Lead Fishing Sinkers; Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition, 70246-70248 [2010-28972]
Download as PDF
70246
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
introduction, E15 may become available
in the marketplace. Thus, EPA
anticipates that some UST system
owners and operators may choose to
store higher percentages of ethanol in
their UST systems.
Please note that this action under the
CAA has no bearing on an UST owner
or operator’s requirement to comply
with all applicable EPA UST
regulations, including the UST
compatibility requirement in 40 CFR
280.32. Specifically, in order to ensure
the safe storage of higher ethanol and
biodiesel blends under EPA’s UST
program, owners and operators must
meet the compatibility requirement for
UST systems.
40 CFR 280.32 states that ‘‘[o]wners
and operators must use an UST system
made of or lined with materials that are
compatible with the substance stored in
the UST system.’’ Because the chemical
and physical properties of ethanol and
biodiesel blends may make them more
aggressive to certain UST system
materials than petroleum, it is important
to ensure that all UST system
components in contact with biofuels are
materially compatible with that fuel.
UST System Components That May Be
Affected by Biofuel Blends
To meet § 280.32, owners and
operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent ethanol or greater than [TBD]
percent biodiesel must use compatible
equipment. At a minimum, the
following UST system equipment must
be compatible:
• Tank or internal tank lining;
• Piping;
• Pipe adhesives and glues;
• Line leak detectors;
• Flexible connectors;
• Fill pipe;
• Spill and overfill prevention
equipment;
• Submersible turbine pump and
components;
• Fittings, gaskets, bushings,
couplings, and boots;
• Containment sumps (including
submersible turbine sumps and under
dispenser containment);
• Release detection floats, sensors,
and probes.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Options for Meeting the Compatibility
Requirement
Currently, EPA believes that the most
effective options for owners and
operators of UST systems storing
ethanol-blended fuels greater than 10
percent ethanol and biodiesel-blended
fuels greater than [TBD] percent
biodiesel to ensure compatibility under
this requirement are:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Use components that are certified or
listed by an independent test laboratory
for use with the fuel stored (for
example, Underwriters Laboratories);
• Use components approved by the
manufacturer to be compatible with the
fuel stored. EPA considers acceptable
forms of manufacturer approvals to be:
Æ Be in writing;
Æ Indicate an affirmative statement of
compatibility; and
Æ Be from the equipment
manufacturer, not another entity (such
as the installer or distributor); or
• Use another method determined by
the implementing agency to sufficiently
protect human health and the
environment. EPA will work with states
as they evaluate other acceptable
methods.
Note About Using API 1626 To Meet the
Compatibility Requirement
Currently, a note in the federal UST
regulations allows owners and operators
to use the American Petroleum
Institute’s (API) Recommended Practice
1626, an industry code of practice, to
meet the compatibility requirement for
ethanol blended fuels. The original
version of API 1626 (1st ed. 1985,
reaffirmed in 2000) applies to up to 10
percent ethanol blended with gasoline
and is not applicable to meet the
compatibility requirement for ethanol
blends greater than 10 percent. In
August 2010, API published a second
edition of API 1626. The second edition
does address ethanol blends greater than
10 percent, and may also be used as a
method for demonstrating compatibility.
Please note that state underground
storage tank program regulations may be
more stringent than the federal UST
regulations, so owners and operators
should always check with their states
about state program requirements. Also,
this guidance will apply in Indian
country and in states that do not have
state program approval (SPA). Because
states with SPA must have a
compatibility requirement that is similar
to the federal compatibility requirement,
SPA states could find this guidance
relevant and useful to them as well.
If you have questions about this
guidance, please contact Andrea
Barbery at barbery.andrea@epa.gov or
(703) 603–7137.
Dated: November 8, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010–28968 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0681; FRL–8850–6]
Lead Fishing Sinkers; Disposition of
TSCA Section 21 Petition
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On August 3, 2010, several
groups filed a petition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) section
21 requesting that EPA prohibit under
TSCA section 6(a) the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of (1) lead bullets and shot;
and (2) lead fishing sinkers. On August
27, 2010, EPA denied the first request
due to a lack of authority to regulate
lead in bullets and shot under TSCA.
EPA’s decision was based on the
exclusion of shells and cartridges from
the definition of ‘‘chemical substance’’
in TSCA section 3(2)(B)(v). On
November 4, 2010, EPA denied the
second request. This notice explains
EPA’s reasons for the denial of the
request specific to fishing sinkers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Christina
Wadlington, 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) 566–1859; e-mail address:
wadlington.christina.@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general. This action may, however, be
of interest to you if you manufacture,
process, import, or distribute in
commerce lead fishing sinkers or lead
fishing tackle. If you have any questions
regarding this action, consult the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
EPA has established a docket for this
action under docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0681.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the docket index available at https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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 electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of
the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280. Docket visitors are required
to show photographic identification,
pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are
processed through an X-ray machine
and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times in the building and
returned upon departure.
establishes standards a court must use
to decide whether to order EPA to
initiate rulemaking in the event of a
lawsuit filed by the petitioner after
denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15
U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA
generally relies on the standards in
TSCA section 21 and in the provisions
under which actions have been
requested to evaluate petitions.
II. Background
D. Summary of the Disposition of the
Request With Respect to Lead in Bullets
and Shot
As discussed in the Federal Register
of September 24, 2010 (75 FR 58377)
(FRL–8847–5), on August 27, 2010, EPA
denied the first request due to a lack of
authority to regulate lead in bullets and
shot under TSCA. Today’s notice
provides EPA’s reasons for denying the
second portion of the petition: A request
to prohibit under TSCA section
6(a)(2)(A)(i) the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of lead for use in all fishing
gear.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?
Under section 21 of TSCA (15 U.S.C.
2620), any person can petition EPA to
initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the
issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule
under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an
order under TSCA section 5(e) or
6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition
must set forth the facts that are claimed
to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or
deny the petition within 90 days of its
filing. If EPA grants the petition, the
Agency must promptly commence an
appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies
the petition, the Agency must publish
its reasons for the denial in the Federal
Register. A petitioner may commence a
civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested
rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or, if the Agency does
not resolve the petition, the expiration
of the 90-day period.
B. What criteria apply to a decision on
a TSCA section 21 petition?
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that
the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it
is claimed establish that it is necessary’’
to issue the rule or order requested. 15
U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section
21 implicitly incorporates the statutory
standards that apply to the requested
actions. In addition, TSCA section 21
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
C. Summary of TSCA Section 21
Petition Received
On August 3, 2010, the Center for
Biological Diversity, American Bird
Conservancy, Association of Avian
Veterinarian, Project Gutpile and Public
Employees for Environmental
Responsibility filed a petition under
TSCA section 21 requesting that EPA
prohibit under TSCA section 6(a) the
manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of (1) lead
bullets and shot; and (2) lead fishing
gear. With respect to fishing gear,
petitioners requested a nationwide,
uniform ban on the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of lead for use in all fishing
gear, regardless of size, including
sinkers, jigs and other tackle. (Ref. 1).
III. Disposition of the Request With
Respect to Lead in Fishing Sinkers
On November 4, 2010, EPA denied
the request to prohibit under TSCA
section 6(a) the manufacture,
processing, and distribution in
commerce of lead fishing gear. EPA
denied the request because the
petitioners have not demonstrated that
the action requested is necessary to
protect against an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, as
required by TSCA section 21. The
petitioners do not provide a sufficient
justification for why a national ban of
lead fishing sinkers and other lead
fishing tackle is necessary given the
actions being taken to address the
concerns identified in the petition. The
petitioners also have not demonstrated
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70247
that the action requested—a uniform
national ban of lead for use in all fishing
gear—is the least burdensome
alternative to adequately protect against
the concerns identified in the petition,
as required by section 6. There are an
increasing number of limitations on the
use of lead fishing gear on some Federal
lands, as well as Federal outreach
efforts. A number of states have
established regulations that ban or
restrict the use of lead sinkers and have
created state education and fishing
tackle exchange programs. The
emergence of these programs and
activities over the past decade calls into
question whether the broad rulemaking
requested by petitioners would be the
least burdensome, adequately protective
approach. EPA notes that the prevalence
of non-lead alternatives in the
marketplace continues to increase.
Lead tackle already is prohibited for
use in Yellowstone National Park and at
several national wildlife refuges
including Patuxent National Wildlife
Refuge in Maryland, Rachel Carson
National Wildlife Refuge in Maine,
Rappahanock National Wildlife Refuge
in Virginia, Red Rock Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge in Montana, Seney
National Wildlife Refuge in Michigan,
and Union Slough National Wildlife
Refuge in Iowa. Since 1999, the National
Fish and Wildlife Service has
encouraged the use of non-lead fishing
tackle (See ‘‘Let’s Get the Lead Out’’ at
https://www.fws.gov/contaminants/
Documents/leadpoisoning2.pdf). The
National Park Service is also
encouraging the use of alternatives to
lead tackle in national parks through an
education and outreach program. This
program, which has a goal of
eliminating the use of lead tackle in
parks, focuses on the benefits of using
lead-free fishing tackle.
States also have been taking action to
ban or limit the use of lead fishing
sinkers or have been working to limit
the use of lead fishing sinkers through
outreach and exchange programs. Since
2000, five states have banned or limited
the use of fishing sinkers. Maine, New
York, and Vermont have banned the sale
of lead fishing sinkers of less than onehalf ounce. In Massachusetts, the use of
all lead sinkers in the Quabbin and
Wachusett Reservoirs, the loons’
primary habitat in the state, is
prohibited, and starting in 2012, the use
of lead sinkers, lead weights, and lead
fishing jigs of less than one ounce will
be prohibited in all inland waters. In
New Hampshire, lead fishing sinkers
and jigs are banned for use in all fresh
waters. Additionally, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife is
considering whether to adopt
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
70248
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 17, 2010 / Notices
restrictions on the use of lead tackle in
the state. Other states have outreach and
education and tackle exchange
programs.
The comments that EPA has received
from states and a state organization
highlight the geographic focus of state
controls on lead fishing tackle.
According to the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, ‘‘the exposure to
certain migratory birds (primarily loons,
and to a lesser extent, swans) and
related impacts to populations of those
birds is localized, and where impacts
have been substantiated to be
significant, state fish and wildlife
agencies have acted to regulate the use
of lead sinkers and jigs. In the northeast,
five states have enacted restrictions
(e.g., ban in certain bodies of water; ban
on certain weights and sizes) on the use
of lead fishing tackle where studies have
identified lead toxicosis as a
contributing factor to declining loon
populations. Some states are also
offering a fishing tackle exchange
program (non-lead for lead products).
States have thus demonstrated a
responsible exercise of their authority to
regulate or restrict lead fishing tackle
under circumstances of exposure where
it contributes to decline in loon
populations’’ (Ref. 2).
Several state fish and game agencies
submitted comments (Refs. 3–5). All
support denial of the petition and
provide several reasons why they do not
support the actions requested in the
petition. These comments assert that
mortality from ingestion of lead fishing
tackle is rare and is primarily limited to
some areas of the country, that states are
already working closely with the Fish
and Wildlife Service on education and
exchange programs, and that where
there have been impacts on loons and
trumpeter swans, states have already
taken action. These states contend that
these impacts are best addressed by
geographically targeted actions that the
states are undertaking. As noted by
these commenters, states in the northern
part of the country, where the majority
of the impacts on loons has been
observed, have taken action to limit or
ban the use of lead sinkers or have
implemented tackle exchange programs.
While it is the case, as petitioners
noted, that 16 years ago, in 1994, EPA
proposed a ban of lead for use in certain
smaller-sized fishing sinkers under
TSCA section 6(a)(2)(A), the sweeping
alternative requested by petitioners was
not one the Agency, as reflected in its
proposal, found to be appropriate even
then. (59 FR 11122, March 9, 1994). The
steps that have been taken at the Federal
and State levels since that time make a
nationwide ban on all lead fishing gear
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 16, 2010
Jkt 223001
such as that sought by petitioners even
less appropriate today.
Moreover, the market for fishing gear
is changing. While lead tackle may still
constitute the largest percentage of the
fishing sinker market, over the last
decade the availability of fishing sinkers
made from other materials has
expanded. New non-lead products have
entered the market, and the market
share of lead sinkers has decreased.
With improvements in technology,
changes in consumer preferences, statelevel restrictions, and increased market
competition, the market for lead fishing
sinkers is expected to continue to
decrease while the market for
substitutes such as limestone, steel, and
tungsten fishing sinkers is expected to
continue to increase (Ref. 6).
In sum, EPA is not persuaded that the
action requested by the petitioners—a
sweeping national uniform rule on lead
in all fishing gear—is necessary. The
petitioners also have failed to
demonstrate that a national ban on lead
fishing gear is the least burdensome
approach to adequately address the risk
to the environment addressed in the
petition, as required by TSCA section 6,
given the mix of actions that state
agencies and the Federal Government
already are taking to address the impact
of lead fishing sinkers on local
environments. The risk described by the
petitioners does appear to be more
prevalent in some geographic areas than
others, and the trend over the past
decade has been for increasing state and
localized activity regarding lead in
fishing gear. For these reasons, EPA
denied the petitioners’ request for a
national ban on lead in all fishing gear.
V. References
1. American Bird Conservancy, Petition to
the Environmental Protection Agency to Ban
Lead Shot, Bullets and Fishing Sinkers under
the Toxic Substances Control Act. August 3,
2010.
2. Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. Letter to Honorable Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, United States Environmental
Protection Agency. September 2, 2010.
3. The State of Arizona Game and Fish
Department. Letter to Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, United States Environmental
Protection Agency. September 14, 2010.
4. Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife
Resources Tourism, Art and Heritage Cabinet.
Letter to Honorable Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, United States Environmental
Protection Agency. September 15, 2010.
5. Commonwealth of Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries. Letter to
Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection
Agency. September 15, 2010.
6. Background Document—TSCA § 21
Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other
Components. October 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Bird, Lead,
Lead bullets, Lead fishing sinkers, Lead
shot.
Dated: November 4, 2010.
Steve A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010–28972 Filed 11–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0477; FRL–8848–7]
Endocrine Disruptor Screening
Program; Second List of Chemicals for
Tier 1 Screening
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
second list of chemicals and substances
for which EPA intends to issue test
orders under the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP). EPA
established the EDSP in response to
section 408(p) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This
second list of chemicals expands the
EDSP in an effort to include all
pesticides, required by FFDCA, and
adds priority drinking water chemicals
into the program for screening as
authorized by SDWA section 1457.
Today’s publication provides public
notice of EPA’s tentative decisionmaking in advance of the actual
issuance of EDSP testing orders.
DATES: In order for the Agency to
consider information and/or comments
that may be relevant to the inclusion or
exclusion of chemicals contained on the
second EDSP list, this information and/
or comments should be received by EPA
on or before December 17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0477, 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 Bldg.,
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0477.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17NON1.SGM
17NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70246-70248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28972]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681; FRL-8850-6]
Lead Fishing Sinkers; Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 3, 2010, several groups filed a petition under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 21 requesting that EPA
prohibit under TSCA section 6(a) the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of (1) lead bullets and shot; and (2) lead
fishing sinkers. On August 27, 2010, EPA denied the first request due
to a lack of authority to regulate lead in bullets and shot under TSCA.
EPA's decision was based on the exclusion of shells and cartridges from
the definition of ``chemical substance'' in TSCA section 3(2)(B)(v). On
November 4, 2010, EPA denied the second request. This notice explains
EPA's reasons for the denial of the request specific to fishing
sinkers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Christina Wadlington, 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) 566-1859; e-mail address:
wadlington.christina.@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to you if you manufacture, process, import, or
distribute in commerce lead fishing sinkers or lead fishing tackle. If
you have any questions regarding this action, consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
[[Page 70247]]
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (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 electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
II. Background
A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?
Under section 21 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition
EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA
section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days
of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly
commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the
Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register.
A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or, if the Agency does not resolve the petition, the
expiration of the 90-day period.
B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA section 21 petition?
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to issue the
rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a
court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in
the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA
section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA
generally relies on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the
provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate
petitions.
C. Summary of TSCA Section 21 Petition Received
On August 3, 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity, American
Bird Conservancy, Association of Avian Veterinarian, Project Gutpile
and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility filed a petition
under TSCA section 21 requesting that EPA prohibit under TSCA section
6(a) the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of (1)
lead bullets and shot; and (2) lead fishing gear. With respect to
fishing gear, petitioners requested a nationwide, uniform ban on the
manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for use
in all fishing gear, regardless of size, including sinkers, jigs and
other tackle. (Ref. 1).
D. Summary of the Disposition of the Request With Respect to Lead in
Bullets and Shot
As discussed in the Federal Register of September 24, 2010 (75 FR
58377) (FRL-8847-5), on August 27, 2010, EPA denied the first request
due to a lack of authority to regulate lead in bullets and shot under
TSCA. Today's notice provides EPA's reasons for denying the second
portion of the petition: A request to prohibit under TSCA section
6(a)(2)(A)(i) the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce
of lead for use in all fishing gear.
III. Disposition of the Request With Respect to Lead in Fishing Sinkers
On November 4, 2010, EPA denied the request to prohibit under TSCA
section 6(a) the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce
of lead fishing gear. EPA denied the request because the petitioners
have not demonstrated that the action requested is necessary to protect
against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as
required by TSCA section 21. The petitioners do not provide a
sufficient justification for why a national ban of lead fishing sinkers
and other lead fishing tackle is necessary given the actions being
taken to address the concerns identified in the petition. The
petitioners also have not demonstrated that the action requested--a
uniform national ban of lead for use in all fishing gear--is the least
burdensome alternative to adequately protect against the concerns
identified in the petition, as required by section 6. There are an
increasing number of limitations on the use of lead fishing gear on
some Federal lands, as well as Federal outreach efforts. A number of
states have established regulations that ban or restrict the use of
lead sinkers and have created state education and fishing tackle
exchange programs. The emergence of these programs and activities over
the past decade calls into question whether the broad rulemaking
requested by petitioners would be the least burdensome, adequately
protective approach. EPA notes that the prevalence of non-lead
alternatives in the marketplace continues to increase.
Lead tackle already is prohibited for use in Yellowstone National
Park and at several national wildlife refuges including Patuxent
National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland, Rachel Carson National Wildlife
Refuge in Maine, Rappahanock National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia, Red
Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in Montana, Seney National Wildlife
Refuge in Michigan, and Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge in Iowa.
Since 1999, the National Fish and Wildlife Service has encouraged the
use of non-lead fishing tackle (See ``Let's Get the Lead Out'' at
https://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Documents/leadpoisoning2.pdf). The
National Park Service is also encouraging the use of alternatives to
lead tackle in national parks through an education and outreach
program. This program, which has a goal of eliminating the use of lead
tackle in parks, focuses on the benefits of using lead-free fishing
tackle.
States also have been taking action to ban or limit the use of lead
fishing sinkers or have been working to limit the use of lead fishing
sinkers through outreach and exchange programs. Since 2000, five states
have banned or limited the use of fishing sinkers. Maine, New York, and
Vermont have banned the sale of lead fishing sinkers of less than one-
half ounce. In Massachusetts, the use of all lead sinkers in the
Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, the loons' primary habitat in the
state, is prohibited, and starting in 2012, the use of lead sinkers,
lead weights, and lead fishing jigs of less than one ounce will be
prohibited in all inland waters. In New Hampshire, lead fishing sinkers
and jigs are banned for use in all fresh waters. Additionally, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is considering whether to
adopt
[[Page 70248]]
restrictions on the use of lead tackle in the state. Other states have
outreach and education and tackle exchange programs.
The comments that EPA has received from states and a state
organization highlight the geographic focus of state controls on lead
fishing tackle. According to the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, ``the exposure to certain migratory birds (primarily loons,
and to a lesser extent, swans) and related impacts to populations of
those birds is localized, and where impacts have been substantiated to
be significant, state fish and wildlife agencies have acted to regulate
the use of lead sinkers and jigs. In the northeast, five states have
enacted restrictions (e.g., ban in certain bodies of water; ban on
certain weights and sizes) on the use of lead fishing tackle where
studies have identified lead toxicosis as a contributing factor to
declining loon populations. Some states are also offering a fishing
tackle exchange program (non-lead for lead products). States have thus
demonstrated a responsible exercise of their authority to regulate or
restrict lead fishing tackle under circumstances of exposure where it
contributes to decline in loon populations'' (Ref. 2).
Several state fish and game agencies submitted comments (Refs. 3-
5). All support denial of the petition and provide several reasons why
they do not support the actions requested in the petition. These
comments assert that mortality from ingestion of lead fishing tackle is
rare and is primarily limited to some areas of the country, that states
are already working closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service on
education and exchange programs, and that where there have been impacts
on loons and trumpeter swans, states have already taken action. These
states contend that these impacts are best addressed by geographically
targeted actions that the states are undertaking. As noted by these
commenters, states in the northern part of the country, where the
majority of the impacts on loons has been observed, have taken action
to limit or ban the use of lead sinkers or have implemented tackle
exchange programs.
While it is the case, as petitioners noted, that 16 years ago, in
1994, EPA proposed a ban of lead for use in certain smaller-sized
fishing sinkers under TSCA section 6(a)(2)(A), the sweeping alternative
requested by petitioners was not one the Agency, as reflected in its
proposal, found to be appropriate even then. (59 FR 11122, March 9,
1994). The steps that have been taken at the Federal and State levels
since that time make a nationwide ban on all lead fishing gear such as
that sought by petitioners even less appropriate today.
Moreover, the market for fishing gear is changing. While lead
tackle may still constitute the largest percentage of the fishing
sinker market, over the last decade the availability of fishing sinkers
made from other materials has expanded. New non-lead products have
entered the market, and the market share of lead sinkers has decreased.
With improvements in technology, changes in consumer preferences,
state-level restrictions, and increased market competition, the market
for lead fishing sinkers is expected to continue to decrease while the
market for substitutes such as limestone, steel, and tungsten fishing
sinkers is expected to continue to increase (Ref. 6).
In sum, EPA is not persuaded that the action requested by the
petitioners--a sweeping national uniform rule on lead in all fishing
gear--is necessary. The petitioners also have failed to demonstrate
that a national ban on lead fishing gear is the least burdensome
approach to adequately address the risk to the environment addressed in
the petition, as required by TSCA section 6, given the mix of actions
that state agencies and the Federal Government already are taking to
address the impact of lead fishing sinkers on local environments. The
risk described by the petitioners does appear to be more prevalent in
some geographic areas than others, and the trend over the past decade
has been for increasing state and localized activity regarding lead in
fishing gear. For these reasons, EPA denied the petitioners' request
for a national ban on lead in all fishing gear.
V. References
1. American Bird Conservancy, Petition to the Environmental
Protection Agency to Ban Lead Shot, Bullets and Fishing Sinkers
under the Toxic Substances Control Act. August 3, 2010.
2. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Letter to
Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental
Protection Agency. September 2, 2010.
3. The State of Arizona Game and Fish Department. Letter to Lisa
P. Jackson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection
Agency. September 14, 2010.
4. Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Tourism, Art
and Heritage Cabinet. Letter to Honorable Lisa Jackson,
Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
September 15, 2010.
5. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries. Letter to Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, United
States Environmental Protection Agency. September 15, 2010.
6. Background Document--TSCA Sec. 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing
Sinkers and Other Components. October 2010.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection, Bird, Lead, Lead bullets, Lead fishing
sinkers, Lead shot.
Dated: November 4, 2010.
Steve A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2010-28972 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P