Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10475 

1On February 9, 2009, the Commission published 

a stay of enforcement of testing and certification 

requirements of certain provisions of subsection 

14(a) of the CPSA as amended by section 102(a) of 

the CPSIA until February 10, 2010. 74 FR 6396. 

However, absent a Commission determination that 

a commodity or class of materials or a specific 

material or product does not exceed the lead 

content limits specified under section 101(a) of 

CPSIA, such products will be subject to the testing 

requirements under section 102 of the CPSIA after 

February 10, 2010. 

FDC date State City Airport FDC No. Subject 

02/18/09 ...... IA ANKENY ....................... ANKENY REGIONAL ....................... 9/6097 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, ORIG. 

02/18/09 ...... IA ANKENY ....................... ANKENY REGIONAL ....................... 9/6100 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, ORIG. 

02/18/09 ...... UT OGDEN ......................... OGDEN-HINCKLEY ......................... 9/6135 ILS OR LOC RWY 3, AMDT 4A. 

02/18/09 ...... AK DILLINGHAM ................ DILLINGHAM .................................... 9/6173 LOC/DME RWY 19, AMDT 6. 

[FR Doc. E9–4498 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

Children’s Products Containing Lead; 

Final Rule; Procedures and 

Requirements for a Commission 

Determination or Exclusion 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 

issuing a final rule on procedures and 

requirements on requests for: a 

Commission determination that a 

commodity or class of materials or a 

specific material or product does not 

exceed the lead content limits specified 

under section 101(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA), Public Law 110–314; or 

an exclusion of a commodity or class of 

materials or a specific material or 

product under section 101(b)(1) of the 

CPSIA, that exceeds the lead content 

limits under section 101(a) of the 

CPSIA, but which will not result in the 

absorption of any lead into the human 

body nor have any other adverse impact 

on public health or safety. 

DATES: Effective Date: This regulation 

becomes effective on March 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristina Hatlelid, PhD, M.P.H., 

Directorate for Health Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814; e-mail 

khatlelid@cpsc.gov; telephone 301–504– 

7254. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The CPSIA establishes specific limits 

on lead in children’s products. Section 

101(a) of the CPSIA provides that after 

February 10, 2009, products designed or 

intended primarily for children 12 years 

of age or younger may not contain more 

than 600 ppm of lead by weight for any 

part of the product. After August 14, 

2009, products designed or intended 

primarily for children 12 years of age or 

younger cannot contain more than 300 

ppm of lead by weight for any part of 

the product. On August 14, 2011, the 

limit will be further reduced to 100 ppm 

unless the Commission determines that 

it is not technologically feasible to have 

this lower limit. Paint, coatings, or 

electroplating may not be considered a 

barrier that would make the lead 

content of a product inaccessible to a 

child or prevent the absorption of any 

lead in the human body through normal 

and reasonably foreseeable use and 

abuse of the product. 

Consumer products designed or 

intended primarily for children 12 years 

of age or younger that do not contain 

more than 600 ppm or 300 ppm total 

lead by weight (as of August 14, 2009), 

are not considered to be banned 

hazardous substances under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). 

Children’s products that meet the lead 

limits however, are still subject to the 

testing requirements of section 102 of 

the CPSIA (codified at section 14 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)), 

unless specifically relieved of those 

requirements through Commission lead 

content determinations.1

Children’s products that contain more 

than 600 ppm or 300 ppm lead in any 

component part (as of August 14, 2009) 

are considered to be banned hazardous 

substances under the FHSA. However, 

section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA provides 

that the Commission may, by regulation, 

exclude a specific product or material 

that exceeds the lead limits established 

for children’s products under section 

101(a) of the CPSIA if ‘‘the Commission, 

after notice and a hearing, determines 

on the basis of the best-available, 

objective, peer-reviewed, scientific 

evidence that lead in such product or 

material will neither: (a) Result in the 

absorption of any lead into the human 

body, taking into account normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of 

such product by a child, including 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or 

other children’s activities, and the aging 

of the product; nor (b) have any other 

adverse impact on public health or 

safety.’’ Children’s products that have 

lead containing accessible parts that are 

specifically excluded under this section 

would generally not be subject to the 

testing and certification requirements of 

section 102 of the CPSIA for lead 

content. 

B. Statutory Authority 

Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the 

Commission general rulemaking 

authority to issue regulations, as 

necessary, to implement the CPSIA. 

There may be certain commodities or 

classes of products or materials that 

inherently do not contain lead or 

contain lead at levels that would not 

exceed the lead content limits under 

section 101(a) of the CPSIA. 

Accordingly, the Commission will 

exercise its authority under section 3 of 

the CPSIA to make determinations 

regarding such commodities or classes 

of material or products that do not and 

would not exceed the lead limits of 

section 101(a) of the CPSIA. 

In addition, the Commission may 

exercise its authority under section 

101(b)(1) of the CPSIA to issue any 

regulations on a specific product or 

material that exceeds the lead limits 

established for children’s products 

under section 101(a) of the CPSIA if the 

Commission, after notice and a hearing, 

determines on the basis of the bestavailable, objective, peer-reviewed, 

scientific evidence that lead in such 

product or material will neither: (a) 

result in the absorption of any lead into 

the human body, taking into account 

normal and reasonably foreseeable use 

and abuse of such product by a child, 

including swallowing, mouthing, 

breaking, or other children’s activities, 

and the aging of the product; nor (b) 

have any other adverse impact on public 

health or safety. 

C. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On January 15, 2009, the Commission 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on procedures and 

requirements in the Federal Register (74 

FR 2428) for future Commission 

determinations regarding certain 

materials or products that do not and 

would not exceed the lead limits. In the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
10476 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

2There were other comments that were submitted 

but that did not address any issues related to this 

rule. Accordingly, they will not be addressed here. 

3The ATV Companies are American Honda 

Motor Co., American Suzuki Motor Corp., Arctic 

Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., 

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., Polaris Industries 

Inc., and Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. 

same issue of the Federal Register (74 

FR 2433), the Commission published 

another notice of proposed rulemaking 

describing preliminary determinations 

that specific materials including certain 

natural materials and certain metal and 

alloys do not and would not exceed the 

lead limits. 

For materials or products that 

inherently do not contain lead or 

contain lead at levels that would not 

exceed the lead content limits under 

section 101(a) of the CPSIA, the 

Commission proposed procedures and 

requirements by which requests for 

determinations on materials or products 

will be reviewed. The Commission 

emphasized that it would concentrate 

its efforts on evaluating those materials 

that are commodity-like, are used across 

industry in a number of applications, 

and are subject to detailed consensus 

standards related to lead content and 

other pertinent properties and that 

review of individual products of a single 

manufacturer would be assigned a low 

priority. 

For materials or products that exceed 

the lead content limits in section 101(a) 

of the CPSIA, section 101(b) of the 

CPSIA requires the Commission to 

provide notice and a hearing to consider 

and evaluate the best-available, 

objective, peer-reviewed, scientific data 

before promulgating a rule on 

exclusions. Given the highly technical 

nature of the information sought—peerreviewed, scientific data—the 

Commission stated its intention to 

provide notice and comment procedures 

based on written submissions, rather 

than an oral hearing. 74 FR 2430. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposed 

procedures and requirements which 

required that a request for exclusion 

must be supported by the best-available, 

objective, peer-reviewed, scientific 

evidence, such as test results indicating 

how much lead is present in the 

product, how much lead comes out of 

the product and the conditions under 

which that may happen, and 

information relating to a child’s 

interaction, if any, with the product. 

D. Discussion of Comments to the 

Proposed Rule 

Several comments were received in 

response to the proposed rule.2 All of 

the commenters generally express 

support for the proposed procedures 

and requirements. Additional comments 

are addressed below. 

Standard for Exclusions 

The ATV Companies 3 question the 

Commission’s statement regarding the 

difficult standard that needs to be met 

for exclusions under section 101(b)(1) of 

the CPSIA, suggesting that possibly no 

petition might qualify for an exclusion 

and citing recent statements from a 

Senate conferee suggesting that the 

exclusion is appropriate for use in this 

context. They assert that exclusions 

provided for by Congress should not be 

rendered meaningless and that Congress 

must have intended to provide relief for 

some accessible components when 

evaluated in the context of a child’s 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of 

a product, and that certain ATV 

components fall within the scope of 

such an exclusion. 

The Commission believes that the 

clear language of the statute which 

provides that it must determine, on the 

basis of the best-available, objective, 

peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that 

lead in such product or material will not 

‘‘result in the absorption of any lead 

into the human body * * *’’ (emphasis 

added) does not allow the Commission 

any discretion to consider materials or 

products whereby exposure to the leadcontaining elements under reasonably 

foreseeable use and abuse conditions 

would result in any absorption of lead, 

including through swallowing, 

mouthing, breaking, and the aging of the 

product. While Congress focused on 

ingestion by using the words 

‘‘swallowing, mouthing, and breaking,’’ 

the use or abuse of a children’s product 

containing lead in excess of the lead 

limits could lead to the absorption of 

lead from hand to mouth contact, as the 

Commission has recognized for many 

years. Had Congress not included the 

use of the word ‘‘any’’, the Commission, 

relying, inter alia, on the advice of its 

toxicologists, engineers and human 

factors experts, would have had the 

authority to have considered whether 

the requirement could be met if there 

were some low amount of absorption of 

lead, resulting in ‘‘no meaningful 

increase’’ in children’s blood lead 

levels, thereby constituting a negligible 

risk. While there is no established 

threshold for adverse effects of lead, 

peer-reviewed scientific literature 

suggests ways of assessing the risk to 

children given child-specific exposure 

routes, and taking into account the 

current knowledge of lead toxicology. 

Models for such assessments have been 

advanced recently by other federal and 

state agencies. See e.g., Development of 

Health Criteria for School Site Risk 

Assessment Pursuant To Health and 

Safety Code Section 901(G): ChildSpecific Benchmark Change in Blood 

Lead Concentration for School Site Risk 

Assessment, Final Report April 2007, 

Integrated Risk Assessment Branch, 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment, California Environmental 

Protection Agency. Physiologically, if 

there is absorption of lead into the 

human body, blood lead levels will 

increase, but whether that has 

significance from a health standpoint 

remains a question. However, the 

addition of the word ‘‘any’’ made it 

explicit that Congress had already made 

this risk assessment and legislated that 

any absorption of lead from products or 

materials containing lead above the 

content limits established by Congress, 

no matter how insignificant, would be 

deemed unacceptable. The exclusion is 

not rendered meaningless, as 

conceivably some product could be over 

the lead limit but designed in a way to 

avoid hand to mouth exposure or some 

other absorption pathway in children of 

a certain age. Accordingly, the 

Commission must follow the clear 

language of the statute and cannot grant 

any exclusion that does not meet this 

requirement. 

Other Considerations for Exclusion 

Requests 

The United States Association of 

Importers of Textiles and Apparel 

(USA–ITA) supports the proposed 

procedures for requesting exclusions or 

determinations for other materials that 

may be included in apparel, such as 

rhinestone beads. The Fashion Jewelry 

Trade Association (FJTA) agrees that an 

oral hearing is not required for the 

Commission to act on exclusions and 

requests expedited action on crystals. 

For proposed exclusions, it states that 

only relevant exposure conditions 

should be considered, including 

consideration of the child’s age. The 

American Apparel & Footwear 

Association (AAFA) et al. assert that the 

Commission should rely on an 

extractable lead test rather than the total 

lead content in its evaluations for 

proposed exclusions and requirements. 

FJTA requests that, in the absence of 

published best-available, objective, 

peer-reviewed scientific evidence, test 

data using accepted published test 

methods should be considered reliable 

information. It also opposes the 

requirement that a request for exclusion 

should include evidence that may be 

unfavorable to the requestor, because it 

claimed that the purpose of the public 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10477 

4Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of 

America, Kids in Danger, Public Citizen, and the 

U.S. Public Interest Research Group filed joint 

comments. In their comments, they expressed 

satisfaction with the Commission’s process for 

determining exclusions based on best available, 

objective, peer reviewed, scientific evidence that 

the product or material cannot result in the 

absorption of any lead in the human body as 

discussed above. 

comment process is to elicit 

countervailing information. 

The standard for lead established by 

the CPSIA is based on total lead content 

of component parts of children’s 

products. However, section 101(b)(1) of 

the CPSIA provides that the 

Commission may exclude a specific 

product or material from the lead 

content limits if the Commission 

determines lead in such product or 

material will not result in the absorption 

of any lead into the body, taking into 

account normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use and abuse by a child 

based on factors specific to the product 

or material and to the children using the 

product. Therefore, under this section, 

exclusion of a product or material from 

the lead content limits would 

necessarily be based on factors other 

than the total lead content. A request 

should contain as much credible 

scientific evidence as is available, 

including any test data using 

established test methods particularly if 

the requestor is asking the Commission 

to consider estimates of extractable lead 

in reaching conclusions about the 

absorption of lead in the child’s body. 

However, such a submission will be 

reviewed by staff to determine the 

veracity and applicability of the studies 

to the product or material in question 

and whether, in consideration with 

other available evidence, it supports a 

showing that lead in such product or 

material would not result in the 

absorption of any lead into the body. 

The Commission will continue to 

require that a request for exclusion be 

accompanied by information 

unfavorable to the request, if reasonably 

available. In addition, the Commission 

will require that a request for a 

determination be accompanied by 

information unfavorable to the request, 

if reasonably available and if it 

accurately reflects the product’s lead 

content. Therefore, this final rule 

requires the production of 

‘‘representative’’ data to ensure that the 

Commission has relevant data reflecting 

the actual likely lead content of the 

product or class of products. To the 

extent that such information is 

reasonably available to the requestor, 

particularly if the information was 

produced by or presented to the 

requestor, it must be provided to the 

Commission to ensure that all available 

information and data is reviewed in 

determining whether an exclusion or 

determination is appropriate based on 

the totality of the evidence. 

Process Timeline and Treatment of 

Confidential Information 

AAFA requests that the Commission 

articulate a timeline for the process, 

indicate how requests for exclusion will 

be disclosed, and provide guidelines on 

how business-confidential information 

will be protected. The Office of the 

California Attorney General (CA AG) 

also requests that the Commission 

continue to post applications and 

supporting documents and, where 

materials are withheld from the public, 

provide the reasons for withholding the 

information. 

As part of this rulemaking, the 

Commission has specified a timeline for 

processing requests for determinations 

and exclusions. The Commission will 

continue its practice of providing public 

access to requests and supporting 

materials received from the requestors 

as well as comments from the public. 

With respect to confidential materials, 

the Commission will note in the public 

docket where such materials are 

withheld from the public docket. 

Section 6(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2055(a)(2), and the regulations 

promulgated under 16 CFR 1015.18 and 

1015.19 govern requests for confidential 

treatment of information and requests 

for disclosure of such information. 

These procedures are applicable to any 

such requests received in these 

proceedings. 

Additional Requirements for 

Determinations 

The CA AG states that the 

Commission should be explicit in the 

regulation, not just the preamble, that a 

determination that the lead content of a 

material or product is below the lead 

limits does not relieve the material or 

product from complying with the 

applicable lead limits. In addition, the 

CA AG suggests additional information 

to be obtained from applicants 

including: (1) Data or information on the 

facilities and manufacturing processes 

used to manufacture the material or 

product, and any materials used in the 

product; and (2) an assessment of the 

likelihood or lack thereof that the use of 

leaded materials in a facility will result 

in lead contamination of a material or 

product that ordinarily does not contain 

lead. Consumers Union, et al.4 state that 

products from the market should be 

tested with reasonable frequency to act 

as an effective deterrent. 

The Commission has already 

indicated that all children’s products 

subject to a determination must comply 

with the lead limit in its Statement of 

Commission Enforcement Policy on 

Section 101 Lead Limits, dated February 

6, 2009, and includes in the regulation 

the requirement for compliance with the 

CPSIA lead limits. The Commission had 

also indicated that a request for a 

determination would need to include 

information on ‘‘manufacturing 

processes through which lead may be 

introduced in to the product * * * and 

why the assessment of the 

manufacturing processes strongly 

supports a conclusion that they would 

not be a source of lead contamination.’’ 

However, in response to these 

comments, the Commission will also 

clarify that the procedures and 

requirements for determinations will 

include a request for an evaluation of 

facilities and manufacturing processes 

as well as a request for an assessment of 

whether lead uses in manufacturing 

facilities could possibly result in lead 

contamination of a material or product. 

With respect to market testing, 

compliance and enforcement activities, 

including market testing, have always 

been and continue to be essential to the 

Commission’s mission. Moreover, even 

when a particular product or material 

has been relieved of the requirement to 

undergo testing and certification under 

section 102 of the CPSIA, manufacturers 

and importers continue to be 

responsible for verifying that the 

material or product has not been altered 

or modified, or experienced any change 

in the processing, facility or supplier 

conditions that could impart lead into 

the material or product to ensure that it 

meets the statutory lead levels at all 

times. 

