60584 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

25. EPA. Being Prepared for Climate Change: 

A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based 

Adaptation Plans. August 2014. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Dated: September 25, 2015. 

James J. Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25164 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0626; FRL–9934–71] 

Mercury; TSCA Section 21 Petition; 

Reasons for Agency Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

reasons for EPA’s denial of a petition it 

received under Section 21 of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The 

TSCA section 21 petition was received 

from the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC) and the Northeast 

Waste Management Officials’ 

Association (NEWMOA) on June 24, 

2015. The petitioners requested EPA to 

‘‘promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) rule 

that requires persons who manufacture, 

process, or import into the United States 

mercury, mercury compounds, or 

mercury-added products to keep records 

of and submit information to EPA 

concerning such manufacture, 

processing, or importation of mercury.’’ 

After careful consideration, EPA denied 

the TSCA section 21 petition for the 

reasons discussed in this document. 

DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA 

section 21 petition was signed 

September 21, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Thomas 

Groeneveld, National Program 

Chemicals Division (7404M), Office of 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

202–566–1188; 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: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who 

manufacture, process, or distribute in 

commerce mercury, mercury 

compounds, or mercury-added 

products. 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. 

B. How can I access information about 

this petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2015–0626, is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The 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. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

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. 

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 TSCA section 21 petition. 

III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What action was requested? 

On June 24, 2015, NRDC and 

NEWMOA petitioned EPA to 

‘‘promulgate a TSCA section 8(a) rule 

that requires persons who manufacture, 

process, or import into the United States 

mercury, mercury compounds, or 

mercury-added products to keep records 

of and submit information to EPA 

concerning such manufacture, 

processing, or importation of mercury’’ 

(Ref. 1). In describing the framework for 

the envisioned rule, the petitioners offer 

definitions for various terms and 

modifications to exemptions to TSCA 

section 8(a) information-gathering rules 

(see 40 CFR 704.5); describe persons 

who would be required to report in the 

envisioned information collecting and 

reporting apparatus; explain why 

existing quantity- and sales-based 

reporting thresholds should or should 

not apply to the persons who must 

report; establish the minimal amounts of 

information EPA should request via sets 

of example questions applicable to 

mercury, mercury compounds, mixtures 

containing mercury, and mercury-added 

products; and set forth their preferred 

frequency and format for reporting, as 

well as certification and recordkeeping 

requirements (Ref. 1). 

B. What support do the petitioners offer? 

The petitioners state that a ‘‘lack of 

comprehensive data on mercury 

production and use in the United States 

has been acknowledged by virtually all 

of the federal and state agencies 

involved in tracking or regulating the 

chemical in commerce’’ (Ref. 1). The 

petitioners state that there is ‘‘no 

mechanism in place to obtain such 

data,’’ which is underscored by 

describing data gaps in the Interstate 

Mercury Education Reduction 

Clearinghouse (IMERC) and discussing 

the limitations of Agency resources, 

including the September 2014 ‘‘EPA 

Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60585 

Products’’ (EPA Strategy or Strategy) 

(Ref. 2), the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI) program (Ref. 3), and the Chemical 

Data Reporting (CDR) Rule (Ref. 4). 

Collecting comprehensive data is 

necessary, the petitioners say, to 

‘‘prevent unreasonable risks of injury to 

human health and the environment 

created by the ongoing manufacture, 

processing, and importation of mercury 

and mercury compounds’’ (Ref. 1). As 

such, the petitioners argue that a TSCA 

section 8(a) rule is ‘‘warranted’’ because 

available data are inadequate to 

determine whether mercury used in 

products and processes, in fact, creates 

unreasonable risk and, if so, the 

appropriate means to reduce such risk 

(Ref. 1). The petitioners also point to the 

obligations of the Minamata Convention 

on Mercury (Minamata Convention), 

which the United States signed and 

joined on November 6, 2013, that they 

believe will go unfulfilled without the 

collection of comprehensive data. In 

addition, the petitioners argue that 

‘‘incomplete and non-comprehensive 

data hampers EPA’s ability to effectively 

assess risks from exposure to mercury’’ 

and, therefore, the TSCA section 8(a) 

rule envisioned ‘‘would result in 

substantial benefits’’ (Ref. 1). Based on 

these assertions, as well as a discussion 

of the toxicity, exposure pathways, and 

risks associated with mercury used in 

products and processes, the petitioners 

state that ‘‘there is a reasonable— 

indeed, an ample—basis to conclude 

that a section 8(a) reporting rule for 

mercury is necessary to protect health 

and the environment against an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health and 

the environment from ongoing domestic 

uses of mercury in products and 

processes’’ (Ref. 1). 

IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What is EPA’s response? 

After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the petition. EPA found that the 

continued implementation of its 

published EPA Strategy (Ref. 2) is 

sufficient to carry out TSCA, as well as 

preferable for achieving the goal it 

shares with the petitioners: To acquire 

the information needed to allow EPA to 

better understand continuing uses of 

mercury, to further reduce such uses, 

and to prevent potential exposure and 

risk to human health and the 

environment linked to releases of 

mercury into the environment. A copy 

of the Agency’s response, which 

consists of a letter to the petitioners, is 

available in the docket for this TSCA 

section 21 petition. 

B. What is EPA’s reason for this 

response? 

EPA agrees with many aspects of the 

petition. The Agency agrees that 

mercury poses potential risks to human 

health and the environment and that 

there is value in gathering additional 

information to better understand 

continuing uses of mercury, to further 

reduce such uses, and to prevent 

potential risks to human health and the 

environment from mercury exposure. 

However, EPA believes that continued 

implementation of its EPA Strategy is a 

faster, more efficient pathway towards 

achieving our shared goals and is 

confident that the actions contemplated 

under the Strategy are both sufficient to 

carry out TSCA and preferable to the 

requested rulemaking. 

1. Background on TSCA section 8. 

TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)) 

authorizes EPA to promulgate rules 

under which manufacturers (including 

importers) and processors of chemical 

substances must maintain records and 

submit such information as the EPA 

Administrator may reasonably require. 

