreement and Order, Dynacraft shall pay to the Commission a civil
penalty in the amount of One Million, Four Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,400,000.00) in four (4) payments each. Payment shall be made upon
the following schedule: The first payment of $350,000 shall be made
within twenty (20) days after service upon Respondent of this Final
Order of the Commission. The second payment of $350,000 shall be made
within 110 days of service of the Final Order, the third payment of
$350,000 shall be made within 200 days of service of the Final Order,
and the fourth payment of $350,000 shall be made within 365 days of the
date of service of the Final Order. Upon the failure by Dynacraft to
make a payment or upon the making of a late payment by Dynacraft, (a)
the entire amount of the civil penalty shall be due and payable, and
(b) 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.
Sec. Sec. 1961(a) and (b).
Provisionally accepted and Provisional Order issued on the 28th
day of October, 2004.
By Order of the Commission.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-24580 Filed 11-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M