E. Procedures and Requirements 

1. § 1500.89—Lead Content Level 

Determinations 

Any request for a Commission 

determination that a specific material or 

product contains no lead or a lead level 

below the applicable statutory limit 

must be supported by objectively 

reasonable and representative test 

results or other scientific evidence 

showing that the product or material 

does not, and would not, exceed the 

lead limit specified in the request. A 

justification submitted by an interested 

party for a determination must include: 

• A detailed description of the 

product or material and how it is used 

by the child; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
10478 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

• Representative data on the lead 

content of parts of the product or the 

materials used in the production of a 

product; 

• All relevant data or information on 

manufacturing processes through which 

lead may be introduced into the product 

or material; 

• An assessment of the likelihood or 

lack thereof that the manufacturing 

processes will result in lead 

contamination of a material or product 

that ordinarily does not contain lead; 

• All relevant data or information on 

the facilities used to manufacture the 

material or product, and any other 

materials used in the product; 

• An assessment of the likelihood or 

lack thereof that the use of leaded 

materials in a facility will result in lead 

contamination of a material or product 

that ordinarily does not contain lead; 

• Any other information relevant to 

the potential for the lead content of the 

product or material to exceed the 

statutory lead limit specified in the 

request, that is 600 ppm, 300 ppm, or 

100 ppm, as applicable; 

• Detailed information on the relied 

upon test methods for measuring lead 

content of products or materials, 

including the type of equipment used 

and any other techniques employed and 

a statement as to why the data is 

representative of the lead content of 

such products or materials generally; 

and 

• Any data or information that is 

unfavorable to the request that is 

reasonably available to the requestor. 

MSDS sheets will not be sufficient to 

satisfy the representative testing criteria 

because they do not show sufficient 

information regarding lead content. 

Rather, the showing necessary to obtain 

a determination must be based on 

objectively reasonable and 

representative testing of the material or 

product. 

Upon receipt of a complete request for 

a determination, the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction (EXHR) 

will assess the request to determine 

whether the product or material is one 

that does not contain lead in excess of 

the limits of section 101 of the CPSIA. 

EXHR will make an initial 

recommendation within thirty (30) 

calendar days to the extent practicable; 

EXHR may request an extension from 

the Executive Director of the CPSC, if 

necessary, to make its initial 

determination. A complete request is 

one that does not require additional 

information from the requestor for 

EXHR to make an initial 

recommendation to the Commission. If 

a request is submitted that is not 

complete, the Office of the Secretary 

shall notify the person submitting it, 

describe the deficiency, and explain that 

the request may be resubmitted when 

the deficiency is corrected. If EXHR’s 

initial recommendation is to deny the 

request for a lead content determination, 

it will provide, in a staff memorandum 

to the Commission for ballot vote, the 

basis for the denial with sufficient detail 

for the Commission to make an 

informed decision that reasonable 

grounds for a determination are not 

presented. The Commission, by ballot 

vote, will render a decision on the staff’s 

recommendation. The ballot vote and 

the staff memorandum will be posted on 

the CPSC Web site. Any determination 

by the Commission to grant a request 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment. If the 

Commission concludes that the request 

shall be denied, the requestor shall be 

notified in writing of the denial from the 

Office of the Secretary along with the 

official ballot results and the EXHR 

staff’s memorandum of 

recommendations. 

If the staff’s initial recommendation is 

to grant the lead content determination, 

it will submit the basis for that 

recommendation to the Commission in 

a memorandum to be voted on by ballot, 

with sufficient detail for the 

Commission to make an informed 

decision that reasonable grounds for a 

determination are presented. If the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) is 

published, it will invite public comment 

in the Federal Register. EXHR will 

review and evaluate any comments and 

supporting documentation before 

making its final recommendation to the 

Commission for final agency action, by 

staff memorandum submitted to the 

Commission. If the Commission, after 

review of the staff’s final 

recommendation, determines that a 

material or product does not and would 

not exceed the lead content limits, it 

will decide by ballot vote on whether to 

publish a final rule in the Federal 

Register. Although such materials or 

products would be relieved of the 

testing and certification requirements in 

section 102 of the CPSIA, manufacturers 

and importers would continue to be 

responsible for verifying that the 

material or product has not been altered 

or modified, or experienced any change 

in the processing, facility or supplier 

conditions that could impart lead into 

the material or product. These materials 

or products must still meet the statutory 

lead level requirements at all times. The 

Commission will obtain and test 

products in the marketplace to assure 

that this remains the case and will take 

appropriate enforcement action in 

situations where that is not the case and 

could take additional regulatory action 

if repeated enforcement actions call into 

question the original determination. In 

addition, all materials or products must 

still meet any other applicable 

consumer product safety rules as 

defined in the CPSA or similar rules, 

bans standards, or regulations under any 

other Act enforced by the Commission. 

2. § 1500.90—Exclusion of a Material or 

Product Exceeding Lead Content Limit 

For products that exceed the lead 

content limits prescribed in section 

101(a) of the CPSIA, any requests 

seeking an exclusion must submit 

documentation based on the bestavailable, objective, peer-reviewed, 

scientific evidence showing that lead in 

such product or material will not result 

in the absorption of any lead into the 

body, taking into account normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse by 

a child, including swallowing, 

mouthing, breaking, or other children’s 

activities, and the aging of the product, 

nor have any other adverse impact on 

health or safety. This is the standard by 

which the Commission will review such 

requests for exclusions. A justification 

submitted by an interested party for an 

exclusion should provide: 

• A detailed description of the 

product or material and how it is used 

by a child; 

• Representative data on the lead 

content of parts of the product or 

materials used in the production of a 

product; 

• All relevant data or information on 

manufacturing processes through which 

lead may be introduced into the product 

or material; 

