Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Proposed Significant New Use Rule, 39035-39046 [E6-10858]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
was completed in 2005 with the
execution of the Operation,
Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M)
Agreement between DTSC and THAN
and recording of the Deed Restriction,
for which EPA is a third-party
beneficiary. The Deed Restriction,
limiting the uses of the property, is the
primary institutional control for the site.
Cleanup Standards
The remedial action cleanup activities
at the T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition
Site are consistent with the objectives of
the NCP and provide protection to
human health and the environment.
Contaminated soils were excavated and
consolidated beneath a cap, and
chemically affected structures were
demolished and removed. Groundwater
monitoring results indicate that
concentrations of COCs in groundwater
samples are generally declining due to
natural biological, chemical, and
physical attenuation processes that are
likely to continue, and the site-specific
COCs have not exceeded Final
Remediation Goals in any wells since
July 2002. Further, is likely that this
trend will continue, since receding
groundwater levels reduce the chance
that contaminated soils beneath the cap
will become saturated. In addition,
provision (and expansion, as
appropriate) of alternative water supply
by connections to public water supply
system, point-of-use treatment, or
bottled water ensures that humans are
not exposed to contaminated drinking
water. Annual inspections have verified
the integrity of the cap and access
controls.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Operation and Maintenance
Operation, Maintenance and
Monitoring (OM&M) activities were
generally outlined in the RAP, and
further detailed and finalized in the
OM&M Plan and OM&M Agreement,
approved and signed by DTSC and
THAN in 2005. DTSC is the oversight
agency for the OM&M. OM&M activities
are groundwater monitoring, natural
attenuation monitoring, contingent
groundwater treatment system
monitoring, monitoring and
maintenance of the soil cap and access
controls (e.g., fencing), maintenance of
the institutional controls (e.g., land use
restrictions, as required by the Deed
Restriction).
Five-Year Review
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund) requires a
five-year review of all sites with
hazardous substances remaining above
the health-based levels for unrestricted
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
39035
use of the site. Since the cleanup of the
T. H. Agriculture and Nutrition site
utilized containment of the hazardous
materials as the method to reduce the
risk, the five-year review process will be
used to insure that the cap is still intact
and blocking exposure pathways for
human health and the environment.
EPA will conduct the first statutory fiveyear review in 2007.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Community Involvement
A Community Relations Plan was
established in 1986 and updated in
1992. Numerous fact sheets and public
announcements were mailed to the
surrounding community and other
interested parties during various phases
of the site investigation and cleanup. In
addition, at least seven public meetings
were held to receive input from
community stakeholders.
A Community Advisory Committee
(CAC) was formed in 1988 to provide a
forum for greater public input to the
project decision making process. This
group consisted of concerned residents,
community activists, local and state
government officials, and THAN
representatives. This group initially met
on a monthly basis reducing to bimonthly in the early 1990s. The last
formal meeting held by the CAC was in
January 1995.
AGENCY:
Applicable Deletion Criteria/State
Concurrence
EPA has determined that all
appropriate responses under CERCLA
have been completed and that no further
response actions under CERCLA are
necessary, and institutional controls are
in place. In a letter dated March 27,
2006, the State of California through
DTSC concurred with EPA that all
appropriate responses under CERCLA
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is
proposing deletion of this site from the
NPL. Documents supporting this action
are available from the docket.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
waste, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;
3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Dated: June 22, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E6–10856 Filed 7–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0036; FRL–7733–9]
RIN 2070–AJ19
Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles;
Proposed Significant New Use Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant
new use rule (SNUR) under section
5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) for elemental mercury (CAS
No. 7439–97–6) used in convenience
light switches, anti-lock braking system
(ABS) switches, and active ride control
system switches in certain motor
vehicles. This action would require
persons who intend to manufacture
(including import) or process mercury
for these uses, including when mercury
is imported or processed as part of an
article, to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing such activity. EPA
believes that this action is necessary
because manufacturing, processing, use,
or disposal of mercury switches may
produce significant changes in human
and environmental exposures. The
required notice would provide EPA
with the opportunity to evaluate the use
of mercury in these switches, and, if
necessary, to prohibit or limit such
activity before it occurs to prevent
unreasonable risk of injury to human
health or the environment.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0036, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document
Control Office (DCO), EPA East, Rm.
6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0036.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the DCO’s
normal hours of operation, and special
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
39036
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0036. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
For
general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,
Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address:
TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact:
Benjamin Lim, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(202) 566–0481; e-mail address:
lim.benjamin@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture, (defined
by statute to include import) or process
elemental mercury for use in certain
motor vehicle switches. Persons who
intend to import any chemical
substance subject to TSCA must comply
with the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C.
2612) import certification requirements,
and the regulations codified at 19 CFR
12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28.
Those persons must certify that they are
in compliance with applicable rules or
orders under TSCA including any
SNUR. The EPA policy in support of
import certification appears at 40 CFR
part 707, subpart B. In addition, any
persons who export or intend to export
a chemical substance that is the subject
of this proposed rule on or after August
10, 2006 are subject to the export
notification provisions of TSCA section
12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) (see 40 CFR
721.20), and must comply with the
export notification requirements in 40
CFR part 707, subpart D. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to:
• Manufacturers and processors of
automotive electrical switches (NAICS
335931), e.g., manufacturers and
processors of mercury switches in
convenience lights, ABS acceleration
sensors, and ride control sensors.
• Manufacturers and processors of
transportation equipment (NAICS 336),
e.g., manufacturers of motor vehicles
and motor vehicle parts containing
mercury switches.
• Automotive repair and maintenance
(NAICS 8111), e.g., auto mechanics who
replace or install new mercury switches
as part of repair and maintenance of
vehicles.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Motor vehicle part (used)
wholesalers (NAICS 4211), e.g., auto
dismantlers who dismantle motor
vehicles and sell used parts.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. To determine whether
you or your business may be affected by
this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability provisions in
40 CFR 721.5 for SNUR-related
obligations. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date, and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at the
estimate.
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggested
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
This proposed SNUR would require
persons to notify EPA at least 90 days
before commencing the manufacture or
processing of elemental mercury for use
in convenience light switches, ABS
switches, and ride control switches in
certain motor vehicles, including when
mercury is imported or processed as
part of such an article. EPA believes this
action is necessary because
manufacturing, processing, use, or
disposal of mercury in these switches
may produce significant changes in
human and environmental exposures.
B. What is the Agency’s Authority for
Taking this Action?
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine
that a use of a chemical substance is a
‘‘significant new use.’’ EPA must make
this determination by rule after
considering all relevant factors,
including those listed in section 5(a)(2)
of TSCA. Once EPA determines that a
use of a chemical substance is a
significant new use and a SNUR is
effective, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B)
requires persons to submit a significant
new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least
90 days before they manufacture or
process the substance for that use.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
C. Applicability of General Provisions
General provisions for SNURs appear
in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A. These
provisions describe persons subject to
the rule, recordkeeping requirements,
exemptions to reporting requirements,
and applicability of the rule to uses
occurring before the effective date of the
final rule. However, § 721.45(f) would
not apply to this proposed SNUR. As a
result, persons subject to the provisions
of this rule would not be exempt from
significant new use reporting if they
imported or processed elemental
mercury as part of an article (see
§ 721.5).
Provisions relating to user fees appear
at 40 CFR part 700. Persons subject to
this proposed SNUR are required to
comply with the same notice
requirements and EPA regulatory
procedures as submitters of
premanufacture notices (PMNs) under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA. Those
requirements include the information
submission requirements of TSCA
sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the
exemptions authorized by TSCA section
5(h)(1), (2), (3), and (5) and the
regulations at 40 CFR part 720 (see 40
CFR 721.1(c)). Once EPA receives a
significant new use notice (SNUN), EPA
may take regulatory action under TSCA
sections 5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7, as appropriate,
to control the activities described in the
SNUN. If EPA does not take action after
receipt of a SNUN, EPA is required
under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in
the Federal Register its reasons for not
taking action.
Persons who intend to export a
chemical substance identified in a
proposed or final SNUR are subject to
the export notification provisions of
TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that
implement TSCA section 12(b) appear at
40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Persons
who intend to import a chemical
substance identified in a final SNUR are
subject to the TSCA section 13 import
certification requirements, which
appear at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127
and 127.28. Such persons must certify
that they are in compliance with TSCA
requirements. The EPA policy on import
certification appears at 40 CFR part 707,
subpart B.
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Background
Because of its unique properties,
elemental mercury has been used in
many industrial processes and
consumer products. Mercury switches
exploit the ability of small quantities of
mercury to conduct electricity and
remain one of the largest categories of
mercury product uses. In addition to its
unique properties, mercury also may
cause adverse effects in humans and
wildlife under certain conditions. These
effects can vary depending on the form
of mercury to which a person is exposed
and the severity, level, and length of
exposure. Most human and wildlife
exposure to mercury comes from eating
fish contaminated with methylmercury,
an organic mercury compound that is
formed when certain microorganisms
and other natural processes convert
mercury to methylmercury, which can
accumulate in fish. Methylmercury is a
highly toxic organic form of mercury
and can cause neurological impairment.
Fetuses, infants, and young children are
more sensitive to mercury than adults.
Mercury switches were used for many
years in motor vehicles in hood and
trunk convenience lights, ABS, and ride
control systems. In the U.S., most motor
vehicles that reach the end of their
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39037
useful life are dismantled, so that the
useful parts can be reused, and steel and
other materials can be recycled. During
the recycling process, the vehicles are
dismantled, crushed, shredded, and
vehicle scrap is separated into the
ferrous, nonferrous, and auto shredder
residue fractions. All of these fractions
have the potential to be contaminated
with mercury released when switches
are ruptured during processing. The
steel fractions are sent to electric arc
furnaces (EAFs) and other scrap
consumers to be melted and refined for
use in steel products. These processes
use intense heat which can vaporize
mercury. Mercury can then be released
in air emissions from these facilities.
Motor vehicles are believed to be the
largest single source of mercury in EAF
emissions. EAFs are the largest
manufacturing source of mercury air
emissions in the U.S. and the fourth
largest of all U.S. sources.
Mercury in the air eventually settles
into water or onto land where it can be
washed into water. Once mercury is
deposited in sediment, certain
microorganisms and other processes in
the environment can convert some of it
into methylmercury. Methylmercury
persists in the environment and can
build up in fish, shellfish, and animals
that eat fish. The primary way that
people and wildlife are exposed to
mercury is by eating methylmercurycontaminated fish. By 2004, forty-four
states, one territory, and two Indian
tribes had issued fish consumption
advisories recommending that some
people limit their consumption of fish
from certain waterbodies as a result of
methylmercury found in fish. The
nervous system is particularly sensitive
to the adverse effects of methylmercury,
with the developing fetus and young
child among those particularly at risk
from exposure to high amounts of
methylmercury. For this reason, in
2004, EPA and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) jointly issued a
national advisory providing advice to
women of childbearing age and young
children on mercury in fish and
shellfish.
Because of increasing concerns about
exposure to man-made sources of
mercury and the availability of suitable
mercury-free alternatives, attempts have
been made at the Federal and state level
to limit the use of mercury in certain
products. American automakers
voluntarily eliminated use of mercury
switches in automobiles as of January 1,
2003. Those foreign auto manufacturers
that had used mercury switches have
also eliminated this use. Over the next
20 years, most of the automobiles
containing mercury switches will reach
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39038
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the end of their life and be recycled,
ultimately passing through EAFs and
other scrap consumers. Many states and
non-governmental organizations have
taken actions to remove or encourage
the removal of mercury switches from
automobiles before they are recycled.
For these reasons, the potential for
mercury emissions being released from
scrap consumption will decrease as
fewer automobiles containing mercury
switches remain to be processed into
scrap.
While new automobiles are no longer
being manufactured containing mercury
switches, some mercury switches are
still available as aftermarket
replacement parts. Mercury switches
generally last the lifetime of the
automobile; however, replacement is
needed if a collision or other action
damages the component containing the
switch. Mercury switches are not still
available for replacement in hood and
trunk convenience lights, because
mercury-free switches can be easily
substituted as replacement parts.
However, there is no existing mercuryfree alternative for mid-life replacement
of ABS and ride control switches.
Therefore, a limited number of mercury
ABS and ride control switches will
remain available as replacement parts
for pre-2003 automobiles. EPA is
proposing to exclude from this proposed
SNUR mercury switches manufactured
as aftermarket replacement parts for
ABS and ride control systems in
vehicles manufactured before January 1,
2003. In addition to the fact that there
are no feasible mercury-free alternatives,
EPA is aware that the demand for
mercury switches as aftermarket
replacement parts is currently low and
will become negligible when most pre2003 vehicles containing mercury
switches in ABS and ride control
systems have reached the end of their
lives.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
B. Proposed Action
EPA believes that any resumption of
manufacture or processing of mercury
for the significant new use would lead
to an increase in mercury emissions at
EAFs and other facilities involved in
scrap recycling and consumption.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to
designate as significant new uses
manufacture or processing of elemental
mercury for the following:
• Use in convenience light switches
in new motor vehicles.
