Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 10451 

1 44 FR 50767, Aug. 29, 1979, Final Rulemaking; 

Water Programs; Determination of Reportable 

Quantities for Hazardous Substances; and 50 FR 

13463, Apr. 4, 1985, Final rule; Notification 

Requirements; Reportable Quantity Adjustments. 

Discharges of mixtures and solutions are subject to 

these regulations only where a component 

hazardous substance of the mixture or solution is 

discharged in a quantity equal to or greater than its 

reportable quantity. 

302.6(b)(1)(iii). A November 8, 2000 

final rule (Hazardous Waste 

Management System; Identification and 

Listing of Hazardous Waste; Chlorinated 

Aliphatics Production Wastes; Land 

Disposal Restriction for Newly 

Identified Wastes; CERCLA Hazardous 

Substance Designation and Reportable 

Quantities; Final Rule) inadvertently 

removed the maximum observed 

constituent concentrations for those 

listed hazardous wastes from the table 

in that section when it was amended to 

include the maximum observed 

constituent concentrations for listed 

hazardous wastes K174 and K175. (See 

65 FR 67132.) The maximum observed 

constituent concentrations were 

included in the 40 CFR 302.6 

regulations to allow generators, 

transporters, and disposal facilities 

handling these wastes to calculate 

reportable quantities (RQs) using the 

mixture rule 1 developed in connection 

with the Clean Water Act section 311 

regulations. The listed hazardous wastes 

K169, K170, K171, and K172 and their 

respective RQs are included in Table 

302.4—List of Hazardous Substances 

and Reportable Quantities and 

Appendix A to section 302.4— 

Sequential CAS Registry Number List of 

CERCLA Hazardous Substances of Title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

However, the aforementioned Table 

302.4 and Appendix A do not contain 

the maximum observed constituent 

concentrations. Section 302.6 is the only 

source of these maximum observed 

constituent concentrations contained in 

40 CFR 302—Designation, Reportable 

Quantities, and Notification. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

reviews 

For a complete discussion of all of the 

administrative requirements applicable 

to this action, see the direct final rule in 

the Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 302 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

For the reasons set out, title 40, 

chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 302—DESIGNATION, 

REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 

NOTIFICATION 

1. The authority citation for part 302 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 

33 U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 

2. In § 302.6, paragraph (b)(1)(iii), the 

table is amended by adding entries 

K169, K170, K171, and K172 in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 302.6 Notification requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

Waste Constituent Max ppm 

K169 ................. Benzene .............................................................................................................................................................. 220 .0 

K170 ................. Benzene .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 .2 

Benzo (a) pyrene ................................................................................................................................................ 230 .0 

Dibenz (a,h) anthracene ..................................................................................................................................... 49 .0 

Benzo (a) anthracene ......................................................................................................................................... 390 .0 

Benzo (b) fluoranthene ....................................................................................................................................... 110 .0 

Benzo (k) fluoranthese ....................................................................................................................................... 110 .0 

3-Methylcholanthrene ......................................................................................................................................... 27 .0 

7, 12-Dimethylbenz (a) anthracene .................................................................................................................... 1,200 .0 

K171 ................. Benzene .............................................................................................................................................................. 500 .0 

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,600 .0 

K172 ................. Benzene .............................................................................................................................................................. 100 .0 

Arsenic ................................................................................................................................................................ 730 .0 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–4059 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0135; FRL–9339–5] 

Fishing Tackle Containing Lead; 

Disposition of Petition Filed Pursuant 

to TSCA Section 21 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition, reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: On November 17, 2011, EPA 

received a petition from the Center for 

Biological Diversity, the Loon Lake 

Loon Association, and Project Gutpile 

(petitioners). The petitioners cited 

section 21 of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) and requested EPA 

to initiate a rulemaking under section 

6(a) of TSCA applicable to fishing tackle 

containing lead (e.g., fishing weights, 

sinkers, lures, jigs, and/or other fishing 

tackle), of various sizes and uses that are 

ingested by wildlife, resulting in lead 

exposure. After careful consideration, 

EPA denied the petition by letter dated 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10452 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

February 14, 2012. This notice explains 

EPA’s reasons for the denial. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Thomas Groeneveld, 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) 566–1188; fax number: (202) 566– 

0470; email address: 

groeneveld.thomas@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@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 fishing tackle containing 

lead. Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. 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. How can I access information about 

this petition? 

EPA has established a record for this 

petition response under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2012–0135. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in 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 http:// 

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. TSCA Section 21 

A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (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 the expiration of the 

90-day period if EPA fails to respond 

within 90 days. 

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 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this petition. 

III. Summary of the Petition 

On November 17, 2011, the Center for 

Biological Diversity, the Loon Lake 

Loon Association, and Project Gutpile 

petitioned EPA to ‘‘evaluate the 

unreasonable risk of injury to the 

environment from fishing tackle 

containing lead (including fishing 

weights, sinkers, lures, jigs, and/or other 

tackle) of various sizes and uses that are 

ingested by wildlife resulting in lead 

exposure’’ and to ‘‘initiate a proceeding 

for the issuance of a rulemaking under 

section 6(a) of TSCA to adequately 

protect against such risks’’ (Ref. 1, p. 

27). The petition expressly states that 

this petition ‘‘asks the EPA to initiate a 

rulemaking for regulations that 

adequately protect wildlife against the 

unreasonable risk of injury from lead 

fishing tackle * * *. This petition does 

not request a specific regulatory 

alternative. It is the obligation of the 

EPA to determine the least burdensome 

alternative that adequately addresses the 

unreasonable risk of injury’’ (Ref. 1, p. 

8). As such, the petition does not 

actually identify a rule to be issued, 

amended, or repealed. 

This is not the first time EPA has been 

petitioned to take action with respect to 

fishing tackle containing lead. On 

August 3, 2010, the Center for Biological 

Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, 

Association of Avian Veterinarians, 

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 lead fishing gear (Ref. 2). 

In particular, the 2010 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. 

EPA denied the petition on November 4, 

2010 (Ref. 2). The comments that EPA 

received from states and a state 

organization about the 2010 petition 

highlighted the geographic focus of state 

controls on lead fishing tackle (Ref. 2). 

Several state fish and game agencies 

submitted comments, all supporting 

denial of the petition (Ref. 2). 

Additionally, on October 20, 1992, the 

Environmental Defense Fund, 

Federation of Fly Fishers, Trumpeter 

Swan Society, and North American 

Loon Fund petitioned EPA under 

section 21 of TSCA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act to initiate 

rulemaking procedures under section 

6(a) of TSCA to require that the sale of 

lead fishing sinkers be accompanied by 

an appropriate label or notice warning 

that such products are toxic to wildlife 

(Ref. 3). EPA granted the petition and, 

ultimately, in 1994, EPA proposed a 

rule under section 6(a) of TSCA to 

prohibit the manufacturing, processing, 

and distribution in commerce in the 

United States, of certain smaller size 

fishing sinkers containing lead and zinc, 

and mixed with other substances, 

including those made of brass (59 FR 

11122, March 9, 1994). EPA received 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 10453 

comments from many states or state 

agencies in response to the 1994 

proposal; the majority of these 

comments argued that Federal action 

was not warranted. That proposal has 

not been finalized and in 2005 EPA 

indicated its intent to withdraw the 

proposal (70 FR 27625, May 16, 2005). 

Given limited resources and competing 

priorities, EPA has not yet formally 

withdrawn the proposal but is currently 

taking steps to do so. 

IV. Disposition of Petition Filed 

Pursuant to TSCA Section 21 

A. What is EPA’s response? 

On February 14, 2012, EPA denied the 

November 2011 petition. A copy of the 

Agency’s response, which consists of a 

letter to the petitioners, is available in 

the docket for this petition. EPA’s 

reasons for denying the petition are 

provided in Unit IV.B. 

B. What are EPA’s reason for this 

denial? 

In denying the petitioners’ request, 

EPA determined that the petitioners did 

not demonstrate that Federal action is 

necessary based, in part, on the fact that 

the petitioners’ supporting data indicate 

that the issue of wildlife exposure to 

fishing tackle containing lead has a 

regional or local geographic context 

coupled with the fact that the states 

where risk of injury appears to be 

greatest (based on documented 

incidences) are largely the states that 

have taken action to address the risks 

posed by lead fishing tackle. While 

several species of waterfowl are 

included, the most extensive 

information provided in the petition 

pertains to the ingestion by loons of 

fishing tackle containing lead and 

indicates that common loons are known 

to ingest lead objects more frequently 

than other species of water birds 

sampled across the United States. For 

loons, most of the documented cases of 

lead tackle ingestion cited in the 

petition are for the time period between 

1987 and 2002 and are confined to 

northern states, all of which are located 

on or near the northern border of the 

United States. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service report cited in the 

petition also indicates that loon 

populations are stable or increasing in 

all of these northern states where lead 

tackle ingestion by loons has been 

documented, with the exception of 

Washington. While such examples 

suggest harm to wildlife, and waterfowl 

in particular, they do not, in and of 

themselves, demonstrate that Federal 

rulemaking under section 6(a) of TSCA 

is necessary. 

Indeed, as evidenced by the petition, 

since 2000, a number of states have 

established regulations that ban or 

restrict the use of lead tackle. In 

addition, a number of other states have 

created state education and/or fishing 

tackle exchange programs. In light of the 

emergence and expansion of these 

programs and other activities over the 

past decade coupled with a paucity of 

data on bird mortality attributable to 

lead tackle ingestion during this same 

timeframe, the petition does not suffice 

to establish that a Federal action under 

section 6(a) of TSCA as requested by the 

petitioners is necessary to adequately 

protect wildlife. 

Specifically, since 2000, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

York, Vermont, and Washington 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. Two 

states, Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire, have expanded the scope of 

water bodies covered by use 

prohibitions over time. In 

Massachusetts, the use of all lead 

sinkers was initially prohibited in the 

Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, the 

loons’ primary habitat in the state. The 

Massachusetts regulations expanded the 

use prohibitions, effective in 2012, to 

include additional tackle—lead weights, 

and lead fishing jigs of less than one 

ounce—and to encompass all inland 

waters. In New Hampshire, initial use 

prohibitions for fishing sinkers and jigs 

were expanded from lakes and ponds to 

all waters of the state in 2006. In 2011, 

Washington State began to regulate 

fishing tackle containing lead by 

approving measures to prohibit the use 

of fishing tackle containing lead at lakes 

with nesting common loons. EPA also 

notes that other states (e.g., Minnesota 

and Wisconsin) have voluntary 

education or outreach programs, 

including efforts to discourage the use 

of fishing tackle containing lead, to raise 

awareness of lead poisoning in wildlife, 

and events to exchange fishing tackle 

containing lead for lead-free 

alternatives. 

Thus, the trend is that states are being 

responsive to the harms attributed to 

fishing tackle containing lead by 

implementing regulatory and voluntary 

programs. 

For example, EPA notes that among 

the states where the petition cites 

documented cases of lead tackle 

ingestion by loons, five of the states 

regulate the use or sale of fishing tackle 

containing lead and have been doing so 

since at least 2006. Further, EPA notes 

that two states with voluntary programs 

are among the same states. In other 

words, the states where ingestion of 

fishing tackle containing lead is best 

linked to loon mortality have responded 

with regulatory or voluntary programs. 

In some cases, these programs have 

expanded over time. The petition does 

not demonstrate that these state and 

local efforts are ineffective or have 

failed to reduce the exposure and risks 

presented to waterfowl in particular. In 

light of these state actions, EPA 

concludes that the petition does not 

demonstrate that action under TSCA 

section 6(a) is necessary to adequately 

protect wildlife. 

EPA also notes that when Federal 

actions have been taken to address the 

use of lead fishing tackle in federally 

managed lands and water bodies across 

the nation, they have been limited to 

specific, localized National Wildlife 

Refuges, not the entire National Wildlife 

Refuge System. For example, use of 

fishing tackle containing lead is 

prohibited in several wildlife refuges, 

including in states with breeding loon 

populations such as Rachel Carson 

National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge in 

Michigan, and Red Rock Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge in Montana. 

Moreover, EPA recognizes that state 

and local natural resource agencies 

consider geographic context in their 

resource assessments, and manage these 

resources based on evaluations of local 

impacts on fish and wildlife resources 

and habitats. EPA also is cognizant that 

these state and local agencies 

historically have made such evaluations 

while considering the societal benefits 

of traditional fishing practices. This 

perspective is supported by the vast 

majority of comments received from 

states and members of the general 

public on the petition submitted on 

August 3, 2010 (Ref. 2) and the section 

6(a) rule proposed by EPA on March 9, 

1994 (59 FR 11122). 

In response to the petition submitted 

on August 3, 2010, EPA received 

comments from states and a state 

organization that 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10454 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

All state agencies that commented on 

the 2010 petition supported the denial 

of the petition and provided several 

reasons why Federal action is 

unwarranted (Ref. 2). 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 U.S. 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, because 

policy development is biologically, 

socially, and economically complex, 

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 in particular 

have been observed, have taken action 

to limit or ban the use of lead sinkers 

or have implemented tackle exchange 

programs. 

In addition, comments received on 

the 2010 petition from Members of 

Congress, representing two different 

states (e.g., Arkansas and Wisconsin), 

also opposed Federal action on lead 

fishing tackle (Ref. 2). A Representative 

from Wisconsin opposed a prohibition 

on lead fishing tackle in favor of 

voluntary education and outreach 

programs (Ref 2). 

These comments were consistent with 

the comments EPA received in response 

to the 1994 proposal. In their comments 

on the 1994 proposed rule, numerous 

state fish and wildlife management 

agencies from across the U.S. 

commented that they did not believe 

that the data as a whole (e.g., exposure 

information, limited incidents of lead 

toxicity linked to tackle, number of 

specific species likely to be affected, 

geographic nature of the issue), support 

the need for a nationwide ban on fishing 

tackle containing lead. Many of these 

states also strongly expressed their 

opinion that they, as state fish and 

wildlife agencies, have the best 

knowledge of the status of bird 

populations in their states and are 

therefore best suited to identify if their 

wildlife resources are impacted, and to 

determine what the most appropriate 

management actions should be, if any. 

In total, the vast majority of these 

comments opposed the prohibitions in 

the 1994 proposed rule. 

These comments and the actions 

taken by states reinforce EPA’s 

conclusion that petitioners have not 

shown that Federal action under TSCA 

section 6(a) is necessary to protect 

wildlife resources at this time. 

EPA also recognizes that the market 

for fishing tackle and equipment 

continues to change and that the 

prevalence of non-lead alternatives in 

the marketplace continues to increase. 

While fishing tackle containing lead 

may still constitute the largest 

percentage of the market, the 

availability of lead-free alternatives has 

increased in the last decade (Ref. 2). 

New non-lead products have entered the 

market, and the market share of lead 

sinkers has decreased (Ref. 2). 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. 2). In light of 

these trends, the petition does not 

demonstrate that rulemaking is 

necessary under TSCA section 6(a). 

In sum, EPA is not persuaded that the 

action requested by the petitioners is 

necessary given the mix of regulatory 

and education actions states agencies 

and the Federal Government already are 

taking to address the impact of lead 

fishing tackle 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 

Federal activity regarding lead in fishing 

tackle. Therefore, EPA concludes that 

the petition does not demonstrate that 

action under TSCA section 6(a) is 

necessary in light of these state and 

Federal actions. 

Furthermore, for the same reasons 

stated in this unit, while the petition 

does provide evidence of exposure and 

a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the 

United States, it does not provide a 

basis for finding that the risk presented 

is an unreasonable risk. ‘‘The finding of 

unreasonable risk is a judgment under 

which the decision-maker determines 

that the risk of health or environmental 

injury from the chemical substance or 

mixture outweighs the burden to society 

of potential regulations’’ (59 FR 11122, 

11138). Again, the risk described by the 

petitioners appears to be more prevalent 

in some geographic areas than others, 

and the trend over the past decade has 

been for increasing state and localized 

Federal activity regarding lead in fishing 

tackle. Given the mix of regulatory and 

educational actions state agencies and 

the Federal Government already are 

taking to address the impact of lead 

fishing tackle on local environments, 

and the other considerations described 

in Unit IV.B., the petition does not 

demonstrate that exposure from lead 

fishing tackle presents an unreasonable 

risk. 

Finally, although EPA proposed to 

make a finding that lead fishing tackle 

presented an unreasonable risk in 1994, 

the Agency did not finalize that rule and 

indicated its intent to withdraw the 

proposal in 2005 (70 FR 27625). The 

Agency’s view that the proposal should 

be withdrawn is buttressed by the 

emergence and continued expansion of 

state and local programs in the states 

that appear to be most affected. 

Likewise, other data and information 

(e.g., incidents of lead tackle ingestion 

and mortality in certain species of 

waterfowl) that supported that proposal 

are clearly outdated. To the extent that 

petitioners rely on that proposal, their 

reliance is unpersuasive. 

For these reasons, EPA denied the 

petitioners’ request. 

V. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this notice and placed in 

the docket that was established under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2012–0135. For information on 

accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 

1. Center for Biological Diversity, Loon Lake 

Loon Association, Project Gutpile. 

Petition to the Environmental Protection 

Agency to Regulate Lead Fishing Tackle 

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; 

Petition. (November 16, 2011). Available 

online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/

chemtest/pubs/TSCA_sinker_

petition.pdf. 

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Lead Fishing Sinkers and Ammunition 

Components; Docket. Docket ID: EPA– 

HQ–OPPT–2010–0681. Available online 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252

BO%252BSR;rpp=10;po=0;D=EPA–HQ–

OPPT–2010–0681. 

3. Environmental Defense Fund, Federation 

of Fly Fishers, the Trumpeter Swan 

Society, and the North American Loon 

Fund. Petition to EPA Administrator 

William K. Reilly pursuant to the Toxic 

Substances Control Act, and the 

Administrative Procedure Act; Petition 

(October 20, 1992). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 10455 

1So in law. There are two sections 487F. Section 

1002(b) of Public Law 106–310 (114 Stat. 1129), 

inserted section 487F above. Subsequently, section 

205 of Public Law 106–505 (114 Stat. 2329), which 

relates to the Loan Repayment Program for Clinical 

Researchers, inserted a section 487F after section 

487E. 

2So in law. There are two sections 487F. Section 

205 of Public Law 106–505 (114 Stat. 2329), 

inserted section 487F after section 487E. Previously, 

section 1002(b) of Public Law 106–310 (114 Stat. 

1129), which relates to the Pediatric Research Loan 

Repayment Program, inserted section 487F after 

section 487E. 

3Section 485G of the PHS Act, enacted by Public 

Law 106–525, was redesignated section 464z–5 by 

P.L. 111–148. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Bird, Lead, 

Lead fishing sinkers, Lead fishing 

tackle. 

Dated: February 14, 2012. 

James Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4087 Filed 2–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 

42 CFR Part 68 

[Docket No. NIH–2008–0003] 

RIN 0905–AA43 

National Institutes of Health Loan 

Repayment Programs 

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) proposes to rescind the 

current regulations governing two of its 

eight loan repayment programs and 

issue in their place a new consolidated 

set of regulations governing all of the 

NIH Loan Repayment Programs (LRPs). 

There are currently eight programs, 

including three for researchers 

employed by the NIH (Intramural LRPs) 

and five for non-NIH scientists 

(Extramural LRPs). The Intramural LRPs 

include the Loan Repayment Program 

for Research with Respect to Acquired 

Immune Deficiency Syndrome (or AIDS 

Research LRP); Loan Repayment 

Program for General Research (or 

General Research LRP), which includes 

a program for the Accreditation Council 

for Graduate Medical Education 

(ACGME) Fellows; and Loan Repayment 

Program for Clinical Researchers from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds (or Clinical 

Research LRP for Individuals from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds). The 

Extramural LRPs include the Loan 

Repayment Program for Contraception 

and Infertility Research (or 

Contraception and Infertility Research 

LRP); Loan Repayment Program for 

Clinical Researchers from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds (or Clinical 

Research LRP for Individuals from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds); Loan 

Repayment Program for Clinical 

Research (or Clinical Research LRP); 

Loan Repayment Program for Pediatric 

Research (or Pediatric Research LRP); 

and Loan Repayment Program for 

Health Disparities Research (or Health 

Disparities Research LRP). This rule 

compliments efforts afforded by EO 

13563. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 23, 2012 in order to 

ensure that NIH will be able to consider 

the comments in preparing the final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Persons and organizations 

interested in submitting comments, 

identified by RIN 0925–AA43 and 

Docket Number NIH–2008–0003, may 

do so by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: You may 

submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

To ensure timelier processing of 

comments, NIH is no longer accepting 

comments submitted to the agency by 

email. The NIH encourages you to 

continue to submit electronic comments 

by using the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions: You may submit 

written comments in the following 

ways: 

• Fax: 301–402–0169. 

• Mail: Attention Jerry Moore, NIH 

Regulations Officer, Office of 

Management Assessment, NIH, 6011 

Executive Boulevard, Suite 601, MSC 

7669, Rockville, MD 20852–7669. 

• Hand delivery/courier (for paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM submissions): 

Attention: Jerry Moore, 6011 Executive 

Boulevard, Suite 601, Rockville, MD 

20852–7669. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to the 

eRulemaking Portal and insert the 

docket number provided in brackets in 

the heading on page one of this 

document into the ‘‘Search’’ box and 

follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Moore, NIH Regulations Officer, Office 

of Management Assessment, NIH, 6011 

Executive Boulevard, Room 601, MSC 

7669, Rockville, MD 20892; by email 

MooreJ@mail.nih.gov; by fax 301–402– 

0169; or mailto:MooreJ@mail.nih.gov.

mailto:(jm40z@nih.gov) by telephone 

301–496–4607 (not a toll-free number) 

for information about the rulemaking 

process. For program information 

contact: the NIH Division of Loan 

Repayment by email lrp@nih.gov or 

telephone 866–849–4047. Information 

regarding the requirements, application 

deadline dates, and an online 

application for the NIH Loan Repayment 

Programs may be obtained from the NIH 

Loan Repayment Program Web site, 

www.lrp.nih.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 4, 1988, Congress enacted the 

Health Omnibus Programs Extension of 

1988, Public Law (Pub. L.) 100–607, 

Title VI of which amended the Public 

Health Service (PHS) Act by adding 

section 487A (42 U.S.C. 288–1) entitled 

Loan Repayment Program for Research 

with Respect to Acquired Immune 

Deficiency Syndrome. Subsequently, in 

the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Pub. 

L. 103–43), Congress enacted the Loan 

Repayment Program for Research with 

Respect to Contraception and Infertility 

(section 487B; 42 U.S.C. 288–2); the 

Loan Repayment Program for Research 

Generally (section 487C; 42 U.S.C. 288– 

3); and the Loan Repayment Program for 

Clinical Researchers from 

Disadvantaged Backgrounds (section 

487E; 42 U.S.C. 288–5). The Children’s 

Health Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–310), 

which was enacted on October 17, 2000, 

added the Pediatric Research Loan 

Repayment Program (section 487F; 1 42 

U.S.C. 288–6). On November 13, 2000, 

the Clinical Research Enhancement Act, 

contained in the Public Health 

Improvement Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 

505), enacted the Loan Repayment 

Program for Clinical Research (section 

487F; 2 42 U.S.C. 288–5a). On November 

22, 2000, the Minority Health and 

Health Disparities Research and 

Education Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–525) 

enacted the Loan Repayment Program 

for Health Disparities Research (section 

485G, redesignated 464z–5; 3 42 U.S.C. 

285t–2). 

Sections 487A, 487B, 487C, 487E, and 

487F of the PHS Act authorize the 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, and section 464z–5 authorizes 

the Director, National Institute on 

Minority Health and Health Disparities 

(NIMHD), to enter into contracts with 

qualified health professionals under 

which such professionals agree to 

conduct research in consideration of the 

Federal Government agreeing to repay, 

for each year of such service, not more 

than $35,000 of the principal and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS