EPA Surrenders to NRA on Gun Control Issue

Reader Comments
Back to article

although it is not a huge issue in our lives today, lead bullets are harmful to wildlife and therefore humans. According to Lisa P. Jackson of the environmental protection agency, scientist estimate that lead causes the pointless deaths of 10-20 million birds in the united states annually. Also, when an animal is hunted and shot by a lead bullet and then eaten by humans, it can effect their own health negatively. there is a simple solution to not using lead bullets, and that is moulding them out of other materials such as copper and other harmless metals.

Mikaela W. of WY 12:30PM April 27, 2011

Boy, there sure is a lot of crime these days against us innocent fish. My cousin Charlie was swimming just the other day and got caught on a human's treble hook. Had there been a good fat BAN on fishing sinkers, Charlie would still be with us today. He left behind a wife and an entire school of children. I say band the sinkers, and ban fishing all together. (glub, glub, glub...)

Fisher of men of MI 7:38PM April 15, 2011

why take away the guns from familys what would had happen if a bad guy comes in to your house and you dont have time to get to your kichen to grap a knife but if they have a gun and you have a knife who would win the guy with the gun or you with a knife why don't you think about that one huh all so you wont find me on the internet ok seeya

kenny orr of VA 8:49PM December 05, 2010

The left doesn't care a lick about "birds of the world and squirrels". No this is another dishonest liberal fiction designed to strip the public of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The left is obsessed to the point of madness with gun control and little else captures their tiny imaginations. Why, you might ask. The reason is, like all good communists they hew slavishly to the notion that there is only on real crime men can commit: Counter Revolution. Hence their destructive Ahab like obsession with banning guns either directly or indirectly. Thankfully, as we saw on November 2nd, more an more people realize the following truths about the left:
1. The issues are never The Issue, The Issue is always POWER.
2. The policies are never The Policy, The Policy is always CONTROL.
3. Thanks to political correctness having damaged their ability to rightly relate causes to effects, Liberals are Mentally Incompetent (see Blacks Law Dictionary for definition of MI)
4. Thanks to a consistent rejection of transcendent standards, liberals cannot distinguish between right and wrong making them Criminally Insane (see Blacks Law Dictionary for definition of CI)
And considering the tens of millions of new military grade firearms that have been sold to the public since November 2008 the number of people vested in gun ownership is greater then ever. (A VERY good thing IMHO)
I would suggest, in light of the above facts (stubborn as they are) that the lead ammo and sinker ban is just another instance of criminally insane, mentally incompetent, power mad, control freak liberals attempting to seize for themselves even greater power to dictate into the lives of men better than themselves. It is another crystal clear example of how small minded and the morally stunted people struggle to find something for which they can feel good about themselves. Remember, liberals, though very dangerous, are really nothing more than tragic little people suffering from grandiose delusions of adequacy. If they were not so dangerous to the life and liberties of just men, they would be worthy of our pity.

Snitch-In-Time of TX 1:30PM November 24, 2010

I can say we agree on some things...bye

DERR UFO of WV 5:23PM September 01, 2010

It is nice to share thoughts and I do respect your point of view (all though you seem a little crazy). This is a great country because we can all say what we want. And just let me add that I too believe that the government isn't going to solve all our problems and shouldn't try...this nation is built on individualism, not a European model of socialism. But I don't believe the President is trying to do that, just trying to use the power of government to work for more people, instead of just the super rich.
Anyway, good talking to you and be well.

Moderoy of PA 4:26PM September 01, 2010

August 23, 2010
Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Administrator Jackson:
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (“NSSF”) is the trade association for the firearm, ammunition, hunting, and shooting sports industry. We respectfully write to urge you to deny the petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity and others to ban traditional ammunition made with lead components under the Toxic Substances and Control Act (“TSCA”). TSCA simply does not allow the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to regulate ammunition of any kind or in the manner proposed by the Petitioners, and EPA should promptly deny this petition.
NSSF and our association of shooting ranges are proud of our cooperative relationship with EPA on the voluntary Shooting Range Certification Program that encourages ranges and gun clubs to operate in an environmentally responsible manner by implementing an Environmental Stewardship Plan (“ESP”). We commend you for the important role you played in developing this joint EPA-NSSF program while working with EPA Region 2. We remain committed to continuing and strengthening our relationship with EPA on the Shooting Range Certification Program as one way of achieving our shared goals.
TSCA expressly excludes from the definition of “chemical substance” subject to regulation under TSCA, any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by sections 4181 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code). 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2) (B)(v). There is no debate that “shells and cartridges” are subject to taxes imposed pursuant to section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, “shells and cartridges” are not “chemical substances” subject to Section 6 of TSCA.
Petitioners acknowledge this exemption, but claim that because “lead shot and bullets are not subject to this tax,” EPA may regulate them under TSCA. In essence, while Petitioners concede that “shells and cartridges” are exempt from TSCA, they nonetheless would have EPA regulate these identical items under TSCA by illegally creating a loophole dependent on the component parts of “shells and cartridges.” This would effectively read out of the statute Congress’s clear direction that TSCA was not intended to regulate ammunition, since ammunition is simply the sum total of its components.

National Shooting Sports Foundation of CT 10:11AM September 01, 2010

When TSCA was enacted in 1976, essentially the only substance available at that time to manufacture shot and bullets was lead. This indicates that Congress’s intent in exempting shells and cartridges from TSCA regulation was also to exempt their lead-containing component parts. Any other interpretation would stand the exemption on its head and impute an absurd intention to Congress. Congress would not have exempted shells and cartridges from TSCA regulation only to effectively undo the exemption by allowing EPA to use TSCA to ban or regulate their indispensible component parts. By claiming they “have waited until nontoxic alternatives have become available to submit this petition” Petitioners concede this point -- alternatives to traditional ammunition containing lead components were not available in 1976. It is worth noting that the timing of the petition can have no bearing on Congressional intent.
Petitioners cite no legal authority to support their claim that Congress intended to authorize EPA to use TSCA to regulate or ban the component parts of ammunition, but yet prohibited EPA using TSCA to regulate the final product itself. Petitioners can cite only to an IRS Revenue Ruling for the obvious proposition that the tax rates in 26 U.S.C. § 4181 should be applied to the sale price for the final manufactured product, rather than as cumulative, value-added taxes on each separate component. Petitioners claim that this ruling “has been confirmed by subsequent administrative decisions,” but further cite only to the “Fed. Tax Coordinator,” which is simply a legal treatise on various tax issues. It does not support Petitioners’ claim.
We note that adopting Petitioners’ statutory interpretation would impute a second absurd intention to Congress: lead-containing shells and cartridges could no longer be manufactured in the United States (because lead shot and bullets would have been banned); yet lead-containing shells and cartridges could still be imported from other countries for use in the United States because, as even the Petitioners conceded, shells and cartridges are not subject to TSCA. EPA’s guidance on TSCA’s import requirements confirms the conclusion that imported ammunition is not subject to TSCA. See, Introduction to the Chemical Import Requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act at p. 2 (EPA, 1999). Therefore, EPA cannot ban the importation of lead-containing shells and cartridges, nor their use for hunting in the United States. Congress did not intend such a curious regulatory scheme.

National Shooting Sports Foundation of CT 10:11AM September 01, 2010

...
Granting the petition would therefore not result in a ban on the use of lead ammunition because it would then be imported and used. Instead, granting the petition would only eliminate numerous jobs of people working in the manufacturing sector and ship these jobs to foreign countries. America’s firearm and ammunition industry contributed almost $28 billion to our nation’s economy, creating 183,000 well paying full time jobs, generating wages exceeding $8.2 billion and contributing almost $4 billion in state and federal taxes. In 2009, the sale of ammunition to hunters, target shooters and sportsmen contributed nearly $171 million dollars to wildlife conservation funding in the United States. We estimate that over 92% of that amount was from the sale of traditional ammunition made with lead components, less than 6% was from the sale of alternative shot shells and only 2% from the sale of metallic (non-shot shell) ammunition.
Finally, EPA’s own regulations and guidance show that the individual components of ammunition are not to be regulated under TSCA. For example, EPA has stated that “ammunition” is not subject to the pre-manufacture notification requirements of Section 5 of TSCA. 48 Fed. Reg. 21722, 21723 (May 13, 1983). Further, under 40 C.F.R. § 712, manufacturers have to report to EPA certain information on chemical substances. In the instructions to the Part 712 form (known as the “Manufacturer’s Report, Preliminary Assessment Information,” copy attached), EPA instructs manufacturers not to report “any quantity of chemical substance that is manufactured or processed solely for use as: . . . firearms or ammunition. . . . The above are not TSCA-regulable.” (See p. 4, emphasis added.) EPA goes on to explain that:
Some of the chemical substances are manufactured for both TSCA and non-TSCA regulable purposes. If a chemical from a given manufacturing stream is solely for a non-TSCA use, no reporting is required.
Id. EPA does not define “manufacturing stream” in Part 712, but does define it in the Part 721 rules broadly as “all reasonably anticipated transfer, flow, or disposal of a chemical substance, regardless of physical state or concentration, through all intended operations of manufacture, including the cleaning of equipment.” 40 C.F.R. § 721.3.
Given these provisions, it is clear that, in accordance with the exemption contained in the statute, EPA cannot use TSCA to regulate the individual components of ammunition. The use and processing of lead “solely for use” as ammunition (e.g., the manufacture of bullets or shot) is a “non-TSCA regulable” use.
...

National Shooting Sport Foundation of CT 10:10AM September 01, 2010

...
We, of course, also strongly disagree with Petitioners’ other arguments and scientific claims, which they advance in support of their petition. However, our purpose in writing to you today is not to engage in a full rebuttal of the petition. Our purpose is simply to call to your attention the fact that Petitioners’ attempt to do away with the statutory exemption for shells and cartridges finds no support in the statute, regulations, or EPA’s guidance.
Accordingly, and with all due respect, EPA should promptly deny the petition because the Agency has no authority to regulate either the finished product—shells and cartridges—or their component parts—lead-containing shot and bullets. We are standing by to help EPA in any way in considering this petition. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further and to provide EPA with additional information, which might assist the Agency in considering the petition.
Sincerely,
Lawrence G. Keane

National Shooting SPorts Foundation of CT 10:09AM September 01, 2010