TSCA section 8(a) also authorizes EPA 

to promulgate rules under which 

manufacturers and processors of 

mixtures must maintain records and 

submit information to the extent the 

EPA Administrator determines the 

maintenance of records or submission of 

reports, or both, is necessary for the 

effective enforcement of TSCA. TSCA 

section 8(a) generally excludes small 

manufacturers and processors of 

chemical substances or mixtures from 

the reporting requirements (see 15 

U.S.C. 2507(a)). However, EPA is 

authorized by TSCA section 

8(a)(3)(A)(ii) to require TSCA section 

8(a) reporting from small manufacturers 

and processors with respect to any 

chemical substance or mixture that is 

the subject of a rule proposed or 

promulgated under TSCA section 4, 

5(b)(4), or 6, or that is the subject of an 

order in effect under TSCA section 5(e), 

or that is the subject of relief granted 

pursuant to a civil action under TSCA 

section 5 or 7. TSCA section 8(a) also 

provides that, to the extent feasible, the 

EPA Administrator must not require 

reporting under TSCA section 8(a)(1) 

that is unnecessary or duplicative. If the 

Agency denies a petition submitted 

under TSCA section 21, judicial review 

for TSCA section 8(a) requires the 

petitioner to show by a ‘‘preponderance 

of the evidence that . . . there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the 

issuance of such a rule or order is 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(4)(B)(ii)). 

2. State of domestic mercury 

marketplace. The United States has seen 

a strong downward trend of more than 

97 percent in the domestic use of 

mercury in products over the past three 

decades. In 1980, the United States used 

more than 1,800 metric tons of mercury 

annually; in 2010, the continued annual 

use of mercury in manufactured or 

imported products was approximately 

52 metric tons. Likewise, the use of 

mercury in industrial processes, such as 

chlor-alkali manufacturing, has also 

fallen dramatically from 358 metric tons 

in 1980 to an estimated 38 metric tons 

in 2001. This shifting landscape can be 

attributed to a number of factors, 

including market trends leading to the 

voluntary reduction of use of mercury in 

products and processes; federal, 

regional, state, and local programs that 

encourage the use of effective and 

economically feasible non-mercury 

substitutes; state laws or regulations that 

prohibit or reduce the use of mercury in 

products; and Congressional actions that 

banned the sale of a range of mercury 

batteries and prohibited the export of 

mercury (e.g., the Mercury-Containing 

and Rechargeable Battery Management 

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–142) and the 

Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 

(MEBA) (Pub. L. 110–114)). The United 

States also negotiated and joined the 

Minamata Convention, which contains 

requirements aimed at reducing the use 

of mercury. The convergence of such 

historic trends and actions, as well as 

continued downward trends in mercury 

use in products in more recent years, 

helped identify categories of mercuryadded products of greatest concern and 

guided the development of the EPA 

Strategy. 

3. The EPA Strategy: Development 

and implementation. In developing the 

EPA Strategy, the Agency did not 

believe it made sense to promulgate a 

comprehensive information-gathering 

rule for mercury, on top of the existing 

regulatory and statutory information 

collection requirements applicable to 

chemical substances generally. Rather, 

EPA decided to adopt a more targeted 

approach and to create a framework that 

was flexible and adaptive to observed 

trends in the use of mercury. As a result, 

the EPA Strategy seeks to build on the 

‘‘demonstrated success for more than 

three decades of reducing mercury use 

in traditional product and process 

categories . . . to further reduce 

mercury use in products and certain 

processes in order to prevent future 

releases to the environment’’ (Ref. 2). 

The EPA Strategy consists of five 

phases: (1) Update EPA’s information on 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60586 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

mercury products and certain processes; 

(2) analyze updated mercury use 

information; (3) plan and prioritize 

mercury reduction activities; (4) take 

non-regulatory actions to reduce use; 

and (5) take regulatory actions to reduce 

use, if needed (Ref. 2). The Strategy is 

structured to provide a logical 

progression from the gathering of 

information to taking actions to reduce 

the use of mercury and, as necessary, 

mercury compounds. However, the 

Strategy is also intended to allow for 

proceeding immediately to such use 

reduction options should information 

warrant such actions, as well as 

reassessment of an intended course of 

action (e.g., methodology for gathering 

information) at any point during its 

implementation. 

The EPA Strategy specifically targets 

updating data regarding mercury 

quantities in ‘‘new products entering the 

market, with particular attention to 

switches and relays’’ and ‘‘as 

appropriate, processes that use mercury 

as a catalyst’’ (Ref. 2). For example, the 

use of mercury in switches and relays 

(including thermostats) sold in the 

United States decreased from 

approximately 68 metric tons in 2001 to 

approximately 18 metric tons in 2010— 

a nearly 74 percent decrease in under a 

decade. However, at 33 percent of 

mercury used in products sold in the 

United States, switches and relays also 

represent the largest category of 

mercury-added products. In fact, in 

joining the Minamata Convention, the 

United States demonstrated that 

mercury used in eight of nine subject 

categories was reduced to de minimis 

levels. The lone category for which such 

a demonstration was not made was 

switches and relays. As a result, the 

Agency identified switches and relays 

as a priority category of mercury use in 

the EPA Strategy. 

The Agency has sufficient information 

on the use of mercury in certain 

categories of other mercury-added 

products (e.g., batteries, lamps, 

measuring devices). Yet, despite the 

aforementioned downward trend of use 

of mercury in products and 

manufacturing processes in general, 

EPA is interested in learning more about 

mercury-added products that continue 

to enter the market (i.e., new products) 

and the prevalence of the use of 

mercury and mercury compounds in 

catalysts. 

The Agency is currently in the first 

phase of implementing its Strategy, 

which lists priority mercury-added 

product and process categories 

(switches, relays, new products, and 

catalysts), describes the progression of 

stakeholders from whom information is 

to be collected (mercury manufacturers 

and importers, mercury processors, and 

other stakeholders), and commits to 

conducting outreach throughout the 

implementation of the Strategy (Ref. 2). 

