[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20062-20070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9960]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1500


Metal-Cored Candle Wicks Containing Lead and Candles With Such 
Wicks; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing to declare that metal-cored candle 
wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal and 
candles with such wicks are hazardous substances and to ban such wicks 
and candles with such wicks.\1\ The Commission is issuing these 
proposed rules under authority of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commissioners voted 2-0 to issue this notice of proposed 
rulemaking.

DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by 
the Commission no later than July 8, 2002.
    Comments on elements of the proposed rules that, if issued, would 
constitute collection of information requirements under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') and with the Commission. Comments will be received by OMB 
until June 24, 2002.

[[Page 20063]]


ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, preferably in five (5) copies, to 
the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
Washington, DC 20207, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-6800. Comments also may 
be filed by facsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by e-mail to [email protected]. Comments should be captioned ``NPR for Candle Wicks 
Containing Lead.''
    Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks 
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's 
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the 
materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of 
information requirements for the proposed ban on certain candle wicks 
and candles made with such wicks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., 
Project Manager, Directorate for Health Sciences, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0994, ext. 
1389.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On February 24, 2000, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC or Commission) received a petition from Public Citizen requesting 
that the Commission ban candles with lead-containing wicks and wicks 
sold for candle-making that contain lead. On February 29, 2000, CPSC 
received a similar petition from the National Apartment Association and 
the National Multi Housing Council. These petitions were docketed 
collectively under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) 
(Petition No. HP 00-3) on March 17, 2000.
    After analysis of the available data on lead-cored candle wicks and 
the information provided by the petitioners, the CPSC staff transmitted 
a briefing package to the Commission recommending that the Commission 
proceed with rulemaking to ban lead-cored candle wicks. The staff 
recommended that a lead-cored wick be defined as a wick containing a 
metal core with greater than 0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal, 
since laboratory test data indicate that burning candles with metal-
cored wicks with lead concentrations of 0.06 percent or less by weight 
does not result in detectable emissions of lead into the air. On 
February 20, 2001, the Commission issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) that could lead to a ban on metal-cored wicks 
containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal and 
candles with such wicks. 66 FR 10863.

B. The Product

    Lead-cored wicks are candle wicks with a metal wire in the center 
made of lead or lead alloy. The metal core is used to provide 
structural rigidity to the wick, i.e., to keep the wick straight during 
candle production, and to provide an upright wick during burning.

C. The Risk of Illness

    As a lead-cored wick candle burns, some of the lead may vaporize 
and be released into the air. This airborne lead may be inhaled. Some 
of this lead may deposit onto floors, furniture, and other surfaces in 
the room where children may be exposed to it. One cannot tell by 
looking at the wick core if it is made of lead, and there is no simple 
way for a consumer to determine its lead content. The presence of lead 
in a wick can be determined only by laboratory analysis.
    Similarly, one cannot tell if lead is being released from a burning 
candle by observing smoke or soot; nor can one tell that lead is not 
being released by the lack of visible emissions. Determination of lead 
in room air or on surfaces must be done by professionals.
    The toxic effects of lead and the risk to consumers, especially 
children, from exposure to lead emitted from lead-cored wick candles, 
including neurological damage, delayed mental and physical development, 
attention and learning deficiencies, and hearing problems, were 
detailed in the Commission briefing package on Petition No. HP 00-3.\2\ 
In that briefing package, CPSC staff concluded that, under reasonable 
assumptions, exposure of children to indoor air lead levels from 
candles emitting 430 micrograms of lead per hour or more could result 
in elevated blood levels (greater than 10 micrograms of lead per 
deciliter of blood). Laboratory investigations by CPSC staff and others 
indicate that lead-cored wick candles can emit more than 3,000 
g of lead per hour during candle burning.\3\ Thus, the 
Commission believes that under certain expected use conditions, the 
lead emitted from burning candles with lead-cored wicks presents a risk 
to consumers of substantial illness from exposure through inhalation of 
airborne lead. Children may also be exposed to lead that deposits onto 
surfaces in the room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Briefing memorandum from Kristina M. Hatlelid, Ph.D., 
M.P.H., Toxicologist, Directorate for Health Sciences, to the 
Commission, ``Petition HP 00-3 to Ban Lead-cored Candle Wicks,'' 
December 12, 2000. This and other CPSC materials for this rulemaking 
referenced in this preamble are available in PDF format on the CPSC 
World Wide Web site at www.cpsc.gov. Select ``Library (FOIA),'' 
Electronic Reading Room--Freedom of Information Act Information,'' 
``2001 FOIA Information, and ``Commission Briefing Packages.'' Then 
scroll down to the materials captioned ``Ban of Candle Wicks.''
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several countries have acted on this issue. Officials in Canada 
issued an advisory in January, 2001, warning consumers that some 
candles sold in Canada contained lead-cored wicks, and offering advice 
on making informed purchasing decisions.\4\ Officials in Australia and 
New Zealand have instituted provisional bans on candles with wicks 
containing any amount of lead.\5\ Australia is now considering making 
the ban permanent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Health Canada Advisory 2001-02, January 2001.
    \5\ Commonwealth of Australia Consumer Protection Notice No. 11 
of 1999 under the Trade Practices Act of 1974, September 1999; New 
Zealand Ministry of Consumer Affairs Unsafe Goods Notice under the 
Fair Trading Act 1986, June 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Denmark issued a more comprehensive order in December 2000 banning 
a number of products containing lead.\6\ Chafing dish candles and other 
candles are specifically included in the ban. The order defines a lead-
containing product as one in which lead represents more than 50 mg/kg 
(0.005 percent) of the homogeneous components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Danish Environmental Protection Agency Ministry of 
Environment and Energy Council Directive 89/677/EEC and implementing 
orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Statutory Authority

    This proceeding is conducted under provisions of the FHSA. 15 
U.S.C. 1261-1278. It involves three actions. First, pursuant to section 
3(a) of the FHSA, the Commission is proposing to declare that metal-
cored candle wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of 
the metal and candles with such wicks are hazardous substances. 
(Proposed 16 CFR 1500.12(a)(2)). Second, pursuant to section 2(q)(1)(B) 
of the FHSA, the Commission is proposing to ban such wicks and candles 
with such wicks. (Proposed 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13)). Third, pursuant to 
section 10(a) of the FHSA, the Commission is proposing to require that 
manufacturers and importers of metal-cored wicks and candles test and/
or maintain records of testing performed by the supplier of the metal-
cored wicks or the metal used in the metal cores. Id. The testing 
records must demonstrate compliance for the lots of wicks and/or

[[Page 20064]]

candles and must maintain a line of continuity between the two.
    The Commission is proposing to declare that metal-cored candle 
wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of the metal and 
candles with such wicks are ``hazardous substances'' within the meaning 
of section 2(f)(1)(A) of the FHSA because they are toxic, and ``may 
cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a 
proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or 
use * * *.'' 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A). A proceeding to classify a 
substance as a hazardous substance under section 3(a) of the FHSA is 
governed by, inter alia, sections 701(e), (f), and (g) of the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 371(e)-(g). See 15 
U.S.C. 1262(a)(2).
    Under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA, the Commission may classify 
as a ``banned hazardous substance'' any hazardous substance intended 
for household use which, notwithstanding the precautionary labeling 
required by the FHSA, presents such a hazard that keeping the substance 
out of interstate commerce is the only adequate means to protect the 
public health and safety. 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B). A proceeding to 
classify a substance as a banned hazardous substance under section 
2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA is governed by the requirements set forth in 
section 3(f) of the FHSA, and by sections 701(e), (f), and (g) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (``FDCA'') (21 U.S.C. 371(e)). See 
15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(2) and 1262(f).
    The February 20, 2001, ANPR was the first step necessary to declare 
the specified candle wicks and candles to be banned hazardous 
substances under section 2(q)(1). See 15 U.S.C. 1262(f). The proposed 
regulations issued today continue the regulatory process in accordance 
with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1262(a) and (h). Under the rules 
proposed today, metal-cored candle wicks containing more than 0.06 
percent lead by weight of the metal and candles with such wicks would 
be declared to be hazardous substances and would be banned.
    If the Commission proceeds to issue a final rule banning these 
wicks and candles, it must publish the text of the final rule and a 
final regulatory analysis that includes: (1) A description of the 
potential costs and benefits of the rule; (2) A description of 
alternatives considered by the Commission (including a description of 
their potential costs and benefits and an explanation of why they were 
not chosen); and (3) a summary of significant issues raised by comments 
on the preliminary regulatory analysis published with these proposed 
rules. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i)(1). The Commission also must make findings 
that: (1) any relevant voluntary standard is unlikely to adequately 
reduce the risk of injury or substantial compliance with the voluntary 
standard is unlikely; (2) the expected benefits of the regulation bear 
a reasonable relationship to expected costs; and (3) the regulation 
imposes the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce 
the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i)(2).
    Procedures established by section 701(e) of the FDCA would govern 
Commission action to finalize the hazardous substance declaration and 
the banning rule. 15 U.S.C. 1262(a)(2) and 1261(q)(2). These procedures 
provide that once the Commission issues a final rule, persons who would 
be adversely affected by the rule have a period of thirty (30) days in 
which to file objections stating reasonable grounds therefor, and to 
request a public hearing on those objections. 21 U.S.C. 371(e). Should 
valid objections be filed, a hearing to receive evidence concerning the 
objections would be held and the presiding officer would issue an order 
after the hearing, based upon substantial evidence. 21 U.S.C. 371(e); 
16 CFR part 1502.

E. Response to Comments on the ANPR

    Eleven comments were received in response to the ANPR. Nine 
comments were in favor of the proposal to ban lead-cored wicks. One 
commenter opposed forcing companies to compensate for parents who are 
not preventing their children from being exposed to lead emissions from 
such wicks. One commenter opposed a mandatory rule and submitted a 
voluntary standard that would ban the use of domestically produced 
metal-cored wicks containing greater than 0.01 percent lead and 
imported wicks with metal cores, irrespective of lead content. The 
issues raised by commenters and the Commission responses to them are 
discussed below.

1. Federal Regulation

    Comments: Nine of the eleven comments support the proposal to ban 
lead-cored wicks. One dissenting comment from a consumer stated that 
the candle industry should not be made to bear the burden for parents 
who do not adequately protect their children. One commenter, 
representing a standards organization, submitted a voluntary standard 
to take the place of a mandatory rule. About half of the commenters, 
including a representative of the National Candle Association (NCA), 
stated that a voluntary standard would not adequately remove lead-cored 
wicks from commerce.
    Response: The CPSC does not believe it is reasonable to expect that 
parents alone can protect children from all consumer product hazards, 
especially if potential hazards are not readily apparent. The 
Commission believes that a mandatory standard is necessary, in part 
because of the failure of the industry to maintain conformance with a 
voluntary commitment to eliminate lead wicks made in 1974, and 
recognizes that the NCA and its member firms support the development of 
the mandatory rule.
    A mandatory standard would: (1) Apply to all domestic and imported 
candle and wick products containing metal-cored wicks regardless of a 
company's membership in a trade organization or knowledge of applicable 
standards; (2) deter manufacturers from making non-conforming wicks or 
candles and enable the staff to seek civil penalties for violations; 
(3) increase compliance by retailers and distributors who often require 
that products meet applicable federal standards; and (4) through 
cooperative efforts with the U.S. Customs Service, prevent non-
complying products from entering the U.S.

2. Voluntary Standards

    Comment: Voices of Safety International (VOSI) proffered a 
voluntary standard for lead in candle wicks, specifying that 
domestically produced metal-cored wicks contain no more than 0.01 
percent lead in the metal. The standard further specifies that imported 
candle wicks may not contain metal cores. The VOSI standard includes a 
methodology, based on tensile strength of metals, for determining 
whether metal-cored wicks comply with the specified maximum lead 
content. VOSI also asserted that the provision of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 
Public Law 104-113, concerning adoption of voluntary consensus 
standards by federal agencies applies to this proceeding.
    Response: The CPSC staff analysis of the submitted standard 
uncovered a number of difficulties concerning the scope of the 
standard, the proposed tensile test methodology, and the acceptance of 
the standard by the intended industry. The Commission thus finds 
preliminarily that the VOSI standard is not likely to result in the 
elimination or adequate reduction of the risk at issue in this 
proceeding and that substantial compliance with it is

[[Page 20065]]

unlikely. See a more detailed discussion of the bases for these 
findings in Section F.2, Voluntary Standards, below.
    VOSI's assertion that the NTTAA applies to this proceeding is 
incorrect. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119 
expressly excludes from the NTTAA requirements ``independent regulatory 
commissions insofar as they are subject to separate statutory 
requirements regarding the use of voluntary consensus standards,'' as 
is the Commission under the FHSA. Federal Participation in the 
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity 
Assessment Activities, OMB Circular A-119, February 10, 1998, at 
section 5.

3. Health Effects

    Comments: A number of commenters reiterated the harmful effects of 
lead exposure in children and the potential for lead exposure from 
candles.
    Response: As discussed above, the toxic effects of lead and the 
risk to consumers, especially children, from exposure to lead emitted 
from lead-cored wick candles were presented in the initial CPSC staff 
briefing package on Petition No. HP 00-3.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See fn. 2 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Substitute Materials

    Comments: Three commenters discussed available substitutes and 
their use by manufacturers. Three commenters reiterated that other 
countries have issued bans on the import and sale of lead-containing 
wicks. The National Candle Association stated that use of lead-cored 
wicks has been broadly discontinued domestically, and that zinc-cored 
wicks currently in use would comply with a ban on metal-cored wicks 
exceeding 0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal. One commenter 
claimed that paper- or cotton-cored wicks would not be acceptable 
because they are less rigid than zinc and have a higher burning rate.
    Response: The CPSC staff economic analysis supports the proposition 
that alternatives to the use of lead core are available. The staff 
believes that no wick manufacturer in the U.S. currently uses lead core 
in the production of its wicks. The Commission preliminarily concludes, 
based on that analysis, that the cost to manufacturers or consumers of 
a ban on lead-cored wicks would be small.
    The CPSC staff has found no basis for the commenter's claim that 
paper-or cotton-cored wicks are unacceptable alternatives to lead-cored 
wicks.
    As discussed above, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Denmark 
have acted on this issue, limiting the use of lead in candle wicks or 
providing guidance to consumers.

5. Metal-Cored Wicks

    Comments: Two commenters expressed concern about the presence of 
even small amounts of lead in metal-cored wicks.
    Response: Metals, such as zinc, may be used in candle wicks. The 
lead content of the zinc used in zinc-cored wicks has been determined 
by CPSC and others to range from about 0.0005 percent to 0.06 percent 
by weight in the metal.\8\ CPSC laboratory and other tests have shown 
no detectable levels of airborne lead emissions from candles with metal 
wicks containing 0.06 percent lead or less by weight. Therefore, the 
Commission is proposing a ban on metal-cored wicks containing more than 
0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal and candles with such wicks, 
but is not proposing to limit the use of metal cores that contain 0.06 
percent lead or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See fn. 2 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Labeling

    Comments: Three commenters believe that regulating lead-cored wick 
candles by requiring warning labels would not adequately protect public 
health, and one commenter suggested that candles that comply with the 
proposed 0.06 percent maximum lead limit should be labeled with that 
information.
    Response: The CPSC agrees that lead-cored wicks and candles 
containing lead-cored wicks should be banned and that precautionary 
labeling is not an acceptable strategy for protecting vulnerable 
populations from lead poisoning that may be induced by burning candles 
with lead-cored wicks.\9\ The Commission does not believe that 
requiring individual complying candles to be labeled would add to the 
safety of these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Memorandum from Carolyn Meiers, Engineering Psychologist, 
Human Factors, to Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., Directorate for 
Health Sciences, ``Labeling of Candles with Lead-cored Wicks 
(Petition HP 00-3),'' October 18, 2000. See fn. 2 above for 
information on the availability of this and other related documents 
on the Internet and at the CPSC reading room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would require labeling of each shipping container 
of metal-cored wicks, and each shipping container of candles with 
metal-cored wicks, with the statement ``Conforms to 16 CFR 
1500.17(a)(13)'' and a number or other designation that relates back to 
the test results demonstrating compliance for the wicks/candles in that 
shipping container. CPSC specifically invites interested parties to 
comment on this feature of the proposal.

F. Alternatives to Proposed Ban

1. No Action

    If the Commission took no action, lead-cored candle wicks could 
continue to be sold in the U.S. In the mid-1970's the domestic candle 
industry stopped using lead in wicks, but lead-cored wicks reappeared 
on the domestic market some time thereafter. While the domestic 
industry states that it has now voluntarily eliminated lead in their 
wicks, imports may continue to be a source of lead in the absence of a 
mandatory standard. Under the no action scenario, CPSC enforcement 
staff would be limited to taking action against lead-containing wicks 
under the FHSA on a case-by-case basis.

2. Voluntary Standards

    In 1974, the Candle Manufacturers Association industry group 
submitted a statement informing the Commission of an agreement among 
candle manufacturers to convert to substitutes for lead-cored wicks in 
candles by the end of the third quarter 1974. They also agreed not to 
import candles with lead-cored wicks. Further, the major domestic wick 
manufacturer at that time agreed to discontinue the production of lead-
cored wicks.
    Despite this agreement, some wick manufacturers resumed producing 
lead-cored wicks and some candle manufacturers resumed producing and 
importing candles with lead-cored wicks after 1974.
    In May 2000, a task group for candle wicks was formed under the 
ASTM F15.45 Candle Products Subcommittee to develop a consensus 
standard to address the lead content of candle wicks. The task group 
stopped their standards development process in February 2001 in favor 
of supporting the CPSC mandatory rulemaking process.
    During the public comment period on the ANPR, VOSI proffered a 
voluntary standard for lead in candle wicks. The VOSI standard 
specifies that metal-cored wicks may contain no more than 0.01 percent 
lead in the metal. The standard further specifies that imported candle 
wicks may not contain metal cores. The standard includes a methodology, 
based on tensile strength of metals, for determining whether metal-
cored wicks comply with the specified maximum lead content.
    CPSC technical staff reviewed the standard and noted a number of 
difficulties. Although the standard states that a maximum of 0.01 
percent

[[Page 20066]]

lead is required to protect consumer health, no technical or health 
basis for this level is provided. The CPSC staff maintains that the 
proposed limit of 0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal is 
appropriate and supported by the laboratory analyses performed by CPSC 
staff and others.
    The CPSC staff further states that the analytical methodology in 
the submitted standard is not capable of reliably determining either 
the presence or concentration of lead in metal-cored candle wicks. The 
CPSC staff concludes that the tensile strength of a metal alloy would 
not definitively identify zinc cored wicks with less than the maximum 
allowable lead content in the metal, but could falsely detect alloys 
not containing lead, causing them to fail the test and be needlessly 
prohibited from wick use. The staff states that the metal's lead 
content, not its physical attributes, is the important characteristic 
in protecting consumers' health.
    The VOSI standard specifies different standards for domestic and 
imported products. Specifically, the standard specifies that 
domestically produced metal-cored wicks may contain no more than 0.01 
percent lead in the metal but that imported candle wicks may not 
contain metal cores. The FHSA gives CPSC the authority to regulate 
hazardous substances. In the absence of evidence that a specific type 
of metal wick meets the definition of a hazardous substance under the 
FHSA, the CPSC cannot ban it. Furthermore, a discriminatory approach to 
imports with no basis in fact would in all likelihood be a violation of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), if not other U.S. 
treaty obligations.
    The Commission believes that membership in standards organizations, 
such as ASTM, serves, in part, to transmit applicable standards to 
member firms. VOSI has offered no information that its members include 
candle or wick manufacturers. VOSI has not shown that the standard was 
developed within an industry consensus framework or is otherwise widely 
known to candle and wick manufacturers in the United States or 
elsewhere.\10\ Nor has it provided any evidence that there would be 
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As of January 16, 2002, The VOSI world wide web site 
states, with respect to the candle wick standard, that ``These 
standards have been approved by VOSI and are for reference only.'' 
That page of the website goes on to provide for ongoing public 
review of ``Approved VOSI Public Health Standards.''
    Section 3(i)(2) of the FHSA requires that a voluntary standard 
be ``adopted and implemented'' before the Commission must defer to 
it rather than promulgating a mandatory standard. Thus, based on 
VOSI's public statements on the status of its candle wick standard, 
the Commission would also be justified in eliminating it from 
further consideration in this rulemaking without reaching its 
technical and procedural flaws. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the foregoing analysis, the Commission finds that the VOSI 
standard is technically unsound, and thus would not result in the 
elimination or adequate reduction of the risk, and that substantial 
compliance with it is unlikely.
    Even if a technically valid voluntary standard were developed, the 
Commission maintains that a mandatory standard is necessary to 
adequately protect public health.

3. Precautionary Labeling

    A CPSC Human Factors staff analysis concludes that precautionary 
labeling of individual candles is not an acceptable strategy for 
protecting vulnerable populations from lead poisoning that may be 
caused by burning candles with lead-cored wicks.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See fn. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That analysis shows that since lead is emitted from a candle when 
the candle is used as intended, the only preventative measures 
consumers could take to protect themselves against the hazard would be 
to not burn candles with lead-cored wicks. No label or subsequent 
action by the consumer would prevent the release of lead into the air 
if the candle is used as intended. The staff analysis therefore 
concludes that it is not realistic to expect consumers to comply with a 
warning label advising not to burn the candles, but to use them only 
for decorative purposes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Comment Period

    In accordance with section 4 of Executive Order 12889 implementing 
NAFTA, the Commission is providing a 75 day public comment period on 
the proposed rules. The Commission is particularly interested in 
acquiring additional data on the effect the proposed rules would have 
on prices to consumers and costs to wick and candle manufacturers.

H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

1. FHSA Requirement

    The Commission has preliminarily determined to issue a rule 
declaring a ban on metal-cored wicks containing more than 0.06 percent 
lead by weight in the metal and candles with such wicks. Section 3(h) 
of the FHSA requires that the Commission prepare a preliminary 
regulatory analysis for this action. 15 U.S.C. 1261(h). The following 
discussion addresses this requirement.

2. Introduction

    The Commission is considering amending the FHSA regulations to 
declare that metal-cored wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead 
by weight in the metal and candles with such wicks are hazardous 
substances and to ban such wicks and candles. In February 2001, the 
Commission voted to issue an ANPR that could lead to such a declaration 
and ban. 66 FR 10863. On April 17, 2002, the Commission voted to issue 
proposed rules declaring that such wicks and candles with such wicks 
are hazardous substances and banning them.

