CPSC Issues Recall Notice for Apeks Scuba Regulators
A CPSC recall notice states no injuries have been reported for recalled Apeks second stage scuba regulators.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 19, 2026, 9:11 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 19, 2026, 9:11 p.m. ETFirst report
CPSC Announces Recall of Apeks Scuba Regulators Due to Drowning Hazard
On August 6, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued recall number 26677 for about 1,105 Apeks Second Stage Scuba Regulators distributed by HEAD USA, Inc. dba Head Watersports of Delray Beach, Florida. According to CPSC official records, the recall action remains open and developing. No injuries have been reported.
The recall includes Apeks model XL4, XL4+, and XL4 Ocea second stage scuba regulators sold from April 2025 through June 2026. The regulators were sold in various colors or color combinations of black, white, gray, mint, or yellow, bearing serial numbers between 250402212 and 260402893. The serial number is laser-etched on the side of the regulator and appears on the shipping carton. CPSC records state that the recalled units can restrict air flow to the user at depths exceeding 45 meters (approximately 147 feet), posing a risk of serious injury or death from drowning.
According to the CPSC notice, consumers should stop using the recalled second stage scuba regulators immediately and bring the product to any HEAD Watersports Authorized Retailer, who will replace the valve spindle assembly at no cost to the consumer. CPSC database records list no other enforcement action for this firm.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 01:11current
First published.
- Version 120 Aug 2026, 01:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.