Following this phase, EPA will assess 

information gathered and compare data 

to existing Agency baselines derived 

from IMERC, the TRI program, the CDR 

Rule, and other research (Phase 2). 

Results of the second phase will be used 

to define or modify product categories 

and identify remaining data gaps or 

other limitations that could affect the 

planning and prioritization of reduction 

activities (Phase 3). At this juncture, the 

Agency could consider the use of 

voluntary efforts to reduce the use of 

mercury (Phase 4), as well as a Section 

8(a) rule or other appropriate regulatory 

measure (Phase 5). At this point in time, 

however, EPA believes the 

implementation of the EPA Strategy, 

which uses a variety of both voluntary 

and regulatory measures as needed, is 

sufficient to carry out TSCA. 

4. The EPA Strategy is working and 

will continue to work. The petitioners 

accurately identify the Agency’s goals to 

continue to collect and analyze 

information to better understand the 

current and future use of mercury. 

However, the petitioners focus 

exclusively on the voluntary 

information-collection component 

within the first of five phases to 

conclude that ‘‘the voluntary approach 

has not worked thus far, and there is no 

reasonable basis to believe it ever will’’ 

and ‘‘the need for and the utility of a 

rulemaking that would require 

mandatory reporting from all mercury, 

mercury-compound, and mercurymixture manufacturers has been 

demonstrated’’ (Ref. 1). By focusing on 

the Agency’s preference to initially 

proceed on a voluntary basis, the 

petitioners overlook that the Strategy 

contemplates ‘‘additional available 

regulatory steps being necessary’’ (Ref. 

2). In fact, the Agency finds that the best 

approach is to employ voluntary or 

regulatory mechanisms to collect 

information based on particular 

circumstances. For example, after 

publishing the EPA Strategy in 

September 2014, the Agency conducted 

a series of letter requests and 

teleconferences with companies 

identified as nine key players in the 

mercury marketplace in October and 

November 2014. 

While the petitioners express 

skepticism with this approach due to its 

initiation with only nine companies, 

this was a strategic approach that the 

Agency expected to yield relevant 

information. The initial list of nine was 

derived from more than one hundred 

potential companies based on thorough 

research and professional judgment to 

identify companies likely to provide a 

reasonably complete picture of the 

domestic market for recycling and 

selling mercury. This approach allowed 

for the systematic elimination of 

companies less likely to have significant 

information from consideration and 

minimized the potential burden to both 

stakeholders and the Agency. In fact, the 

information received led EPA to further 

narrow its investigation to five 

companies it believes to be the primary 

recyclers and distributors of mercury in 

the United States. Based on those 

efforts—and the failure of certain 

companies from the narrowed list of five 

to voluntarily provide agreed to 

information—EPA issued subpoenas in 

March 2015 to those five companies 

(Ref. 5). 

5. Effective use of regulatory tools via 

the EPA Strategy. The subpoenas 

consisted of twelve information requests 

designed to ascertain specific 

information on quantities of mercury 

manufactured (including imported), 

processed, stored on-site, or distributed 

in commerce (including transferred offsite, sold and exported), as well as lists 

of customers to whom mercury was sold 

(Ref. 5). The activities related to 

mercury were selected to cross-reference 

with similar reporting requirements for 

the TRI program and CDR Rule. Of 

particular interest to the Agency were 

quantities reported for mercury 

manufactured and processed (e.g., 

recycled from various waste streams), 

sold, imported, and exported, which 

represents key aspects of the domestic 

mercury marketplace. EPA requested 

this information to better understand 

how mercury flows through the five 

primary facilities that recycle and sell 

mercury with the goal of identifying the 

amount of mercury likely being used to 

produce mercury-added products or in 

manufacturing processes in the United 

States. The subpoenas requested that 

annual totals of mercury in pounds for 

such activities be reported for 2010 and 

2013. These years were selected to not 

only coincide with IMERC reporting 

years, but also because they could 

provide a before-and-after illustration of 

how two mercury-related measures 

affected the domestic mercury market 

place: MEBA and the conclusion of the 

negotiation of the Minamata 

Convention. The reporting years also 

were selected to allow a trend 

comparison for reported quantities 

without creating undue burden on the 

companies subject to the subpoenas. 

The subpoenas also requested customer 

lists for each company as of January 1, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60587 

2015. This date was selected as a fixed 

and recent date relative to the issuance 

of the subpoenas in March 2015. Each 

of the five companies subject to the 

subpoenas supplied the information 

requested in full. 

Due to extensions granted to certain 

companies, some responses were 

submitted after the initial 30-day 

deadline. This resulted in the initial 

completion of the full data set at the end 

of June 2015, only days after the 

petitioners submitted their petition that 

concluded that certain approaches 

outlined in the EPA Strategy were 

inadequate. The Agency is currently 

evaluating the information submitted in 

response to the five March 2015 

subpoenas. As necessary, EPA has 

followed up with companies and 

clarified responses submitted. Based on 

its initial review of submitted 

information, the Agency now has a 

better understanding of the flow of 

mercury in the U.S. marketplace and 

has an inventory of recent lists of 

companies that purchase elemental 

mercury from the five companies, 

including volumes and trends of 

mercury in key channels of commerce 

(e.g., manufactured, stored, sold, 

imported, and exported). The Agency 

understands that this information 

collection approach cannot account for 

imports of mercury-added products or 

mercury compounds that are not 

processed by the five companies subject 

to the March 2015 subpoenas. However, 

EPA intends to collect such data either 

through voluntary compliance with 

letters or through subpoenas, as it 

determines to be necessary for an 

adequate understanding of mercury use 

in the United States through further 

implementation of EPA Strategy and use 

of existing Agency resources. 

The petitioners express 

disappointment with the ‘‘months’’ that 

elapsed since the initiation of the 

voluntary inquiries to companies in 

October 2014 and the submission of 

their petition in June 2015 (Ref. 1). In 

fact, the Agency conducted the 

voluntary portion of data collection 

between October 2014 and December 

2014. When that process was not 

fruitful, the subpoenas were sent in 

March 2015. Responses to the March 

2015 subpoenas were received by the 

end of June 2015. For comparison, new 

federal rulemakings often take several 

years to complete from development 

through the proposal, public comment, 

and finalization phases. A final 

information collection rule would then 

need to provide for some period of time 

following promulgation for the 

submission of the required information. 

