Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

1 

October 2010 

I. Federal and State Regulations and Initiatives 

A. Federal 

1. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency 

In 1992, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and others petitioned EPA to initiate rulemaking to 

require that warning labels accompany the sale of lead fishing sinkers. In 1993, EPA granted the petition. 

On March 9, 1994, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA section 6 to ban certain size lead and zinc 

fishing sinkers. After two extensions, the written comment period closed November 9, 1994. Two public 

hearings were held and on January 6, 1995, the comment period to the hearings closed. EPA did not 

finalize the rule.

2. U S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

In 1999, USFWS opened a public comment period for lead-free fishing areas in Refuges (Proposed Rule 

64 FR Page 43835) (USDOI 1999). In 2000, USFWS published a Final Rule regarding the 1999-2000 

Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations (65 FR 30772) (USDOI 2000). In the rule, 

USFWS stated they would not be making a decision regarding fishing sinkers but would make a final 

decision in a subsequent rule. That ruling has not occurred. 

3. National Wildlife Refuge System 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is managed by USFWS. While currently there is no regulation for 

all Refuges within the United States, there are, Refuges that have issued their own rules with regard to 

lead-free fishing (USEPA 2010a). Although there is not a comprehensive database of all the Refuges, 

known Refuges are: Rappahannock River Valley NWR, VA (lead-free fishing in their freshwater ponds 

since 2004), Seney NWR, MI (since 2002), Patuxent NWR, MD (since April 2010) (USEPA 2010a), 

Union Slough NWR in IA (USEPA 2010c), Rachel Carson NWR in ME (USDOI 2010a), and Red Rock 

Lakes NWR in MT (USDOI 2010b). Assabet NWR in Massachusetts is currently regulated under 

Massachusetts restrictions (USDOI 2010c). Lead tackle is banned in Yellowstone National Park (USDOI 

2010d). 

4. National Parks Service 

On March 10, 2009, NPS sent out a press release stating “Our goal is to eliminate the use of lead 

ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks by the end of 2010.” (USDOI 2009). Since the release, the 

NPS has implemented changes in NPS related activities, such as culling operations or the dispatching of 

wounded or sick animals. The NPS has also developed educational materials to increase awareness about 

the consequences of lead exposure and the benefits of using lead-free ammunition and fishing tackle. 

NPS has compiled all available scientific research for NPS consideration (USEPA 2010b). 

B. State Regulations 

The following information is taken from the States’ websites. 

1. Maine 

As of 2003, in Maine it is “unlawful to sell or offer for sale a lead sinker for fishing that weighs 1/2 ounce 

or less. This does not include artificial lures, weighted line or lines, or jig heads” (State of Maine 2003). 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

2 

2. Massachusetts 

In 2001, the Fisheries and Wildlife Board prohibited the use of all lead sinkers for the taking of fish in 

Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, the loons' primary habitat in the state. In 2009, the Fisheries and 

Wildlife Board unanimously voted to prohibit the use of lead sinkers, lead weights, and lead fishing jigs 

with a mass of less than 1 ounce in all inland waters of Massachusetts. This regulatory change will not 

take effect until January 1, 2012 (MADFW 2010). 

3. New Hampshire 

In 2000, New Hampshire was the first state to ban lead sinkers and jigs to protect common loons and 

other diving birds. The law banned the use of lead sinkers weighing one ounce or less and jigs less than 

one inch long on freshwater lakes and ponds. In 2004, a state law passed that prohibits the use of certain 

sizes of lead sinkers and jigs in all fresh waters in the state. The 2004 law also extended the ban to the use 

in rivers and streams as of January 2005, and, beginning in January 2006, also prohibits the sale (NHFGD 

2010). 

4. New York 

On May 7, 2004, the sale of lead fishing sinkers weighing 1⁄2 ounce or less was prohibited (NYDEC 

2004). 

5. Vermont 

In 2004, Vermont passed a bill banning the sale (effective January 2006) of lead sinkers weighing 1/2 

ounce or less, and then the use (effective January 2007) of those lead sinkers in the state (State of 

Vermont 2004). 

6. Washington 

In fall 2009, a proposal for a lead tackle restriction was included in draft 2010 – 2012 Sportfishing Rules 

for public review. On December 6, 2010, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission 

will consider adopting the proposed rule on lead tackle. If adopted, it would go into effect on May 1, 2011 

(WADFW 2010). 

C. Voluntary State Education Programs 

1. Illinois 

In July 2009, the Illinois Legislature passed an Act establishing an educational program designed to 

discourage the use of lead sinkers and lead jigs (State of Illinois 2010). 

2. Minnesota 

In 2002-03, the state Legislature considered banning the sale and use of lead tackle. However, after a 

series of stakeholder discussions, the Legislature decided that a better approach would be to educate 

anglers about the alternatives to lead tackle and to offer them opportunities to try out non-lead sinkers and 

jigs. Minnesota also has hosted Get the Lead Out! lead tackle exchange programs. In this program the 

state and a wide variety of educational partners host tackle exchange events throughout Minnesota. At 

these events anglers can swap out their old lead tackle and receive samples of lead-free sinkers and jigs in 

trade. From 2001 to 2008, nearly 7,000 pounds of lead tackle were collected, and hundreds were educated 

on the dangers that lead poses to people and wildlife. The program however, has been discontinued 

(MPCA 2010). 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

3 

3. Wisconsin 

The state promotes a program called Get the Lead Out! Some of the goals of the Get the Lead Out! 

Wisconsin campaign are to bring awareness to anglers about lead poisoning in fish and other wildlife 

from lead tackle ingestion, outfit kids ́ tackle boxes with non-lead weights, and conduct programs 

teaching “How to dispose of your lead tackle properly” (WDNR 2010). 

II. Substitute Analysis 

The non-lead fishing sinker market has continued to develop since the EPA Proposed Rule was published 

in 1994. Since then, new products have entered the market. With improvements in technology, changes 

in consumer preferences, state-level restrictions, and increased market competition, the market share for 

lead fishing sinkers is expected to decrease while the market share for substitutes is expected to increase. 

A. Fishing Sinker Market 

Due to the nature of the fishing sinker market, specific market share for the different options is not readily 

available and complicated to calculate. As discussed in the 1994 EPA Proposed Rule, fishing sinkers 

enter the marketplace through large retail chains, small local shops, local Do-It-Yourselfers (DIY) who 

make sinkers at home for retail sale, and DIY who make sinkers solely for personal use. With the growth 

of the internet over the past 16 years, internet based retailers have created a new point of entry into the 

fishing sinker market. This is important for some of the newer substitute options because they are not yet 

available in typical retail stores like Bass Pro Shops. Substitutes that are biodegradable, ceramic, or 

limestone are mainly available from the producer directly or websites dedicated to selling nontoxic 

fishing tackle (e.g. Greentackle.com, Tacklesmith.com). 

The market is dominated by metal sinker options: lead, steel, tin, and tungsten. Sinkers produced from 

these metals likely account for almost all of the market. Lead, due to a variety of factors including 

historical use, price, and proven effectiveness still holds the largest percentage of the fishing sinker 

market. The market share of lead is assumed to be 85 percent or less based on the 1994 Proposed Rule 

and assuming the substitute market share has grown due to new state regulations. 

Tungsten is a popular substitute for lead because the sinkers tend to be smaller in size for the same weight 

and in general perform better than lead. Tungsten is assumed to have the second largest share of the 

fishing sinker market; its market share appears to be increasing as anglers choose to stop using lead. 

Despite its higher price, tungsten is assumed to be more popular and command a larger market share than 

steel based on product availability. Based on angler comments, tungsten is generally considered a 

superior fishing sinker to lead, because it is a denser metal. Therefore smaller sinkers are used to obtain 

the same sink pattern as a comparable lead sinker. Smaller sinkers are preferred because of fewer snag 

problems and fewer fish are deterred than with larger sinkers. The only consistent complaint found for 

tungsten is its price compared to lead. Tungsten sinkers simply appear to be outperforming lead and other 

sinker substitutes. Some anglers are willing to pay the higher cost for tungsten in order to capitalize on the 

benefits (Bass Pro Shop, Cabela’s, Greentackle, Tacklesmith). 

Steel fishing sinkers are cheaper than tungsten but are larger than comparable lead sinkers. Tin is 

typically only used for split-shot sinkers because of its low density so it represents a small portion of the 

market because of limited product usage (Bass Pro Shop, Cabela’s). 

Table 1. Summary of Fishing Sinker Market Share 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

4 

Choosing non-metal substitutes over lead takes advanced planning because they are not generally 

available in stores and are brand new in the marketplace. Therefore, their market share is assumed to be 

very small. Ceramic, biodegradable, and limestone fishing sinkers are only available from specific online 

retailers, which limits angler access to the products. If these sinker alternatives prove effective and can be 

price competitive, their market share will increase over time through word of mouth and as anglers switch 

from lead. When enough anglers demand a given substitute, normal stores will stock the item to meet 

customer needs, improving chances for future increases in market share. Table 1 summarizes general 

market share of the various fishing sinker options and how the market is expected to continue to change. 

The breakdown of market shares described above should be used as general guidelines. At the time of the 

1994 Proposed Rule the fishing sinker market was nearly all lead as tungsten, steel, and bismuth were 

relatively new to the market. During the past 16 years these substitutes have been tested by anglers and 

either accepted (tungsten, steel) or rejected and no longer considered a viable substitute (bismuth). 

Specific market share breakdowns can only be calculated by obtaining production volumes from fishing 

sinker producers, following a similar methodology used in the 1994 Proposed Rule. Specific percentages 

for each option are not provided because without production and sales volume from industry they cannot 

be accurately determined. 

While the specific market shares of fishing sinker options cannot be determined at this time, some general 

assumptions can be made based on observed changes in market size and angler behavior since 1994. 

Type 1994 2010 

Expected Future 

Change Reason for Change 

Lead >90% 

Assumed to 

be ≤85% decrease concerns over toxicity 

Steel 

not on 

market small increase cheaper than other substitutes 

Tungsten 

not on 

market 

second to 

lead increase 

 most popular substitute, superior 

performance to lead 

Brass small small decrease 

 other substitutes perform better, toxicity 

concerns 

Zinc small very limited decrease 

 toxicity concerns, currently hard to find 

on market, smallest found was 1oz 

Bismuth 

very 

small 

no longer on 

market 

 remain off 

market inefficient substitute 

Tin 

very 

small small 

 remain 

constant limited applicability for lead substitute 

Plastic 

brand 

new very limited uncertain development of new plastics is common 

Biodegradable 

not on 

market brand new increase 

 inexpensive, 'green' product, good 

reviews from anglers 

Ceramic 

not on 

market brand new uncertain depends on product improvements 

Putty 

brand 

new small increase 

 allows for flexibility, reusable, 

primarily used in fly fishing 

Limestone 

not on 

market brand new increase 

 inexpensive, 'green' product, good 

reviews from anglers 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

5 

First, the size of the fishing sinker market has decreased since the 1994 Proposed Rule. This assumption 

is based on a 17 percent decline in anglers from 1991 to 2006 based on the National Survey of Fishing, 

Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation published in those years (USFWS 1991 and USFWS 2006). 

The decline in anglers may be a result of economic forces, unpopular changes to fishing regulations 

(catch limits, moratoriums), or shifts in recreational preferences over time. Fewer anglers fishing means 

less fishing equipment, tackle, and other associated products are needed to meet market demand. 

Second, the market share of lead sinkers has decreased since 1994. Most states in New England have 

banned the sale and/or use of lead sinkers since the Proposed Rule. In order to comply with new 

regulations, anglers and retail stores had to switch from lead to one of the available substitutes in these 

areas. Tungsten is the current substitute of choice for most anglers, so its market share has increased 

considerably since 1994 to meet sinker demand in New England. 

Third, some anglers seem to be voluntarily switching from lead sinkers to nontoxic alternatives because 

of health or environmental concerns. This would cause a decrease in the lead market share for sinkers and 

increase the market share for nontoxic sinker options. 

B. Retail Prices for 2010 

Retail prices of bullet sinkers for lead and a set of common substitutes is provided in Table 3. These 

prices were pulled from national chains when possible, but due to patents or similar constraint, some 

products have limited sources. However, all products are available nationwide via the internet. Lead 

sinkers cannot legally be sold in (or shipped to) some states in certain sizes or at all. For those states the 

price of lead provided is inapplicable. The prices are meant to provide a general sketch of cost 

differences between lead sinkers and available substitutes. 

Table 3 displays the retail price per sinker using the largest package sold by the retailer. Most sinkers are 

sold in packages; the price per package was divided by the number of sinkers it contained to arrive at the 

prices displayed in the table. Since not all sinker packages contain the same number of sinkers, these 

calculations were done to provide a consistent comparison across all weights and types. 

Table 3. Retail Price of Lead Bullet Sinkers and Substitutes 

Type 1/8 oz 1/4 oz 3/8 oz 1/2 oz Adjustable Source 

Lead $ 0.08 $ 0.14 $ 0.19 $ 0.25 n/a Bass Pro Shop 

Steel $ 0.11 $ 0.13 $ 0.16 n/a n/a Bass Pro Shop 

Tungsten $ 0.92 $ 1.50 $ 2.12 $ 2.83 n/a Bass Pro Shop 

Brass $ 0.42 $ 0.71 $ 0.83 $ 1.00 n/a Bass Pro Shop 

Zinc n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a smallest found 1oz 

Bismuth n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a found for jigs only 

Tin n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a split-shot only 

Plastic n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a found for jigs only 

Biodegradable $ 0.21 $ 0.30 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 n/a Tacklesmith 

Ceramic n/a n/a n/a $ 0.42 n/a Big Ten Tackle 

Putty a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 6.49 Green Tackle 

Limestone $ 0.25 $ 0.30 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 n/a Rocky Brook Sinkers 

a putty is labeled ‘adjustable’ because the angler can make the weight in any shape or weight by molding the putty onto the line

and adding or removing putty until the desired shape and size is achieved. The putty is also reusable. 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

6 

III. Overview of Comments Received 

Over 7,500 emails have been submitted to the docket center via the OPPT inbox. More than 8,600 

comments have submitted on regulations.gov. Since the letter to deny the ammunition portion of the 

petition was sent to the petitioners, approximately 4,000 of the 8,600 comments have been submitted. Of 

these 4,000 comments, over 3,000 are specific to lead fishing sinkers. 

Of the actual letters uploaded to date on regulations.gov, there were (6) letters submitted on behalf of 

States or signed by government officials, (10) from organizations against the ban, (3) from organizations 

for the ban, and (1) from an organization neither for nor against the ban. 

Of the original comments submitted many addressed the following key issues (for specific comments see 

Section IV): 

Scientific 

 Ingestion of fishing sinkers has toxic effects, however it is not demonstrated at a population level 

 Loon populations are increasing 

 More anglers may melt their own lead to make sinkers at home and therefore increase risk from 

inhalation 

State-Based 

 States, in conjunction with USFWS, are constantly working towards conservation, research and 

are already taking the necessary steps to protect lead-related risks from hunting and angling 

activities 

 Policy development is biologically, socially and economically complex and should be held at the 

state level 

Alternatives and economic 

 Alternatives are not readily available, less practical and can be significantly more expensive 

 The cost of raw materials drives the price of the alternative, not market demand 

 Increased cost of alternatives will cause a decrease in anglers, therefore create a loss in sales and 

tax dollars for state and natural resource management and conservation 

 Economic impact to the recreational fishing industry would be significant 

IV. Details of Comments Received 

Note: All comments can be found on www.regulations.gov 

A. The following were letters submitted from states or signed by government officials against 

the ban on lead fishing sinkers: 

1. Arizona Game and Fish Department – signee, Larry Voyles, Director 

2. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources –signee, Dr. Jonathan Gassett, 

Commissioner 

3. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries – signee, Robert W. Duncan, Executive 

Director 

4. Association of Wildlife and Fish Agencies – signee, John E. Frampton, President and Director 

of the South Carolina, Department of Natural Resources 

5. National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses (signees Rep Mike Pitts (SC), Rep Mike Burris 

(AZ), Senator Robin Webb (KY)) 

6. Nebraska Legislative Sportsmen’s Forum – signee State Senator Fulton 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

7 

B. The following organizations submitted letters against the ban on lead fishing sinkers: 

1. Allied Conservation Groups (30 undersigned organizations) 

1. American Fly Fishing Trade Association 

2. American Sportfishing Association 

3. Archery Trade Association 

4. BASS, LLC 

5. Berkley Conservation Institute 

6. The Billfish Foundation 

7. Boone and Crockett Club 

8. The Campfire Club of America 

9. Catch-A-Dream Foundation 

10. Center for Coastal Conservation 

11. Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

12. Conservation Force 

13. Dallas Safari Club 

14. International Game Fish Association 

15. Mule Deer Foundation 

16. National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses 

17. National Marine Manufacturers Association 

18. National Rifle Association 

19. National Shooting Sports Foundation 

20. North American Bear Foundation 

21. Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association 

22. Quality Deer Management Association 

23. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

24. Ruffed Grouse Society 

25. Safari Club International 

26. Shikar Safari Club 

27. Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative 

28. Texas Wildlife Association 

29. Wild Sheep Foundation 

30. Wildlife Forever

2. Allied Sportsmen’s Associations of Florida 

3. American Sportfishing Association 

4. Association of Northwest Steelheaders 

5. Boat US – Boat Owners Association of the United States 

6. Crappie.com 

7. Garden State Seafood Association 

8. National Marine Manufacturers Association 

9. Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance 

10. Michigan United Conservation Clubs 

C. The following organizations submitted a letter supporting the ban on lead fishing sinkers: 

1. Loon Preservation Committee 

2. National Wildlife Federation 

3. The Wildlife Society 

D. The following organizations have submitted letters neither supporting nor opposing the ban 

on lead fishing sinkers: 

1. Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia (Canadian organization) 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

8 

E. Summary of State or government official comments 

1. Arizona Game and Fish Department 

 Natural waters of Arizona do not readily dissolve lead therefore exposure to lead from sinkers 

would occur through direct ingestion only 

 Most water bodies in Arizona are too deep and/or are urban reservoirs therefore exposure 

from direct ingestion is unlikely 

 Type of species most affected by ingestion of lead sinkers are not prevalent in Arizona 

 Wildlife management should be made at a population level 

 The issue of lead sinker regulations should be a scientifically based and localized effort 

 The economic impacts would be substantial and reduction in fishing would occur due to 

increased costs 

2. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 

 Little evidence is available which supports that the loss or ingestion of lead sinkers by birds is 

an issue in Kentucky 

 Common loon and trumpeter swan populations are stable 

 States where loon populations are declining have implemented restrictions as listed in the 

State regulations (Section I) above. 

 Kentucky supports monitoring and modeling for exposure and population level effects as well 

as additional scientific research 

 The economic impacts on the angling community would create unnecessary hardships 

3. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

 States, in conjunction with USFWS, are constantly working toward conservation, research 

and are taking the necessary steps to protect lead-related risks from hunting and angling 

activities 

 Policy development is biologically, socially and economically complex and should be 

managed at the state level. While some states require regulation, others are successful using 

voluntary mechanisms and therefore should be handled at the state level 

 EPA regulation is unnecessary due to state fish and wildlife commitment and management 

 References submitted by the Association of Wildlife and Fish Agencies (#5 below) 

4. Association of Wildlife and Fish Agencies 

 States, in conjunction with USFWS, are constantly working towards conservation, research 

and are taking the necessary steps to protect lead-related risks from hunting and angling 

activities 

 Policy development is biologically, socially and economically complex and should be 

managed at the state level 

 Does not believe that risk to fish and wildlife from lead fishing tackle poses an unreasonable 

risk 

5. National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses 

 The economic burden on anglers could result in the loss of state income due to a decline in 

license sales and taxes 

 Policy development is biologically, socially and economically complex and should be 

managed at the state level. 

 While some states require regulation, others are successful using voluntary mechanisms and 

therefore should be handled at the state level 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

9 

6. Nebraska Legislative Sportsmen’s Forum – Senator Fulton (signee) 

 A ban would not be biologically justified 

 The economic burden on anglers could result in the loss of state income due to a decline in 

license sales and taxes 

 Substitutes are not readily available and costs are substantial 

 Policy development is biologically, socially and economically complex and should be 

managed at the state level 

F. Summary of unique organizational comments against the ban on lead fishing sinkers 

 Banning lead will prevent innovations such as create coatings or bonded materials which allow 

lead sinkers to pass through the body without toxic impact (ASA) 

 Lead exposure most likely occurs through direct ingestion and is soluble in instances where the 

water is very basic or acidic therefore fishing would not occur. (ASA) 

 Handling lead fishing sinkers does not present a health hazard to humans (ASA) 

 Concern about the stock of lead sinkers that fishermen currently own, and what would happen to 

them after a ban. (Crappie.com/NMMA) 

 Potential impact to the commercial fishing industry (Garden State Seafood Association) 

o Commercial fishermen operate predominately in non-U. S. Waters 

o Lead sinkers used by commercial fisherman are not readily digestible and losses are at a 

minimum 

 Wildlife exposure in marine environments are less likely and have very little scientific evidence 

(Garden State Seafood Association) 

 A ban is unnecessary and currently adequately regulated where needed (Michigan United 

Conservation Club) 

G. Summary of organizational comments neither for nor against the ban on lead fishing 

sinkers 

 Reasoning behind why Environment Canada decided not to proceed with a ban on importation 

and manufacture of small lead-base fishing lures and weights (Sport Fishing Institute of BC) 

H. Summary of organizational comments for the ban 

 Provided additional studies and further support for the petitioners argument for a ban 

 Provided reference paper; Sources and Implications of Lead Ammunition and Fishing Tackle on 

Natural Resources (The Wildlife Society) 

 Provided reference paper, Technical Review #67, Lead in the Environment (National Wildlife 

Federation) 

 Provided policy positions on lead in fishing sinker and ammunition (e. g. support for less toxic 

alternatives, education to community, research) (The Wildlife Society & National Wildlife 

Federation) 

I. Summary of unique individual comments against the ban 

 Economic concerns; specifically whether fishing would still be affordable if lead tackle were no 

longer available

 The Petition does not contain enough scientific evidence to warrant a ban

 Suggested a two year phase-out of lead tackle sales to protect small business’ inventory instead of 

immediate ban on lead manufacture 

 Believes that lead pollution should be addressed locally for waterways 

 Suggested warning labels on lead tackle

 Believes that it is unfair to grant the fishing sinkers portion of the petition but deny ammunition
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

10 

V. References 

1. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MADFW). (2010). Website. Lead Sinkers/Jigs 

and Loons in Massachusetts. Retrieved September 21, 2010 from 

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/recreation/fishing/lead_sinkers_loons.htm

2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). (2010). Website. Let’s Get the Lead Out: Non-lead 

alternatives for fishing tackle. Retrieved September 21, 2010 from 

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/living-green/living-green-citizen/household-hazardouswaste/nontoxic-tackle-let-s-get-the-lead-out.html

3. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD). (2010). Brochure. Let’s Get the Lead Out. 

Retrieved September 21, 2010 from 

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fishing/Fishing_PDFs/Lets_Get_the_Lead_Out.pdf

4. New York State, Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). (2004). Press Release. Sale 

of Small Lead Sinkers to Be Banned in New York. Retrieved September 21, 2010 from 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/12605.html

5. State of Illinois. (2010). Public Act 096-0061. Lead Sinker & Lead Jig Ban. Retrieved September 

21, 2010 from 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1269&GAID=10&GA=96&DocTypeID=SB

&LegID=42210&SessionID=76&SpecSess= 

6. State of Maine. (2003). 12 §12663-A. Unlawful Sale of Lead Sinkers. Retrieved September 21, 2010, 

from http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/12/title12sec12663-A.pdf

7. State of Vermont. (2004). H.516 An Act Relating to a Prohibition Against the Use and Sale of Lead 

Sinkers. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2004/bills/passed/H516.HTM

8. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010a). Website. Rachel Carson NWR 

Visitor Opportunities. Retrieved September 27, 2010 from 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/rachelcarson/opportunities.html#fishing. 

9. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010b). Website. Red Rock Lakes NWR 

Fishing Information. Retrieved September 27, 2010 from http://www.fws.gov/redrocks/FishingRegulations.htm. 

10. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (2010c). Website. Assabet NWR Visitor 

Opportunities. Retrieved September 27, 2010 from 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/assabetriver/opportunities.html. 

11. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000). Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 93. 

1999-2000 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations. Final Rule. May 12. 30772. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-05-12/pdf/00-11410.pdf

12. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (1999). Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 154. 

Establishment of Lead-Free Fishing Areas. Proposed Rule. August 11. 43834-43836. 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

11 

13. U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. (2010d). 2010 Yellowstone National P ark 

Superintendent’s Compendium. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from 

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/supt_compendium.pdf

14. U. S. Department of Interior, National Parks Service (2009). News Release. National Parks Service 

Gets the Lead Out! March 10. http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/Detail.cfm?ID=855

15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 

16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 

17. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New Hampshire. 

18. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Maine. 

19. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New York. 

20. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Vermont. 

21. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 

22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New Hampshire. 

23. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Maine. 

24. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New York. 

25. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Vermont. 
Background Document                                                               

TSCA § 21 Petition; Pb in Fishing Sinkers and Other Components

12 

26. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. 

27. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New Hampshire. 

28. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Maine. 

29. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– New York. 

30. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

– Vermont. 

31. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010a). Email. Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics 

and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. September 22. 

32. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010b). Phone call. Office of Pollution, Prevention and 

Toxics and National Parks Service. September 30. 

33. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010c). Phone call. Office of Pollution, Prevention and 

Toxics and Union Slough NWR. Sept. 27, 2010. 

34. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1994). Draft Report. Lead Fishing Sinker 

Proposed Rule: A Summary of Public Comments. September. 

35. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). (2010). Website. Common Loon: 

Conserving Common Loons by Managing Use of Lead Fishing Tackle. Retrieved September 21, 

2010 from http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/loons/

36. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). (2010). Website. Get the Lead Out – 

Wisconsin! Retrieved September 21, 2010 from http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/gettheleadout.html