• Any other information relevant to 

the potential for lead content of the 

product or material to exceed the CPSIA 

lead limits that is reasonably available 

to the requestor; 

• Detailed information on the relied 

upon test methods for measuring lead 

content of products or materials 

including the type of equipment used or 

any other techniques employed and a 

statement as to why the data is 

representative of the lead content of 

such products or materials generally; 

• An assessment of the manufacturing 

processes which strongly supports a 

conclusion that they would not be a 

source of lead contamination of the 

product or material, if relevant; 

• Best-available, objective, peerreviewed, scientific evidence to support 

a request for an exclusion that 

demonstrates that the normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse 

activity by a child (including 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10479 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or 

other children’s activities) and the aging 

of the material or product for which 

exclusion is sought, will not result in 

the absorption of any lead into the body, 

nor have any other adverse impact on 

health or safety. This literature should 

support a request for exclusion that 

addresses how much lead is present in 

the product, how much lead comes out 

of the product, and the conditions under 

which that may happen and information 

relating to a child’s interaction, if any, 

with the product; and 

• Best-available, objective, peerreviewed, scientific evidence that is 

unfavorable to the request that is 

reasonably available to the requestor. 

Upon receipt of a complete request for 

an exclusion, the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction (EXHR) 

will assess the request on the basis of its 

review of the submitted materials, that 

the normal and reasonably foreseeable 

use and abuse activity by a child 

(including swallowing, mouthing, 

breaking, or other children’s activities) 

and the aging of the material or product 

for which exclusion is sought, will not 

result in the absorption of any lead into 

the human body, nor have any other 

adverse impact on public health or 

safety, and make an initial 

recommendation within thirty (30) 

calendar days to the extent practicable. 

EXHR may request an extension from 

the Executive Director of the CPSC, if 

necessary, to make its initial 

recommendation. A complete request is 

one that does not require additional 

information from the requestor for 

EXHR to make an initial 

recommendation to the Commission. If 

a request is submitted that is not 

complete, the Office of the Secretary 

shall notify the person submitting it, 

describe the deficiency, and explain that 

the request may be resubmitted when 

the deficiency is corrected. 

If EXHR’s initial recommendation is 

to deny the request for an exclusion, it 

will provide, in a staff memorandum to 

the Commission, submitted to the 

Commission for ballot vote, the basis for 

denial with sufficient detail for the 

Commission to make an informed 

decision that reasonable grounds for an 

exclusion are not presented. The 

Commission, by ballot vote, will render 

a decision on the staff’s 

recommendation. The ballot vote and 

the staff memorandum will be posted on 

the CPSC Web site. Any determination 

by the Commission to grant a request 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment. If the 

Commission concludes that the request 

shall be denied, the requestor shall be 

notified in writing of the denial, from 

the Office of the Secretary along with 

the official ballot results and the EXHR 

staff’s memorandum of 

recommendation. 

If the staff’s initial recommendation is 

to grant the exclusion, it will submit the 

basis for that recommendation to the 

Commission in a memorandum to be 

voted on by ballot, with sufficient detail 

for the Commission to make an 

informed decision that reasonable 

grounds for a determination are 

presented. If the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) is published, it will 

invite public comment in the Federal 

Register. EXHR will review and 

evaluate any comments and supporting 

documentation before making its final 

recommendation to the Commission, by 

staff memorandum submitted to the 

Commission for final agency action. If 

the Commission, after review of the 

staff’s final recommendation, 

determines that an exclusion is 

supported by the evidence, it will by 

ballot vote decide on whether to publish 

a final rule in the Federal Register. 

F. Effect of Filing a Lead Content 

Determination or Exclusion Request 

Under section 101(e) of the CPSIA, 

the filing of a request for a lead content 

determination or for an exclusion would 

not have the effect of automatically 

staying the effect of any provision or 

limit under the statutes and regulations 

enforced by the Commission. Unless 

issued in final form by the Commission 

after notice and comment, all CPSC 

requirements related to the lead content 

in the material or product would remain 

in full force and effect. However, the 

Commission’s ability to exercise its 

enforcement discretion is not eliminated 

nor diminished. 

G. Impact on Small Businesses 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), when an agency issues a 

proposed rule, it generally must prepare 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

describing the impact the proposed rule 

is expected to have on small entities. 5 

U.S.C. 603. The RFA does not require a 

regulatory flexibility analysis if the head 

of the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission’s Directorate for 

Economic Analysis prepared a 

preliminary assessment of the impact of 

relieving certain materials or products 

from the testing requirements of section 

102 of the CPSIA. The Commission 

preliminarily found that the proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The procedures and 

requirements would allow certain 

businesses, including small businesses, 

the ability to seek determinations and 

exclusions which would allow these 

entities to continue to manufacture their 

products without the continuing cost of 

testing the materials for the presence of 

lead. Based on the foregoing assessment, 

the Commission certifies that the rule 

issued today on procedures and 

requirements would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

H. Environmental Considerations 

Generally, CPSC rules are considered 

to ‘‘have little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment,’’ and 

environmental assessments are not 

usually prepared for these rules (see 16 

CFR 1021.5(a)). The rule on procedures 

and requirements is not expected to 

have an adverse impact on the 

environment, thus, the Commission 

concludes that no environment 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement is required in this proceeding. 

I. Executive Orders 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

in clear language the preemptive effect, 

if any, of new regulations. The 

preemptive effect of regulations such as 

this proposal is stated in section 18 of 

the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261n. 

J. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule would require manufacturers 

to provide certain information along 

with any request for a Commission 

determination or exclusion. For this 

reason, the rule contains ‘‘collection of 

information requirements’’ as that term 

is used in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Therefore, the 

preamble to the proposed rule discussed 

the paperwork burden that may be 

incurred and specifically requested 

comments on the paper burden of the 

proposal. The agency has applied to 

OMB for a control number for this 

information collection, and it will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

providing the number when the agency 

receives approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

K. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

generally requires that a substantive rule 

be published not less than 30 days 

before its effective date, unless the 

agency finds for good cause shown, that 

a lesser time period is required. 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). Because the Commission 

recognizes the need for providing 

procedures and requirements for 

Commission determinations and 

exclusions expeditiously, for good cause 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
10480 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

shown, the effective date is March 11, 

2009. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500 

Consumer protection, Hazardous 

materials, Hazardous substances, 

Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, 

Law enforcement, and Toys. 

L. Conclusion 

■ For the reasons stated above, the 

Commission amends chapter II of title 

16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 1500—HAZARDOUS 

SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES: 

ADMINISTRATION AND 

ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1500 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278, 122 Stat. 

3016 

■ 2. Add new §§ 1500.89 and 1500.90 to 

read as follows: 

§ 1500.89 Procedures and requirements 

for determinations regarding lead content 

of materials or products under section 

101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act. 

(a) The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act provides for specific 

lead limits in children’s products. 

Section 101(a) of the CPSIA provides 

that by February 10, 2009, products 

designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger may 

not contain more than 600 ppm of lead. 

After August 14, 2009, products 

designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger 

cannot contain more than 300 ppm of 

lead. On August 14, 2011, the limit will 

be further reduced to 100 ppm, unless 

the Commission determines that this 

lower limit is not technologically 

feasible. Paint, coatings or electroplating 

may not be considered a barrier that 

would make the lead content of a 

product inaccessible to a child or 

prevent the absorption of any lead in the 

human body through normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of 

the product. 

(b) The Commission may, either on its 

own initiative or upon the request of 

any interested person, make a 

determination that a material or product 

does not contain leads levels that 

exceed 600 ppm, 300 ppm, or 100 ppm, 

as applicable. 

(c) A determination by the 

Commission under paragraph (b) of this 

section that a material or product does 

not contain lead levels that exceed 600 

ppm, 300 ppm, or 100 ppm, as 

applicable does not relieve the material 

or product from complying with the 

applicable lead limit as provided under 

paragraph(a) of this section. 

(d) To request a determination under 

paragraph (b) of this section, the request 

must: 

(1) Be e-mailed to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. and 

titled ‘‘Section 101 Request for Lead Content 

Determination.’’ Requests may also be 

mailed, preferably in five copies, to the 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or 

delivered to the same address. 

(2) Be written in the English language. 

(3) Contain the name and address, and email address or telephone number, of the 

requestor. 

(4) Provide documentation including: 

(i) A detailed description of the product or 

material and how it is used by a child; 

(ii) Representative data on the lead content 

of parts of the product or materials used in 

the production of a product; 

(iii) All relevant data or information on 

manufacturing processes through which lead 

may be introduced into the material or 

product; 

(iv) An assessment of the likelihood or lack 

thereof that the manufacturing processes will 

result in lead contamination of a material or 

product that ordinarily does not contain lead; 

(v) All relevant data or information on the 

facilities used to manufacture the material or 

product, and any other materials used in the 

product; 

(vi) An assessment of the likelihood or lack 

thereof that the use of leaded materials in a 

facility will result in lead contamination of 

a material or product that ordinarily does not 

contain lead; 

(vii) Any other information relevant to the 

potential for lead content of the product or 

material to exceed the statutory lead limit 

specified in the request, that is 600 ppm, 300 

ppm, or 100 ppm, as applicable; 

(viii) Detailed information on the relied 

upon test methods for measuring lead 

content of products or materials including 

the type of equipment used or any other 

techniques employed and a statement as to 

why the data is representative of the lead 

content of such products or materials 

generally; and 

(ix) Any data or information that is 

unfavorable to the request that is reasonably 

available to the requestor. 

(e) Where a submission fails to meet 

all of the requirements of paragraph (d) 

of this section, the Office of the 

Secretary shall notify the person 

submitting it, describe the deficiency, 

and explain that the request may be 

resubmitted when the deficiency is 

corrected. 

(f) Upon receipt of a complete request 

for a determination, the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction (EXHR) 

will assess the request to determine 

whether the product or material is one 

that does not contain lead in excess of 

the limits as provided under paragraph 

(a) of this section. EXHR will make an 

initial recommendation within thirty 

(30) calendar days, to the extent 

practicable. EXHR may request an 

extension from the Executive Director of 

the CPSC, if necessary, to make its 

initial determination. A complete 

request is one that does not require 

additional information from the 

requestor for EXHR to make an initial 

recommendation to the Commission. 

(g) Where the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction’s (EXHR) 

initial recommendation is to deny the 

request for a lead content determination, 

it will provide, in a staff memorandum 

to the Commission, submitted to the 

Commission for ballot vote, the basis for 

the denial with sufficient detail for the 

Commission to make an informed 

decision that reasonable grounds for a 

determination are not presented. The 

Commission, by ballot vote, will render 

a decision on the staff’s 

recommendation. The ballot vote and 

the staff memorandum will be posted on 

the CPSC Web site. Any determination 

by the Commission to grant a request 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment. If the 

Commission concludes that the request 

shall be denied, the requestor shall be 

notified in writing of the denial from the 

Office of the Secretary along with the 

official ballot results and the EXHR 

staff’s memorandum of 

recommendation. 

(h) Where the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction’s (EXHR) 

initial recommendation is to grant the 

request for a lead content determination, 

it will submit the basis for that 

recommendation to the Commission in 

a memorandum to be voted on by ballot, 

with sufficient detail for the 

Commission to make an informed 

decision that reasonable grounds for a 

determination are presented. If the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) is 

published, it will invite public comment 

in the Federal Register. EXHR will 

review and evaluate any comments and 

supporting documentation before 

making its final recommendation to the 

Commission for final agency action, by 

staff memorandum submitted to the 

Commission. If the Commission, after 

review of the staff’s final 

recommendation, determines that a 

material or product does not and would 

not exceed the lead content limits, it 

will decide by ballot vote, on whether 

to publish a final rule in the Federal 

Register. 

(i) The filing of a request for a 

determination does not have the effect 

of staying the effect of any provision or 

limit under the statutes and regulations 

enforced by the Commission. Even 

though a request for a determination has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10481 

been filed, unless a Commission 

determination is issued in final form 

after notice and comment, materials or 

products subject to the lead limits under 

section 101 of the CPSIA must be tested 

in accordance with section 102 of the 

CPSIA, unless the testing requirement is 

otherwise stayed by the Commission. 

§ 1500.90 Procedures and requirements 

for exclusions from lead limits under 

section 101(b) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act. 

(a) The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act provides for specific 

lead limits in children’s products. 

Section 101(a) of the CPSIA provides 

that by February 10, 2009, products 

designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger may 

not contain more than 600 ppm of lead. 

After August 14, 2009, products 

designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger 

cannot contain more than 300 ppm of 

lead. On August 14, 2011, the limit will 

be further reduced to 100 ppm, unless 

the Commission determines that this 

lower limit is not technologically 

feasible. Paint, coatings or electroplating 

may not be considered a barrier that 

would make the lead content of a 

product inaccessible to a child or 

prevent the absorption of any lead in the 

human body through normal and 

reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of 

the product. 

(b) Section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA 

provides that the Commission may 

exclude a specific product or material 

from the lead limits established for 

children’s products under the CPSIA if 

the Commission, after notice and a 

hearing, determines on the basis of the 

best-available, objective, peer-reviewed, 

scientific evidence that lead in such 

product or material will neither: 

(1) Result in the absorption of any 

lead into the human body, taking into 

account normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use and abuse of such 

product by a child, including 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or 

other children’s activities, and the aging 

of the product; nor 

(2) Have any other adverse impact on 

public health or safety. 

(c) To request an exclusion from the 

lead limits as provided under paragraph 

(a) of this section, the request must: 

(1) Be e-mailed to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. and 

titled ‘‘Section 101 Request for Exclusion of 

a Material or Product.’’ Requests may also be 

mailed, preferably in five copies, to the 

Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, or 

delivered to the same address. 

(2) Be written in the English language. 

(3) Contain the name and address, and email address or telephone number, of the 

requestor. 

(4) Provide documentation including: 

(i) A detailed description of the product or 

material and how it is used by a child; 

(ii) Representative data on the lead content 

of parts of the product or materials used in 

the production of a product; 

(iii) All relevant data or information on 

manufacturing processes through which lead 

may be introduced into the product or 

material; 

(iv) Any other information relevant to the 

potential for lead content of the product or 

material to exceed the CPSIA lead limits that 

is reasonably available to the requestor; 

(v) Detailed information on the relied upon 

test methods for measuring lead content of 

products or materials including the type of 

equipment used or any other techniques 

employed and a statement as to why the data 

is representative of the lead content of such 

products or materials generally; and 

(vi) An assessment of the manufacturing 

processes which strongly supports a 

conclusion that they would not be a source 

of lead contamination of the product or 

material, if relevant. 

(5) Provide best-available, objective, peerreviewed, scientific evidence to support a 

request for an exclusion demonstrating that 

the normal and reasonably foreseeable use 

and abuse activity by a child (including 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other 

children’s activities) and the aging of the 

material or product for which exclusion is 

sought, will not result in the absorption of 

any lead into the human body, nor have any 

other adverse impact on public health or 

safety. This literature should support a 

request for exclusion that addresses how 

much lead is present in the product, how 

much lead comes out of the product, and the 

conditions under which that may happen 

and information relating to a child’s 

interaction, if any, with the product. 

(6) Provide best-available, objective, peerreviewed, scientific evidence that is 

unfavorable to the request that is reasonably 

available to the requestor. 

(d) Where a submission fails to meet 

all of the requirements of paragraph (c) 

of this section, the Office of the 

Secretary shall notify the person 

submitting it, describe the deficiency, 

and explain that the request may be 

resubmitted when the deficiency is 

corrected. 

(e) Upon receipt of a complete request 

for an exclusion, the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction (EXHR) 

will assess the request to determine 

whether, on the basis of its review of the 

submitted materials, that the normal 

and reasonably foreseeable use and 

abuse activity by a child (including 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or 

other children’s activities) and the aging 

of the material or product for which 

exclusion is sought, will not result in 

the absorption of any lead into the 

human body nor have any other adverse 

impact on health or safety. EXHR will 

make an initial recommendation within 

thirty (30) calendar days to the extent 

practicable. EXHR may request an 

extension from the Executive Director of 

the CPSC, if necessary, to make its 

initial recommendation. A complete 

request is one that does not require 

additional information from the 

requestor for EXHR to make an initial 

recommendation to the Commission. 

(f) Where the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction’s (EXHR) 

initial recommendation is to deny the 

request for an exclusion, it will provide 

in a staff memorandum to the 

Commission, submitted to the 

Commission for ballot vote, the basis for 

denial with sufficient detail for the 

Commission to make an informed 

decision that reasonable grounds for an 

exclusion are not presented. The 

Commission, by ballot vote, will render 

a decision on the staff’s 

recommendation. The ballot vote and 

the staff memorandum will be posted on 

the CPSC Web site. Any determination 

by the Commission to grant a request 

will be published in the Federal 

Register for comment. If the 

Commission concludes that the request 

shall be denied, the requestor shall be 

notified in writing of the denial from the 

Office of the Secretary along with the 

official ballot results and the EXHR’s 

staff’s memorandum of 

recommendation. 