EPA notes that it already collected data 

on mercury voluntarily and via 

subpoena and, based on that experience, 

could expeditiously issue any further 

needed subpoenas, whereas the timing 

of a rulemaking process is less 

predictable. The Agency gathered 

information via its Strategy in several 

months, new data to be collected by the 

petitioners’ requested rule—or another 

Section 8(a) rule—may not be obtained 

for several years. For those reasons, EPA 

believes that the current approach used 

to collect information from companies 

that manufacture, recycle, and distribute 

in commerce elemental mercury has 

been successful, is more efficient than 

the development of a new rule, and is 

sufficient—with some adaptation of the 

substance of information requests for 

companies that use mercury in products 

and processes—to carry out TSCA. 

6. The EPA Strategy avoids 

unnecessary or duplicative reporting. 

Based on the above discussion, EPA 

disagrees that there is ‘‘no other federal 

or state mechanism in place that collects 

the data on mercury production and use 

in the United States necessary to inform 

risk-reduction activities’’ (Ref. 1). As 

articulated by the petitioners, IMERC, 

the TRI program, and the CDR Rule each 

collect data in whole or in part related 

to mercury and mercury compounds. 

All of these reporting mechanisms are 

accessible online. While a single 

information collection and reporting 

apparatus identical to the petitioners’ 

requested rule does not currently exist, 

existing tools, as implemented through 

the EPA Strategy, are sufficient to gather 

such data as necessary for the effective 

implementation of TSCA. EPA is 

committed to gathering such data, 

including—as appropriate—through the 

future use of TSCA section 8. For the 

same reasons, EPA also disagrees that 

the EPA Strategy ‘‘implicitly 

acknowledges that the CDR Rule and its 

other existing reporting mechanisms are 

not sufficient to gather the data 

necessary to make sound decisions 

about mercury risk-reduction activities’’ 

(Ref. 1). 

The petitioners also describe various 

ways in which the TRI program and 

CDR Rule collect data on mercury and 

mercury compounds yet how 

idiosyncrasies within each program 

prevent the reporting of the specific 

information they request to be collected. 

Where the petitioners see insufficiency, 

the Agency sees opportunity to use 

existing tools and resources to pinpoint 

specific data gaps, which may or may 

not require new regulatory or voluntary 

actions to gather information. EPA is 

using quantitative and qualitative 

information, particularly activity and 

use information reported to the TRI 

program, to help narrow the scope of 

potential stakeholders to be contacted as 

needed to collect information that EPA 

determines to be necessary. For 

example, EPA is reviewing information 

reported to the TRI program to identify 

and prioritize how to gather such 

information. 

The TRI program requires facilities 

that manufacture, process, or otherwise 

use more than 10 pounds of mercury or 

mercury compounds during the 

calendar year to report amounts released 

to the environment or managed through 

recycling, energy recovery and 

treatment (Ref. 6). While the TRI 

program does not require quantitative 

reporting for all manufacturing, 

processing, or use categories, a facility 

is required to report activities and uses 

of the toxic chemical including, but not 

limited to ‘‘import,’’ ‘‘for sale/

distribution,’’ ‘‘as a reactant,’’ ‘‘as an 

article component,’’ and ‘‘as a chemical 

processing aid’’ (Ref. 7). In this instance, 

EPA does not see the lack of 

quantitative reporting as a dead end, but 

rather as a tool to narrow the number of 

companies to ask for more specific 

information related to the use of 

mercury in their products and 

processes. For example, a review of data 

submitted to the TRI program for 

‘‘mercury’’ in 2013 yields 447 facilities 

that manufactured, processed, or 

otherwise used mercury. That number 

can be narrowed to 60 facilities that 

processed mercury ‘‘as an article 

component’’ (e.g., used in a product). 

When the same search is conducted for 

‘‘mercury compounds,’’ more than 1,100 

facilities can be narrowed to 48 facilities 

reporting processing into articles. The 

use of such data allows EPA to reduce 

the scope of potential manufacturers of 

mercury-added products by more than 

90 percent that under the petitioners’ 

proposed rule would be required to 

supply detailed, quantitative data. EPA 

will perform similar data sorting among 

facilities that report ‘‘import’’ and ‘‘for 

sale/distribution’’ of mercury or 

mercury compounds, which will help 

further describe how such materials 

flow through the domestic marketplace. 

The Agency also plans to examine uses 

‘‘as a reactant’’ and ‘‘as a chemical 

processing aid’’ to help identify the use 

of mercury or mercury compounds in 

manufacturing processes. As these 

examples demonstrate, the Agency 

believes that it can use existing data to 

better identify individual facilities for 

more targeted efforts to collect 

information. 

It is important to note that the 2016 

reporting cycle for the CDR Rule 

(applicable to production volume 

information for calendar years 2012, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60588 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2013, 2014, and 2015; submission 

period from June 1, 2016, to September 

30, 2016) will collect information from 

persons who manufacture mercury in 

quantities greater than or equal to 2,500 

pounds (Ref. 4); the reporting threshold 

for mercury in the previous cycle was 

25,000 pounds and 100,000 pounds for 

process and use information. As such, 

the Agency anticipates receiving 

quantitative data on mercury in the 

domestic marketplace from a larger pool 

of companies that manufacture 

(including import) and process mercury. 

In conjunction with the analysis of TRI 

program data, EPA plans to use the 

identities of companies reporting per 

the lowered threshold to further clarify 

the pool of potential entities from whom 

to collect more detailed information. 

Thus, EPA finds its existing resources, 

such as the TRI program and CDR Rule, 

can be instrumental not only in carrying 

out TSCA, but also to tailor future 

efforts to collect information on discrete 

categories of mercury products and 

processes. 

7. EPA intends to target specific 

information requests to specific entities. 

EPA anticipates that subsequent efforts 

to gather information from companies 

that produce or import mercury-added 

products and use mercury or mercury 

compounds in manufacturing processes 

may require contacting more entities 

than the nine EPA contacted in late 

2014. EPA anticipates using a similar 

process of research and professional 

judgment to identify and prioritize 

companies to contact and will follow 

appropriate procedures to reach as 

many companies as needed to obtain 

relevant information, as necessary. For 

example, EPA is considering using 

TSCA section 11 to ask other companies 

the same kinds of questions posed in the 

March 2015 subpoenas, but with an 

emphasis on quantities of mercury and 

mercury compounds used in the 

production of products or in 

manufacturing processes. 

Looking at the specific information 

requested in the petition, the petitioners 

request two sets of notification 

requirements between two categories: 

(1) Mercury, mercury compounds, and 

mixtures containing mercury; and (2) 

mercury-added products. The 

petitioners’ request of eight notification 

requirements for information to be 

reported for mercury, mercury 

compounds, and mixtures containing 

mercury can be broken down into three 

general categories. The first category 

consists of location and contact 

information for company headquarters, 

facilities that manufacture or process 

such substances, and technical staff. For 

mercury and mercury compounds, 

information comparable to the requests 

in the first category of notification 

requirements is reported to the TRI 

program and the CDR Rule. The second 

category includes quantitative data on 

such substances manufactured and 

processed for distribution in commerce, 

sold or transferred off-site, and stored 

on-site. Due to the similarity with 

questions posed in the March 2015 

subpoenas, EPA is satisfied that it 

ascertained sufficient quantitative 

information for how mercury is used in 

such activities. For mercury 

compounds, EPA believes that 

information reported to the TRI program 

for activities and uses can be used to 

identify and prioritize companies and 

facilities that could be contacted using 

the same approach that the Agency used 

when reaching out to and ultimately 

issuing subpoenas to individual 

recyclers and distributors of mercury. 

The third category requests narrative 

descriptions of manufacturing and 

processing processes and end uses of 

such materials. EPA is not persuaded 

that such information for mercury or 

mercury compounds is necessary to 

carry out TSCA. In particular, it is more 

appropriate to pose questions regarding 

end uses to companies or facilities that 

use mercury or mercury compounds in 

products or manufacturing processes 

and not companies that recover mercury 

from various waste streams. Finally, the 

Agency is not persuaded that 

information on mixtures containing 

mercury is necessary to carry out TSCA. 

To the best of the Agency’s knowledge, 

the only point in the cycle of mercury 

manufacture, use, recovery, and reuse 

when mixtures play a significant role is 

when mercury is recovered from 

mercury waste such as contaminated 

soil or impure laboratory mercury. The 

resulting elemental mercury is used, but 

EPA is not aware of any significant 

manufacture, processing, or use of 

mercury mixtures. As EPA reviews the 

information it has and will collect on 

mercury and mercury compounds, it 

will assess the need for information on 

mixtures and pursue such data as 

needed. 

For mercury-added products, the 

petitioners also request eight 

notification requirements. As discussed 

in regard to mercury, mercury 

compounds, and mixtures containing 

mercury, the notification requirements 

for location and contact information for 

company headquarters and technical 

staff pertain to comparable information 

reported to the TRI program or the CDR 

Rule. The Agency agrees that collection 

of the kinds of information listed in 

three of the eight notification requests 

suggested by the petitioners can be 

valuable: Quantities of mercury used in 

products (per unit and total for all units 

produced in a calendar year), 

descriptions of product categories 

produced, and a breakdown of products 

manufactured (including imported), 

sold domestically, and exported. Such 

requirements would provide 

quantitative information that would 

benefit the implementation of TSCA by 

helping to define the overall volume of 

mercury used, particularly in the 

priority category of switches and relays. 

EPA also agrees that it is helpful to 

ascertain information related to whether 

switches or relays are ‘‘manufactured or 

processed solely for the purpose of 

replacement where no feasible mercuryfree alternative for replacement is 

available’’ (Ref. 1). This information 

would help the Agency better estimate 

costs and benefits associated with not 

only ongoing uses of the switches and 

relays themselves, but also the larger 

equipment and systems that use them as 

components. However, the Agency is 

not persuaded that notification 

requirements for descriptions of 

mercury-added components, including 

the number of and location in larger 

products, is necessary. At this time, EPA 

anticipates that quantitative data on 

amounts of mercury contained in or 

added to such products and processes is 

likely to be sufficient to make regulatory 

determinations. 

As previously discussed, switches 

and relays are the largest remaining 

domestic use of mercury in products by 

volume in the United States. Better 

defining the total quantity of mercury in 

that category, especially given the 

cessation of reporting of such 

information via IMERC, is a priority 

data point within a priority product 

category. Regardless, even in instances 

where EPA agrees with the notification 

requirements proposed by the 

petitioners, the Agency is not persuaded 

that the overarching proposed Section 

8(a) rule is the appropriate means to 

collect such information. At this time, 

the Agency continues to implement its 

Strategy to determine its next steps, 

including, but not limited to using 

TSCA section 11, to collect information 

from additional companies on mercury 

used in products and processes. The 

assessment of information collected to 

date under the EPA Strategy will inform 

next steps in the current and future 

phases of the implementation. In so 

doing, the Agency is employing the 

variety of existing tools, including 

IMERC, the TRI program, and the CDR 

Rule, as well as the aforementioned 

voluntary outreach and targeted 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60589 

subpoenas, as necessary. This process is 

expedient, efficient, and does not 

duplicate the reporting requirements of 

IMERC, the TRI program, and the CDR 

Rule. As the assessment of collected 

information dictates, the Agency 

continues to use the tools currently 

available, while not eliminating the 

possibility of implementing other 

voluntary and regulatory options if 

deemed necessary. Thus, EPA disagrees 

with the petitioners’ conclusions as to 

the ultimate efficacy of the EPA 

Strategy, its sufficiency to carry out 

TSCA, and the need for EPA to 

immediately pursue a TSCA section 8(a) 

rulemaking. 

8. The EPA Strategy minimizes undue 

burdens. The Agency also disagrees 

with the petitioners’ claim that their 

requested TSCA section 8(a) rule 

‘‘would result in substantial benefits’’ 

(Ref. 1). As previously stated, the 

Agency agrees that there is value in 

gathering more information for certain, 

individual categories of mercury-added 

products and processes identified by the 

petitioners. However, EPA is not 

persuaded that a TSCA section 8(a) rule 

at this time—as opposed to continued 

implementation of the EPA Strategy— 

would produce substantial or different 

benefits associated with collecting and 

reporting information on the use of 

mercury in products and processes. The 

EPA Strategy intends to provide for 

flexibility in the approach to ‘‘better 

understand continuing uses of mercury 

in . . . products and processes’’ and 

‘‘further reduce mercury use in products 

and certain processes in order to 

prevent future releases to the 

environment’’ (Ref. 2). The Strategy 

allows for a dynamic and iterative 

process that can be adapted to specific 

categories of concern and makes clear 

that ‘‘initiation of future phases may not 

necessarily be dependent on preceding 

phases’’ (Ref. 2). Where the petitioners 

see a TSCA section 8(a) rule as the 

remedy to existing EPA resources that 

do not deliver the data they seek in the 

format they prefer, the Agency is wary 

of the potential for duplication of 

reporting requirements. The rule 

outlined by the petitioners not only 

creates potential overlap in the kind of 

data being submitted under the TRI 

program and CDR Rule, but also adds 

another mercury-based reporting 

requirement, with an incongruous 

reporting timeline, on top of these two 

established information-gathering 

programs. This scenario would require 

reporting under TSCA section 8(a)(1) 

that is unnecessary and, in some 

instances, duplicative. Thus, where the 

petitioners may interpret the measure of 

benefit for the rule they request to 

derive from the breadth and depth of 

information collected, the Agency is 

focusing on more discrete areas of need 

(i.e., individual product and process 

categories) that can provide for less 

burdensome requirements for potential 

stakeholders and a more efficient 

approach for the Agency to carry out 

TSCA in regard to mercury and mercury 

compounds. As a result, the petitioners’ 

requested TSCA section 8(a) rule would 

be unduly burdensome both to the 

Agency and regulated entities. 

9. Petitioners failed to demonstrate 

the requested rule is necessary to protect 

against unreasonable risk. EPA 

disagrees that ‘‘there is a reasonable . . . 

basis to conclude that a section 8(a) 

reporting rule for mercury is necessary 

to protect health and the environment 

against an unreasonable risk of injury to 

health and the environment from 

ongoing domestic uses of mercury in 

products and processes’’ (Ref. 1). 

Central to the petitioners’ claim is that: 

The lack of adequate data on mercury use 

in products and processes prevents a 

complete accounting of the full extent of the 

human health risks from exposure to mercury 

. . . [and] EPA cannot fully address the 

health and environmental risks from mercury 

exposure without adequate data about 

ongoing mercury uses . . . In addition, such 

data collection is necessary to allow EPA to 

monitor any development of new mercury 

uses, so that the agency can assess the risks 

to human health that may be presented by 

such new uses. (Ref. 1). 

The petitioners go on to state 

‘‘incomplete and non-comprehensive 

data hampers EPA’s ability to effectively 

assess risks from exposure to mercury’’ 

(Ref. 1). The petitioners then cite 

various EPA statements regarding risk 

management decision-making that speak 

to the availability and adequacy of 

information, as well as the EPA Strategy 

and its intent to gather more and 

updated information related to mercury 

used in products and processes (Ref. 1). 

The petitioners then conclude that 

without ‘‘comprehensive national data 

about ongoing mercury uses in products 

and processes . . . EPA cannot make 

informed, sound decisions about how to 

further reduce risks from mercury 

exposure’’ (emphasis added) (Ref. 1). 

The Agency disagrees with this 

conclusion. EPA is unaware of statutory 

authority, applicable case law, or 

Agency policy that would preclude risk 

assessment or actions to reduce risk 

based on the fact that available 

information is limited. While EPA risk 

assessment guidance lists the quality 

and comprehensiveness of data as 

factors that can diminish uncertainty, an 

‘‘acceptable data set is one that is 

consistent with the scope, depth, and 

purpose of the assessment, and is both 

relevant and adequate’’ (Ref. 8). In this 

context, adequacy can be determined 

‘‘by evaluating the amount of data 

available and the accuracy of the data’’ 

(Ref. 8). The same guidance also states 

that ‘‘[d]ata of insufficient quality will 

have little value for problem solving, 

while data of quality vastly in excess of 

what is needed to answer the questions 

asked provide few, if any, additional 

advantages’’ (Ref. 8). To achieve its 

stated goals to ‘‘acquire a more robust 

baseline of mercury quantities used in 

products and processes . . . [and] 

enhance data on manufacture, export, 

and import for certain categories of 

mercury use’’ (Ref. 2), the Agency’s 

current approach will provide data on 

mercury that are not only adequate and 

relevant, but also more narrowly 

tailored to products and processes of 

greatest concern (e.g., switches, relays, 

new products, and catalysts). While 

EPA recognizes that these products and 

processes are not exhaustive, these are 

the categories that EPA has rationally 

chosen to focus on first. EPA is aware 

that mercury may be added to other 

products listed by the petitioners (e.g., 

rotational balancers, wheel weights, and 

additives in a variety of children’s 

products). If EPA determines that 

additional information targeted to these 

products is necessary, EPA will take 

steps necessary to collect it. 

At this stage of implementing the 

strategy, the Agency also is uncertain 

what, if any, information is needed on 

mercury compounds beyond use as 

catalysts in manufacturing processes. 

Where products are concerned, for 

example, the product category of 

greatest concern (switches and relays) 

contains elemental mercury, not 

mercury compounds. Although certain 

batteries contain mercury oxide, that 

product group is of lesser concern than 

switches and relays. EPA will collect 

information on use of mercury 

compounds in products if, in the course 

of carrying out its Strategy, the Agency 

determines such information to be 

necessary. At this stage, requiring 

reporting for mercury compounds in all 

products while an Agency assessment of 

needs for such information is pending 

would require unnecessary reporting 

under TSCA section 8(a)(1). 

Thus, while the Agency is mindful of 

the petitioners’ analysis of mercuryrelated concerns (e.g., toxicity, 

exposure, risks presented by releases 

into the environment, and risk 

reduction), EPA cannot reach the 

petitioners’ conclusion that ‘‘a section 

8(a) reporting rule for mercury is 

necessary to protect health and the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60590 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury to health and the 

environment from ongoing domestic 

uses of mercury in products and 

processes’’ (Ref. 1). While the 

petitioners articulate how the collection 

of comprehensive and national data 

could provide the Agency with more 

information to weigh in determining 

unreasonable risk, EPA finds that its 

current approach could be equally 

successful while imposing considerably 

less burden on both EPA and the 

regulated community in its 

implementation of TSCA, as well as 

allowing the Agency to move more 

quickly on the highest priority product 

categories. To date, this approach has 

yielded satisfactory information and the 

Agency expects that continued 

implementation of the EPA Strategy will 

be an appropriate and effective means to 

acquire the information needed to allow 

EPA to better understand continuing 

uses of mercury, to further reduce such 

uses, and to prevent potential exposure 

and risk for human health and the 

environment linked to releases of 

mercury into the environment. 

Furthermore, while the petition 

discusses the toxicity and potential risk 

associated with exposure to mercury 

and methylmercury, it does not provide 

a basis for finding that there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the 

requested rule is necessary to protect 

against an unreasonable risk. The 

finding of unreasonable risk under 

TSCA encompasses consideration of 

both the anticipated benefits of action 

under consideration as well as the 

anticipated costs. In this instance, the 

petition would need to provide a basis 

for EPA to conclude that any additional 

risk reduction that would be achieved 

by the requested rule, beyond that 

which will be achieved by EPA’s 

current efforts, would justify the 

additional costs to EPA and the 

regulated community. 

In discussing risks associated with 

releases of mercury, the petitioners 

describe how mercury releases during 

the product lifecycle ‘‘significantly’’ 

contribute to the total reservoir of 

‘‘mercury pollution’’ (Ref. 1). After 

release, the petitioners describe how 

mercury cycles through environmental 

media, can be converted to 

methylmercury, and can potentially 

contaminate fish and humans (Ref. 1). 

The petitioners provide an estimate of 

the number of newborns exposed to 

methylmercury (376 to 14,293 cases 

annually) from all sources and the costs 

to care for children exposed to levels of 

methylmercury associated with 

cognitive impairment considered mental 

retardation ($500 million to $17.9 

billion annually) (Ref. 1). The 

petitioners then cite several EPA 

significant new use rules (SNURs) 

applicable to mercury used in various 

motor vehicle switches (Ref. 9); flow 

meters, natural gas manometers, and 

pyrometers (Ref. 10); and barometers, 

manometers, hygrometers, and 

psychrometers (Ref. 11), to demonstrate 

previous Agency efforts to reduce risks 

from mercury based on potential 

releases of mercury during the product 

lifecycle (Ref. 1). The petitioners also 

cite estimated reporting costs for a 

TSCA section 8(a) rule of 

‘‘approximately $8,000 to $9,000 per 

report for the initial cycle . . . and 

between $5,000 and $6,000 for each 

reporting cycle’’ (Ref. 1). However, the 

information provided in the petition on 

the impacts of mercury exposure, 

including the monetized risk estimate, 

relates to all sources of mercury 

pollution; it provides limited 

information to support the need for the 

requested rule to collect information as 

to ongoing uses. In addition, the petition 

does not provide a basis to conclude 

that the requested rule would provide 

for any additional risk reduction beyond 

that which will be achieved by EPA’s 

current efforts, or that any such 

reduction would justify the additional 

cost to EPA and the regulated 

community. EPA notes in this regard 

that the petition misstates the baseline 

for judging the benefits of the requested 

rule by not accounting for the 

significant reduction in the CDR 

reporting threshold for mercury, as 

discussed above. 

10. EPA will continue its successful 

voluntary and regulatory efforts. 

Furthermore, the Agency is already 

taking voluntary and regulatory 

measures related to mercury, some of 

which are listed in the petition (e.g., 

SNURs for various mercury-added 

products, proposed rule for dental 

effluent guidelines, emission standards 

for hazardous air pollutants from coaland oil-fired electric utility steamgenerating units, and the March 2015 

subpoenas) (Ref. 1). EPA leads a 

voluntary initiative to phase out use of 

mercury in industrial and laboratory 

thermometers, which led to the 

development of the document ‘‘A Guide 

for Federal Agencies on Replacing 

Mercury-Containing Non-Fever 

Thermometers’’ (Ref. 12). The Agency 

also collaborates in voluntary programs 

such as the Energy Star Program cosponsored by EPA and the Department 

of Energy, under which participating 

manufacturers agree to limit the 

mercury content of lamps, and the 

National Vehicle Mercury Switch 

Recovery Program and follow-on 

initiatives, which manages, on a 

nationwide basis, programs to collect, 

transport, retort, recycle, or dispose of 

elemental mercury from automotive 

switches. Finally, EPA leads the 

mercury in products partnership within 

the United Nations Environment 

Program’s Global Mercury Partnership, 

an international, voluntary effort that 

strives to phase out and eventually 

eliminate mercury in products and to 

eliminate releases during manufacturing 

and other industrial processes via 

environmentally sound production, 

transportation, storage, and disposal 

procedures (Ref. 13). 

In sum, the Agency finds that the 

requested promulgation of a TSCA 

section 8(a) is neither timely nor 

warranted to carry out TSCA pending 

the continued implementation of the 

approaches set forth in the EPA 

Strategy. 

V. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. NRDC/NEWMOA. Petition to Promulgate 

Reporting Rules for Mercury 

Manufacturing, Processing, and 

Importation Under Section 8(a) of the 

Toxic Substances Control Act. June 24, 

2015. 

2. EPA. EPA Strategy to Address MercuryContaining Products. September 2014. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/

mercury/pdfs/productsstrategy.pdf. 

3. EPA. Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; 

Community Right-to-Know. Federal 

Register. 53 FR 4500, February 16, 1988 

(FRL–3298–2). 

4. EPA. TSCA Inventory Update Reporting 

Modifications: Chemical Data Reporting. 

Federal Register. 76 FR 50816, August 

16, 2011 (FRL–8872–9). 

5. EPA. Subpoena and Information Request. 

March 20, 2015. Available at http://

www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/Hg_

FormalRequest_SIGNED_03-20-2015.pdf. 

6. EPA. Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act—Section 313: 

Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals: 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 

Category. August 2001. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/tri/reporting_

materials/guidance_docs/pdf/2001/

2001hg.pdf. 

7. EPA. Form R. Available at http://

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/

2015-01/documents/2014_form_r.pdf. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 194 / Wednesday, October 7, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60591 

8. EPA. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. 

May 29, 1992. Available at http://

www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/

GUIDELINES_EXPOSURE_

ASSESSMENT.PDF. 

9. EPA. Mercury Switches in Motor Vehicles; 

Significant New Use Rule. Federal 

Register. 72 FR 56903, October 5, 2007 

(FRL–8110–5). 

10. EPA. Elemental Mercury Used in Flow 

Meters, Natural Gas Manometers, and 

Pyrometers; Significant New Use Rule. 

Federal Register. 75 FR 42330, July 21, 

2010 (FRL–8832–2). 

11. EPA. Elemental Mercury Used in 

Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, 

and Psychrometers; Significant New Use 

Rule. Federal Register. 77 FR 31728, 

May 30, 2012 (FRL–9345–9). 

12. EPA. A Guide for Federal Agencies on 

Replacing Mercury-Containing NonFever Thermometers. June 2013. 

Available at http://epa.gov/mercury/

pdfs/Non-Fever-Mercury-ThermometersGuide-for-Federal-Agencies-FINAL.pdf. 

13. UNEP. Mercury-Containing Products 

Partnership Area Business Plan. June 28, 

2013. Available at http://www.unep.org/ 

chemicalsandwaste/Mercury/

GlobalMercuryPartnership/Products/

tabid/3565/language/en-US/

Default.aspx. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. 

Dated: September 21, 2015. 

James J. Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2015–24849 Filed 10–6–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 271 

[Docket No. FRA–2009–0038] 

RIN 2130–AC11 

Risk Reduction Program 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 

comment period reopening. 

SUMMARY: On February 27, 2015, FRA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that would require 

certain railroads to develop a Risk 

Reduction Program (RRP). On 

September 29, 2015, the RRP Working 

Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee (RSAC) held a meeting to 

review and discuss comments received 

in response to both the NPRM and an 

August 27, 2015, public hearing on the 

NPRM. FRA is reopening the comment 

period for this proceeding to allow 

interested parties to submit written 

comments in response to views or 

information provided at the RRP 

Working Group meeting. 

DATES: The comment period for this 

proceeding, consisting of the proposed 

rule published February 27, 2015, at 80 

FR 10950, the August 27, 2015, hearing, 

announced at 80 FR 45500, July 30, 

2015, and a prior notice of comment 

period reopening, announced at 80 FR 

55285, September 15, 2015, is reopened. 

Written comments must be received by 

October 21, 2015. Comments received 

after that date will be considered to the 

extent possible without incurring 

additional expense or delay. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments: Written 

comments related to Docket No. FRA– 

2009–0038 may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: The Federal eRulemaking 

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

Follow the Web site’s online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12– 

140, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

Room W12–140 on the Ground level of 

the West Building, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name, docket name, 

and docket number or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Please see the Privacy Act heading in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document for Privacy Act 

information related to any submitted 

comments or materials. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

the Docket Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, Room W–12–140 on the Ground 

level of the West Building, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal Holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam Kloeppel, Staff Director, Risk 

Reduction Program Division, Office of 

Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, 

DC 20590, (202) 493–6224, 

Miriam.Kloeppel@dot.gov; or Elizabeth 

Gross, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief 

Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE., Mail Stop 10, Washington, DC 

20590, (202) 493–1342, 

Elizabeth.Gross@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) 

requires the development and 

implementation of railroad safety risk 

reduction programs. Risk reduction is a 

comprehensive, system-oriented 

approach to safety that (1) determines 

an operation’s level of risk by 

identifying and analyzing applicable 

hazards and (2) involves the 

development of acctions to mitigate that 

risk. Each RRP is statutorily required to 

be supported by a risk analysis and an 

RRP Plan, which must include a 

Technology Implementation Plan and a 

Fatigue Management Plan. On February 

27, 2015, FRA published an NPRM that 

would require certain railroads to 

develop an RRP. FRA also held a public 

hearing on August 27, 2015, to provide 

interested persons an opportunity to 

provide oral comments on the proposal. 

See 80 FR 10950, Feb. 27, 2015 and 80 

FR 45500, Jul. 30, 2015. 

On September 29, 2015, the RSAC’s 

RRP Working Group held a meeting to 

review and discuss comments received 

in response to both the NPRM and the 

public hearing. FRA established RSAC 

as a collaborative forum to provide 

advice and recommendations to FRA on 

railroad safety matters. The RSAC 

includes representatives from all of the 

agency’s major stakeholder groups, 

representing various railroad industry 

perspectives. See the RSAC Web site for 

details on prior RSAC activities and 

pending tasks at http://rsac.fra.dot 

.gov/. Please refer to the notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for 

additional information about the RSAC. 

FRA is reopening the comment period 

for this proceeding to allow interested 

parties to submit written comments in 

response to views or information 

provided at the RRP Working Group 

meeting on September 29, 2015. Written 

comments must be received by October 

21, 2015. Comments received after that 

date will be considered to the extent 

possible without incurring additional 

expense or delay. 

Privacy Act Statement 

Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT 

solicits comments from the public to 

better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS