Congress May Place a Tether On The EPA

[Al Norris]

As many of you may be aware, several environmental groups have, once again, petitioned the EPA to ban ammunition and fishing tackle that contains lead as a component of the sport. What hasn't been reported is that while the EPA has delined that part of the petition that includes ammo (as being outside of their authority - the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has retained jurisdiction on lead sinkers and is evaluating that portion of the petition.

On Jan. 18th, Rep. Jeff Miller (FL-1) submitted H.R. 322, the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act.

The bill is short and amends the TSCA with the following following:

15 USC § 2602(2)(B)(v) any article the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 4181] (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax provided by section 4182 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code), and , or any component of any such article including, without limitation, shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, and primers,

(vi) any food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 321]) when manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a food, food additive, drug, cosmetic, or device . , and

[vii) any sport fishing equipment (as such term is defined in subsection (a) of section 4162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) the sale of which is subject to the tax imposed by section 4161(a) of such Code (determined without regard to any exemptions from such tax as provided by section 4162 or 4221 or any other provision of such Code), and sport fishing equipment components.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and has 74 co-sponsors.

 

[TXAZ]

+1 for Rep. Miller.

 

[Tom Servo]

Govtrack has the text of the bill. It has 74 co-sponsors, which is better than any gun control legislation proposed thus far.

 

[Al Norris]

Tom, the text is next to meaningless, to most people, unless you do the substitutions it commands.

 

[SamNavy]

Al is right, I have no idea what that means... something a lawyer obviously wrote.

I'll assume it basically says "the EPA has no jurisdiction here".

 

[FrankenMauser]

I'll assume it basically says "the EPA has no jurisdiction here".

Aye.
It places the items on the exemption list -- the "you can't regulate this stuff"-list.

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Sounds good to me. I hope it passes with flying colors.