via email: [email protected]/uploads/page/dtsc draft comments.pdfms....

November16,2015

VIAEMAIL:[email protected]

Ms.BarbaraA.LeeDirectorCaliforniaDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl1001IStreetSacramento,CA95814

RE:DTSCDraftStage1AlternativesAnalysisGuide

DirectorLee:

Theundersignedorganizations,representingmembersoftherecreationalanglingandboatingcommunitiesandassociatedindustries,appreciatetheopportunitytocommentontheCaliforniaDepartmentofToxicSubstancesControl’srecentlyreleasedDraftStage1AlternativesAnalysis(AA)Guide.

WehavefourfundamentalobjectionstothedraftAlternativesAnalysis.First,itisincompletebyitsownterms.Whilestakeholdersappreciatetheopportunitytocommentondraftsoftheinitialchapters,wereservetherighttorevisit,revise,supplementandotherwiseamendthesecommentsoncethedocumentiscomplete.

Second,theAlternativesAnalysisimpermissiblyproceedsfromaflawedpremiseinthecaseoffishingandanglingequipment.Assetforthbelow,initsPriorityWorkPlantheDepartmentfailedtomaketherequiredregulatoryshowingofharmfromthisequipment,merelyassumingtheexistenceofharminCalifornia.TheAlternativesAnalysisthenimposestheState’sunmetburdenonfishingandanglingequipmentmanufacturersandretailers.

Third,theAlternativesAnalysisisself-evidentlyscopedforlargeindustrieswithsubstantialresources.OtherproductcategoriesinthePriorityWorkPlancompriseindustriesdominatedbyahandfuloflargecorporationswithtensofbillionsofdollarsofsalesintheUnitedStates.Thoseproductcategoriesdwarfthefishingandanglingequipment“industry,”whichisdominatedby“momandpop”smallbusinessesincapableofcomplyingwiththisscheme.Imposingtheserequirementswillcausesignificanteconomicharmandlimitconsumerchoices.

Ms.BarbaraA.LeeNovember16,2015

of 6

Fourth,theAlternativesAnalysisfailstoconsiderregulatoryfactorsthatareparticularlyrelevanttofishingandanglingequipment.TheDepartmentisobligatedtoconsiderthebeneficialsocialutilityandpublichealthbenefitsoftheproduct.AffordablefishingandanglingequipmentenablehundredsofthousandsofCalifornianstoenjoytheoutdoorswiththeirfamiliesandfriendsratherthanmaintainotherwisesedentarylifestyles.SupposedalternativestoleadfishingweightsareprohibitivelyexpensiveandwillforcemanyofnotmostCaliforniansawayfromfishing.Asidefromtheresultingrecreationalandsocialharms,lostsalesofthisequipmentwillresultinsignificanteconomicharmtoCaliforniathroughlostjobsandlosttaxandlicenserevenue.Moreover,mostofCalifornia’swildlifemanagementisfundedthroughfishinglicensesalesandfederalexcisetaxes.Anincreaseincostofequipmentwillleadtoafallinanglingparticipationand,consequently,thelicenseandexcisetaxrevenuenecessarytomanageCalifornia’swildlife.

TheAlternativesAnalysisImpermissiblyShiftstheDepartment’sUnmetBurden

BeforeaddingfishingandanglingequipmenttothePriorityWorkList,theDepartmentwasobligatedtocomplywithregulatoryprioritizationfactors.Specifically:

Anyproduct-chemicalcombinationidentifiedandlistedasaPriorityProductmustmeetbothofthefollowingcriteria:

(1)Theremustbepotentialpublicand/oraquatic,avian,orterrestrialanimalorplantorganismexposuretotheCandidateChemical(s)intheproduct;and

(2)Theremustbethepotentialforoneormoreexposurestocontributetoorcausesignificantorwidespreadadverseimpacts.

22CCR§69503.2(a).TheDepartment’sPriorityWorkPlancompletelyfailedtoidentifyany“significantorwidespreadadverseimpacts”arisingfromtheuseoffishingandanglingequipment.ThisshouldnothavebeenadifficultbartomeetgiventhatcommercialandrecreationalfishinginCaliforniapredatesstatehoodandhasbeenenjoyedbymillionsofCalifornia’scitizens.TheDepartment’sfailuretoadduceanyevidenceof“significantorwidespreadimpacts”inCalifornia-notwithstandingthelong-termandwidespreaduseoftheequipment–makesself-evidentthatsuchevidencedoesnotexist.

Totheextentitmadeanyeffortatalltomeetthisregulation,theDepartmentciteda1994EPAFederalRegisterNoticeaboutaproposedbanonleadfishingsinkers.ThetermproposedishighlightedbecausenosuchEPAbanevertookplace.TheDepartmentmadenoeffortwhatsoevertosuggestanyhumanhealthimpactsfromfishingandanglingequipment.Moreover,thestudiessummarizedintheFederalRegisterNoticearenotrelevanttoavianexposureinCalifornia.

ThepetitionrejectedbytheEPA,buterroneouslyreliedonbyDTSC,lookedatmortalityforfourspecies:commonloons(Gaviaimmer);Trumpeterswans(Cygnusbuccinators);Mute


of 6

swans(Cygnusolor);andtheMississippiSandhillcrane(GrusCanadensispulla).AndwhiletheEPAstudiespointtothetoxicityofleadingeneral,thetwoswanspeciesandthecranesubspeciesarenotfoundinCalifornia.AlthoughcommonloonsmaybetransientresidentsinCaliforniainwinter,themortalitystudyonthisspecieswasconductedduringthebird’sbreedingandrearingseasoninNewEngland.Suchdata,collectedinadisparateenvironmentthousandsofmilesawayduringaperiodloonsareabsentfromCalifornia,cannotformthefoundationforafindingof“significantorwidespreadeffects”inCaliforniaavianpopulations.

Furthermore,anystudyofavianmortalitymustdistinguishbetweenleadintroducedbyhunting,ontheonehand,andleadintroducedinthepursuitofangling.Formanydecades,huntersdepositedtonsofleadshotintotheaquaticenvironment.Whileregulationsnowrequiretheuseofsteelshot,themortalitystudiesimplicitlyreliedonbyDTSCoccurredwhenhuntersintentionallydepositedtonsofleadshotinmarshes,lakesandrivers.Bycontrast,leadisnotadisposableanglingproductinthoseenvironments.

TheAudubonSocietyandMontereyBayAquarium,ontheirwebsites,citenumerousdangerstobirds,suchasoilspills,entanglementingillnetsorfishinglines,noisedisturbance,pesticidecontamination,andElNiño’sashavingsignificantimpactstobirds,butdon’tevenmentionleadpoisoningasanissue.Andina2009JournalofWildlifeDiseasesarticleonFishingGear-RelatedInjurytoMarineWildlife1fromtheUCDavisWildlifeHealthCenter,theissueofleadpoisoningdoesnotevenshowupinthedatatables.ClearlyinCalifornia,thereisnodocumentedhistoryofsignificantorwidespreadadverseimpactsfromleadfishingweightsthatcouldjustifytheinclusionoftheseitemsinaprioritystatus.

TheDepartmentfailedtomeetitsburdenattheoutsetofthisprocess,butnowseekstoimposetheunmetburdenoneverydealer,distributor,andmanufactureroffishingandanglingequipment.Theadverseimpactsofanypotentialalternativecannotbeevaluatedintheabstract.AcomparisonmustbemadetothePriorityProduct,whichinturnrequiresananalysisofthatProduct’sadverseimpacts,whichtheDepartmentutterlyfailedtodo.2HavingfailedtodoitsownduediligencetojustifytheinclusionoffishingandanglingequipmentinthePriorityProductWorkPlan,theDepartmenthasunjustlyimposedanenormousburdenonhundreds,ifnotthousands,ofsmallbusinesses.

NosuchburdenshouldbeimposedunlessanduntiltheDepartmentcanestablishthatthisequipmentgenuinelyposes“significantorwidespreadadverseimpacts”inCalifornia.Suchevidenceshouldbewidespreadifitexistsatall.

1Dauetall,FishingGearRelatedInjuryinCaliforniaMarineWildlife;JournalofWildlifeDiseases,45(2),2009,pp355-3622TotheextentthattheDepartmentbelievesthatithasidentifiedthepotentialadverseimpactsofFishingand2TotheextentthattheDepartmentbelievesthatithasidentifiedthepotentialadverseimpactsofFishingandAnglingEquipment,such“identification”inthePriorityWorkPlancomprisesoneparagraphofloosespeculationandonereferencetoarejectedEPApetition.


of 6

TheAlternativesAnalysisBurdenEffectivelyBansMostFishingandAnglingEquipment

TheDraftStage1GuidestatesthatentitiesresponsibleforundertakingtheAlternativesAnalysis“mayalreadyemployindividualswiththeneededskills,experience,andknowledgetoconducttheAlternativesAnalysis,suchasemployeesabletoprovideandevaluateprocessdata,toxicologicalstudies,engineeringanddesign,projectmanagement,technicalfeasibilityandeconomicanalyses.”Accordingto22CCR§69501.1(60),responsibleentitiesincludemanufacturers,importers,assemblersorretailersorinotherwords,virtuallytheentiresupplychainneededtomakemostconsumergoodsavailabletothemarket.

Inthecaseofthesportfishingindustry,mostindustryparticipantsareclassifiedassmallbusinesses.Thisisespeciallytrueintheretailsector,butalsoappliestothemanufacturingsectorduetothelocalnatureoffishingthatdemandsproductsbespecificallytailoredtomeettheneedsofanglersinagivenarea.Consequently,asignificantportionoffishingtackleismanufacturedbycottagebusinessesforlocalsaleandapproximatelyathirdofallfishingtackleretailsalesoccuratlocallyownedandoperatedbusinessesthatgenerateminimalnetrevenueannually.

ManyofthesesmallbusinesseslacktheresourcesidentifiedintheDraftStage1GuidebecausetheydonotcurrentlyemployindividualswiththeexpertiseneededtoconductanAlternativesAnalysisasdescribedinthediscussiondraft.Infact,thedataandanalysisrequirementsforAlternativesAnalysisreportsarewellbeyondthecapabilitiesofmostcompaniesintheindustryatthistimeandwouldrepresentaseriousburdentothoseattemptingtomakealivingbyprovidingproductsneededbyCalifornia’s1.67millionanglers.Manysmallmanufacturers,importers,assemblersandretailerslackthefinancialresourcestoabsorbthecostsassociatedwithconductinganAlternativesAnalysisinternallyorthroughhiringaqualifiedcontractortoperformitontheirbehalf.Largermanufacturers,distributorsandassemblersthatoperateacrossmultiplestatesmayhavethecapacitytoperformanAlternativesAnalysis,butmaychoosenottodososimplytosellproductsinastatewherethecostofdoingbusinessissignificantlyhigherortheregulatoryenvironmentdemandsthatproductsbemanufacturedusingdifferentmaterialsorprocessesthatimpactpricingconditionsandorconsumerdemand.

EveniftheselargerresponsibleentitieschoosetocomplywiththeAlternativesAnalysisrequirementsoutlinedintheDraftStage1Guide,manywillbefacedwithsignificantuncertaintyassociatedwithanunknownregulatoryresponsetotheAlternativesAnalysis’sfindings.TheDraftStage1GuideprovidesnoexplanationastohowaresponsibleentitycanenhancethelikelihoodofachievingadesiredoutcomeonthebackendofanAlternativesAnalysis,nordoesitgiveanydetailedassurancesthatsuggestAlternativesAnalysiswillbeevaluatedconsistently.


of 6

TheconsequencesofrequiringresponsibleentitiestocomplywiththeDraftStage1Guidewillbefarreaching:

• SaleswillfallascustomersinCaliforniaincurhigherpricesandreducedproductchoices.Theselossesaremagnifiedbecauseanunknownpercentageofneworvisitinganglerswillnotfishbasedonunscientificfearsofhealthdamagefromhandlingfishingtackle.Thesesameimpactsareexpectedinotherindustriesfacedwithsimilarchanges.Asfortheeconomicdamagesfromreducedfishing,forevery1%decreaseinfishingtacklesales,California’seconomymayexperiencealossof360jobsandareductionof$3.34millioninstateandlocaltaxrevenues.3

• Onceamanufacturershipsproduct,controlistypicallylostregardingwheretheproductmayberesold.WholesalersmayshiptoCaliforniaretailers,andonlineretailersmayselltoCaliforniaresidents.Insuchcases,manufacturersmayincurlegalcostsevenwhentryingtoproperlymeetallregulatoryrequirementsforpriorityproductssoldinCalifornia,thusdrivingmoreout-of-businessoratleastcausingsignificantharmtofamiliesowningsmallbusinessesinthesportfishingsector.

• Giventhesmallsizeofmostfishingtacklemanufacturers,conductingAlternativesAnalysesforalloftheirproductsiscostprohibitive,leavingthematthemercyofbountyhunterswhilenewlabelandlegalrequirementsevolve.

TheAlternativesAnalysisFailstoConsiderSocialandEnvironmentalBenefits

TheDepartmentisobligatedtoconsiderthebeneficialsocialutilityandpublichealthbenefitsoftheproduct.22CCR§69506.5(b)(2)(A).AffordablefishingandanglingequipmentenablehundredsofthousandsofCalifornianstoenjoytheoutdoorswiththeirfamiliesandfriendsratherthanmaintainotherwisesedentarylifestyles.SupposedalternativestoleadfishingweightsareprohibitivelyexpensiveandwillforcemanyofnotmostCaliforniansawayfromfishing.

PerhapsthemostunfortunateconsequenceofincludingfishingweightsandgearinDTSC’sWorkPlanandsubjectingthemtotheAlternativesAnalysisrequirementisthenegativeimpactthiswillhaveonconservationofCalifornia’spublictrustresources.Eachyear,anglersprovideapproximately$58millioninfishinglicensefeesand$16.1millioninfishingtackleexcisetaxrevenuesforfisheriesconservationinCalifornia.Byfederallaw,thesefundscannotbeusedforanypurposeotherthanfisheriesconservationbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife(CDFW).Thesefundsrepresentthelion’sshareoftheCDFW’sannualfisheriesbudget.Anyreductioninfishingsalesandparticipationresultingfromtheinclusionoffishingweightsand3SouthwickAssociates,EconomicandParticipationImpactsFromaBanonTraditionalFishingTackleinCalifornia;May13,2015.


of 6

gearinDTSC’sWorkPlanwillhaveadirectimpactonstateconservationfunds.Foreveryanglerlost,Californiawillneedtofindanadditional$44fromothersourcesjusttomaintaincurrentlevelsofconservationfunding.

Unfortunately,theDraftStage1GuideincludesnorequirementthatthepositiveconservationorenvironmentalbenefitsassociatedwithWorkPlanproductsbeincludedinanAlternativesAnalysis.AccordingtothestepsoutlinedintheGuide,thereisverylittleguidanceintermsofhoworwhereresponsibleentitiescanorshouldexplainnegativeorunintendedconsequencesofusingmorecostlyorlessavailablealternativesoutsideoftechnicalanalysesrelatedtoproductperformance,chemicalcomposition,hazardassessmentandlifecycleanalysis.Althoughasocio-economicanalysiswhosedefinitioncouldaccommodatethisapproachisreferencedintheDraftStage1Glossary,guidanceonhoworwheretoincludethisanalysisisnowheretobefoundthroughouttherestofthedocument.Absenttheabilitytoprovidecommentaryonhowlimitingcertainproductsavailabilitytothepublicwillimpactconsumers’accesstogoodsandservices,howitwillimpactcorefunctionsofgovernmentandhowitwillimpactotherenvironmentalfactorsnotcoveredintheDraftStage1Guide,weareskepticalthatanAlternativesAnalysiswillprovideDTSCwiththeinformationneededtomakewell-reasoned,thoughtfuldecisionsregardingproductsafetyandregulation.

Finally,weremainconcernedthatDTSC’sdecisiontoincludeFishingWeightsandGearasaproductcategoryinitsPriorityProductWorkPlaniswithoutmerit.Consequently,wedonotbelievethattheseproductsshouldbesubjecttotherequirementsoutlinedintheDraftStage1GuideiftheDepartmenthasnotfirstdemonstratedthattheypresentthepotentialforhumanorenvironmentalexposuretoacandidatechemicalandtheexposurepotentiallymayresultinsignificantorwidespreadadverseimpactsconsistentwiththeregulationsfoundat22CCR§69503.2(a)(1)-(2).Toourknowledge,DTSChasyettoprovideanycredibleorsubstantiveevidencethatfishingtackleorgearmeetsthisstandard.

CongressionalSportsmen’sFoundation

AmericanSportsfishingAssociation

CoastalConservationAssociation,California

AndyTreharne,WesternStatesDirector

ScottGudes,Vice-President

BillShedd,Chairman

via email: [email protected]/uploads/page/dtsc draft comments.pdfms....

Documents