EPA Rejects Center for Biological Diversity’s Second Shot at Banning Lead Ammunition
On April 9, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) [second Petition] asking EPA to ban the use of lead ammunition nationwide. The EPA’s response stated that EPA would not review CBD’s new Petition because it is “almost identical” to CBD’s [prior Petition] that sought to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle nationwide.
EPA [rejected CBD’s new Petition], finding that it is actually not a new petition cognizable under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), because CBD’s second Petition contained “no new information” and everything in the new Petition had been considered by EPA when it denied CBD’s first Petition. Significantly, EPA reiterated its acknowledgment that it does not have the authority to regulate ammunition under TSCA.
CBD was forced to file this second Petition because CBD blew a deadline when it filed a lawsuit based on EPA’s denial of its first Petition to ban lead ammunition. Because CBD filed an untimely legal challenge, the Court threw out the lead ammunition portion of CBD’s lawsuit. Although not original parties to the CBD lawsuit, The National Rifle Association (NRA), Safari Club International (SCI) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) all intervened in the case on behalf of hunters and recreational shooters. NSSF moved to have the lead ammunition portion of the case dismissed, NRA and SCI supported NSSF, and the Court granted the motion. CBD then filed this new Petition to EPA in an attempt to re-file its lawsuit to ban lead ammunition nationwide.
In response to EPA’s denial of this latest Petition, CBD has promised that it will in fact file another lawsuit.
For [background] on the litigation that led up to EPA’s latest rejection of CBD’s Petition to ban lead ammunition and an index of documents filed in federal court [click here].
In response to claims by environmental groups seeking to limit or ban hunting and recreational shooting with lead ammunition, the NRA and California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation have been litigating lawsuits like these as well as spearheading an effort to gather information and science to oppose most limitations on these activities. To assist in these efforts, NRA has engaged the expertise of environmental experts and scientists, as well as the civil rights and environmental law firm of [Michel & Associates, P.C.].
The efforts include coordinating with interested parties to plan, research, conduct clerical work, and make numerous formal requests for documents from government agencies through Public Records Act and Freedom of Information Act requests. The team has obtained and analyzed tens of thousands of documents from public records concerning information relied on to propose, advanced and allegedly support lead ammunition bans for hunting and recreational shooting, including “original data” and internal documents not previously obtained or reviewed by independent analysts or the public at large. The effort has already resulted in the rejection of several proposed and ill-conceived lead ammunition bans throughout the country.