(g) Where the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction’s (EXHR) 

initial recommendation is to grant the 

exclusion, it will submit the basis for 

that recommendation to the 

Commission in a memorandum to be 

voted on by ballot, with sufficient detail 

for the Commission to make an 

informed decision that reasonable 

grounds for a determination are 

presented. If the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) is published, it will 

invite public comment in the Federal 

Register. EXHR will review and 

evaluate the comments and supporting 

documentation before making its final 

recommendation to the Commission, by 

staff memorandum submitted to the 

Commission, for final agency action. If 

the Commission, after review of the 

staff’s final recommendation, 

determines that an exclusion is 

supported by the evidence, it will 

decide by ballot vote, on whether to 

publish a final rule in the Federal 

Register. 

(h) The filing of a request for 

exclusion does not have the effect of 

staying the effect of any provision or 

limit under the statutes and regulations 

enforced by the Commission. Even 

though a request for an exclusion has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
10482 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

been filed, unless an exclusion is issued 

in final form by the Commission after 

notice and comment, materials or 

products subject to the lead limits under 

section 101 of the CPSIA are considered 

to be banned hazardous substances if 

they do not meet the lead limits as 

provided under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–5075 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

19 CFR Part 12 

[CBP Dec. 09–05] 

RIN 1505–AC11 

Extension of Import Restrictions 

Imposed on Archaeological Material 

From Honduras 

AGENCIES: U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security; Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

regulations to reflect the extension of 

import restrictions on certain categories 

of archaeological material from the PreColumbian cultures of the Republic of 

Honduras (Honduras) that were 

imposed by CBP Decision (Dec.) 04–08 

and expire on March 12, 2009. The 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, United States 

Department of State, has determined 

that conditions continue to warrant the 

imposition of import restrictions. 

Accordingly, these import restrictions 

will remain in effect for an additional 5 

years, and the CBP regulations are being 

amended to reflect this extension until 

March 12, 2013. These restrictions are 

being extended pursuant to 

determinations of the United States 

Department of State made under the 

terms of the Convention on Cultural 

Property Implementation Act in 

accordance with the 1970 United 

Nations Educational, Scientific and 

Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting 

and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export 

and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural 

Property. CBP Dec. 04–08 contains the 

Designated List of archaeological 

material that describes the articles to 

which the restrictions apply. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

legal aspects, George Frederick McCray, 

Esq., Chief, Intellectual Property Rights 

and Restricted Merchandise Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, (202) 325–0082. For 

operational aspects, Michael Craig, 

Chief, Interagency Requirements 

Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, 

Office of International Trade, (202) 863– 

6558. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 

United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 

Convention, codified into U.S. law as 

the Convention on Cultural Property 

Implementation Act (Pub. L. 97–446, 19 

U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), the United States 

entered into a bilateral agreement with 

the Republic of Honduras (Honduras) on 

March 12, 2004, concerning the 

imposition of import restrictions on 

certain categories of archaeological 

material from Honduras. The 

archaeological materials subject to the 

bilateral agreement represent the PreColumbian cultures of Honduras and 

range in date from approximately 1200 

B.C. to 1500 A.D. On March 16, 2004, 

CBP published CBP Decision (Dec.) 04– 

08 in the Federal Register (69 FR 

12267), which amended 19 CFR 

12.104g(a) to reflect the imposition of 

these restrictions and included a list 

designating the types of archaeological 

material covered by the restrictions. 

Import restrictions listed in 19 CFR 

12.104g(a) are ‘‘effective for no more 

than five years beginning on the date on 

which the agreement enters into force 

with respect to the United States. This 

period can be extended for additional 

periods not to exceed five years if it is 

determined that the factors which 

justified the initial agreement still 

pertain and no cause for suspension of 

the agreement exists’’ (19 CFR 

12.104g(a)). 

After reviewing the findings and 

recommendations of the Cultural 

Property Advisory Committee, the 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and 

Cultural Affairs, United States 

Department of State, concluding that the 

cultural heritage of Honduras continues 

to be in jeopardy from pillage of certain 

archaeological materials, made the 

necessary determinations to extend the 

import restrictions for an additional five 

years on December 4, 2008. 

Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 

12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the 

import restrictions. The Designated List 

of Pre-Columbian Archaeological 

Material from Honduras covered by 

these import restrictions is set forth in 

CBP Dec. 04–08. The Designated List 

and accompanying image database may 

also be accessed from the following 

Internet Web site address: http:// 

exchanges.state.gov/heritage/ 

culprop.html. The restrictions on the 

importation of these archaeological 

materials from Honduras are to continue 

in effect for an additional five years. 

Importation of such material continues 

to be restricted unless the conditions set 

forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 

12.104c are met. 

Inapplicability of Notice and Delayed 

Effective Date 

This amendment involves a foreign 

affairs function of the United States and 

is, therefore, being made without notice 

or public procedure (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). 

For the same reason, a delayed effective 

date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because no notice of proposed 

rulemaking is required, the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. 

Executive Order 12866 

Because this rule involves a foreign 

affairs function of the United States, it 

is not subject to Executive Order 12866. 

Signing Authority 

This regulation is being issued in 

accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1). 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 12 

Cultural property, Customs duties and 

inspection, Imports, Prohibited 

merchandise. 

Amendment to CBP Regulations 

■ For the reasons set forth above, part 12 

of Title 19 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is 

amended as set forth below: 

PART 12—SPECIAL CLASSES OF 

MERCHANDISE 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 12 and the specific authority 

citation for § 12.104g continue to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 

(General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 

1624; 

* * * * * 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES