(8) Firecrackers designed to produce audible effects, if the audible effect is produced by a charge of more than 50 milligrams (.772 grains) of pyrotechnic composition (not including firecrackers included as components of a rocket), aerial bombs, and devices that may be confused with candy or other foods, such as "dragon eggs," and "cracker balls" (also known as "balltype caps"), and including kits and components intended to produce such fireworks except such devices which meet all of the following conditions:

(i) The fireworks devices are distributed to farmers, ranchers, or growers through a wildlife management program administered by the U.S. Department of Interior (or by equivalent State or local governmental agencies); and

(ii) Such distribution is in response to a written application describing the wildlife management problem that requires use of such devices, is of a quantity no greater than required to control the problem described, and is where other means of control is unavailable or inadequate. (See also § 1500.17(a) (3) and (9)).

(9) All fireworks devices, other than firecrackers, including kits and components intended to produce such fireworks, not otherwise banned under the act, that do not comply with the applicable requirements of part 1507 of this chapter, except fireworks devices which meet all the following conditions:

(i) The fireworks devices are distributed to farmers, ranchers, or growers through a wildlife management program administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior (or by equivalent State or local government agencies); and

(ii) Such distribution is in response to a written application describing the wildlife management problem that requires use of such devices, is of a quantity no greater than required to control the problem described, and is where other means of control is unavailable or inadequate. (See also § 1500.17(a) (3) and (8)).

(10) Self-pressurized products intended or suitable for household use that contain vinyl chloride monomer as an ingredient or in the propellant

manufactured or imported on or after October 7, 1974. (See also §1500.17(a) (3) and (8)).

(11)(i) Reloadable tube aerial shell fireworks devices that use shells larger than 1.75 inches in outer diameter and that are imported on or after October 8, 1991.

(ii) Findings. (A) General. In order to issue a rule under section 2(q)(1) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act ("FHSA"), 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1), classifying a substance or article as a banned hazardous substance, the FHSA requires the Commission to make certain findings and to include these findings in the regulation. These findings are discussed below.

(B) Voluntary standard. Although a voluntary standard relating to the risk of injury associated with reloadable tube aerial shells has been adopted, it has not been implemented. Thus, the Commission is not required to make findings covering the likelihood that the voluntary standard would result in elimination or adequate reduction of the risk of injury or that there would be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.

(C) Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates that the removal of large reloadable shells from the market is likely to virtually eliminate the number of associated injuries, with only a slight offsetting increase in the number of injuries due to the use of substitute Class C fireworks products available to consumers. The estimated net benefits range from essentially zero to close to $1 million annually. The annual costs of a ban are estimated to be very low. Included are potential costs to foreign manufacturers and U.S. importers from sales losses, production changes, and inventory retrofitting, and slightly reduced market choices for consumers who purchase aerial display fireworks. Costs to each of these sectors are estimated to be slight, and are reduced to the extent that alternative products are perceived as adequate substitutes for large reloadable shells. Thus, the Commission finds that the benefits expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.

(D) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered several alternatives to the ban. These included: Design or performance criteria; additional or alternative labeling; inclusion of some reloadable shells 1.75 inches or smaller in the ban; and no action in reliance on the voluntary standard. The Commission determined that a ban of reloadable shells larger than 1.75 inches in outer diameter is the least burdensome alternative that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury.

(1) Regarding design or performance criteria, the Commission considered requirements similar to those stated in the voluntary standard of the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory ("AFSL"). However, such criteria may increase the cost of the product and would not address all factors involved in the incidents. Further, concerns exist about the feasibility of criteria and quality control.

(2) Regarding additional or alternative labeling, the users' perception and experience concerning the amount of time available to get away may lead them to disregard an inconsistent warning. There are no data to suggest that a significant number, if any, incidents would be avoided if large reloadable shells carried more detailed labels or instructions than they currently do. It cannot be concluded that potential benefits would be greater than zero.

(3) The Commission considered including reloadable shells that are 1.75 inches or less in outer diameter and have the "equivalent explosive power" of larger shells. A kinetic energy level of 70 joules was considered to evaluate explosive power. However, any potential benefits are uncertain since the Commission concluded that a clear relation between kinetic energy and injury potential could not be established. Also, costs could be slightly higher.

(4) The Commission also considered imposing no mandatory requirements on large reloadable shells and relying instead on the AFSL voluntary standard. However, it is uncertain whether any net benefits to consumers would result from this alternative, since the level of injury reduction could be near zero if, as is probable, some firms chose

not to conform with some or all of the AFSL standard.

(12)(i) Large multiple-tube devices. Multiple-tube mine and shell fireworks devices that first enter commerce or are imported on or after March 26, 1997, that have any tube measuring 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) or more in inner diameter, and that have a minimum tip angle less than 60 degrees when tested in accordance with the procedure of § 1507.12 of this part.

(ii) Findings—(A) General. In order to issue a rule under the section 2(q)(1) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1), classifying a substance or article as a banned hazardous substance, the FHSA requires the Commission to make certain findings and to include these in the regulation. These findings are discussed in paragraphs (a)(12)(ii) (B) through (D) of this section.

(B) Voluntary standard. (1) One alternative to the tip-angle requirement that the Commission considered is to take no mandatory action, and to depend on a voluntary standard. The American Fireworks Safety Laboratory (AFSL) has a standard for mines and shells intended to address the potential tip-over hazard associated with fireworks devices. multiple-tube AFSL's Voluntary Standard for Mines and Shells-Single or Multiple Shot requires that large multiple-tube devices not tip over (except as the result of the last shot) when shot on a 2-inch thick medium-density foam pad. The Commission cannot conclude that AFSL's existing voluntary standard adequately reduces the risk of injury from large devices that tip over while functioning. The Commission's tests using polyurethane foam did not find sufficient agreement between performance on foam and on grass. No other data are available to show that this dynamic test is reliable.

(2) In addition, even if the AFSL standard is effective, the Commission does not believe that compliance with the standard will be adequate. AFSL reports that it has been testing in accordance with its standard since January 1994. However, the results of CPSC's compliance testing indicate that multiple-tube devices still tip over while functioning. In fiscal year

1994, all 24 imported devices the Commission tested, and 1 of 8 domestic devices, tipped over while functioning. In fiscal year 1995, 22 of 27 imported devices and 1 of 5 domestic devices tipped over during Commission testing. The Commission finds that there is unlikely to be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard applicable to multiple-tube devices.

(C) Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates that the 60degree tip-angle standard will eliminate the unreasonable tip-over risk posed by these devices. This will provide benefits of saving one life about every 3 years, and preventing an unknown number of nonfatal injuries. The annual cost of modifying affected devices is estimated to be between $1.5 million and $2.7 million. The Commission finds that the benefits from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.

(D) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered the following alternatives: a ban of all multiple-tube devices with inner tube diameters 1.5 inches or greater; a dynamic performance standard; additional labeling requirements; and relying on the voluntary standard. Although a ban of all large multiple-tube devices would address the risk of injury, it would be more burdensome than the tip-angle standard. The Commission was unable to develop a satisfactory dynamic standard that would reduce the risk of injury. Neither additional labeling requirements nor reliance on the voluntary standard would adequately reduce the risk of injury. Thus, the Commission finds that a standard requiring large multiple-tube devices to have a minimum tip angle greater than 60 degrees is the least burdensome requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury.

(Secs. 2(f)(1), (A), (B), (g), (q)(1)(B), 3(a), 74 Stat. 372, 374, as amended 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83

187-189, 90 Stat. 503 (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262); sec. 701 (e), (f), (g), 52 Stat. 1055-56, as amended 70 Stat. 919, 72 Stat. 948 (21 U.S.C. 371 (e), (f), (g)), sec. 30(a), 86 Stat. 1231 (15 U.S.C. 2079(a)))

[38 FR 27012, Sept. 27, 1973, as amended at 38 FR 27514, Oct. 4, 1973; 38 FR 31520, Nov. 15, 1973; 39 FR 30114, Aug. 21, 1974; 39 FR 42903, Dec. 9, 1974; 41 FR 22935, June 8, 1976; 42 FR 44202, Sept. 1, 1977; 43 FR 12310, Mar. 24, 1978; 48 FR 16, Jan. 3, 1983; 56 FR 37837, Aug. 9, 1991; 61 FR 13095, Mar. 26, 1996; 61 FR 18245, Apr. 25, 1996]

$1500.18 Banned toys and other banned articles intended for use by children.

(a) Toys and other articles presenting mechanical hazards. Under the authority of sections 2(f)(1)(D) and 24 of the act and pursuant to the provisions of section 3(e) of the act, the Commission has determined that the following types of toys or other articles intended for use by children present a mechanical hazard within the meaning of section 2(s) of the act because in normal use, or when subjected to reasonably foreseeable damage or abuse, the design or manufacture presents an unreasonable risk of personal injury or ill

ness:

(1) Any toy rattle containing, either internally or externally, rigid wires, sharp protrusions, or loose small objects that have the potential for causing lacerations, puncture wound injury, aspiration, ingestion, or other injury. (But see § 1500.86(a)(1)).

(2) Any toy having noisemaking components or attachments capable of being dislodged by the operating features of the toy or capable of being deliberately removed by a child, which toy has the potential for causing laceration, puncture wound injury, aspiration, ingestion, or other injury.

(3) Any doll, stuffed animal, or other similar toy having internal or external components that have the potential for

causing laceration, puncture wound injury, or other similar injury. (But see § 1500.86(a)(2)); (See also §§ 1500.48 and 1500.49).

(4) Lawn darts and other similar sharp-pointed toys usually intended for outdoor use and having the potential for causing puncture wound injury.

(5) Caps (paper or plastic) intended for use with toy guns and toy guns not intended for use with caps if such caps when so used or such toy guns produce impulse-type sound at a peak pressure level at or above 138 decibels, referred to 0.0002 dyne per square centimeter, when measured in an anechoic chamber at a distance of 25 centimeters (or the distance at which the sound source ordinarily would be from the ear of the child using it if such distance is less than 25 centimeters) in any direction from the source of the sound. This paragraph is an interim regulation pending further investigation to determine whether prevention of damage to the hearing of children requires revision hereof.

(6) Any article known as a "babybouncer," "walker-jumper," or "babywalker" and any other similar article (referred to in this paragraph as “article(s)") which is intended to support very young children while sitting walking, bouncing, jumping, and/or reclining, and which because of its design has any exposed parts capable of causing amputation, crushing, lacerations, fractures, hematomas, bruises, or other injuries to fingers, toes, or other parts of the anatomy of young children. Included among, but not limited to, the design features of such articles which classify the articles as banned hazardous substances are:

(i) The areas about the point on each side of the article where the frame components are joined together to form an "X" shape capable of producing a scissoring, shearing, or pinching effect.

(ii) Other areas where two or more parts are joined in such a manner as to permit a rotational movement capable of exerting a scissoring, shearing, or pinching effect.

(iii) Exposed coil springs which may expand sufficiently to allow an infant's finger, toe, or any other part of the anatomy to be inserted, in whole or in

part, and injured by being caught between the coils of the spring or between the spring and another part of the article.

(iv) Holes in plates or tubes which provide the possibility of insertion, in whole or in part, of a finger, toe, or any part of the anatomy that could then be injured by the movement of another part of the article.

(v) Design and construction that permits accidental collapse while in use. (But see § 1500.86(a)(4)).

(7) Toys usually known as clacker balls and consisting of two balls of plastic or another material connected by a length of line or cord or similar connector (referred to as "cord" in § 1500.86(a)(5)), intended to be operated in a rhythmic manner by an upward and downward motion of the hand so that the two balls will meet forcefully at the top and bottom of two semicircles thus causing a "clacking" sound, which toys present a mechanical hazard because their design or manufacture presents an unreasonable risk of personal injury from fracture, fragmentations, or disassembly of the toy and from propulsion of the toy or its part(s). (But see § 1500.86(a)(5).) This does not include products that are constructed so that the connecting members consist of plastic rods integrally molded to the balls and are mounted on a pivot so that movement of the balls is essentially limited to a single plane.

(8) Any pacifier that does not meet the requirements of 16 CFR part 1511 and that is introduced into interstate commerce after February 26, 1978.

(9) Any toy or other article intended for use by children under 3 years of age which presents a choking, aspiration, or ingestion hazard because of small parts as determined by part 1501 of this chapter and which is introduced into interstate commerce after January 1, 1980. For purposes of this regulation, introduction into interstate commerce is defined as follows: A toy or children's article manufactured outside the United States is introduced into interstate commerce when it is first brought within a U.S. port of entry. A toy or children's article manufactured in the United States is introduced into interstate commerce (1) at the time of its first interstate sale, or (2) at the

time of its first intrastate sale if one or more of its components and/or raw materials were received interstate, whichever occurs earlier. Part 1501 defines the term "toy or other article intended for use by children under 3," as used in this regulation, and exempts certain products from banning under this regulation.

(10)-(11) [Reserved]

(12) Any bicycle as defined in § 1512.2(a) of this chapter (except a bicycle that is a "track bicycle" or a "oneof-a-kind bicycle" as defined in §1512.2 (d) and (e) of this chapter) that is introduced into interstate commerce on or after May 11, 1976, and that does not comply with the requirements of part 1512 of this chapter, except for §§ 1512.5(c)(3), 1512.9(a), 1512.18(e) and 1512.18(f) which become effective November 13, 1976.

(13) Any full-size baby crib (as defined in §1508.1(a) of this chapter) that is introduced into interstate commerce on or after February 1, 1974, and that does not comply with the requirements of §§ 1508.2 through 1508.10 of this chapter; and any full size baby crib (as defined in §1508.1(a) of this chapter) that is manufactured on or after April 27, 1983, and that does not comply with §§ 1508.2 through 1508.11 of this chapter.

of

(14) Any non-full-size baby crib (as defined in §1509.2 of this chapter) that is introduced into interstate commerce after August 9, 1976, and that does not comply with the requirements §§ 1509.3 through 1509.12 of this chapter; and any non-full size baby crib (as defined in §1509.2 of this chapter) that is manufactured on or after April 27, 1983, and that does not comply with §§ 1509.3 through 1509.13 of this chapter.

(15) Any rattle (as defined in § 1510.2 of this chapter) that is introduced into interstate commerce on or after August 21, 1978, and that does not comply with the requirements of part 1510 of this chapter. For purposes of the regulation, introduction into interstate commerce is defined as follows: A rattle manufactured outside the United States is introduced into interstate commerce when it is first brought within a U.S. port of entry. A rattle manufactured in the United States is introduced into interstate commerce (a) at the time of its first interstate

sale, or (b) at the time of its first intrastate sale if one or more of its components and/or raw materials were received interstate.

(16)(i) Any article known as an "infant cushion" or "infant pillow," and any other similar article, which has all of the following characteristics:

(A) Has a flexible fabric covering. The term fabric includes those materials covered by the definition of "fabric" in section 2(f) of the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. 1191(f).

(B) Is loosely filled with a granular material, including but not limited to, polystyrene beads or pellets.

(C) Is easily flattened.

(D) Is capable of conforming to the body or face of an infant.

(E) Is intended or promoted for use by children under one year of age.

(ii) Findings-(A) General. In order to issue a rule under section 2(q)(1) of the Federal Hazardous Substance Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1), classifying a substance or article as a banned hazardous substance, the FHSA requires the Commission to make certain findings and to include these findings in the regulation. These findings are discussed in paragraphs (a)(16)(ii) (B) through (D) of this section.

(B) Voluntary standard. No findings concerning compliance with or adequacy of a voluntary standard are necessary since no voluntary standard addressing infant cushions has been adopted or implemented.

(C) Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates that the removal of infant cushions from the market will result in total annual benefits of approximately five million dollars. The potential costs to businesses are expected to be offset by production of other products, and the potential costs to consumers are likely to be offset by the availability of substitutes for a comparable price.

(D) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered labeling and a design or performance standard as alternatives to the ban. The Commission does not believe that any form of labeling would have a significant effect in preventing the hazard associated with infant cushions. The Commission also concluded that no feasible standard exists that would address the hazard.