¶ 33) Spin Master’s assertions badly mischaracterize the facts and ignore the evidence, but regardless, the upshot is that Spin Master alleges as the basis for its claims in this case that Aqua Dots was toxic, and Bureau Veritas/EPSL failed to figure that out. B. Spin Master’s Contrary Contentions To The CPSC Several months after the recall, the CPSC began “investigating whether [Spin Master] … complied with the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261-1278 (‘FHSA’) and the reporting requirements of section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (‘CPSA’), 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b),2 concerning the Aqua Dots recalled on November 7, 2007[.]” (Ungar Decl.

Plaintiffs Sufficiently State Violations of the Reporting Rules Section 102 of the Child Safety Protection Act (the “Child Safety Act”), 15 U.S.C. §1261, describes mandatory reporting requirements for manufacturers, distributors, retailers and importers of, inter alia, “a toy or game that contains” a “small part.” This is the Commission’s interpretative regulations for reporting of choking incidents required by the Child Safety Act. 16 C.F.R. §1117.1.

Sch. Dist., 94 N.Y.2d 32 (1999) ............................................................................................ 19 Wallace v. Parks Corp., 212 A.D.2d 132 (4th Dep’t 1995) ................................................................. 15, 20 Warshaw v. Concentra Health Servs., 719 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ................................................................6, 7 Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings, 18 N.Y.3d 481 (2012) .......................................................................................... 24 Statutes, Regulations and Rules Federal Aviation Act (“FAAct”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. ..... 1, 2, 10, 17, 18, 19 Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1261 et seq. .......................... 15, 20 14 C.F.R. § 120.11 ..................................................................................................... 9 49 C.F.R. Part 40, Subpart F (§§ 40.81-40.113) ...................................................... 15 49 C.F.R. § 40.

4 Plaintiffs do not dispute this and they fail to identify any such rule here. Plaintiffs agree that Defendants could not have violated 15 U.S.C. § 1261, the CPSA’s definition provision. (Opp.