3. Required Content of the Regulatory Analysis

    To accomplish rulemaking under the FHSA, the Commission must 
publish preliminary and final regulatory analyses containing a 
discussion of various factors. These factors include a description of 
the potential benefits and potential costs of the rule, including any 
benefits and costs that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and an 
identification of those most likely to receive the benefits and bear 
the costs. The FHSA also requires a description of any reasonable 
alternatives to the rule, together with a summary description of their 
costs and benefits, and a brief explanation of why such alternatives 
were not chosen. 15 U.S.C. 1262(h) and 1262(i). In addition, the 
Commission must address the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, which considers effects on small firms, and the requirement for 
review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

4. Analysis of Proposed Hazardous Substance Declaration/Ban \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The following discussion of potential costs and potential 
benefits of the proposed rules is extracted from Memorandum from 
Mary F. Donaldson, CPSC Directorate for Economic Analysis to 
Kristina Hatlelid, CPSC Directorate for Health Sciences, 
``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of a Proposed Ban of Lead in 
Candlewicks,'' March 5, 2002. See fn. 2 above for information on the 
availability of this and other related documents on the Internet and 
at the CPSC reading room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Potential Benefits
    The benefits to consumers of eliminating lead-cored wicks as a 
source of lead exposure are not quantifiable. Nonetheless, the proposed 
ban may result in positive health benefits in individual cases, and 
will contribute to the gradual reduction in lead exposure to the U.S. 
population. Additionally, the Commission did not regulate

[[Page 20067]]

candlewicks in the mid-1970s because the industry voluntarily agreed to 
eliminate lead from candlewicks. A ban of the use of lead in 
candlewicks will therefore help ensure that lead will not be used in 
candlewicks in the future.
(b) Potential Costs
    The costs of replacing lead-cored candlewicks with non-leaded wicks 
are expected to be small. The current use of lead in wicks is already 
small, since none of the NCA members use lead in their wicks beyond the 
acceptable trace levels found in zinc cores, and information obtained 
from an industry source indicates that the cost of substitutes for 
lead-cored wicks is not higher than the cost of wicks made with lead. 
In fact, when lead-cored candlewicks were available, they cost more per 
yard than candlewicks made with other materials.
    However, there are some costs associated with testing, tracking, 
maintaining records of candles and candlewicks with metal cores, and 
labeling of shipping containers. The proposed rule requires firms that 
manufacturer, import, or otherwise distribute metal-cored candlewicks 
and candles perform testing or obtain records of testing to assure 
compliance. Records of testing would have to bear a lot designation 
that relates to the candles and candlewicks and be retained for as long 
as the product the testing pertains to is being distributed plus three 
years. In addition, firms would have to label shipping containers.
    Based on discussions with representatives of the candle and 
candlewick industries, the metal-cored wick testing burden will likely 
be minimal for domestic manufacturers of candles and candlewicks, 
because most candlewicks used in the U.S. are produced by a small 
number of manufacturers, and the testing of the metal used in the wicks 
already takes place in the course of manufacturing of the metal used in 
the wire. The recordkeeping associated with the testing may demand, 
from candlewick manufacturers and distributors, as much as 40 hours per 
metal candlewick lot produced annually. From a discussion with a 
representative of the industry, there may be 5 to 15 lots of wire used 
in candlewick production per year. Recordkeeping by the domestic 
candlewick manufacturers and distributors may require as much as 200 to 
600 hours per year.
    Developing a tracking system for lots may involve some costs. 
Candle and candlewick manufacturers would have to keep track of when 
lot numbers for wicks with metal cores changed, and adjust any existing 
identification system to reflect this. According to the National Candle 
Association, lot identification might be somewhat problematic for the 
industry.
    Importers would also have to obtain appropriate test results, and 
develop a system of identification in order to track test results with 
shipments. The differences in the costs of the testing and labeling 
requirements for importers, relative to domestic candle manufacturers, 
are not clear, but it seems likely that the coordination of testing and 
labeling would be somewhat more complex for importers and therefore 
more costly, since candles are imported from many countries. One large 
importer did not think the impact of the rule would be substantial, but 
was unable to describe how the testing requirements would affect costs.
    Domestic producers, distributors, private labelers, and importers 
of candles, as well as importers of candlewicks, would not have to 
conduct tests as long as they maintain copies of prior test results for 
metal candlewicks. Recordkeeping may require as much as 40 hours per 
firm per year. The exact number of manufacturers and importers is not 
known and not every firm uses metal-cored wicks. If there are 460 
domestic producers of candles in the U.S., and an equivalent number of 
importers of candles and candlewicks, and if we assume that half of all 
manufacturers and importers have metal in their candlewicks, then the 
estimated number of hours for complying with the recordkeeping 
requirements of the rule for these firms could be as high as 18,400 
hours. The total estimated annual employee compensation cost for the 
paperwork burden may be as high as $400,000, industry wide.
    For most candle producers, the costs of labeling are likely to be 
small. The majority of candles are not produced with metal-cored wicks 
and therefore will not need to be labeled. Additionally, the labeling 
requirements will add little to the cost of manufacturing candles when 
labels are needed if existing labeling machines can be used to add the 
information required by the rule's labeling requirements.
    Although the labeling costs are likely to be low, we can estimate 
the number of boxes of candles that might be affected. If we assume 
that $270 to $540 million in candle shipments are affected (i.e., 15-30 
percent of all candles shipped with metal wicks), and that each 
shipping container holds 144 candles (i.e., 12 boxes of a dozen 
candles), perhaps 2 to 4 million shipping containers would need to be 
labeled annually. If a label costs 5 to 10 cents (not including the 
initial purchase of the labeling machine), then $100,000 to $400,000 in 
annual costs would be absorbed by the candle industry for labeling.
    Combined, labeling and recordkeeping may cost the candle industry 
about $500,000 to $800,000 per year. On a percentage basis, these costs 
would represent a small fraction (about 0.03 to 0.04 percent) of the 
overall value of candle shipments which, in 1999, was about $1.8 
billion.
    Finally, there might also be some costs associated with inventories 
of uncertified or non-complying candlewicks held by candle 
manufacturers. These candlewicks would have to be certified or scrapped 
under the standard. The proposed rule would apply to candles and 
candlewicks manufactured after the rule's effective date. Although non-
complying candlewicks may have been manufactured prior to the effective 
date, they would not be usable in candles manufactured after the 
effective date. It is not anticipated, however, that a large amount of 
candlewick inventory will be affected.
    One possible impact of the rule is the movement away from the use 
of metal core wicks due to the added burden of recordkeeping, labeling 
and testing. Based on discussions with several candle manufacturers, 
this has already started to occur. Manufacturers desiring to eliminate 
metal-cored wicks would have to perform product testing to find a 
suitable substitute wick for the candle design. The cost of the 
substitute wick material will not likely be a significant factor in the 
decision to change wicks because candle wicks are a very low cost item 
that do not vary much by type. Based on compliance cost and performance 
factors, each firm will decide whether they will continue to use metal-
cored wicks in their candles.
    It is anticipated that the costs of the rule, although small, will 
be absorbed by both consumers and suppliers (including manufacturers 
and importers). Costs associated with the initial implementation of the 
rule are likely to be borne by the suppliers. These start-up costs will 
not likely be passed on to consumers, because the costs may not be 
uniform across the industry. Some firms may have to develop tracking 
systems for lot identification, acquire additional labeling machinery, 
and certify or scrap old candlewicks. Costs associated with ongoing 
compliance with the rule are expected to be small and these costs will 
likely be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.

[[Page 20068]]

The actual amount of these costs is not clear at this time.
    In summary, while the benefits of a ban of lead in candlewicks are 
likely to be small, the costs of the ban are also small. The action 
will, however, contribute to the gradual reduction in lead exposure in 
the U.S. population.

5. Alternatives to the Rule

    The Commission has considered several other alternatives, 
including: no action, product labeling and deferral to a voluntary 
standard. See discussion above at Section F., Alternatives to Proposed 
Ban.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed ban regulation will require manufacturers and 
importers of metal-cored candle wicks and candles with such wicks to 
perform testing or obtain records of testing, maintain records, and 
label shipping containers for metal-cored candle wicks and candles with 
such wicks that they produce or import. For this reason, the rule 
proposed below contains ``collection of information requirements,'' as 
that term is used in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 
Therefore, the proposed rule is being submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) 
and implementing regulations codified at 5 CFR 1320.11.
    Based on estimates made in the course of developing the metal-cored 
candle wick standard and on information obtained from industry sources, 
the Commission estimates that complying with the recordkeeping 
requirements of the proposed banning rule will require approximately 40 
hours per metal-cored candle wick lot produced annually. The CPSC staff 
does not anticipate that domestic producers or distributors of metal-
cored candle wicks will conduct testing, since the content of the metal 
wire used in the candle wicks is analyzed in the course of the 
manufacturing of the metal. These analyses are provided routinely by 
the manufacturers of the wire. Since 5 to 15 lots of metal-cored candle 
wicks are produced per year in the U.S., recordkeeping by domestic 
metal-cored wick manufacturers under the regulation as proposed would 
require no more than an estimated 200 to 600 hours per year.
    The exact number of manufacturers and importers of candles and of 
importers of candle wicks is not known. Not every producer/importer 
uses metal-cored wicks in its candles. CPSC staff estimates that there 
may be as many as 460 domestic producers of candles. If there are an 
equivalent number of importers of candles/candle wicks and it is 
assumed that half of all these manufacturers and importers have metal 
in their candle wicks, then the estimated number of hours annually that 
would be expended by these entities for complying with the 
recordkeeping requirements of the rule may be as high as 18,400.
    Combining these two estimates, the estimated total burden on metal-
cored wick producers and producers/importers of candles with metal-
cored wicks would be 18,600 to 19,000 hours per year.
    OMB may comment to CPSC between 30 and 60 days after the 
publication of the proposed banning rule. Therefore, although OMB will 
accept comments until June 24, 2002, a comment will be assured of 
having its maximum effect if it is filed by May 24, 2002.
    Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503; telephone (202) 395-
7340. The Commission encourages commenters to provide copies of such 
comments to the Commission's Office of the Secretary, with a caption or 
cover letter identifying the materials as comments submitted to OMB on 
the proposed rule to ban certain metal-cored candle wicks and candles 
with such wicks.

J. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally 
requires the agency to prepare initial and final regulatory flexibility 
analyses describing the impact of the rule on small businesses and 
other small entities. Section 605 of the RFA provides that an agency is 
not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head 
of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a 
preliminary assessment of the impact of a rule to declare that metal-
cored wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight in the 
metal and candles with such wicks are hazardous substances and to ban 
such wicks and candles. A copy of the preliminary analysis is available 
for inspection in the docket for this rulemaking. The assessment 
reports that the costs to consumers and candle wick and candle 
manufacturers are likely to be small.
    At present, the Commission does not have quantitative information 
on the number of small businesses that might be affected by the 
proposed rules, although we believe that almost all domestic candle and 
candle wick manufacturers are small. The staff assessment concludes 
that because the incremental cost of the proposals is likely to be 
small, it is unlikely that the proposals will have a substantial effect 
on a significant number of small businesses.
    The Commission requests comment from companies that supply candle 
wicks and candles that would be affected by these proposed rules. The 
Commission is particularly interested in information on the likely 
effect on small businesses of the testing, recordkeeping, and shipping 
container labeling requirements of the proposed banning rule.
    Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission certifies that 
the rules to declare that metal-cored wicks containing more than 0.06 
percent lead by weight in the metal and candles with such wicks are 
hazardous substances and to ban such wicks and candles, if promulgated 
in final form as proposed, would not have a significant adverse impact 
on a substantial number of small businesses or other small entities.

K. Environmental Considerations

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in 
accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations and CPSC 
procedures for environmental review, the Commission has preliminarily 
assessed the possible environmental effects associated with the 
proposed hazardous substance declaration and ban for metal-cored candle 
wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of the metal and 
candles with such wicks.
    The Commission's regulations at 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1) state that 
rules or safety standards to provide design or performance requirements 
for products normally have little or no potential for affecting the 
human environment. Preliminary analysis of the impact of the rules 
proposed today indicates that they will have no significant effects on 
the environment. This would be especially true if the effective date of 
the banning rule were to enable firms affected by the rule to deplete 
any existing non-complying inventory. Thus, the Commission concludes 
that no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is 
required in this proceeding.

[[Page 20069]]

L. Effective Date

    The rule proposed today would provide a period of one-hundred 
eighty (180) days for depletion of any existing stocks of candle wick 
material and candles subject to the proposed ban. It would then apply 
to any metal-cored candle wick containing more than 0.06 percent lead 
by weight in the metal, and any candle with such a wick, that is 
manufactured or imported on or after that date.

M. Executive Order 12988

    As provided for in Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the 
CPSC states the preemptive effect of these proposed regulations as 
follows.
    The FHSA provides that, generally, if the Commission issues a 
banning rule under section 2(q) of the FHSA to protect against a risk 
of illness or injury associated with a hazardous substance, ``no State 
or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect 
a requirement applicable to such substance and designed to protect 
against the same risk of illness or injury unless such requirement is 
identical to the requirement established under such regulations.'' 15 
U.S.C. 1261n(b)(1)(B). Upon application to the Commission, a State or 
local standard may be excepted from this preemptive effect if the State 
or local standard (1) provides a higher degree of protection from the 
risk of injury or illness than the FHSA standard and (2) does not 
unduly burden interstate commerce. In addition, the Federal government, 
or a State or local government, may establish and continue in effect a 
non-identical requirement that provides a higher degree of protection 
than the FHSA requirement for the hazardous substance for the Federal, 
State or local government's own use. 15 U.S.C. 1261n(b)(2). Thus, with 
the exceptions noted above, the proposed rule banning metal-cored 
candle wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of the 
metal and candles with such wicks would preempt non-identical state or 
local requirements applicable to such wicks and candles designed to 
protect against the same risk of injury.

N. Trade Secret or Proprietary Information

    Any person responding to this notice who believes that any 
information submitted is trade secret or proprietary should 
specifically identify the exact portions of the document claimed to be 
confidential. The Commission's staff will receive and handle such 
information confidentially and in accordance with section 6(a) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2055(a). Such information 
will not be placed in the public docket for the rulemaking and will not 
be made available to the public simply upon request. If the Commission 
receives a request for disclosure of the information or concludes that 
its disclosure is necessary to discharge the Commission's 
responsibilities, the Commission will inform the person who submitted 
the information and provide that person an opportunity to present 
additional information and views concerning the confidential nature of 
the information. 16 CFR 1015.18(b) (1999).
    The Commission's staff will then make a determination of whether 
the information is trade secret or proprietary information that cannot 
be released. That determination will be made in accordance with 
applicable provisions of the CPSA; the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552b; 18 U.S.C. 1905; the Commission's procedural 
regulations at 16 CFR part 1015 governing protection and disclosure of 
information under provisions of FOIA; and relevant judicial 
interpretations. If the Commission concludes that any part of the 
information that has been submitted with a claim that the information 
is a trade secret or proprietary is disclosable, it will notify the 
person submitting the material in writing and provide at least 10 
calendar days from the receipt of the letter to allow for that person 
to seek judicial relief. 15 U.S.C. 2055(a)(5) and (6); 16 CFR 
1015.19(b).

O. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission 
preliminarily finds that metal-cored candle wicks containing more than 
0.06 percent lead by weight in the metal and candles with such wicks 
are hazardous substances, that cautionary labeling required by the FHSA 
is not adequate for such wicks and candles, and that, due to the degree 
and nature of the hazard presented by these items, in order to protect 
the public health and safety it is necessary to keep them out of 
commerce.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500

    Consumer protection, Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances, 
Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Reporting 
and recordkeeping.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to 
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulation to read as follows:

PART 1500--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES; ADMINISTRATION AND 
ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS.

    1. The authority for part 1500 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.

    2. In Sec. 1500.12, add a new paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 1500.12  Products declared to be hazardous substances under 
section 3(a) of the act.

    (a) * * *
    (2) metal-cored candle wicks that have a lead content of more than 
0.06 percent of the total weight of the metal core, and candles made 
with such wicks.
    3. In Sec. 1500.17, add a new paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:


Sec. 1500.17  Banned hazardous substances.

    (a) * * *
    (13)(i) Candles made with metal-cored wicks. Lots of candles 
manufactured or imported on or after ________ __, 2002 [insert date 180 
days after promulgation of final rule] made with metal-cored candle 
wicks, unless:
    (A) The metal core of each candle wick has a lead content 
(calculated as the metal) of not more than 0.06 percent of the total 
weight of the metal core;
    (B) The manufacturer, importer, private labeler, or distributor of 
each lot of candles with metal-cored wicks conducts, or obtains a 
report of the results of, reasonable and representative tests on either 
the candles in that lot, the metal-cored candle wicks used in that lot 
of candles, or the metal used to produce the wicks that were used in 
that lot of candles, that establish that the lead content of the metal 
used in the wicks is not more than 0.06 percent (of the total weight of 
the metal core);
    (C) The records of such testing are in English, identify each lot 
of candles to which the test results apply, identify all numbers or 
other designations used to represent each lot on the label of 
containers as required in paragraph (a)(13)(i)(D) of this section, are 
maintained in the United States for as long as the candles the testing 
pertains to are being distributed plus three (3) years, and are made 
available for inspection and copying within 48 hours of a request by 
any officer, employee, or agent acting on behalf of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission; and
    (D) Each outer container or wrapper in which candles from a lot 
subject to paragraphs (a)(13)(i)(B) and (a)(13)(i)(C) of this section 
are shipped, including each outer container or wrapper of such candles 
distributed to a retail outlet, is

[[Page 20070]]

labeled ``Conforms to 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13)'' and bears a number or 
other designation that relates back to the test results for that lot. 
For purposes of this paragraph (a)(13)(i)(D), the term ``outer 
container or wrapper'' does not include the immediate container in 
which candle(s) is/are intended to be displayed at retail or during use 
in the home, unless that container or wrapper is also the only 
container or wrapper in which the candle(s) is/are shipped to a 
retailer. For purposes of this paragraph (a)(13)(i)(D), a lot of metal-
cored wick candles shall consist of all of the candles covered by any 
report of testing required by paragraph (a)(13)(i)(B) of this section.
    (ii) Metal-cored candle wicks. Lots of metal-cored candle wicks 
manufactured or imported on or after ________ , ____ 2002 [insert date 
180 days after promulgation of final rule] unless:
    (A) The metal core of each candle wick has a lead content 
(calculated as the metal) of not more than 0.06 percent of the total 
weight of the metal core;
    (B) The manufacturer, importer, private labeler, or distributor of 
each lot of metal-cored candle wicks conducts, or obtains a report of 
the results of, reasonable and representative tests on either the 
candle wicks in that lot, or on the metal used to produce the wicks 
that were used in that lot, that establish that the lead content of the 
metal used in the wicks is not more than 0.06 percent (of the total 
weight of the metal core);
    (C) The records of such testing are in English, identify each lot 
of candle wicks to which the test results apply, identify all numbers 
or other designations used to represent each lot on the label of 
containers as required in paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(D) of this section, are 
maintained in the United States for as long as the candle wicks the 
testing pertains to are being distributed plus three (3) years, and are 
made available for inspection and copying within 48 hours of a request 
by any officer, employee, or agent acting on behalf of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission; and
    (D) Each outer container or wrapper in which candle wicks from a 
lot subject to paragraphs (a)(13)(ii)(B) and (a)(13)(ii)(C) of this 
section are shipped, including each outer container or wrapper of such 
candle wicks distributed to a retail outlet, is labeled ``Conforms to 
16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13)'' and bears a number or other designation that 
relates back to the test results for that lot. For purposes of this 
paragraph (a)(13)(ii)(D), the term ``outer container or wrapper'' does 
not include the immediate container in which candle wick(s) is/are 
intended to be displayed or sold at retail, unless that container or 
wrapper is also the only container or wrapper in which the candle 
wick(s) is/are shipped to a retailer. For purposes of this paragraph 
(a)(13)(ii)(D), a lot of metal-cored wicks shall consist of all of the 
candle wicks covered by any report of testing required by paragraph 
(a)(13)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (iii) Findings--(A) General. In order to issue a rule under 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)(13)(iii)(B) 
through (D) of this section.
    (B) Voluntary Standard. (1) One alternative to the ban that the 
Commission considered is to take no mandatory action, and to depend on 
a voluntary standard. One organization has a standard for candle wicks 
intended to address the potential for substantial illness posed by such 
wicks and candles with such wicks. The Commission has found that the 
standard is technically unsound and that substantial compliance with it 
is unlikely. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the standard has 
been adopted and implemented by candle wick or candle manufacturers.
    (C) Relationship of Benefits to Costs. The Commission estimates 
that the ban will reduce the potential for exposure to lead and 
resulting lead poisoning because there is no ``safe'' level of lead in 
the blood. The annual cost to the candle/wick industry of the ban is 
estimated by the Commission to be in the range of $500,000 to $800,000. 
On a percentage basis these costs represent only 0.03 to 0.04 percent 
of the overall value of candle shipments in 1999, which was 
approximately $1.8 billion. Accordingly, 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: No action; labeling all metal-cored candles 
with wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of the 
metal; and relying on the voluntary standard. Neither no action, nor 
labeling, nor reliance on the voluntary standard would adequately 
reduce the risk of illness. Therefore the Commission finds that a ban 
on candle wicks containing more than 0.06 percent lead by weight of the 
metal and candles with such wicks is the least burdensome requirement 
that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of illness.

    Dated: April 18, 2002.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

List of Relevant Documents

    The following documents contain information relevant to this 
rulemaking, can be accessed on the World Wide Web at www.cpsc.gov, 
and are available for inspection at the Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814:
    1. Briefing memorandum from Kristina M. Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., 
Toxicologist, Directorate for Health Sciences, to the Commission, 
``Petition HP 00-3 to Ban Lead-cored Candle Wicks,'' December 12, 
2000.
    2. Memorandum from K.M. Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., Toxicologist, 
Directorate for Health Sciences, to Mary Ann Danello, Ph.D., 
Associate Executive Director, Directorate for Health Sciences, 
``Review of Lead Emissions from Candles,'' November 15, 2000.
    3. Memorandum from Carolyn Meiers, Engineering Psychologist, 
Human Factors, to Kristina Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., Directorate for 
Health Sciences, ``Labeling of Candles with Lead-cored Wicks 
(Petition HP 00-3),'' October 18, 2000.
    4. Briefing memorandum from Kristina M. Hatlelid, Ph.D., M.P.H., 
Toxicologist, Directorate for Health Sciences, to the Commission, 
``Proposal to Ban Lead-Cored Candle Wicks,'' March 18, 2002.
    5. Memorandum from Mary F. Donaldson, CPSC Directorate for 
Economic Analysis to Kristina Hatlelid, CPSC Directorate for Health 
Sciences, ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of a Proposed Ban of 
Lead in Candlewicks,'' March 5, 2002.

[FR Doc. 02-9960 Filed 4-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P