Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 39035 

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. 

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 

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. 

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. 

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 

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: http:// 

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 


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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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, § 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 

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 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
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. 

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 

§ 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 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. 

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 

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 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
39040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

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, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
39042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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 

§ 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 

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. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
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. 

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 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 

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: http:// 

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: http:// 

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: http:// 

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: http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm. 

7. NRC, 2000. National Research 

Council. Toxicological Effects of 

Methylmercury. Committee on the 

Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 11, 2006 / Proposed Rules 39045 

Board on Environmental Studies and 

Toxicology, Commission on Life 

Sciences, National Research Council. 

National Academy Press, Washington, 

D.C. Accessible online at: http:// 

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: 

http://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: http://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 

http://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: http://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 

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 

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 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
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. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

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). 

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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 5, 2006. 

Charles M. Auer, 

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics. 

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 

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 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL