[Federal Register: January 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 7)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Nickel-Tin Shot
as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We approve shot formulated of 65% tungsten, 10.4% iron, 2.8%
nickel, and 21.8% tin as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. We
assessed possible effects of the tungsten-iron-nickel-tin (TINT) shot,
and we believe that it does not present a significant toxicity threat
to wildlife or their habitats and that further testing of the shot is
not necessary. Approval of this shot provides another nontoxic option
DATES: This rule takes effect on January 10, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available from
the Chief of the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 634, Arlington,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Blohm, Acting Chief, or John J.
Kreilich, Jr., Division of Migratory Bird Management, 703-358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 703B-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j) implements migratory bird
treaties between the United States and Great Britain for Canada (1916
and 1996 as amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as amended), Japan (1972
and 1974 as amended), and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These
treaties protect certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted
under the Act. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
regulate take of migratory birds in the United States. Under this
authority, the Fish and Wildlife Service controls the hunting of
migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that is not
significantly toxic to migratory birds or other wildlife. Compliance
with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over the last few years
(Anderson et al. 2000), and we believe that it will continue to
increase with the approval and availability of other nontoxic shot
types. Currently, steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer,
tungsten-matrix, and tungsten-nickel-iron shot are approved as
The purpose of this rule is to approve the use of TINT shot in the
tested formulation (65% tungsten, 10.4% iron, 2.8% nickel, and 21.8%
tin by weight) for waterfowl and coot hunting. This rule amends 50 CFR
20.21(j), which describes prohibited types of shot for waterfowl and
coot hunting, to allow the use of this shot.
On October 12, 2001, we received an application (Tier 1) under 50
CFR 20.134 from ENVIRON-Metal, Inc. for approval of HEVI-
SHOTTM brand of Soft Shot in a 65% tungsten, 10.4% iron,
2.8% nickel, and 21.8% tin formulation. The application included
information on chemical characterization, production variability, use
volume, toxicological effects, environmental fate and transport, and
evaluation. In accordance with our regulation, on May 10, 2002, we
published in the Federal Register a proposed rule indicating our
intention to approve TINT shot. We have reviewed the Tier 1
application, the supporting data, and the public comment, and the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has concluded that this shot
does not impose a significant danger to migratory birds and other
wildlife or their habitats.
In addition, since the 2000-2001 hunting season is completed, tin
(99.9 percent tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot is no longer
authorized for use and therefore the reference to it in 50 CFR 20.21(j)
Tungsten may be substituted for molybdenum in enzymes in mammals.
Ingested tungsten salts reduce growth and can cause diarrhea, coma, and
death in mammals (Bursian et al. 1996, Cohen et al. 1973, Karantassis
1924, Kinard and Van de Erve 1941, National Research Council 1980,
Pham-Huu-Chanh 1965), but elemental tungsten is virtually insoluble and
therefore essentially nontoxic. A dietary concentration of 94 parts-
per-million (ppm) did not reduce weight gain in growing rats (Wei et
al. 1987). Lifetime exposure to 5 ppm tungsten as sodium tungstate in
drinking water produced no discernible adverse effects in rats
(Schroeder and Mitchener 1975). At 100 ppm tungsten as sodium tungstate
in drinking water, rats had decreased enzyme activity after 21 days
(Cohen et al. 1973).
Chickens given a complete diet showed no adverse effects of 250 ppm
sodium tungstate administered for 10 days in the diet. However, 500 ppm
in the diet had detrimental effects on day-old chicks (Teekell and
Watts 1959). Adult hens had reduced egg production and egg weight on a
diet containing 1,000 ppm tungsten (Nell et al. 1981a). EPT (1999)
concluded that 250 ppm in the diet would produce no observable adverse
effects. Kelly et al. (1998) demonstrated no adverse effects on
mallards dosed with tungsten-iron or tungsten-polymer shot according to
nontoxic shot test protocols.
Most toxicity tests reviewed were based on soluble tungsten
compounds rather than elemental tungsten. As we found in our reviews of
other tungsten shot types, we have no basis for concern about the
toxicity of the tungsten in TINT shot to fish, mammals, or birds.
Nickel is a dietary requirement of mammals, with necessary
consumption set at 50 to 80 parts per billion for the rat and chick
(Nielsen and Sandstead 1974). Though it is necessary for some enzymes,
nickel can compete with calcium, magnesium, and zinc for binding sites
on many enzymes. Water-soluble nickel salts are poorly absorbed if
ingested by rats (Nieboer et al. 1988). Nickel carbonate caused no
treatment effects in rats fed 1,000 ppm for 3 to 4 months (Phatak and
Patwardhan 1950). Rats fed 1,000 ppm nickel sulfate for 2 years showed
reduced body and liver weights, an increase in the number of stillborn
pups, and decrease in weanling weights through three generations
(Ambrose et al. 1976). Nickel chloride was even more toxic; 1,000 ppm
fed to young rats caused weight loss in 13 days (Schnegg and
Soluble nickel salts are toxic to mammals, with an oral
LD50 (lethal dose) of 136 mg/kg in mice, and 350 mg/kg in
rats (Fairchild et al. 1977). Nickel catalyst (finely divided nickel in
vegetable oil) fed to young rats at 250 ppm for 16 months, however,
produced no detrimental effects (Phatak and Patwardhan 1950).
In chicks from hatching to 4 weeks of age, 300 ppm nickel as nickel
carbonate or nickel acetate in the diet produced no observed adverse
effects. However, concentrations of 500 ppm or more
reduced growth (Weber and Reid 1968). A diet containing 200 ppm nickel
as nickel sulfate had no observed effects on mallard ducklings from 1
to 90 days of age. Diets of 800 ppm or more caused significant changes
in physical condition of the ducklings (Cain and Pafford 1981). Eastin
and O'Shea (1981) observed no apparent significant changes in pairs of
breeding mallards fed diets containing up to 800 ppm nickel as nickel
sulfate for 90 days. We have no basis for concern about the toxicity of
nickel in TINT shot to fish, mammals, or birds.
Iron is an essential nutrient, so reported iron toxicosis in
mammals, such as livestock, is primarily a phenomenon of overdosing.
Maximum recommended dietary levels of iron range from 500 ppm for sheep
to 3,000 ppm for pigs (National Research Council [NRC] 1980). Chickens
require at least 55 ppm iron in the diet (Morck and Austic 1981).
Chickens fed 1,600 ppm iron in an adequate diet displayed no ill
effects (McGhee et al. 1965), and turkey poults fed 440 ppm in the diet
also suffered no ill effects. The tests in which eight No. 4 tungsten-
iron shot were administered to each mallard in a toxicity study
indicated that the 45% iron content of the shot had no adverse effects
on the test animals (Kelly et al. 1998). We have no basis for concern
about the toxicity of iron in TINT shot to fish, mammals, or birds.
Elemental and inorganic tins have low toxicity, due largely to low
absorption rate, low tissue accumulation, and rapid excretion rates.
Inorganic tin is only slightly to moderately toxic to mammals. The oral
LD50 values for tin (II) chloride for mice and rats are 250
and 700 mg/kg of body weight, respectively (WHO 1980).
A 150-day chronic toxicity/reproductive study conducted for tin
shot revealed no adverse effects in mallards dosed with eight No. 4
sized shot. There were no significant changes in egg production,
fertility, or hatchability of birds dosed with tin when compared to
steel-dosed birds (Gallagher et al. 2000).
Elemental tungsten and iron are virtually insoluble in water and do
not weather or degrade in the environment. Tungsten is stable in acids
and does not easily form compounds with other substances. Preferential
uptake by plants in acidic soil suggests uptake of tungsten when it has
formed compounds with other substances rather than when it is in its
elemental form (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
Nickel is common in fresh waters, though usually at concentrations
of less than 1 part per billion in locations unaffected by human
activities. Pure nickel is not soluble in water. Free nickel may be
part of chemical reactions, such as sorption, precipitation, and
complexation. Reactions of nickel with anions are unlikely.
Complexation with organic agents is poorly understood (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 1980). Water hardness is the
dominant factor governing nickel effects on living things (Stokes
Tin occurs naturally in soils at 2 to 200 mg/g with areas of
enrichment at much higher concentrations (up to 1,000 mg/g) (WHO 1980).
However, in the United States, soil concentrations are between 1 and 5
ppm (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 2001).
Calculation of the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of a
candidate shot in a terrestrial ecosystem is based on 69,000 shot per
hectare (2.47 acre) (Bellrose 1959, 50 CFR 20.134). Assuming complete
dissolution of the shot, the EEC for tungsten in soil is 15.09 mg/kg.
The EECs for nickel and iron would be 0.65 and 2.41 mg/kg,
respectively. The EEC for nickel (the only one of the four elements
with an application limit) is substantially below the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biosolid application limit. The
0.65 mg/kg EEC for nickel also is far below the 16 to 35 mg/kg
concentrations suggested as minimum sediment concentrations at which
effects of the metal are likely to occur (EPA 1997, Ingersoll et al.
1996, Long and Morgan 1991, MacDonald et al. 2000, Smith et al. 1996).
The EEC for tungsten from TINT shot is below that for the already-
approved TNI shot. The EEC for iron is less than 0.01% of the typical
background concentration, and the iron is in an insoluble form. The EEC
for tin in soil is 5.06 mg/kg, one order of magnitude smaller than the
50 mg/kg suggested maximum concentration in surface soil tolerated by
plants (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 2001).
Calculation of the EEC in an aquatic ecosystem assumes complete
erosion of 69,000 shot in one hectare (2.47 acre) of water 1 foot deep.
The EECs for the elements in TINT shot in water are 3,218 [mu]g/L for
tungsten, 515 [mu]g/L for iron, 139 [mu]g/L for nickel, and 1,079
[mu]g/L for tin. We concluded that a tungsten concentration of 10,500
[mu]g/L posed no threat to aquatic life (62 FR 4877). The EEC for
nickel from TINT shot is below the EPA acute water quality criterion of
1,400 [mu]g/L in fresh water, but would exceed the 75 [mu]g/L criterion
for salt water. However, tests showed that corrosion of TINT shot
occurs at very low rates. The amount of nickel liberated into seawater
by eight No. 4 TINT shot for a 30-day exposure was 23% of the amount
liberated by TNI. TINT shot is predicted to release 1.8 [mu]g/L of
nickel into 1 ha-ft of seawater over 1 year. This value is 2.4% of the
acute criterion and less than 23% of the chronic criterion.
The EEC for iron is below the chronic criterion for protection of
aquatic life and for tin; it is four times less than the Minnesota
Water Quality Standard. Previous assessments of tungsten demonstrated
dissolution at a rate of 10.5 mg/L (equal to 10,500 [mu]g/L) and
concluded no risk to aquatic life (62 FR 4877). The EEC of tungsten
from TINT shot is 3,218 [mu]g/L. This level is three times less than
the 10,500 [mu]g/L level previously mentioned.
Effects on Birds
Kraabel et al. (1996) surgically embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot
in the pectoralis muscles of ducks to simulate wounding by gunfire and
to test for toxic effects of the shot. The shot neither produced toxic
effects nor induced adverse systemic effects in the ducks during the 8-
week period of their study.
Nell et al. (1981a) fed laying hens (Gallus domesticus) 0.4 or 1.0
g/kg tungsten in a commercial mash for 5 months to assess reproductive
performance. Weekly egg production was normal, and hatchability of
fertile eggs was not affected. Exposure of chickens to large doses of
tungsten either through injection or by feeding resulted in an
increased tissue concentration of tungsten and a decreased
concentration of molybdenum (Nell et al. 1981b). The loss of tungsten
from the liver occurred in an exponential manner, with a half-life of
27 hours. The alterations in molybdenum metabolism seemed to be
associated with tungsten intake rather than molybdenum deficiency.
Death due to tungsten occurred when tissue concentrations increased to
25 ppm in the liver.
A 150-day chronic toxicity/reproductive study conducted for tin
shot revealed no adverse effects in mallards dosed with eight No. 4
sized shot. In this investigation, there were no significant changes in
egg production, fertility, or hatchability of birds dosed with tin when
compared to steel-dosed birds (Gallagher et al. 2000).
Ringelman et al. (1993) conducted a 32-day acute toxicity study
that involved dosing game-farm mallards with tungsten-bismuth-tin shot
in a relative composition of 39%, 44.5%, and 16.5% by weight,
respectively. No dosed birds died during the trial, and their behavior
was normal. Post-euthanization examination of tissues revealed no
toxicity or damage related to shot exposure. Blood calcium differences
between dosed and undosed birds were judged as unrelated to shot
exposure. That study indicated that tungsten presented little hazard to
The Tier 1 application of TINT shot included analyses comparing
corrosion data of TNI shot to TINT shot. Samples of both shot types
were exposed to seawater for 10.8 days. The two seawater samples were
then analyzed for nickel, iron, tungsten, and tin. Samples were then
returned to fresh seawater and exposed for an additional 44.5 days,
whereupon the seawater solutions were again analyzed for nickel, iron,
tungsten, and tin.
The total release of nickel from TINT shot over the 55.3-day
exposure was only 13% that of TNI shot. The results indicate that TINT
shot shows lower rates of nickel release due to the collection of
corrosive materials on surfaces that inhibit additional corrosion.
Assuming that a duck eats 10 No. 4 TINT shot in 1 day and that the
shot are completely eroded in the gizzard in 24 hours, the duck would
be exposed to .061g of nickel. This amount is slightly more than half
of the .102g/day that Eastin and O'Shea (1981) found produced no ill
effects on mallards. We believe, therefore, that consumption of nickel
from TINT shot is unlikely to have detrimental effects on waterfowl.
Ingestion by Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, or Mammals
Based on the best available information and past reviews of
tungsten-based and tin shot, we expect no detrimental effects due to
tungsten, iron, or tin on animals that might ingest TINT shot. We know
of no studies of ingestion of nickel by reptiles or amphibians. The
exposure of nickel to any animal in these taxa that might consume a
TINT shot pellet would be lower, because the pellet likely would not be
retained in most animals that might consume one. Their exposure to
nickel would therefore be much lower than the worst-case scenario for
Nontoxic Shot Approval
The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing,
Tiers 1, 2, or 3 (50 CFR Sec. 20.134). Based on the results of past
toxicity tests, we conclude that TINT shot does not pose a significant
danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their habitats.
The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead
levels. We determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable level
of lead in shot is 1% (50 CFR Sec. 20.134(b)(5)). ENVIRON--Metal, Inc.
has documented that TINT shot meets this requirement.
The third condition for approval involves enforcement. Approval of
any nontoxic shot is contingent upon the development and availability
of a noninvasive field testing device (50 CFR Sec. 20.134(b)(6)). TINT
shotshells can be drawn to a magnet as a simple field detection method.
We received two comments on the May 10, 2002 proposed rule (67 FR
31754) to approve TINT shot for hunting waterfowl and coots. Both
comments supported granting approval for use of the shot.
Anderson, W. L., S. P. Havera, and B. W. Zercher. 2000. Ingestion of
lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the Mississippi
flyway. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:848-857.
Ambrose, P., P. S. Larson, J. F. Borzelleca, and G. R. Hennigar, Jr.
1976. Long term toxicologic assessment of nickel in rats and dogs.
Journal of Food Science and Technology 13:181-187.
Bellrose, F. C. 1959. Lead poisoning as a mortality factor in
waterfowl populations. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin
Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D. C. Powell, and S.
Fitzgerald. 1996. Thirty-day dosing test to assess the toxicity of
tungsten-polymer shot in game-farm mallards. Report to Federal
Cartridge Company. 71 pages.
Cain, B. W. and E. A. Pafford. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on
survival and growth of mallard ducklings. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 10:737-745.
Cohen, H. J., R. T. Drew, J. L. Johnson, and K. V. Rajagopalan.
1973. Molecular basis of the biological function of molybdenum: the
relationship between sulfite oxidase and the acute toxicity of
bisulfate and SO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Eastin, W. C., Jr. and T. J. O'Shea. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel
on mallards. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 7:883-
Ecological Planning and Toxicology, Inc. 1999. Application for
approval of t-n-i metal\TM\ nontoxic shot: Tier 1 report. Cherry
Hill, New Jersey. 28 pages plus appendixes.
Fairchild, E. J., R. J. Lewis, and R. L. Tatken (editors). 1977.
Registry of toxic effects of chemical substances, Volume II. Pages
590-592. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Publication (NIOSH) 78-104B. 227 pages.
Gallagher, S.P., J.B. Beavers, R. Van Hoven, M. Jaber. 2000. Pure
tin shot: A chronic exposure study with the mallard including
reproductive parameters. Wildlife International, Ltd. Project No.
476-102. Easton, Maryland. 322pp.
Ingersoll, C. G., P. S. Haverland, E. L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.
J. Dwyer, C. E. Henke, N. E. Kemble, and D. R. Mount. 1996.
Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the
amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius. EPA 905-
R96-008, Great Lakes National Program Office, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois. Mixed pagination.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace elements in soils and
plants. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 315 pages.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 2001. Trace elements in soils and
plants. 3rd edition. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 411 pages.
Karantassis, T. 1924. On the toxicity of compounds of tungsten and
molybdenum. Annals of Medicine 28:1541-1543.
Kelly, M. E., S. D. Fitzgerald, R. J. Aulerich, R. J. Balander, D.
C. Powell, R. L. Stickle. W. Stevens, C. Cray, R. J. Tempelman, and
S. J. Bursian. 1998. Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron and
tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards. Journal of
Wildlife Diseases 34:673-687.
Kinard, F. W. and J. Van de Erve. 1941. The toxicity of orally-
ingested tungsten compounds in the rat. Journal of Pharmacology and
Experimental Therapeutics 72:196-201.
Kraabel, F. W., M. W. Miller, D. M. Getzy, and J. K. Ringelman.
1996. Effects of embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot and steel shot
on mallards. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 38:1-8.
Long, E. R. and L. G. Morgan. 1991. The potential for biological
effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National
Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle,
Washington. 175 pages + appendices.
MacDonald, D. D., C. G. Ingersoll, and T. A. Berger. 2000.
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality
guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 39:20-31.
McGhee, F., C. R. Creger, and J. R. Couch. 1965. Copper and iron
toxicity. Poultry Science 44:310-312.
Morck, T. A. and R. E. Austic. 1981. Iron requirements of white
leghorn hens. Poultry Science 60:1497-1503.
National Research Council. 1980. Mineral tolerance of domestic
animals. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC. 577 pages.
Nell, J. A., W. L. Bryden, G. S. Heard, and D. Balnave. 1981a.
performance of laying hens fed tungsten. Poultry Science 60:257-258.
Nell, J. A., E. F. Annison, and D. Balnave. 1981b. The influence of
tungsten on the molybdenum status of poultry. British Poultry
Nieboer, E., R. T. Tom, and W. E. Sanford. 1988. Nickel metabolism
in man and animals. Pages 91-122 in Metal ions in biological
systems, volume 23: nickel and its role in biology. H. Sigel and A.
Sigel, editors. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Nielsen, F. H. and H. H. Sandstead. 1974. Are nickel, vanadium,
silicon, fluoride, and tin essential for man? American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 27:515-520.
Pham-Huu-Chanh. 1965. The comparative toxicity of sodium chromate,
molybdate, tungstate, and metavanadate. Archives Internationales de
Pharmacodynamie et de Therapie 154:243-249.
Phatak, S. S. and V. N. Patwardhan. 1950. Toxicity of nickel.
Journal of Science and Industrial Research 9B:70-76.
Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F. Andelt. 1993. Effects of
ingested tungsten-bismuth-tin shot on captive mallards. Journal of
Wildlife Management 57:725-732.
Schnegg, S. and M. Kirchgessner. 1976. [Toxicity of dietary nickel].
Landwirtsch. Forsch. 29:177. Cited in Chemical Abstracts 86:101655y
Schroeder, H. A. and M. Mitchener. 1975. Life-term studies in rats:
effects of aluminum, barium, beryllium, and tungsten. Journal of
Smith, S. L., D. D. MacDonald, K. A. Keenleyside, C. G. Ingersoll,
and J. Field. 1996. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality
assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. Journal of Great Lakes
Stokes, P. 1988. Nickel in aquatic systems. Pages 31-46 in Metal
ions in biological systems, volume 23: nickel and its role in
biology. H. Sigel and A. Sigel, editors. Marcel Dekker, New York.
Teekel, R. A. and A. B. Watts. 1959. Tungsten supplementation of
breeder hens. Poultry Science 38:791-794.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ambient water quality
criteria for nickel. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. 207 pages.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. The incidence and
severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United
States: National sediment quality survey, Volume 1. EPA 823-R-97-
006. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. 182 pages
Weber, C. W. and B. L. Reid. 1968. Nickel toxicity in growing
chicks. Journal of Nutrition 95:612-616.
Wei, H. J., X-M. Luo, and X-P. Yand. 1987. Effects of molybdenum and
tungsten on mammary carcinogenesis in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats.
Chung Hua Chung Liu Tsa Chih 9:204-7. English abstract.
WHO [World Health Organization]. 1980. Tin and organotin compounds.
A preliminary review. Environmental Health Criteria 15. World Health
Organization. Geneva. 109pp.
In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the
Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500-1508), we have prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for
approval of TINT shot. The EA is available to the public at the
location indicated in the ADDRESSES section.
Endangered Species Act Considerations
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that Federal agencies shall Ainsure
that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of (critical) habitat * * *'' We have completed a Section 7
consultation under the ESA for this rule. The result of our
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to the public at
the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to OMB
review under Executive Order 12866. OMB makes the final determination
under E.O. 12866.
a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic
analysis is not required.
b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions because the Service is the sole agency responsible for
regulating activities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients
because it has no mechanism to affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues because
the Service has already approved six other nontoxic shot types.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or
governmental jurisdictions. This rule approves an additional type of
nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory birds; this
rule provides one shot type in addition to the existing six that are
approved. We have determined, however, that this rule will have no
effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will supplement
nontoxic shot already in commerce and available throughout the retail
and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate no dislocation or
other local effects, with regard to hunters and others.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Similarly, this rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
a. This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more.
b. This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. This rule does not deal with traded
commodities and, therefore, does not have an impact on prices for
c. This rule does not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
Paperwork Reduction Act
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. We have examined this regulation
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
found it to contain no information collection requirements.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, et seq., that this rule-making will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State government or private entities. This rule does not impose an
unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year or have a
significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector because it is the Service's responsibility to
regulate the take of migratory birds in the United States.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
We have determined that these regulations meet the applicable
standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, this rule will allow hunters to exercise
privileges that would be otherwise unavailable and, therefore, reduces
restrictions on the use of private and public property.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This rule does not have a substantial
direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities
of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or
administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132,
this proposed regulation does not have significant federalism effects
and does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have determined that this rule has no effects on Federally recognized
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, this rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, and use. This rule is not a significant energy
action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-553), our
normal practice is to publish rules with a 30-day delay in effective
date. In this case, however, we use the ``good cause'' exemption under
5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication. This
rule relieves a restriction, and it is not in the public interest to
delay its effective date.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend part 20,
subchapter B, chapter 1 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j, Pub. L. 106-
2. In Sec. 20.21, revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
* * * * *
(j) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot
for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts
bismuth: 3 parts tin with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-
iron (40 parts tungsten: 60 parts iron with <1 percent residual lead)
shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts Nylon 6 or 11
with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts
tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with <1 percent residual lead) shot, or
tungsten-nickel-iron (50% tungsten: 35% nickel: 15% iron with <1
percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-iron-nickel-tin (65% tungsten:
10.4% iron: 2.8% nickel: 21.8% tin with < 1 percent residual lead)
shot, or such shot approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to
procedures set forth in Sec. 20.134, provided that this restriction
applies only to the taking of Anatidae (ducks, geese, (including brant)
and swans), coots (Fulica americana) and any species that make up
aggregate bag limits during concurrent seasons with the former in areas
described in Sec. 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.
Dated: December 11, 2002.
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-518 Filed 1-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P