• Use in convenience light switches
as new aftermarket replacement parts
for motor vehicles.
• Use in switches in ABS in new
motor vehicles.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
• Use in switches in ABS as new
aftermarket replacement parts for motor
vehicles that were manufactured after
January 1, 2003.
• Use in switches in active ride
control systems in new motor vehicles.
• Use in switches in active ride
control systems as new aftermarket
replacement parts for motor vehicles
that were manufactured after January 1,
2003.
EPA defines motor vehicle for this
proposed SNUR by referencing the
definition used in the emissions control
regulations developed under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). That definition, which is
found at 40 CFR 85.1703, is as follows:
(a) For the purpose of determining the
applicability of section 216(2), a vehicle
which is self-propelled and capable of
transporting a person or persons or any
material or any permanently or
temporarily affixed apparatus shall be
deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one
or more of the criteria set forth below
are met, in which case the vehicle shall
be deemed not a motor vehicle and
excluded from the operation of the Act:
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a
maximum speed of 25 miles per hour
over level, paved surfaces; or
(2) The vehicle lacks features
customarily associated with safe and
practical street or highway use, such
features including, but not being limited
to, a reverse gear (except in the case of
motorcycles), a differential, or safety
features required by state and/or federal
law; or
(3) The vehicle exhibits features
which render its use on a street or
highway unsafe, impractical, or highly
unlikely, such features including, but
not being limited to, tracked road
contact means, an inordinate size, or
features ordinarily associated with
military combat or tactical vehicles such
as armor and/or weaponry.
(b) The Administrator will, from time
to time, publish in the Federal Register
a list of vehicles which have been
determined to be excluded. This list
will be in appendix VI of 40 CFR part
85.
This definition, which includes
passenger cars, light duty trucks, heavy
duty vehicles, and motorcycles,
encompasses most motor vehicles
intended for highway use. In addition to
typical passenger cars such as sedans
and station wagons, the motor vehicle
definition also includes categories such
as pickups, passenger and cargo vans,
minivans, and sport utility vehicles. The
larger passenger carrying vehicles such
as buses as well as the larger freight
carrying vehicles such as semi trucks
are also included. EPA believes that it
is important to take advantage of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulated community’s familiarity with
the Air Program’s interpretation of
‘‘motor vehicles.’’ Should the current
definition of motor vehicle at 40 CFR
85.1703 be amended, the definition
used for this SNUR would change as a
result. Should that occur, and should
EPA determine that the definition is no
longer appropriate for use in this SNUR,
EPA could take appropriate action to
amend the regulatory text at
§ 721.10068.
The Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (AAM) is a trade
association representing nine new car
and light truck manufacturers. The
AAM reports that all cars and light
trucks built since 2003 are free of
mercury switches (Ref. 1). Foreign
automobile manufacturers not
represented by the AAM discontinued
the use of mercury auto switches in the
1990s. The Truck Manufacturers
Association has also indicated that
trucks have discontinued their use of all
types of mercury switches (Ref. 2).
Passenger cars and light trucks account
for about 96% of the vehicles on the
road and have been the primary focus of
most efforts to remove mercury switches
from vehicles (Ref. 2). Although the
other types of motor vehicles have
received less attention, EPA believes
that mercury switches are not being
used in convenience lights, ABS, or ride
control systems in any new motor
vehicles and that it is appropriate to
include them in this proposed SNUR.
EPA requests comment on whether
there are mercury switches being used
for convenience lights, ABS, or ride
control systems in any new vehicles that
would be covered by the proposed
motor vehicle definition.
For this SNUR, EPA is proposing to
lift the exemption at § 721.45(f) so that
persons importing or processing
mercury as part of an article would be
subject to § 721.5. EPA believes this
exemption is not appropriate to this
SNUR because mercury-containing
switches are articles and should be
covered by the SNUR. Furthermore, it is
possible to reclaim mercury from certain
articles and use that mercury to produce
automotive switches. EPA is asking for
comments on this proposed approach.
See Unit VII.D.
This proposed rule, when finalized,
would require persons who intend to
manufacture or process elemental
mercury for the significant new uses
identified in this action to submit a
SNUN at least 90 days before
commencing such activity. The required
notice would provide EPA with the
opportunity to evaluate the intended
use, and if necessary, to prohibit or limit
that use before it occurs. Given that
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mercury switches are no longer being
used in new motor vehicles and given
the availability of effective mercury-free
alternatives, the declining use of
mercury in products, and the growing
number of states that have banned the
use of mercury automotive switches,
EPA believes it is unlikely that
companies would resume the use of
automotive mercury switches (Ref. 3). In
the event that the decline in the use of
mercury switches as replacement parts
in ABS and ride control systems of pre2003 motor vehicles does not progress
as described in this proposed rule, EPA
may pursue additional regulatory action
as appropriate under TSCA sections 4,
6, and 8.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
IV. Overview of Mercury and Mercury
Auto Switches
There are several documents available
which summarize the extensive
literature that exists on mercury. EPA’s
Mercury Report to Congress (Ref. 4)
provides a complete discussion of
mercury as it was understood in 1997.
A ‘‘Toxicological Profile for Mercury,’’
which covers all forms of mercury, is
available from the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) (Ref. 5). EPA’s Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), an electronic
database of computer files containing
descriptive and quantitative
information, peer-reviewed summaries,
and toxicological reviews, includes an
entry for methylmercury (Ref. 6). A
thorough review of the human health
effects of methylmercury can be found
in the National Research Council (NRC)
of the National Academies of Science
report titled ‘‘Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury’’ (Ref. 7). More recently,
the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of
the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)
(Ref. 8), published in March 2005,
provides an update of much of the
science as it relates to the effects of
mercury emissions. These documents
are the major sources of the information
summarized in this unit.
A. Chemistry
This proposed rule applies to
elemental mercury, which is a naturally
occurring element, CAS registry number
7439–97–6. The properties and behavior
of mercury are related to its three forms:
Elemental or metallic mercury,
inorganic mercury compounds, and
organic mercury compounds. Elemental
or metallic mercury, which is a silverwhite metal, is the pure form of
mercury, not combined with any other
elements. Although elemental mercury
is liquid at room temperature and
pressure, it vaporizes readily when
exposed to air. Most of the mercury in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
the atmosphere is elemental mercury
vapor. Inorganic mercury compounds
take the form of mercury salts and are
generally white powder or crystals, with
the exception of mercuric sulfide
(cinnabar), which is red. Organic
mercury compounds, such as
methylmercury, are formed when
mercury combines with carbon. In the
air, elemental mercury vapor can be
transported, changed into other forms of
mercury, and deposited in water or soils
in rain or snow. Most of the mercury in
water, soil, sediments, or biota are in the
forms of inorganic mercury salts and
organic forms of mercury. Microscopic
organisms convert inorganic mercury
into methylmercury, which is the most
common organic mercury compound
found in the environment.
Methylmercury is the form of mercury
that accumulates in the food chain. It
can reach levels in fish that can be toxic
to people and wildlife who consume
mercury-contaminated fish (Ref. 5).
B. Environmental Fate
Mercury is well known as a highly
persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic
pollutant that is widespread in the
environment. Because it is a naturally
occurring element, it is present in the
environment from natural sources, such
as weathering of rocks, as well as from
anthropogenic (human) activities, such
as industrial combustion. Mercury in
the air eventually settles into water or
onto land where it can be washed into
water. Once mercury is deposited in
sediments, certain microorganisms and
other natural processes can convert
some portion of it into methylmercury,
a highly toxic organic form of mercury.
While all forms of mercury can
bioaccumulate, methylmercury
generally accumulates to a greater extent
then other forms of mercury.
Methylmercury can build up
(bioconcentrate) in fish, shellfish, and
animals that eat fish. The concentrations
of methylmercury in organisms higher
in the food chain can be 104 - 106 times
higher than the original concentration of
methylmercury in the water (Ref. 8).
The primary way people in the U.S. are
exposed to mercury is by eating fish
containing methylmercury. By 2004,
forty-four states, one territory, and two
Indian tribes had issued fish
consumption advisories recommending
that some people limit their
consumption of fish from certain water
bodies as a result of methylmercury
found in fish (Ref. 9).
Studies have indicated that because
mercury persists in the environment
and methylmercury biomagnifies up the
foodchain, a wide variety of species and
ecosystems may be exposed to excessive
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39039
levels of mercury in the environment.
Because of the complexity of the
mercury cycle, it is difficult to predict
the original source of mercury found at
a given location. Mercury levels may be
due to contributions from a mix of local,
regional, and long range mercury
sources. Mercury from all of these
sources will be from both natural and
anthropogenic emissions. Although
there is uncertainty as to the exact
amount, EPA has estimated that about
17% of U.S. mercury deposition is from
U.S. and Canadian man-made sources
and about 83% is from global sources,
including natural, re-emitted, and
international man-made sources (Ref.
10). A large anthropogenic source of
mercury emissions is EAFs, which
release mercury vapor when they
process scrap from old cars containing
mercury switches, among other items.
Mercury cycles through the
atmosphere and ends up in watersheds,
in water bodies and sediment, and
ultimately can accumulate in fish.
Mercury-contaminated fish may
potentially be consumed by humans and
wildlife. Despite recent advances,
current understanding does not allow
the prediction of specific ecosystem
responses to mercury emissions. The
analyses conducted for the CAMR are
based on the best available information
and are applicable here. Both the CAMR
and this proposed rule are concerned
with the effects of mercury emissions
from anthropogenic sources. The CAMR
RIA developed estimates for its benefits
analysis based on three elements:
• Results from an ecosystem scale
exposure model.
• Results from an analysis of U.S.
fishing activity.
• Results from a study of mercury
concentrations in consumer fish species.
One of the conclusions of the
ecosystem scale modeling was that the
best available science suggests that over
the long term, changes in mercury
concentrations in freshwater fish will be
proportional to changes in mercury
inputs. In water bodies where
atmospheric deposition of inorganic
mercury is the major source of mercury,
it is expected that long term reductions
in fish mercury concentrations will be
proportional to declines in atmospheric
mercury deposition (Ref. 8). While it is
not currently possible to quantify
ecological benefits, it can be
qualitatively stated that reduction in
mercury emissions from various sources
could lead to improvements in overall
ecosystem health (Ref. 8). Applying
similar logic, it can be qualitatively
stated that increases in mercury
emissions could lead to increases in
mercury concentrations in the
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39040
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
environment and reduction in overall
ecosystem health.
C. Exposure Pathways
Mercury exists in various forms and
people are exposed to each in different
ways. Consumption of methylmercurycontaminated fish is the most important
nonoccupational source of mercury
exposure to people in the U.S. Episodes
of severe methylmercury poisoning in
Japan and Iraq indicated that
consumption of food contaminated with
methylmercury could be highly toxic to
adults, children, and developing fetuses.
Mothers showing few if any signs of
nervous system damage gave birth to
infants with severe disabilities,
confirming that developing fetuses were
more sensitive to methylmercury than
adults. Although these situations
described exposures to methylmercury
far greater than those from typical
dietary consumption in the U.S., data
from those episodes as well as
epidemiological studies have been used
by EPA to support its concerns about
potential methylmercury exposures
(Ref. 7).
In 2001, EPA confirmed its 1995 oral
Reference Dose (RfD) for methylmercury
of 0.1 micrograms/kilogram (µg/kg)
body weight-day (bw/d) as an exposure
without recognized adverse effects (Ref.
6). Consumption of fish with higher
methylmercury levels can lead to
elevated mercury levels in the
bloodstream and hair. Mercury in blood
and hair was measured as part of the
1999–2002 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES). The 1999–2002 NHANES
data showed that about 6% of women of
childbearing age (16–49 years of age)
had blood mercury concentrations
greater than 5.8 µg/L (which is a blood
mercury level equivalent to the current
RfD) (Ref. 11).
Another less common human
exposure pathway for mercury is
breathing elemental mercury vapor.
This exposure can occur when
elemental mercury is released or when
products that contain elemental
mercury break and release mercury to
the air, particularly in warm or poorlyventilated indoor spaces. Inhalation of
elemental mercury vapor is the main
source of occupational exposure to
mercury. Industries that use elemental
mercury in their processes have had the
largest occupational mercury exposure;
however, the imposition of workplace
exposure limits on mercury is expected
to reduce worker exposure (Ref. 5).
Workers may also transport mercury
home on contaminated clothing and
shoes. There have been reports of
increased mercury exposure to children
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
of workers who are exposed in the
workplace. Persons living near mercury
production, use, and disposal sites may
be exposed to mercury that has been
released from these sites to the
surrounding air, water, and soil (Ref. 5).
Bioaccumulation of methylmercury
up through the food chain is also the
most important exposure pathway for
both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife;
although methylmercury
bioaccumulates more strongly in aquatic
than in terrestrial ecosystems. In fish,
methylmercury tissue concentrations
increase with increasing age and size of
the fish. Methylmercury-contaminated
fish are then consumed by fish-eating
wildlife, which accumulate
methylmercury to levels above those in
the original prey items. The
methylmercury continues to concentrate
as fish-eating wildlife are consumed by
larger predators. A well known example
of bioaccumulation through the food
chain is the endangered Florida panther,
which was found to have elevated
methylmercury levels due to
consumption of raccoons that were
contaminated with methylmercury from
eating methylmercury-contaminated
fish and shellfish (Ref. 4).
Birds, particularly coastal species or
those eating prey that feed in estuaries,
are most impacted by mercury
contamination (Ref. 12). In birds, tissue
mercury concentrations associated with
toxicity have been found to be relatively
similar, regardless of bird species,
dietary exposure level, and length of
exposure. Frank neurological signs are
generally associated with brain mercury
concentrations of 15 µg/gram (g) (wet
weight) or higher and 30 µg/g or more
in liver and kidney (Ref. 4). In
mammals, levels of exposure that
induce mercury poisoning vary among
species. Death occurs in sensitive land
mammal species at 0.1–0.5 µg/g bw/d,
or 1.0–5.0 µg/g in the diet (Ref. 4).
D. Health and Environmental Effects
The factors that determine how severe
the health effects are from mercury
exposure include the chemical form of
mercury, the dose, the duration of
exposure, the route of exposure (e.g.,
breathing, eating) and the age and health
of the person exposed. Both dietary and
non-dietary exposure to mercury can
result in a variety of health effects. In
the extreme cases of methylmercury
poisoning that occurred in Japan and
Iraq, some people who consumed
methylmercury-contaminated food
developed permanent damage to the
brain and kidneys (Ref. 5). Nondietary
exposure to elemental mercury vapors
also affects the nervous system.
Different forms of mercury have
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
different effects on the nervous system,
because they move through the body in
different ways. However, both ingestion
of methylmercury and inhalation of
elemental mercury vapors can cause a
variety of symptoms, including
personality changes (irritability,
nervousness), tremors, changes in
vision, deafness, muscle incoordination,
loss of sensation, and difficulties with
memory (Ref. 5). The nervous system of
the developing fetus appears to be the
most sensitive target for adverse effects
of methylmercury. Prenatal mercury
exposure may cause children to perform
poorly on neurobehavioral tests that
measure attention, fine motor function,
language skills, visual-spatial abilities,
and verbal memory (Ref. 7).
Recent epidemiological studies
exploring the relationship between
methylmercury and cardiovascular
impacts in men have yielded conflicting
conclusions; however, there is enough
information to justify additional
research on this topic. Some research
also suggests that exposure to
methylmercury may lessen the
beneficial effects of fish consumption.
Methylmercury has been classified as a
‘‘possible’’ human carcinogen, based on
limited human and animal data.
Additional research is needed to
corroborate studies that have suggested
that methylmercury exposure could
result in genetic, reproductive, renal,
hematologic or immune system impacts
(Ref. 4).
Both short-term exposure to high
levels or long-term exposure to lower
levels of elemental mercury vapor can
irritate the lining of the mouth and the
lungs. Other effects from exposure to
elemental mercury vapor include
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increase in
blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes,
and eye irritation (Ref. 5).
In wildlife, mercury contamination
has been shown to cause death as well
as sublethal effects. Although mercury
consumption can result in bird death, a
variety of sublethal effects on
reproduction and behavior have been
found to occur in birds at dietary
concentrations well below those that
can cause overt toxicity (Ref. 4).
Methylmercury contamination in birds
can adversely affect breeding by causing
reduction in the number of eggs laid and
increased embryo mortality (Ref. 12).
Methylmercury attacks the central
nervous system in mammalian wildlife
as well as in humans. Methylmercury
ingestion can also cause reduced food
intake, weight loss, muscular atrophy
and damage to an animal’s heart, lungs,
liver, kidneys and stomach (Ref. 4).
Mercury contamination has been
documented in endangered species,
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
such as the Florida panther and the
wood stork, as well as in populations of
loons, eagles, and furbearers such as
mink and otters. Recent assessments
have concluded that mercury exposures
may have contributed to the decline in
the endangered Florida panther in the
Florida Everglades, most likely from
decreased reproductive success in
addition to death (Ref. 4).
E. Use Information
Mercury has been widely used in
industry and consumer products
because of its diverse properties, such as
conducting electricity, responding to
temperature and pressure changes, and
forming alloys with almost all other
metals. Use of mercury has declined
because its toxicity has resulted in state
and Federal limits on its use in various
products and safe, mercury-free
alternatives are available for many
products. One of the larger remaining
product uses is in switches. Mercury tilt
switches are small tubes with electrical
contacts at one end of the tube. As the
tube tilts, the mercury collects at one
end, providing a conductive path to
complete the circuit. When the switch is
tilted back, the circuit is broken. Tilt
switches have been used in automobiles
for convenience lights in the trunk and
hood, in ABS and ride control systems.
While convenience lights were used in
all types of automobiles, ABS and ride
control systems were primarily used in
higher end, four-wheel drive vehicles.
As of 1996, convenience light switches,
ABS system switches, and ride control
system switches accounted for 87, 12,
and 1 percent, respectively, of mercury
switch usage in automobiles (Ref. 2).
The mercury content of mercury
switches varied from 0.7 to 1.5 grams,
with an average of 0.8 grams per switch.
Automakers used mercury light
switches in convenience lighting (one
switch per light), such as underhood
and trunk lighting. Mercury ABS
switches were usually made up of three
individual switches, containing about
one gram of mercury each. For ride
control systems, most commonly two
and up to four mercury switches were
used, containing approximately one
gram of mercury per switch (Ref. 13).
There are two general categories for
use of mercury switches in motor
vehicles:
• Installed in new motor vehicles.
• Available as an aftermarket
replacement part.
While these switches normally last
the lifetime of a vehicle, it is possible
that they could be damaged, for example
in a collision, and need to be replaced.
In general, replacement parts can be
purchased through a dealer, auto service
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
shop, or auto parts retailer. In the case
of mercury switches, which are unlikely
to need replacement, the original
equipment manufacturer usually agrees
to supply the replacement part for about
seven years after the vehicle is sold (Ref.
2).
American automobile manufacturers
voluntarily discontinued the use of
mercury switches in new models as of
January 1, 2003 (Ref. 1). Those foreign
automobile manufacturers that had used
mercury switches discontinued their
use of mercury switches in new models
in the 1990s. Since mercury-free
switches can be used as aftermarket
parts to replace mercury switches in
convenience lights, mercury
convenience light switches are no
longer available as aftermarket
replacement parts. EPA believes that
there are no feasible non-mercury
alternatives for mid-life replacement in
ABS and ride control systems that
contain mercury switches. EPA solicits
comment on this issue.
Mercury switches are still being
manufactured as replacement parts for
pre-2003 cars containing ABS and ride
control systems with mercury switches.
Because ABS and ride control systems
containing mercury switches are only
found on a few models of pre-2003
vehicles, and the mercury switches
would likely only need to be replaced
if they were damaged in a collision,
there is a very small market for
replacement mercury switches for ABS
and ride control systems. Available
information indicates that mercury
switches needed as replacement parts
are not being regularly manufactured
but must be specially ordered (Ref. 2).
This market should continue to decline
as the pre-2003 vehicles reach the end
of their lives. Automobiles have a life
expectancy of about ten to fifteen years.
Once those vehicles are no longer in
use, there will be only a very minimal
market for mercury switches for ABS
and ride control systems.
It is unlikely that auto manufacturers
would resume the use of automotive
mercury switches. The ability to use
mercury switches in new vehicles
would be limited to vehicles for sale in
certain states. There are a number of
states that have banned the use of
automotive mercury switches, which
prompted auto manufacturers to
discontinue their use. As evidenced by
their nationwide discontinuation of
mercury switch use following the Maine
state ban, it is not generally cost
effective for auto manufacturers to make
vehicles with one set of components for
sale in some states and another set of
components for vehicles for sale in a
different state (Ref. 3).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39041
V. Significant New Use Determination
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA provides that
EPA’s determination that a use of a
chemical substance is a significant new
use must be made after consideration of
all relevant factors including:
• The projected volume of
manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
• The extent to which a use changes
the type or form of exposure of human
beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
• The extent to which a use increases
the magnitude and duration of exposure
of human beings or the environment to
a chemical substance.
• The reasonably anticipated manner
and methods of manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and disposal of a chemical substance. 15
U.S.C. 2604(2)(A)-(D).
EPA construes the statute to allow
consideration of any other relevant
factors, in addition to those enumerated
in section 5(a)(2)(A) through (D) of
TSCA.
To determine what would constitute a
significant new use of elemental
mercury, EPA has considered relevant
information about the toxicity of
mercury, the likely exposures and
releases associated with the life cycle of
elemental mercury manufactured for use
in automotive switches, and the four
factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA.
The life cycle steps include the
following:
• Mercury switch manufacturing.
• Automobile manufacturing.
• Automobile collision, repair, and
maintenance.
• End-of-life vehicle recycling.
U.S. auto manufacturers discontinued
the use of mercury switches in
convenience lights, ABS and ride
control systems in new automobiles as
of January 1, 2003. Those foreign
automobile manufacturers that had used
mercury switches discontinued their
use of mercury switches in new models
in the 1990s. New mercury switches are
still available as mid-life replacement
parts only for pre-2003 ABS and ride
control systems that originally
contained mercury switches. However,
available information indicates these
replacement parts are not being
regularly manufactured, but must be
specially ordered. Therefore, this market
is very small and will continue to
decline as vehicles containing these
switches reach the end of their useful
life.
Given that few mercury switches are
being manufactured and none are being
installed in new automobiles as part of
convenience lights, ABS and ride
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39042
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
control systems, the resumption of use
of mercury switches for these uses in
new automobiles would require a
significant increase in the manufacture
and processing of mercury switches.
This would result in an increase in the
magnitude and duration of exposure to
workers and the surrounding
environment at facilities of all types in
the life cycle, as well as an increase in
releases which could contribute
additional mercury to the atmosphere
for long range transport. This could also
result in exposures to workers at
automobile manufacturing and
automobile collision, repair and
maintenance facilities who had not
previously worked in these facilities
when mercury switches were commonly
used in automobiles, as well as
exposures to workers who are not
currently being exposed to mercury
switches.
Over the next twenty years, mercury
emissions due to mercury switches in
automotive scrap will decrease, because
automobile manufacturers stopped
installing mercury switches for
convenience lights, ABS, and ride
control systems as of January 1, 2003.
Automobiles have a life expectancy of
about ten to fifteen years.
Reintroduction of mercury switches for
automotive uses would thus result in
future increases of mercury emissions at
EAFs, if most end of life vehicles would
continue to be recycled as scrap in the
future as they are today. Once again,
increases in mercury emissions could
lead to increases in mercury
concentrations in the environment and
reduction in overall ecosystem and
human health from consumption of
mercury-contaminated fish. Based on
these considerations, EPA has
determined that any manufacturing or
processing of elemental mercury for the
uses designated in this proposed rule is
a significant new use.
VI. Effects and Objectives of this
Proposed Rule
In determining what would constitute
significant new uses for mercury auto
switches, EPA considered relevant
information on the toxicity of mercury,
likely exposures associated with the
uses, and the four factors listed in TSCA
section 5(a)(2) and discussed in Unit V.
If this proposed rule is finalized, it
will allow EPA to provide the following
assurances:
• EPA would receive a SNUN
indicating a person’s intent to
manufacture or process elemental
mercury for a designated significant
new use before that activity begins.
• EPA would have an opportunity to
review and evaluate data and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
information submitted in a SNUN before
the notice submitter begins
manufacturing or processing elemental
mercury for a designated significant
new use.
• EPA would have an opportunity to
regulate prospective manufacturers and
processors of elemental mercury before
a significant new use occurs, provided
such regulation is warranted pursuant to
TSCA section 5(e) or (f).
As summarized in Unit IV., EPA has
concerns regarding the environmental
fate and the exposure pathways that
lead to the presence of methylmercury
in fish and the consumption of mercurycontaminated fish by humans and
wildlife. American automakers
voluntarily discontinued use of mercury
switches in new vehicles by January 1,
2003. Although production of ABS and
ride control systems containing mercury
switches will continue as long as pre2003 models containing them need midlife replacement parts, that market is
very limited. It should cease once pre2003 vehicles containing mercury
switches are no longer available.
However, EPA is concerned that
manufacture or processing of mercury
for use in auto switches in new vehicles
could be reinitiated in the future and
wants the opportunity to evaluate and
control, if appropriate, occupational and
other exposures associated with those
activities. The notice that would be
provided by the SNUN would provide
EPA with the opportunity to evaluate
activities associated with a significant
new use as proposed herein and an
opportunity to protect against
unreasonable risks, if any, from
exposure to mercury.
In the event the decline in the use of
mercury switches as replacement parts
in ABS and ride control systems of pre2003 motor vehicles does not proceed as
described in this proposed rule, EPA
may pursue additional regulatory action
as appropriate under TSCA sections 4,
6, and 8.
VII. Alternatives/Other Options
Considered
Before proposing this SNUR, EPA
considered the following alternative
regulatory actions for elemental
mercury.
A. Promulgate a Regulation Under the
Clean Air Act
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires
EPA to establish emission standards for
all categories and subcategories of major
sources of hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) emissions and for area sources
listed for regulation under section
112(c). Mercury compounds are metal
HAPs. In terms of industries that
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consume scrap, EPA has promulgated
national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for
iron and steel foundries in the Federal
Register of April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21905)
(FRL–7554–5) and integrated iron and
steel mills in the Federal Register of
May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27645) (FRL–7460–
2) and is in the process of developing an
area source rule for EAFs. The industry
for these source categories melts steel
scrap that can contain automotive
mercury switches. EPA believes that
removing mercury switches from scrap
before it is melted is the most effective
way for most EAF facilities to reduce
mercury emissions resulting from
automotive mercury switches. Under
the CAA, EPA may regulate only the
listed source category, such as EAFs
used in producing steel and, therefore,
EPA does not regulate the manufacture,
use, or disposal of mercury switches per
se. The iron and steel foundries
NESHAP addresses mercury emissions
by requiring scrap selection and
inspection programs to remove mercury
switches from automotive scrap.
However, under TSCA, EPA can
regulate mercury switches earlier in
their life cycle, by using the authorities
of TSCA section 5 to consider human
and environmental hazards during the
manufacturing, processing, and use, as
well as the disposal of mercury switches
and to take immediate regulatory action
under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to
prohibit or limit the manufacture,
processing, or distribution in commerce
of mercury switches before it begins. If
the elimination of the use of mercury
switches in ABS and ride control
replacement parts does not occur as
anticipated, EPA may reevaluate its
options for addressing automotive scrap
under the CAA and pursue additional
regulatory action as appropriate.
B. Promulgate a TSCA section 8(a)
Reporting Rule
Under a TSCA section 8(a) rule, EPA
could generally require manufacturers
and processors to report information to
the Agency when they intend to
manufacture or process elemental
mercury. However, the use of TSCA
section 8(a) rather than the SNUR
authority, would not provide the
opportunity for EPA to review human
and environmental hazards and
exposures associated with the new use
of elemental mercury and, if necessary,
to take immediate regulatory action
under TSCA section 5(e) or section 5(f)
to prohibit or limit the activity before it
begins. In addition, EPA may not
receive important information from
small businesses, because those firms
are generally exempt from TSCA section
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
8(a) reporting requirements. In view of
EPA’s concerns about elemental
mercury and the uses subject to this
proposed rule and EPA’s interest in
having the opportunity to review these
uses and regulate them as appropriate,
pending the development of exposure
and/or hazard information should a
significant new use be initiated, the
Agency believes that a TSCA section
8(a) rule for elemental mercury would
not meet all of EPA’s regulatory
objectives.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
C. Regulate Elemental Mercury Used in
Certain Automotive Switches Under
TSCA section 6
EPA must regulate under TSCA
section 6 if ‘‘there is a reasonable basis
to conclude that the manufacture,
processing, distribution in commerce,
use, or disposal of a chemical substance
or mixture...presents or will present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment’’ (TSCA section 6(a)).
Given that mercury switches are no
longer being used in convenience lights,
ABS, and ride control systems installed
in new automobiles, are no longer used
in convenience light replacement parts,
and are of very limited availability in
ABS and ride control replacement parts
for some pre-2003 models, EPA
concluded that risk management action
under TSCA section 6 is not necessary
at this time. This proposed SNUR would
allow the Agency to address the
potential risks associated with the
significant new uses of elemental
mercury. If the elimination of the use of
mercury switches in ABS and ride
control replacement parts does not
occur as anticipated, EPA may
reconsider this decision and pursue
additional regulatory action as
appropriate.
D. Allow the Exemption for Persons that
Import or Process Elemental Mercury as
Part of Articles that Could be Subject to
the SNUR
Under the SNUR exemption provision
at 40 CFR 721.45(f), a person that
imports or processes a substance
covered by a SNUR identified in subpart
E of part 721 as part of an article is not
generally subject to the notification
requirements of § 721.25 for that
substance. However, EPA is concerned
that exempting articles would render
the SNUR less effective because of the
possibility that switches containing
elemental mercury could be imported or
processed for uses subject to this
proposed SNUR without the submission
of a SNUN. Because mercury-containing
automotive switches are the primary
concern in this SNUR, EPA wishes to
include not only elemental mercury but
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
also articles containing elemental
mercury. Thus, EPA is proposing to
promulgate this rule without the
exemption generally provided for in
§ 721.45(f).
Alternatively, EPA could lift the
exemption provisions of 40 CFR
721.45(f) solely for articles containing
automotive switches; however, EPA
believes it is appropriate to include all
articles within the scope of this SNUR,
because it is possible to reclaim mercury
from articles containing elemental
mercury and use that mercury to
produce automotive switches.
Furthermore, a limited lifting of the
exemption could be confusing and of
limited benefit, because persons
importing or processing mercurycontaining articles would not be
required to submit a SNUN if they can
meet the requirements of § 721.5(a)(2) or
§ 721.5(c). Therefore, EPA is proposing
to promulgate this SNUR without the
exemption provided in § 721.45(f). EPA
is specifically seeking comments on the
issue of whether the exemption under
§ 721.45(f) should be lifted in whole or
in part, or whether the exemption
should remain. EPA would particularly
like to hear from persons that import or
process elemental mercury as part of
articles on how the proposed alternative
will affect them.
E. Define a Narrower Scope of Motor
Vehicles
EPA is considering narrowing the
scope of motor vehicles subject to the
SNUR. A narrower definition might
limit the SNUR to vehicles intended
primarily for noncommercial transport
of passengers, such as passenger cars,
pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles,
minivans, and passenger vans. These
types of passenger automobiles
comprise an estimated 96% of the
vehicles on the road, and it is well
known that the use of mercury switches
in convenience lights, ABS, and ride
control systems in new passenger
automobiles was voluntarily
discontinued as of January 1, 2003.
Passenger automobiles have been the
primary focus of most efforts to remove
mercury switches from vehicles. There
is less certainty about the status of
mercury switch usage in some of the
larger passenger and freight carrying
vehicles, such as buses and semi trucks.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that mercury
switches are not currently being used
for convenience lights, ABS, or ride
control systems in all types of new
motor vehicles, and that the broader
definition encompassing all motor
vehicles more appropriately addresses
EPA’s concerns about elemental
mercury and the uses subject to this
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39043
proposed rule. EPA requests comments
on narrowing the scope of vehicles
covered to limit it to passenger
automobiles and on whether mercury
switches are being installed in any types
of new motor vehicles.
VIII. Applicability of Rule to Uses
Occurring Before Effective Date of the
Final Rule
To establish a significant ‘‘new’’ use,
EPA determines that the use is not
ongoing. EPA has decided that the
intent of section 5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is
best served by designating a use as a
significant new use as of the date of
publication of the proposed rule, rather
than as of the effective date of the final
rule. Thus, persons who begin
commercial manufacture, import, or
processing of elemental mercury for the
significant new use described by this
SNUR will have to cease any such
activity before the effective date of the
final rule. To resume their activities,
these persons would have to comply
with all applicable SNUN requirements
and wait until the notice review period,
including all extensions, expires.
EPA has promulgated provisions to
allow persons to comply with this
SNUR before the effective date. If a
person were to meet the conditions of
advance compliance under § 721.45(h),
the person would be considered to have
met the requirements of the final SNUR
for those activities. If persons who begin
commercial manufacture, import, or
processing of the substance between
publication and the effective date of the
SNUR do not meet the conditions of
advance compliance, they must cease
that activity before the effective date of
the final rule. To resume their activities,
these persons would have to comply
with all applicable SNUN requirements
and wait until the notice review period,
including all extensions, expires.
IX. Risk and Market Information
EPA recognizes that section 5 of
TSCA does not require the development
of any particular test data or information
before submission of a SNUN. Persons
are required only to submit test data and
information in their possession or
control and to describe any other data
known to or reasonably ascertainable by
them (15 U.S.C. 2604(d); 40 CFR
721.25).
However, SNUN submitters should be
aware that EPA will be better able to
evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed
information on:
• Human exposure and
environmental releases that may result
from the significant new uses of
elemental mercury.
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39044
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• Potential benefits of the use of the
elemental mercury.
• Information on risks posed by the
use of elemental mercury in automotive
switches relative to risks posed by
mercury-free substitutes.
• Information on how the concerns
about mercury emissions during
disposal of end-of-life vehicles could be
mitigated (e.g., rebates for switches
removed before shredding).
Submitters should consider including
with a SNUN any other available studies
on elemental mercury or studies on
analogous substances which may
demonstrate that the significant new
uses being reported are unlikely to
present an unreasonable risk.
In view of the potential risks posed by
manufacture, processing, distribution,
and disposal of elemental mercury for
use in automotive switches, EPA would
recommend in the final rule that
potential SNUN submitters include data
and other information that would
permit a reasoned evaluation of risks
posed by elemental mercury. EPA
encourages persons to consult with the
Agency before submitting a SNUN for
these uses. As part of this optional prenotice consultation, EPA would discuss
specific data and information it believes
are necessary to evaluate a significant
new use. A SNUN submitted without
sufficient data and information to
reasonably evaluate risks posed by a
significant new use of elemental
mercury may increase the likelihood
that EPA will take action under TSCA
section 5(e) to prohibit or limit activities
associated with elemental mercury and
these uses. EPA recommends that
potential SNUN submitters contact the
Agency early enough that they will be
able to conduct any appropriate tests
and develop any appropriate
information.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
X. SNUN Submissions
SNUNs should be mailed to the
Environmental Protection Agency,
OPPT Document Control Office
(7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
Information must be submitted in the
form and manner set forth in EPA Form
No. 7710–25. This form is available
from the Environmental Assistance
Division (7408M), OPPT, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460–
0001 (see 40 CFR 721.25(a) and
720.40(a)(2)(i)).
XI. Economic Considerations
A. SNUNS
EPA has evaluated the potential costs
of establishing SNUR reporting
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements for potential
manufacturers and processors of the
chemical substances included in this
proposed rule. While there is no precise
way to calculate the total annual cost of
compliance with the final rule, given
the uncertainties related to predicting
the number of SNUN’s that would be
submitted as a result of this SNUR, EPA
estimates that the cost for preparing and
submitting a SNUN is $7,302, including
a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR
700.45(b)(2)(iii) (Ref. 3). Small
businesses with annual sales of less
than $40 million when combined with
those of the parent company (if any) are
subject to a reduced user fee of $100 (40
CFR 700.45(b)(1)). Based on past
experience with SNURs and the low
number of SNUNs which are submitted
on an annual basis, EPA believes that
there will be few, if any, SNUNs
submitted as a result of this SNUR. In
this case, it is unlikely that a SNUN
would be submitted, because there are
a number of states that have banned the
use of mercury in vehicle switches, thus
the ability to use mercury switches in
new motor vehicles would be limited to
vehicles for sale only in certain states.
The costs of submission of SNUNs will
not be incurred by any company unless
a company decides to pursue a
significant new use as defined in this
SNUR. Furthermore, while the expense
of a notice and the uncertainty of
possible EPA regulation may discourage
certain innovations, that impact would
be limited because such factors are
unlikely to discourage an innovation
that has high potential value. EPA’s
complete economic analysis is available
in the public docket for this proposed
rule (Ref. 3).
B. Export Notification
As noted in Unit II.C., persons who
intend to export a chemical substance
identified in a proposed or final SNUR
are subject to the export notification
provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15
U.S.C. 2611(b)). These provisions
require that, for chemicals subject to a
proposed or final SNUR, a company
notify EPA of the first shipment to a
particular country in a calendar year of
an affected chemical substance. EPA
estimated that the one-time cost of
preparing and submitting an export
notification to be $93.02. The total costs
of export notification will vary per
chemical, depending on the number of
required notifications (i.e., number of
countries to which the chemical is
exported).
EPA is unable to estimate the total
number of TSCA section 12(b)
notifications that will be received as a
result of this SNUR, or the total number
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of companies that will file these notices.
However, EPA expects that the total cost
of complying with the export
notification provisions of TSCA section
12(b) will be limited based on historical
experience with TSCA section 12(b)
notifications and the fact that no
companies have currently been
identified that currently market any of
the chemical substances that are the
subject of this rule commercially. If
companies were to manufacture for
export only any of the chemical
substances covered by this SNUR, such
companies would incur the minimal
costs associated with export notification
despite the fact they would not be
subject to the SNUR notification
requirements. See TSCA section 12(a)
and 40 CFR 721.45(g). EPA is not aware
of any companies in this situation.
XII. References
The public docket for this action,
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0036, currently
includes the following documents:
1. Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, 2003. Facts About
Mercury Switches, December, 2003.
Accessible online at: https://
www.autoalliance.org/archives/
Mercury.pdf.
2. EPA, 2005a. Market Study: Mercury
Use in Automotive Switches.
Washington, D.C. EPA/OPPTS/EETD/
EPAB, August, 2005.
3. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis of
the Significant New Use Rule for
Mercury Containing Automotive
Switches. Washington, D.C. EPA/
OPPTS/EETD/EPAB, January 12, 2006.
4. EPA, 1997. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mercury Study
Report to Congress. EPA–452/R–97–003,
December 1997. Accessible at: https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/
volume1.pdf.
5. ATSDR, 1999. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Public
Health Service, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Toxicological Profile for Mercury
(update). Accessible online at: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/
tp46.html.
6. EPA, 2002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
Methylmercury. Oral RfD and inhalation
RfC assessments last revised 7/27/01;
Carcinogenicity assessment last revised
5/1/95; most recent revision of on-line
materials, 2002; website accessed May
2005. Accessible online at: https://
www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.
7. NRC, 2000. National Research
Council. Toxicological Effects of
Methylmercury. Committee on the
Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury,
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Board on Environmental Studies and
Toxicology, Commission on Life
Sciences, National Research Council.
National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. Accessible online at: https://
books.nap.edu/books/0309071402/html/
1.html.
8. EPA, 2005c. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Clean Air Mercury Rule,
Final Report. EPA–452/R–05–003,
March 2005. Accessible online at:
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/
ria_final.pdf.
9. EPA, 2005d. 2004 National Listing
of Fish Advisories. Fact Sheet, Sept.
2005. EPA–823–F–05–004. Accessible
at: https://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/
advisories/fs2004.pdf.
10. EPA, 2005e. Technical Support
Document, Revision of December 2000
Finding on the Emissions of Hazardous
Air Pollutants from Electric Steam
Generating Units and the Removal of
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units From the
Section 112 (c) List: Reconsideration,
October 21, 2005. Accessible online at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/TSD112-final.pdf.
11. CDC, 2004. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Blood Mercury
Levels in Young Children and
Childbearing Aged-Women - United
States, 1999–2002. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, November 5,
2004/53(43):1018–1020. Accessible
online at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
preview/mmwrhtml/mm5343a5.htm.
12. Boening, D.W. 2000. Ecological
effects, transport, and fate of mercury: A
general review. Chemosphere 40: 1335–
1351.
13. EPA, 2005f. Screening Level
Workplace Release and Exposure
Assessment for Mercury Switches in
New Automobiles. Washington, D.C.
EPA/OPPTS/EETD/CEB, September 6,
2005.
XIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this
proposed SNUR is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ because this rule
does not meet the criteria in section 3(f)
of the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
that requires OMB approval under the
PRA, unless it has been approved by
OMB and displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40
of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument or form, if
applicable.
The information collection
requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB
pursuant to the PRA under OMB control
number 2070–0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188).
This action would not impose any
burden requiring additional OMB
approval. If an entity were to submit a
SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden
is estimated to average 105 hours per
submission. This burden estimate
includes the time needed to review
instructions, search existing data
sources, gather and maintain the data
needed, and complete, review, and
submit the required SNUN.
Send any comments about the
accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through
the use of automated collection
techniques, to the Director, Collection
Strategies Division, Office of
Environmental Information (2822T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001. Please remember to
include the OMB control number in any
correspondence, but do not submit any
completed forms to this address.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby
certifies that promulgation of this SNUR
would not have a significant adverse
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The rationale
supporting this conclusion is as follows.
A SNUR applies to any person
(including small or large entities) who
intends to engage in any activity
described in the rule as a ‘‘significant
new use.’’ By definition of the word
‘‘new,’’ and based on all information
currently available to EPA, it appears
that no small or large entities presently
engage in such activity. Since a SNUR
only requires that any person who
intends to engage in such activity in the
future must first notify EPA by
submitting a SNUN, no economic
impact would even occur until someone
decides to engage in those activities.
Although some small entities may
decide to conduct such activities in the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39045
future, EPA cannot presently determine
how many, if any, there may be.
However, EPA’s experience to date is
that, in response to the promulgation of
over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives
on average only 10 notices per year. Of
those SNUNs submitted, none appear to
be from small entities in response to any
SNUR. In addition, the estimated
reporting cost for submission of a SNUN
(see Unit XI.), are minimal regardless of
the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA
believes that the potential economic
impact of complying with this SNUR is
not expected to be significant or
adversely impact a substantial number
of small entities. In a SNUR that
published on June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684)
(FRL–5597–1), the Agency presented its
general determination that proposed
and final SNURs are not expected to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
which was provided to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Based on EPA’s experience with
proposing and finalizing SNURs, State,
local, and Tribal governments have not
been impacted by these rulemakings,
and EPA does not have any reasons to
believe that any State, local, or Tribal
government would be impacted by this
rulemaking. As such, EPA has
determined that this regulatory action
would not impose any enforceable duty,
contain any unfunded mandate, or
otherwise have any affect on small
governments subject to the requirements
of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4).
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action would not have a
substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999).
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule would not have
Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct
effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed
rule would not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian Tribal
governments, nor would it involve or
impose any requirements that affect
Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
39046
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules
requirements of Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), do not apply
to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Dated: July 5, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because the impact of
this SNUR will be less than $100
million. Executive Order 13045 only
requires analysis of impacts on children
for rules that will have an impact of
$100 million or more.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001), because this action is not
expected to affect energy supply,
distribution, or use.
I. National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
This action does not involve any
technical standards; therefore, section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not
apply to this action.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
This action does not entail special
considerations of environmental justice
related issues as delineated by
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
K. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
In issuing this proposed rule, EPA has
taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct, as
required by section 3 of Executive Order
12988, entitled Civil Justice Reform (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:39 Jul 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
part 721 be amended as follows:
PART 721—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 721
would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and
2625(c).
2. By adding new § 721.10068 to
subpart E to read as follows:
§ 721.10068
Elemental mercury.
(a) Definitions. The definitions in
§ 721.3 apply to this section. In
addition, the following definition
applies: Motor vehicle has the meaning
found at 40 CFR 85.1703.
(b) Chemical substances and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance elemental
mercury (CAS. No. 7439–97–6) is
subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in
convenience light switches in new
motor vehicles.
(ii) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in
convenience light switches as new
aftermarket replacement parts for motor
vehicles.
(iii) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in switches
in anti-lock brake systems (ABS) in new
motor vehicles.
(iv) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in switches
in ABS as new aftermarket replacement
parts for motor vehicles that were
manufactured after January 1, 2003.
(v) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in switches
in active ride control systems in new
motor vehicles.
(vi) Manufacture or processing of
elemental mercury for use in switches
in active ride control systems as new
aftermarket replacement parts for motor
vehicles that were manufactured after
January 1, 2003.
(c) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Revocation of article exemption.
The provisions of § 721.45(f) do not
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
apply to this section. A person who
imports or processes the substance as
part of an article for the significant new
use must submit a significant new use
notice.
(2) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. E6–10858 Filed 7–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 060606148–6148–01; I.D.
112805A]
RIN 0648–AU52
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Gulf of Alaska;
Proposed Revision to the Final 2006
and 2007 Harvest Specifications for
Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to revise the
final 2006 and 2007 harvest
specifications for the ‘‘other species’’
complex in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) by
reducing the total allowable catch (TAC)
for the complex to 4,500 metric tons
(mt) annually. The intended effect of
this action is to conserve and manage
the groundfish resources in the GOA in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Comments must be received by
August 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Walsh, Records Officer. Comments
may be submitted by:
• Mail to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802;
• Hand Delivery to the Federal
Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK;
• E-mail to
2006AKGOA.tacspecs@noaa.gov and
include in the subject line of the e-mail
comments the document identifier:
‘‘2006 GOA Amend Harvest
Specifications’’ (E-mail comments, with
or without attachments, are limited to 5
megabytes);
• Fax to 907–586–7557; or
E:\FR\FM\11JYP1.SGM
11JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39035-39046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-10858]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0036; FRL-7733-9]
RIN 2070-AJ19
Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; Proposed Significant New Use
Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a significant new use rule (SNUR) under
section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for
elemental mercury (CAS No. 7439-97-6) used in convenience light
switches, anti-lock braking system (ABS) switches, and active ride
control system switches in certain motor vehicles. This action would
require persons who intend to manufacture (including import) or process
mercury for these uses, including when mercury is imported or processed
as part of an article, to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing
such activity. EPA believes that this action is necessary because
manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal of mercury switches may
produce significant changes in human and environmental exposures. The
required notice would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the
use of mercury in these switches, and, if necessary, to prohibit or
limit such activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of
injury to human health or the environment.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0036, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East, Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention:
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0036. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
[[Page 39036]]
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0036. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OPPT Docket, EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-
Hotline@epa.gov.
For technical information contact: Benjamin Lim, National Program
Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0481; e-mail
address: lim.benjamin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
(defined by statute to include import) or process elemental mercury for
use in certain motor vehicle switches. Persons who intend to import any
chemical substance subject to TSCA must comply with the TSCA section 13
(15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements, and the regulations
codified at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28. Those persons must
certify that they are in compliance with applicable rules or orders
under TSCA including any SNUR. The EPA policy in support of import
certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In addition, any
persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance that is the
subject of this proposed rule on or after August 10, 2006 are subject
to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C.
2611(b)) (see 40 CFR 721.20), and must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Manufacturers and processors of automotive electrical
switches (NAICS 335931), e.g., manufacturers and processors of mercury
switches in convenience lights, ABS acceleration sensors, and ride
control sensors.
Manufacturers and processors of transportation equipment
(NAICS 336), e.g., manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle
parts containing mercury switches.
Automotive repair and maintenance (NAICS 8111), e.g., auto
mechanics who replace or install new mercury switches as part of repair
and maintenance of vehicles.
Motor vehicle part (used) wholesalers (NAICS 4211), e.g.,
auto dismantlers who dismantle motor vehicles and sell used parts.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 721.5 for
SNUR-related obligations. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at the estimate.
[[Page 39037]]
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggested alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Background
A. What Action is the Agency Taking?
This proposed SNUR would require persons to notify EPA at least 90
days before commencing the manufacture or processing of elemental
mercury for use in convenience light switches, ABS switches, and ride
control switches in certain motor vehicles, including when mercury is
imported or processed as part of such an article. EPA believes this
action is necessary because manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal
of mercury in these switches may produce significant changes in human
and environmental exposures.
B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including those listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA.
Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant
new use and a SNUR is effective, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires
persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least
90 days before they manufacture or process the substance for that use.
C. Applicability of General Provisions
General provisions for SNURs appear in 40 CFR part 721, subpart A.
These provisions describe persons subject to the rule, recordkeeping
requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and applicability
of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date of the final
rule. However, Sec. 721.45(f) would not apply to this proposed SNUR.
As a result, persons subject to the provisions of this rule would not
be exempt from significant new use reporting if they imported or
processed elemental mercury as part of an article (see Sec. 721.5).
Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR part 700. Persons
subject to this proposed SNUR are required to comply with the same
notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures as submitters of
premanufacture notices (PMNs) under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA. Those
requirements include the information submission requirements of TSCA
sections 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the exemptions authorized by TSCA section
5(h)(1), (2), (3), and (5) and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720 (see
40 CFR 721.1(c)). Once EPA receives a significant new use notice
(SNUN), EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA sections 5(e), 5(f),
6 or 7, as appropriate, to control the activities described in the
SNUN. If EPA does not take action after receipt of a SNUN, EPA is
required under TSCA section 5(g) to explain in the Federal Register its
reasons for not taking action.
Persons who intend to export a chemical substance identified in a
proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification
provisions of TSCA section 12(b). The regulations that implement TSCA
section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D. Persons who intend
to import a chemical substance identified in a final SNUR are subject
to the TSCA section 13 import certification requirements, which appear
at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127 and 127.28. Such persons must certify
that they are in compliance with TSCA requirements. The EPA policy on
import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B.
III. Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Background
Because of its unique properties, elemental mercury has been used
in many industrial processes and consumer products. Mercury switches
exploit the ability of small quantities of mercury to conduct
electricity and remain one of the largest categories of mercury product
uses. In addition to its unique properties, mercury also may cause
adverse effects in humans and wildlife under certain conditions. These
effects can vary depending on the form of mercury to which a person is
exposed and the severity, level, and length of exposure. Most human and
wildlife exposure to mercury comes from eating fish contaminated with
methylmercury, an organic mercury compound that is formed when certain
microorganisms and other natural processes convert mercury to
methylmercury, which can accumulate in fish. Methylmercury is a highly
toxic organic form of mercury and can cause neurological impairment.
Fetuses, infants, and young children are more sensitive to mercury than
adults.
Mercury switches were used for many years in motor vehicles in hood
and trunk convenience lights, ABS, and ride control systems. In the
U.S., most motor vehicles that reach the end of their useful life are
dismantled, so that the useful parts can be reused, and steel and other
materials can be recycled. During the recycling process, the vehicles
are dismantled, crushed, shredded, and vehicle scrap is separated into
the ferrous, nonferrous, and auto shredder residue fractions. All of
these fractions have the potential to be contaminated with mercury
released when switches are ruptured during processing. The steel
fractions are sent to electric arc furnaces (EAFs) and other scrap
consumers to be melted and refined for use in steel products. These
processes use intense heat which can vaporize mercury. Mercury can then
be released in air emissions from these facilities. Motor vehicles are
believed to be the largest single source of mercury in EAF emissions.
EAFs are the largest manufacturing source of mercury air emissions in
the U.S. and the fourth largest of all U.S. sources.
Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where
it can be washed into water. Once mercury is deposited in sediment,
certain microorganisms and other processes in the environment can
convert some of it into methylmercury. Methylmercury persists in the
environment and can build up in fish, shellfish, and animals that eat
fish. The primary way that people and wildlife are exposed to mercury
is by eating methylmercury-contaminated fish. By 2004, forty-four
states, one territory, and two Indian tribes had issued fish
consumption advisories recommending that some people limit their
consumption of fish from certain waterbodies as a result of
methylmercury found in fish. The nervous system is particularly
sensitive to the adverse effects of methylmercury, with the developing
fetus and young child among those particularly at risk from exposure to
high amounts of methylmercury. For this reason, in 2004, EPA and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) jointly issued a national advisory
providing advice to women of childbearing age and young children on
mercury in fish and shellfish.
Because of increasing concerns about exposure to man-made sources
of mercury and the availability of suitable mercury-free alternatives,
attempts have been made at the Federal and state level to limit the use
of mercury in certain products. American automakers voluntarily
eliminated use of mercury switches in automobiles as of January 1,
2003. Those foreign auto manufacturers that had used mercury switches
have also eliminated this use. Over the next 20 years, most of the
automobiles containing mercury switches will reach
[[Page 39038]]
the end of their life and be recycled, ultimately passing through EAFs
and other scrap consumers. Many states and non-governmental
organizations have taken actions to remove or encourage the removal of
mercury switches from automobiles before they are recycled. For these
reasons, the potential for mercury emissions being released from scrap
consumption will decrease as fewer automobiles containing mercury
switches remain to be processed into scrap.
While new automobiles are no longer being manufactured containing
mercury switches, some mercury switches are still available as
aftermarket replacement parts. Mercury switches generally last the
lifetime of the automobile; however, replacement is needed if a
collision or other action damages the component containing the switch.
Mercury switches are not still available for replacement in hood and
trunk convenience lights, because mercury-free switches can be easily
substituted as replacement parts. However, there is no existing
mercury-free alternative for mid-life replacement of ABS and ride
control switches. Therefore, a limited number of mercury ABS and ride
control switches will remain available as replacement parts for pre-
2003 automobiles. EPA is proposing to exclude from this proposed SNUR
mercury switches manufactured as aftermarket replacement parts for ABS
and ride control systems in vehicles manufactured before January 1,
2003. In addition to the fact that there are no feasible mercury-free
alternatives, EPA is aware that the demand for mercury switches as
aftermarket replacement parts is currently low and will become
negligible when most pre-2003 vehicles containing mercury switches in
ABS and ride control systems have reached the end of their lives.
B. Proposed Action
EPA believes that any resumption of manufacture or processing of
mercury for the significant new use would lead to an increase in
mercury emissions at EAFs and other facilities involved in scrap
recycling and consumption. Therefore, EPA is proposing to designate as
significant new uses manufacture or processing of elemental mercury for
the following:
Use in convenience light switches in new motor vehicles.
Use in convenience light switches as new aftermarket
replacement parts for motor vehicles.
Use in switches in ABS in new motor vehicles.
Use in switches in ABS as new aftermarket replacement
parts for motor vehicles that were manufactured after January 1, 2003.
Use in switches in active ride control systems in new
motor vehicles.
Use in switches in active ride control systems as new
aftermarket replacement parts for motor vehicles that were manufactured
after January 1, 2003.
EPA defines motor vehicle for this proposed SNUR by referencing the
definition used in the emissions control regulations developed under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). That definition, which is found at 40 CFR
85.1703, is as follows:
(a) For the purpose of determining the applicability of section
216(2), a vehicle which is self-propelled and capable of transporting a
person or persons or any material or any permanently or temporarily
affixed apparatus shall be deemed a motor vehicle, unless any one or
more of the criteria set forth below are met, in which case the vehicle
shall be deemed not a motor vehicle and excluded from the operation of
the Act:
(1) The vehicle cannot exceed a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour
over level, paved surfaces; or
(2) The vehicle lacks features customarily associated with safe and
practical street or highway use, such features including, but not being
limited to, a reverse gear (except in the case of motorcycles), a
differential, or safety features required by state and/or federal law;
or
(3) The vehicle exhibits features which render its use on a street
or highway unsafe, impractical, or highly unlikely, such features
including, but not being limited to, tracked road contact means, an
inordinate size, or features ordinarily associated with military combat
or tactical vehicles such as armor and/or weaponry.
(b) The Administrator will, from time to time, publish in the
Federal Register a list of vehicles which have been determined to be
excluded. This list will be in appendix VI of 40 CFR part 85.
This definition, which includes passenger cars, light duty trucks,
heavy duty vehicles, and motorcycles, encompasses most motor vehicles
intended for highway use. In addition to typical passenger cars such as
sedans and station wagons, the motor vehicle definition also includes
categories such as pickups, passenger and cargo vans, minivans, and
sport utility vehicles. The larger passenger carrying vehicles such as
buses as well as the larger freight carrying vehicles such as semi
trucks are also included. EPA believes that it is important to take
advantage of the regulated community's familiarity with the Air
Program's interpretation of ``motor vehicles.'' Should the current
definition of motor vehicle at 40 CFR 85.1703 be amended, the
definition used for this SNUR would change as a result. Should that
occur, and should EPA determine that the definition is no longer
appropriate for use in this SNUR, EPA could take appropriate action to
amend the regulatory text at Sec. 721.10068.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) is a trade
association representing nine new car and light truck manufacturers.
The AAM reports that all cars and light trucks built since 2003 are
free of mercury switches (Ref. 1). Foreign automobile manufacturers not
represented by the AAM discontinued the use of mercury auto switches in
the 1990s. The Truck Manufacturers Association has also indicated that
trucks have discontinued their use of all types of mercury switches
(Ref. 2). Passenger cars and light trucks account for about 96% of the
vehicles on the road and have been the primary focus of most efforts to
remove mercury switches from vehicles (Ref. 2). Although the other
types of motor vehicles have received less attention, EPA believes that
mercury switches are not being used in convenience lights, ABS, or ride
control systems in any new motor vehicles and that it is appropriate to
include them in this proposed SNUR. EPA requests comment on whether
there are mercury switches being used for convenience lights, ABS, or
ride control systems in any new vehicles that would be covered by the
proposed motor vehicle definition.
For this SNUR, EPA is proposing to lift the exemption at Sec.
721.45(f) so that persons importing or processing mercury as part of an
article would be subject to Sec. 721.5. EPA believes this exemption is
not appropriate to this SNUR because mercury-containing switches are
articles and should be covered by the SNUR. Furthermore, it is possible
to reclaim mercury from certain articles and use that mercury to
produce automotive switches. EPA is asking for comments on this
proposed approach. See Unit VII.D.
This proposed rule, when finalized, would require persons who
intend to manufacture or process elemental mercury for the significant
new uses identified in this action to submit a SNUN at least 90 days
before commencing such activity. The required notice would provide EPA
with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use, and if necessary, to
prohibit or limit that use before it occurs. Given that
[[Page 39039]]
mercury switches are no longer being used in new motor vehicles and
given the availability of effective mercury-free alternatives, the
declining use of mercury in products, and the growing number of states
that have banned the use of mercury automotive switches, EPA believes
it is unlikely that companies would resume the use of automotive
mercury switches (Ref. 3). In the event that the decline in the use of
mercury switches as replacement parts in ABS and ride control systems
of pre-2003 motor vehicles does not progress as described in this
proposed rule, EPA may pursue additional regulatory action as
appropriate under TSCA sections 4, 6, and 8.
IV. Overview of Mercury and Mercury Auto Switches
There are several documents available which summarize the extensive
literature that exists on mercury. EPA's Mercury Report to Congress
(Ref. 4) provides a complete discussion of mercury as it was understood
in 1997. A ``Toxicological Profile for Mercury,'' which covers all
forms of mercury, is available from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) (Ref. 5). EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), an electronic database of computer files containing
descriptive and quantitative information, peer-reviewed summaries, and
toxicological reviews, includes an entry for methylmercury (Ref. 6). A
thorough review of the human health effects of methylmercury can be
found in the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies
of Science report titled ``Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury''
(Ref. 7). More recently, the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) (Ref. 8), published in March 2005,
provides an update of much of the science as it relates to the effects
of mercury emissions. These documents are the major sources of the
information summarized in this unit.
A. Chemistry
This proposed rule applies to elemental mercury, which is a
naturally occurring element, CAS registry number 7439-97-6. The
properties and behavior of mercury are related to its three forms:
Elemental or metallic mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic
mercury compounds. Elemental or metallic mercury, which is a silver-
white metal, is the pure form of mercury, not combined with any other
elements. Although elemental mercury is liquid at room temperature and
pressure, it vaporizes readily when exposed to air. Most of the mercury
in the atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor. Inorganic mercury
compounds take the form of mercury salts and are generally white powder
or crystals, with the exception of mercuric sulfide (cinnabar), which
is red. Organic mercury compounds, such as methylmercury, are formed
when mercury combines with carbon. In the air, elemental mercury vapor
can be transported, changed into other forms of mercury, and deposited
in water or soils in rain or snow. Most of the mercury in water, soil,
sediments, or biota are in the forms of inorganic mercury salts and
organic forms of mercury. Microscopic organisms convert inorganic
mercury into methylmercury, which is the most common organic mercury
compound found in the environment. Methylmercury is the form of mercury
that accumulates in the food chain. It can reach levels in fish that
can be toxic to people and wildlife who consume mercury-contaminated
fish (Ref. 5).
B. Environmental Fate
Mercury is well known as a highly persistent, bioaccumulative,
toxic pollutant that is widespread in the environment. Because it is a
naturally occurring element, it is present in the environment from
natural sources, such as weathering of rocks, as well as from
anthropogenic (human) activities, such as industrial combustion.
Mercury in the air eventually settles into water or onto land where it
can be washed into water. Once mercury is deposited in sediments,
certain microorganisms and other natural processes can convert some
portion of it into methylmercury, a highly toxic organic form of
mercury. While all forms of mercury can bioaccumulate, methylmercury
generally accumulates to a greater extent then other forms of mercury.
Methylmercury can build up (bioconcentrate) in fish, shellfish, and
animals that eat fish. The concentrations of methylmercury in organisms
higher in the food chain can be 10\4\ - 10\6\ times higher than the
original concentration of methylmercury in the water (Ref. 8). The
primary way people in the U.S. are exposed to mercury is by eating fish
containing methylmercury. By 2004, forty-four states, one territory,
and two Indian tribes had issued fish consumption advisories
recommending that some people limit their consumption of fish from
certain water bodies as a result of methylmercury found in fish (Ref.
9).
Studies have indicated that because mercury persists in the
environment and methylmercury biomagnifies up the foodchain, a wide
variety of species and ecosystems may be exposed to excessive levels of
mercury in the environment. Because of the complexity of the mercury
cycle, it is difficult to predict the original source of mercury found
at a given location. Mercury levels may be due to contributions from a
mix of local, regional, and long range mercury sources. Mercury from
all of these sources will be from both natural and anthropogenic
emissions. Although there is uncertainty as to the exact amount, EPA
has estimated that about 17% of U.S. mercury deposition is from U.S.
and Canadian man-made sources and about 83% is from global sources,
including natural, re-emitted, and international man-made sources (Ref.
10). A large anthropogenic source of mercury emissions is EAFs, which
release mercury vapor when they process scrap from old cars containing
mercury switches, among other items.
Mercury cycles through the atmosphere and ends up in watersheds, in
water bodies and sediment, and ultimately can accumulate in fish.
Mercury-contaminated fish may potentially be consumed by humans and
wildlife. Despite recent advances, current understanding does not allow
the prediction of specific ecosystem responses to mercury emissions.
The analyses conducted for the CAMR are based on the best available
information and are applicable here. Both the CAMR and this proposed
rule are concerned with the effects of mercury emissions from
anthropogenic sources. The CAMR RIA developed estimates for its
benefits analysis based on three elements:
Results from an ecosystem scale exposure model.
Results from an analysis of U.S. fishing activity.
Results from a study of mercury concentrations in consumer
fish species.
One of the conclusions of the ecosystem scale modeling was that the
best available science suggests that over the long term, changes in
mercury concentrations in freshwater fish will be proportional to
changes in mercury inputs. In water bodies where atmospheric deposition
of inorganic mercury is the major source of mercury, it is expected
that long term reductions in fish mercury concentrations will be
proportional to declines in atmospheric mercury deposition (Ref. 8).
While it is not currently possible to quantify ecological benefits, it
can be qualitatively stated that reduction in mercury emissions from
various sources could lead to improvements in overall ecosystem health
(Ref. 8). Applying similar logic, it can be qualitatively stated that
increases in mercury emissions could lead to increases in mercury
concentrations in the
[[Page 39040]]
environment and reduction in overall ecosystem health.
C. Exposure Pathways
Mercury exists in various forms and people are exposed to each in
different ways. Consumption of methylmercury-contaminated fish is the
most important nonoccupational source of mercury exposure to people in
the U.S. Episodes of severe methylmercury poisoning in Japan and Iraq
indicated that consumption of food contaminated with methylmercury
could be highly toxic to adults, children, and developing fetuses.
Mothers showing few if any signs of nervous system damage gave birth to
infants with severe disabilities, confirming that developing fetuses
were more sensitive to methylmercury than adults. Although these
situations described exposures to methylmercury far greater than those
from typical dietary consumption in the U.S., data from those episodes
as well as epidemiological studies have been used by EPA to support its
concerns about potential methylmercury exposures (Ref. 7).
In 2001, EPA confirmed its 1995 oral Reference Dose (RfD) for
methylmercury of 0.1 micrograms/kilogram ([mu]g/kg) body weight-day
(bw/d) as an exposure without recognized adverse effects (Ref. 6).
Consumption of fish with higher methylmercury levels can lead to
elevated mercury levels in the bloodstream and hair. Mercury in blood
and hair was measured as part of the 1999-2002 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The 1999-2002 NHANES data showed
that about 6% of women of childbearing age (16-49 years of age) had
blood mercury concentrations greater than 5.8 [mu]g/L (which is a blood
mercury level equivalent to the current RfD) (Ref. 11).
Another less common human exposure pathway for mercury is breathing
elemental mercury vapor. This exposure can occur when elemental mercury
is released or when products that contain elemental mercury break and
release mercury to the air, particularly in warm or poorly-ventilated
indoor spaces. Inhalation of elemental mercury vapor is the main source
of occupational exposure to mercury. Industries that use elemental
mercury in their processes have had the largest occupational mercury
exposure; however, the imposition of workplace exposure limits on
mercury is expected to reduce worker exposure (Ref. 5). Workers may
also transport mercury home on contaminated clothing and shoes. There
have been reports of increased mercury exposure to children of workers
who are exposed in the workplace. Persons living near mercury
production, use, and disposal sites may be exposed to mercury that has
been released from these sites to the surrounding air, water, and soil
(Ref. 5).
Bioaccumulation of methylmercury up through the food chain is also
the most important exposure pathway for both aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife; although methylmercury bioaccumulates more strongly in
aquatic than in terrestrial ecosystems. In fish, methylmercury tissue
concentrations increase with increasing age and size of the fish.
Methylmercury-contaminated fish are then consumed by fish-eating
wildlife, which accumulate methylmercury to levels above those in the
original prey items. The methylmercury continues to concentrate as
fish-eating wildlife are consumed by larger predators. A well known
example of bioaccumulation through the food chain is the endangered
Florida panther, which was found to have elevated methylmercury levels
due to consumption of raccoons that were contaminated with
methylmercury from eating methylmercury-contaminated fish and shellfish
(Ref. 4).
Birds, particularly coastal species or those eating prey that feed
in estuaries, are most impacted by mercury contamination (Ref. 12). In
birds, tissue mercury concentrations associated with toxicity have been
found to be relatively similar, regardless of bird species, dietary
exposure level, and length of exposure. Frank neurological signs are
generally associated with brain mercury concentrations of 15 [mu]g/gram
(g) (wet weight) or higher and 30 [mu]g/g or more in liver and kidney
(Ref. 4). In mammals, levels of exposure that induce mercury poisoning
vary among species. Death occurs in sensitive land mammal species at
0.1-0.5 [mu]g/g bw/d, or 1.0-5.0 [mu]g/g in the diet (Ref. 4).
D. Health and Environmental Effects
The factors that determine how severe the health effects are from
mercury exposure include the chemical form of mercury, the dose, the
duration of exposure, the route of exposure (e.g., breathing, eating)
and the age and health of the person exposed. Both dietary and non-
dietary exposure to mercury can result in a variety of health effects.
In the extreme cases of methylmercury poisoning that occurred in Japan
and Iraq, some people who consumed methylmercury-contaminated food
developed permanent damage to the brain and kidneys (Ref. 5).
Nondietary exposure to elemental mercury vapors also affects the
nervous system. Different forms of mercury have different effects on
the nervous system, because they move through the body in different
ways. However, both ingestion of methylmercury and inhalation of
elemental mercury vapors can cause a variety of symptoms, including
personality changes (irritability, nervousness), tremors, changes in
vision, deafness, muscle incoordination, loss of sensation, and
difficulties with memory (Ref. 5). The nervous system of the developing
fetus appears to be the most sensitive target for adverse effects of
methylmercury. Prenatal mercury exposure may cause children to perform
poorly on neurobehavioral tests that measure attention, fine motor
function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory
(Ref. 7).
Recent epidemiological studies exploring the relationship between
methylmercury and cardiovascular impacts in men have yielded
conflicting conclusions; however, there is enough information to
justify additional research on this topic. Some research also suggests
that exposure to methylmercury may lessen the beneficial effects of
fish consumption. Methylmercury has been classified as a ``possible''
human carcinogen, based on limited human and animal data. Additional
research is needed to corroborate studies that have suggested that
methylmercury exposure could result in genetic, reproductive, renal,
hematologic or immune system impacts (Ref. 4).
Both short-term exposure to high levels or long-term exposure to
lower levels of elemental mercury vapor can irritate the lining of the
mouth and the lungs. Other effects from exposure to elemental mercury
vapor include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increase in blood pressure or
heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation (Ref. 5).
In wildlife, mercury contamination has been shown to cause death as
well as sublethal effects. Although mercury consumption can result in
bird death, a variety of sublethal effects on reproduction and behavior
have been found to occur in birds at dietary concentrations well below
those that can cause overt toxicity (Ref. 4). Methylmercury
contamination in birds can adversely affect breeding by causing
reduction in the number of eggs laid and increased embryo mortality
(Ref. 12). Methylmercury attacks the central nervous system in
mammalian wildlife as well as in humans. Methylmercury ingestion can
also cause reduced food intake, weight loss, muscular atrophy and
damage to an animal's heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and stomach (Ref.
4). Mercury contamination has been documented in endangered species,
[[Page 39041]]
such as the Florida panther and the wood stork, as well as in
populations of loons, eagles, and furbearers such as mink and otters.
Recent assessments have concluded that mercury exposures may have
contributed to the decline in the endangered Florida panther in the
Florida Everglades, most likely from decreased reproductive success in
addition to death (Ref. 4).
E. Use Information
Mercury has been widely used in industry and consumer products
because of its diverse properties, such as conducting electricity,
responding to temperature and pressure changes, and forming alloys with
almost all other metals. Use of mercury has declined because its
toxicity has resulted in state and Federal limits on its use in various
products and safe, mercury-free alternatives are available for many
products. One of the larger remaining product uses is in switches.
Mercury tilt switches are small tubes with electrical contacts at one
end of the tube. As the tube tilts, the mercury collects at one end,
providing a conductive path to complete the circuit. When the switch is
tilted back, the circuit is broken. Tilt switches have been used in
automobiles for convenience lights in the trunk and hood, in ABS and
ride control systems. While convenience lights were used in all types
of automobiles, ABS and ride control systems were primarily used in
higher end, four-wheel drive vehicles. As of 1996, convenience light
switches, ABS system switches, and ride control system switches
accounted for 87, 12, and 1 percent, respectively, of mercury switch
usage in automobiles (Ref. 2). The mercury content of mercury switches
varied from 0.7 to 1.5 grams, with an average of 0.8 grams per switch.
Automakers used mercury light switches in convenience lighting (one
switch per light), such as underhood and trunk lighting. Mercury ABS
switches were usually made up of three individual switches, containing
about one gram of mercury each. For ride control systems, most commonly
two and up to four mercury switches were used, containing approximately
one gram of mercury per switch (Ref. 13).
There are two general categories for use of mercury switches in
motor vehicles:
Installed in new motor vehicles.
Available as an aftermarket replacement part.
While these switches normally last the lifetime of a vehicle, it is
possible that they could be damaged, for example in a collision, and
need to be replaced. In general, replacement parts can be purchased
through a dealer, auto service shop, or auto parts retailer. In the
case of mercury switches, which are unlikely to need replacement, the
original equipment manufacturer usually agrees to supply the
replacement part for about seven years after the vehicle is sold (Ref.
2).
American automobile manufacturers voluntarily discontinued the use
of mercury switches in new models as of January 1, 2003 (Ref. 1). Those
foreign automobile manufacturers that had used mercury switches
discontinued their use of mercury switches in new models in the 1990s.
Since mercury-free switches can be used as aftermarket parts to replace
mercury switches in convenience lights, mercury convenience light
switches are no longer available as aftermarket replacement parts. EPA
believes that there are no feasible non-mercury alternatives for mid-
life replacement in ABS and ride control systems that contain mercury
switches. EPA solicits comment on this issue.
Mercury switches are still being manufactured as replacement parts
for pre-2003 cars containing ABS and ride control systems with mercury
switches. Because ABS and ride control systems containing mercury
switches are only found on a few models of pre-2003 vehicles, and the
mercury switches would likely only need to be replaced if they were
damaged in a collision, there is a very small market for replacement
mercury switches for ABS and ride control systems. Available
information indicates that mercury switches needed as replacement parts
are not being regularly manufactured but must be specially ordered
(Ref. 2). This market should continue to decline as the pre-2003
vehicles reach the end of their lives. Automobiles have a life
expectancy of about ten to fifteen years. Once those vehicles are no
longer in use, there will be only a very minimal market for mercury
switches for ABS and ride control systems.
It is unlikely that auto manufacturers would resume the use of
automotive mercury switches. The ability to use mercury switches in new
vehicles would be limited to vehicles for sale in certain states. There
are a number of states that have banned the use of automotive mercury
switches, which prompted auto manufacturers to discontinue their use.
As evidenced by their nationwide discontinuation of mercury switch use
following the Maine state ban, it is not generally cost effective for
auto manufacturers to make vehicles with one set of components for sale
in some states and another set of components for vehicles for sale in a
different state (Ref. 3).
V. Significant New Use Determination
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA provides that EPA's determination that a
use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors including:
The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance. 15 U.S.C. 2604(2)(A)-(D).
EPA construes the statute to allow consideration of any other
relevant factors, in addition to those enumerated in section 5(a)(2)(A)
through (D) of TSCA.
To determine what would constitute a significant new use of
elemental mercury, EPA has considered relevant information about the
toxicity of mercury, the likely exposures and releases associated with
the life cycle of elemental mercury manufactured for use in automotive
switches, and the four factors listed in section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. The
life cycle steps include the following:
Mercury switch manufacturing.
Automobile manufacturing.
Automobile collision, repair, and maintenance.
End-of-life vehicle recycling.
U.S. auto manufacturers discontinued the use of mercury switches in
convenience lights, ABS and ride control systems in new automobiles as
of January 1, 2003. Those foreign automobile manufacturers that had
used mercury switches discontinued their use of mercury switches in new
models in the 1990s. New mercury switches are still available as mid-
life replacement parts only for pre-2003 ABS and ride control systems
that originally contained mercury switches. However, available
information indicates these replacement parts are not being regularly
manufactured, but must be specially ordered. Therefore, this market is
very small and will continue to decline as vehicles containing these
switches reach the end of their useful life.
Given that few mercury switches are being manufactured and none are
being installed in new automobiles as part of convenience lights, ABS
and ride
[[Page 39042]]
control systems, the resumption of use of mercury switches for these
uses in new automobiles would require a significant increase in the
manufacture and processing of mercury switches. This would result in an
increase in the magnitude and duration of exposure to workers and the
surrounding environment at facilities of all types in the life cycle,
as well as an increase in releases which could contribute additional
mercury to the atmosphere for long range transport. This could also
result in exposures to workers at automobile manufacturing and
automobile collision, repair and maintenance facilities who had not
previously worked in these facilities when mercury switches were
commonly used in automobiles, as well as exposures to workers who are
not currently being exposed to mercury switches.
Over the next twenty years, mercury emissions due to mercury
switches in automotive scrap will decrease, because automobile
manufacturers stopped installing mercury switches for convenience
lights, ABS, and ride control systems as of January 1, 2003.
Automobiles have a life expectancy of about ten to fifteen years.
Reintroduction of mercury switches for automotive uses would thus
result in future increases of mercury emissions at EAFs, if most end of
life vehicles would continue to be recycled as scrap in the future as
they are today. Once again, increases in mercury emissions could lead
to increases in mercury concentrations in the environment and reduction
in overall ecosystem and human health from consumption of mercury-
contaminated fish. Based on these considerations, EPA has determined
that any manufacturing or processing of elemental mercury for the uses
designated in this proposed rule is a significant new use.
VI. Effects and Objectives of this Proposed Rule
In determining what would constitute significant new uses for
mercury auto switches, EPA considered relevant information on the
toxicity of mercury, likely exposures associated with the uses, and the
four factors listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2) and discussed in Unit V.
If this proposed rule is finalized, it will allow EPA to provide
the following assurances:
EPA would receive a SNUN indicating a person's intent to
manufacture or process elemental mercury for a designated significant
new use before that activity begins.
EPA would have an opportunity to review and evaluate data
and information submitted in a SNUN before the notice submitter begins
manufacturing or processing elemental mercury for a designated
significant new use.
EPA would have an opportunity to regulate prospective
manufacturers and processors of elemental mercury before a significant
new use occurs, provided such regulation is warranted pursuant to TSCA
section 5(e) or (f).
As summarized in Unit IV., EPA has concerns regarding the
environmental fate and the exposure pathways that lead to the presence
of methylmercury in fish and the consumption of mercury-contaminated
fish by humans and wildlife. American automakers voluntarily
discontinued use of mercury switches in new vehicles by January 1,
2003. Although production of ABS and ride control systems containing
mercury switches will continue as long as pre-2003 models containing
them need mid-life replacement parts, that market is very limited. It
should cease once pre-2003 vehicles containing mercury switches are no
longer available. However, EPA is concerned that manufacture or
processing of mercury for use in auto switches in new vehicles could be
reinitiated in the future and wants the opportunity to evaluate and
control, if appropriate, occupational and other exposures associated
with those activities. The notice that would be provided by the SNUN
would provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate activities
associated with a significant new use as proposed herein and an
opportunity to protect against unreasonable risks, if any, from
exposure to mercury.
In the event the decline in the use of mercury switches as
replacement parts in ABS and ride control systems of pre-2003 motor
vehicles does not proceed as described in this proposed rule, EPA may
pursue additional regulatory action as appropriate under TSCA sections
4, 6, and 8.
VII. Alternatives/Other Options Considered
Before proposing this SNUR, EPA considered the following
alternative regulatory actions for elemental mercury.
A. Promulgate a Regulation Under the Clean Air Act
Section 112(d) of the CAA requires EPA to establish emission
standards for all categories and subcategories of major sources of
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and for area sources listed for
regulation under section 112(c). Mercury compounds are metal HAPs. In
terms of industries that consume scrap, EPA has promulgated national
emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for iron and
steel foundries in the Federal Register of April 22, 2004 (69 FR 21905)
(FRL-7554-5) and integrated iron and steel mills in the Federal
Register of May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27645) (FRL-7460-2) and is in the
process of developing an area source rule for EAFs. The industry for
these source categories melts steel scrap that can contain automotive
mercury switches. EPA believes that removing mercury switches from
scrap before it is melted is the most effective way for most EAF
facilities to reduce mercury emissions resulting from automotive
mercury switches. Under the CAA, EPA may regulate only the listed
source category, such as EAFs used in producing steel and, therefore,
EPA does not regulate the manufacture, use, or disposal of mercury
switches per se. The iron and steel foundries NESHAP addresses mercury
emissions by requiring scrap selection and inspection programs to
remove mercury switches from automotive scrap. However, under TSCA, EPA
can regulate mercury switches earlier in their life cycle, by using the
authorities of TSCA section 5 to consider human and environmental
hazards during the manufacturing, processing, and use, as well as the
disposal of mercury switches and to take immediate regulatory action
under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to prohibit or limit the manufacture,
processing, or distribution in commerce of mercury switches before it
begins. If the elimination of the use of mercury switches in ABS and
ride control replacement parts does not occur as anticipated, EPA may
reevaluate its options for addressing automotive scrap under the CAA
and pursue additional regulatory action as appropriate.
B. Promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) Reporting Rule
Under a TSCA section 8(a) rule, EPA could generally require
manufacturers and processors to report information to the Agency when
they intend to manufacture or process elemental mercury. However, the
use of TSCA section 8(a) rather than the SNUR authority, would not
provide the opportunity for EPA to review human and environmental
hazards and exposures associated with the new use of elemental mercury
and, if necessary, to take immediate regulatory action under TSCA
section 5(e) or section 5(f) to prohibit or limit the activity before
it begins. In addition, EPA may not receive important information from
small businesses, because those firms are generally exempt from TSCA
section
[[Page 39043]]
8(a) reporting requirements. In view of EPA's concerns about elemental
mercury and the uses subject to this proposed rule and EPA's interest
in having the opportunity to review these uses and regulate them as
appropriate, pending the development of exposure and/or hazard
information should a significant new use be initiated, the Agency
believes that a TSCA section 8(a) rule for elemental mercury would not
meet all of EPA's regulatory objectives.
C. Regulate Elemental Mercury Used in Certain Automotive Switches Under
TSCA section 6
EPA must regulate under TSCA section 6 if ``there is a reasonable
basis to conclude that the manufacture, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or
mixture...presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment'' (TSCA section 6(a)). Given that mercury
switches are no longer being used in convenience lights, ABS, and ride
control systems installed in new automobiles, are no longer used in
convenience light replacement parts, and are of very limited
availability in ABS and ride control replacement parts for some pre-
2003 models, EPA concluded that risk management action under TSCA
section 6 is not necessary at this time. This proposed SNUR would allow
the Agency to address the potential risks associated with the
significant new uses of elemental mercury. If the elimination of the
use of mercury switches in ABS and ride control replacement parts does
not occur as anticipated, EPA may reconsider this decision and pursue
additional regulatory action as appropriate.
D. Allow the Exemption for Persons that Import or Process Elemental
Mercury as Part of Articles that Could be Subject to the SNUR
Under the SNUR exemption provision at 40 CFR 721.45(f), a person
that imports or processes a substance covered by a SNUR identified in
subpart E of part 721 as part of an article is not generally subject to
the notification requirements of Sec. 721.25 for that substance.
However, EPA is concerned that exempting articles would render the SNUR
less effective because of the possibility that switches containing
elemental mercury could be imported or processed for uses subject to
this proposed SNUR without the submission of a SNUN. Because mercury-
containing automotive switches are the primary concern in this SNUR,
EPA wishes to include not only elemental mercury but also articles
containing elemental mercury. Thus, EPA is proposing to promulgate this
rule without the exemption generally provided for in Sec. 721.45(f).
Alternatively, EPA could lift the exemption provisions of 40 CFR
721.45(f) solely for articles containing automotive switches; however,
EPA believes it is appropriate to include all articles within the scope
of this SNUR, because it is possible to reclaim mercury from articles
containing elemental mercury and use that mercury to produce automotive
switches. Furthermore, a limited lifting of the exemption could be
confusing and of limited benefit, because persons importing or
processing mercury-containing articles would not be required to submit
a SNUN if they can meet the requirements of Sec. 721.5(a)(2) or Sec.
721.5(c). Therefore, EPA is proposing to promulgate this SNUR without
the exemption provided in Sec. 721.45(f). EPA is specifically seeking
comments on the issue of whether the exemption under Sec. 721.45(f)
should be lifted in whole or in part, or whether the exemption should
remain. EPA would particularly like to hear from persons that import or
process elemental mercury as part of articles on how the proposed
alternative will affect them.
E. Define a Narrower Scope of Motor Vehicles
EPA is considering narrowing the scope of motor vehicles subject to
the SNUR. A narrower definition might limit the SNUR to vehicles
intended primarily for noncommercial transport of passengers, such as
passenger cars, pickup trucks, sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and
passenger vans. These types of passenger automobiles comprise an
estimated 96% of the vehicles on the road, and it is well known that
the use of mercury switches in convenience lights, ABS, and ride
control systems in new passenger automobiles was voluntarily
discontinued as of January 1, 2003. Passenger automobiles have been the
primary focus of most efforts to remove mercury switches from vehicles.
There is less certainty about the status of mercury switch usage in
some of the larger passenger and freight carrying vehicles, such as
buses and semi trucks. Nevertheless, EPA believes that mercury switches
are not currently being used for convenience lights, ABS, or ride
control systems in all types of new motor vehicles, and that the
broader definition encompassing all motor vehicles more appropriately
addresses EPA's concerns about elemental mercury and the uses subject
to this proposed rule. EPA requests comments on narrowing the scope of
vehicles covered to limit it to passenger automobiles and on whether
mercury switches are being installed in any types of new motor
vehicles.
VIII. Applicability of Rule to Uses Occurring Before Effective Date of
the Final Rule
To establish a significant ``new'' use, EPA determines that the use
is not ongoing. EPA has decided that the intent of section 5(a)(1)(B)
of TSCA is best served by designating a use as a significant new use as
of the date of publication of the proposed rule, rather than as of the
effective date of the final rule. Thus, persons who begin commercial
manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for the
significant new use described by this SNUR will have to cease any such
activity before the effective date of the final rule. To resume their
activities, these persons would have to comply with all applicable SNUN
requirements and wait until the notice review period, including all
extensions, expires.
EPA has promulgated provisions to allow persons to comply with this
SNUR before the effective date. If a person were to meet the conditions
of advance compliance under Sec. 721.45(h), the person would be
considered to have met the requirements of the final SNUR for those
activities. If persons who begin commercial manufacture, import, or
processing of the substance between publication and the effective date
of the SNUR do not meet the conditions of advance compliance, they must
cease that activity before the effective date of the final rule. To
resume their activities, these persons would have to comply with all
applicable SNUN requirements and wait until the notice review period,
including all extensions, expires.
IX. Risk and Market Information
EPA recognizes that section 5 of TSCA does not require the
development of any particular test data or information before
submission of a SNUN. Persons are required only to submit test data and
information in their possession or control and to describe any other
data known to or reasonably ascertainable by them (15 U.S.C. 2604(d);
40 CFR 721.25).
However, SNUN submitters should be aware that EPA will be better
able to evaluate SNUNs which provide detailed information on:
Human exposure and environmental releases that may result
from the significant new uses of elemental mercury.
[[Page 39044]]
Potential benefits of the use of the elemental mercury.
Information on risks posed by the use of elemental mercury
in automotive switches relative to risks posed by mercury-free
substitutes.
Information on how the concerns about mercury emissions
during disposal of end-of-life vehicles could be mitigated (e.g.,
rebates for switches removed before shredding).
Submitters should consider including with a SNUN any other
available studies on elemental mercury or studies on analogous
substances which may demonstrate that the significant new uses being
reported are unlikely to present an unreasonable risk.
In view of the potential risks posed by manufacture, processing,
distribution, and disposal of elemental mercury for use in automotive
switches, EPA would recommend in the final rule that potential SNUN
submitters include data and other information that would permit a
reasoned evaluation of risks posed by elemental mercury. EPA encourages
persons to consult with the Agency before submitting a SNUN for these
uses. As part of this optional pre-notice consultation, EPA would
discuss specific data and information it believes are necessary to
evaluate a significant new use. A SNUN submitted without sufficient
data and information to reasonably evaluate risks posed by a
significant new use of elemental mercury may increase the likelihood
that EPA will take action under TSCA section 5(e) to prohibit or limit
activities associated with elemental mercury and these uses. EPA
recommends that potential SNUN submitters contact the Agency early
enough that they will be able to conduct any appropriate tests and
develop any appropriate information.
X. SNUN Submissions
SNUNs should be mailed to the Environmental Protection Agency, OPPT
Document Control Office (7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Information must be submitted in the form
and manner set forth in EPA Form No. 7710-25. This form is available
from the Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), OPPT, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20460-0001 (see 40 CFR 721.25(a) and 720.40(a)(2)(i)).
XI. Economic Considerations
A. SNUNS
EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR
reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of
the chemical substances included in this proposed rule. While there is
no precise way to calculate the total annual cost of compliance with
the final rule, given the uncertainties related to predicting the
number of SNUN's that would be submitted as a result of this SNUR, EPA
estimates that the cost for preparing and submitting a SNUN is $7,302,
including a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii) (Ref.
3). Small businesses with annual sales of less than $40 million when
combined with those of the parent company (if any) are subject to a
reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). Based on past
experience with SNURs and the low number of