[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2009-0003; 91200-1231-9BPP]
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer
Shot Alloys as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots; Availability
of Draft Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service propose to approve
tungsten-iron-fluoropolymer shot alloys for hunting waterfowl and
coots. We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for this
group of alloys in the Federal Register on March 3, 2009, under RIN
1018-AW46 (74 FR 9207). Having completed our review of the application
materials, we have concluded that these alloys are very unlikely to
adversely affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats.
DATES: Send comments on this proposal and/or the associated Draft
Environmental Assessment by September 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Draft Environmental Assessment: You may obtain a copy of the
draft environmental assessment
online at http://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Written Comments: You may submit
comments on the proposed rule by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket Number FWS-
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AW46; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
We will not accept e-mails or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide (see the Public Comments section below
for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Allen, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, 703-358-1825.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and
the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712) implement
migratory bird treaties between the United States and Great Britain for
Canada (1916, amended), Mexico (1936, amended), Japan (1972, amended),
and Russia (then the Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties protect
certain migratory birds from take, except as permitted under the Acts.
The Acts authorize the Secretary of the Interior to regulate take of
migratory birds in the United States. Under this authority, we control
hunting of migratory game birds through regulations in 50 CFR part 20.
Deposition of toxic shot and release of toxic shot components in
waterfowl hunting locations are potentially harmful to many organisms.
Research has shown that ingested spent lead shot causes significant
mortality in migratory birds. Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to
identify shot types that do not pose significant toxicity hazards to
migratory birds or other wildlife. We addressed lead poisoning in
waterfowl in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 1976, and again
in a 1986 supplemental EIS. The 1986 document provided the scientific
justification for a ban on the use of lead shot and the subsequent
approval of steel shot for hunting waterfowl and coots that began that
year, with a complete ban of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting in
1991. We have continued to consider other potential candidates for
approval as nontoxic shot. We are obligated to review applications for
approval of alternative shot types as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl
Tundra Composites, LLC, seeks approval of Tungsten-Iron-
Fluoropolymer (TIF) shot alloys of 41.5 to 95.2 percent tungsten, 1.5
to 52.0 percent steel, and 3.5 to 8.0 percent fluoropolymer by weight
as nontoxic. The tungsten and iron in this shot type have already been
approved in other nontoxic shot types. The applicant did a worst-case
evaluation of the potential impacts of the fluoropolymer on fish,
wildlife, and their habitats.
The data from the applicant indicate that the tungsten-iron-
fluoropolymer alloys will be nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl, and
should not pose a significant danger to migratory birds, other
wildlife, or their habitats. We conclude that they raise no particular
concerns about deposition in the environment or about ingestion by
waterfowl or predators.
Many hunters believe that some nontoxic shot types do not compare
favorably to lead and that they may damage some shotgun barrels, and a
small percentage of hunters have not complied with nontoxic shot
regulations. Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may
encourage greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic
shot requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. The use of
nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting increased after the ban on lead
shot (Anderson et al. 2000), but we believe that compliance will
continue to increase with the availability and approval of other
nontoxic shot types. Increased use of nontoxic shot will enhance
protection of migratory waterfowl and their habitats. More important,
however, is that the Fish and Wildlife Service is obligated to consider
all complete nontoxic shot submissions.
We have reviewed the shot under the criteria in Tier 1 of the
revised nontoxic shot approval procedures contained in 50 CFR 20.134
for permanent approval of shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and
coots. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j) to add TIF shot to the list
of the approved types of shot for waterfowl and coot hunting.
In 2008, in the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey
traditional survey area (strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77), the total duck
population estimate was 37.3 with a standard error of 0.6
million birds. This was 9% lower than last year's estimate of 41.2
0.7 million birds, but 11% above the 1955-2007 long-term
average. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance was 7.7
0.3 million birds, similar to last year's estimate of 8.3
0.3 million birds and to the long-term average. Blue-winged teal (A.
discors) estimated abundance was 6.6 0.3 million birds
similar to last year's estimate of 6.7 0.4 million birds,
and 45% above the long-term average. Estimated abundances of gadwall
(A. strepera; 2.7 0.2 million) and northern shovelers (A.
clypeata; 3.5 0.2 million) were lower than those of last
year (-19% and -23%, respectively), but both remained 56% above their
long-term averages. Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A.
americana; 2.5 0.2 million) was similar to the 2007
estimate and the long-term average. Estimated abundances of green-
winged teal (A. crecca; 3.0 0.2 million) and redheads
(Aythya americana; 1.1 0.1 million) were similar to last
year's, but were each more than 50% above their long-term averages. The
redhead and green-winged teal estimates were the highest and the second
highest ever for the traditional survey area. The canvasback (A.
valisineria) estimate of 0.5 0.05 million was down 44%
relative to 2007's record high, and 14% below the long-term average.
Northern pintails (Anas acuta; 2.6 0.1 million) were 22%
below last year's estimate and 36% below their long-term average. The
estimate for scaup (Aythya affinis and A. marila combined), 3.7 0.2 million, was similar to that of 2007 and 27% below the long-
Habitat conditions during the 2008 Waterfowl Breeding Population
and Habitat Survey were characterized in many areas by a delayed spring
compared to several preceding years. Drought in many parts of the
traditional survey area contrasted sharply with record snow and
rainfall in the eastern survey area. The total pond estimate for
Prairie Canada and the United States combined was 4.4 0.2
million ponds, 37% below last year's estimate of 7.0 0.3
million ponds and 10% lower than the long-term average of 4.9 0.03 million ponds. The 2008 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada
was 3.1 0.1 million. This was a 39% decrease from last
year's estimate (5.0 0.3 million), and 11% below the 1955-
2007 average (3.4 0.03 million). The 2008 pond estimate
for the north-central United States (1.4 0.1 million) was
30% lower than last year's estimate (2.0 0.1 million) and
11% below the long-term
average (1.5 0.02 million). The projected mallard fall-
flight index was 9.2 0.8 million, similar to the 2007
estimate of 10.9 1.0 million birds. The eastern survey
area was restratified in 2005 and is now composed of strata 51-72.
Estimates of mallards, scaup, scoters (black [Melanitta nigra], white-
winged [M. fusca], and surf [M. perspicillata]), green-winged teal,
American wigeon, bufflehead (B. albeola), American black duck (A.
rubripes), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), mergansers (red-breasted
[Mergus serrator], common [M. merganser], and hooded [Lophodytes
cucullatus]), and goldeneye (common [Bucephala clangula] and Barrow's
[B. islandica]) all were similar to their 2007 estimates and long-term
Characterization of the Shot Type
Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer shot has a density ranging from 8.0 to
12.5 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm\3\), and is corrosion resistant
and magnetic. Tundra Composites estimates that the volume of TIF shot
for use in hunting migratory birds in the United States will be
approximately 330,000 pounds (150,000 kilograms, kg) per year.
The 8.0 g/cm\3\ alloy is approximately the same density as steel.
The other alloys are increasingly greater in sectional density. The
steel in the alloys contains up to 1.3% manganese, 1.2% silicon, and
1.2% carbon by weight. The shot may have a very fine residual coating
of mica from production. We expect the environmental and health effects
of the mica to be negligible.
Table 1--Composition of TIF Shot Alloys
Density (g/ Percent Percent steel Percent
Alloy cm\3\) tungsten * fluoropolymer
1............................................... 8.0 41.5-50.6 41.6-52.0 6.1-8.0
2............................................... 9.5 61.0-68.7 24.8-34.0 5.0-6.6
3............................................... 11.0 75.2-81.8 12.5-20.5 4.3-5.7
4............................................... 12.5 85.9-96.0 1.0-10.3 3.8-5.2
* The steel contains no more than 0.25% chromium, 0.20% copper, and 0.20% nickel. In the alloys, these
percentages are no more than 0.13%, 0.1%, and 0.1%, respectively.
Environmental Fate of the Tungsten and Iron in TIF Shot
The tungsten and the iron in these alloys have been approved in
other nontoxic shot types (see ``Impact of Approval of the Shot
Type''), and the submitters asserted that the alloys pose no adverse
toxicological risks to waterfowl or other forms of terrestrial or
aquatic life. The metals in the alloys are insoluble under normal hot
and cold. Neither manufacturing the shot nor firing shotshells
containing the shot will alter the metals or the fluoropolymer, or
change how they dissolve in the environment.
Possible Environmental Concentrations for the Manganese and Silicon and
Fluoropolymer in TIF Shot in Terrestrial Systems
Calculation of the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) of a
candidate shot in a terrestrial ecosystem is based on 69,000 shot per
hectare (ha) (50 CFR 20.134). These calculations assume that the shot
dissolves promptly and completely after deposition. Because the
tungsten and iron have been approved in other nontoxic shot types, we
focus on the manganese and silicon in the alloys.
The EEC for the manganese in TIF shot would be approximately 0.11
parts per million. The maximum increase in environmental concentration
for manganese in terrestrial settings would be 23.1 micrograms per
liter. If the shot were completely dissolved or eroded, the EEC in soil
is much less than the 50th percentile of typical background
concentrations for manganese in soils of the United States.
If totally dissolved, the shot would produce a silicon
concentration of 0.1082 parts per million (ppm), or 0.07 kg/ha/year.
Silicon is not found free in nature, but combines with oxygen and other
elements in nature to form silicates (LANL 2003; USGS 2009). Silicates
constitute more than 25% of the Earth's crust (USGS 2009). Sand,
quartz, rock crystal, amethyst, agate, flint, jasper, and opal are some
of the forms in which the oxide appears (LANL 2003). Thus, the silicon
from TIF shot would be insignificant.
Possible Environmental Concentrations for the Manganese, Silicon, and
Fluoropolymer in the TIF Shot in Aquatic Systems
The EEC for water assumes that 69,000 number 4 shot are completely
dissolved in 1 ha of water 30.48 centimeters deep. The submitter then
calculates the concentration of each metal in the shot if the shot
pellets dissolve completely. The analyses assume complete dissolution
of the shot type containing the highest proportion of each metal in the
range of alloys submitted.
The maximum EEC for manganese is 23.1 ppm. There are no U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acute or chronic quality criteria
available for manganese for freshwater or saltwater. However, the State
of Colorado has acute and chronic freshwater quality criteria for
manganese of 2,986 ppm and 1,650 ppm, respectively (assuming a hardness
of 100 mg/L as CaCO3). The manganese from TIF shot would
lead to a fraction of these concentrations, so we believe that the
manganese from TIF shot will not pose a threat to the environment.
The EEC for silicon from TIF shot would be 21.4 ppm. The EPA has
set no acute or chronic criteria for silicon in freshwater or
saltwater. Furthermore, silicates are commonly present in many soils
For the fluoropolymer in the shot, the EEC in aquatic systems would
be 273.1 ppm. We believe this value has little meaning, given the
insolubility of the fluoropolymer.
In Vitro Solubility Evaluation of TIF Shot
When nontoxic shot is ingested by waterfowl, both physical breakup
of the shot and dissolution of the metals that comprise the shot may
occur in the highly acidic environment of the gizzard. In addition to
the standard Tier 1 application information (50 CFR 20.134), Tundra
Composites provided the results of an in vitro gizzard simulation test
conducted to quantify the release of metals in solution under the
prevailing pH conditions of the avian gizzard. The metal concentrations
released during the simulation test were, in turn, compared to known
levels of metals that cause toxicity in waterfowl. The evaluation
followed the methodology of Kimball and Munir (1971) as closely as
The test solution pH averaged 2.01 over the 14-day test period and
the average temperature of the digestion solution averaged 41.8 [deg]C.
In the test,
the average amount of nickel, copper, and chromium released from 8 TIF
shot/day was 0.037 mg, 0.017 mg, and 0.024 mg, respectively.
It is reasonable to expect that if the in vitro gizzard simulation
test conditions had degraded the fluoropolymer in the TIF shot,
fluoride would be present in the digestion solution. However, the
fluoropolymer present in TIF shot is extremely resistant to
degradation. The formation of hazardous decomposition by-products from
the fluoropolymer occurs only at temperatures over 300 [deg]C. A
representative fluoropolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene, will endure 260
[deg]C for more than 2 years until failure due to degradation
(Imbalzano 1991). The applicant concluded that the fluoride
concentrations in the solution were background levels of fluoride in
the digestion solution, rather than a decomposition by-product of the
fluoropolymer. This conclusion was supported by the variability and
lack of a trend in the estimated fluoride concentrations (Day 0
concentrations were greater than Day 14 concentrations).
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is not used in the manufacture or
formulation of the fluoropolymer present in TIF shot because it has
been identified as a persistent global contaminant (EPA 2003).
The testing completed by the applicant indicates that TIF shot is
highly resistant to degradation, and poses little risk to waterfowl or
other biota if ingested in the field. The slow breakdown of the shot
only permits metals to be released at concentrations that are
substantially below toxic levels of concern in waterfowl. Furthermore,
the fluoropolymer present in TIF shot will not degrade if ingested by
Impacts of Approval of the Shot Type
Effects of the Metals
We have previously assessed and approved various alloys containing
tungsten, and/or iron as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl (e.g. 66 FR
737, January 4, 2001; 68 FR 1388, January 10, 2003; 69 FR 48163, August
9, 2004; 70 FR 49194, August 23, 2005; and 71 FR 4294, January 26,
2006). We have approved alloys of almost 100% of both tungsten and
iron. Approval of TIF alloys raises no new concerns about approval of
the tungsten or the iron in TIF shot.
Manganese is an essential nutrient for both plants and animals. In
animals, manganese is associated with growth, normal functioning of the
central nervous system, and reproductive function. In plants, manganese
is essential for the oxidation-reduction process (EPA 2007). Manganese
compounds are important soil constituents, and the 50th percentile of
typical background concentrations for manganese range from 400 kg dry
weight in eastern U.S. soils to 600 kg dry weight in western U.S.
One number 4 TIF shot contains approximately 0.001 gram of
manganese. The geometric mean of avian No Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL) values for reproduction and growth that were identified by the
EPA in its derivation of an Ecological Soil Screening Level (Eco-SSL)
for manganese was 179 kg of body weight per day (EPA 2007). Based upon
the avian NOAEL of 179 milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body
weight per day, a 2-kg bird could safely consume about 352 TIF shot per
day without suffering from the consumption of the shot. Similarly for
mammals, the geometric mean of mammalian NOAEL values for reproduction
and growth that were identified by the EPA in its derivation of an Eco-
SSL for manganese was 51.5 milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body
weight per day (EPA 2007). Based upon the mammalian NOAEL of 51.5
milligrams of manganese per kilogram of body weight per day, a 1-kg
mammal could safely consume approximately 50 TIF shot per day without
suffering manganese toxicosis.
There are no EPA acute or chronic or freshwater saltwater criteria
for manganese. However, Colorado acute and chronic freshwater criteria
are 2,986 micrograms per liter and 1,650 micrograms per liter,
respectively (assuming a hardness of 100 milligrams per liter as
CaCO3) (5 CCR 1002-31). The aquatic EEC for manganese is
23.1 micrograms per liter when we assume complete dissolution of the
69,000 shot in 1 ha of water 30.48 cm deep. Therefore, the manganese
from TIF shot should not pose an environmental problem in aquatic
Based upon available NOAEL values, birds and mammals would have to
ingest in excess of 50 TIF shot per day before manganese toxicosis
could occur. Assuming complete erosion of all shot, the EEC of
manganese in soil is much less than the 50th percentile of typical
background concentrations for manganese in soils of the United States.
The EEC for manganese is well below both the acute and chronic criteria
for freshwater from the State of Colorado, assuming complete
dissolution of the shot. In sum, the manganese in TIF shot will result
in very minimal estimated exposure concentrations to wetland biota.
No reproductive or other effects were observed in mallards
consuming the equivalent of 102 milligrams of nickel as nickel sulfate
each day for 90 days (Eastin and O'Shea 1981). Therefore, the 0.037
milligram of nickel released from 8 TIF shot per day will pose no risk
of adverse effects to waterfowl. In addition, metallic nickel likely is
absorbed less from the gastrointestinal tract than is the nickel
sulfate used in the mallard reproduction study.
The maximum tolerable level of dietary copper during the long-term
growth of chickens and turkeys has been reported to be 300 kg (CMTA
1980). At the maximum tolerable level for chronic exposure of 300 kg
for poultry, a 1.8-kg chicken consuming 100 g of food per day (Morck
and Austic 1981) would consume 30 mg copper per day (16.7 milligrams of
copper per kilogram of body weight per day). Since the average amount
of copper released from 8 TIF shot per day would be 0.017 mg, a bird
would have to ingest in excess of 1000 TIF shot to exceed the maximum
Dietary levels of 10.0 mg chromium(III)/kilogram for 10 weeks
depressed survival in young black ducks (Haseltine et al. 1985), but no
adverse effects were observed in chickens exposed to 100 ppm dietary
chromium(VI) in a 32-day study (Rosomer et al. 1961). Therefore, the
average amount of chromium released from 8 TIF shot/day of 0.024 mg
will pose no risk of adverse effects to waterfowl.
Effects of Silicon
We found no data for assessing acute or chronic toxicity of the
silicon present in TIF shot. EPA has not set acute or chronic criteria
for silicon in aquatic systems. However, silicon compounds are so
widespread in nature, and we think it highly likely that sediments
consumed incidentally by waterfowl contain silicates.
Silicon is not found free in nature, but silicates constitute more
than 25% of the Earth's crust (USGS 2009), in sand, quartz, rock
crystal, amethyst, agate, flint, jasper, and opal, among other rocks.
Granite, hornblende, asbestos, feldspar, clay, and mica are among the
numerous silicate minerals.
Effects of the Fluoropolymer
No data are available on acute or chronic toxicity of the
used in the TIF alloys. However, fluorinated organic polymers are very
stable and resistant to hydrolysis (Danish Ministry of the Environment
2004). An in vitro gizzard simulation test conducted with 8.0 g/cm\3\
TIF shot showed that the fluoropolymer used in the alloys will not
degrade if ingested by waterfowl. Exposure to stable fluoropolymers
does not give rise to increased free fluoride concentration in the
blood in humans (Danish Ministry of the Environment 2004).
Based on the information provided by the applicant and our
assessment, we have little concern for problems due to organisms
ingesting TIF shot or from dissolution of the shot in aquatic settings.
Effects of the Approval on Migratory Waterfowl
Allowing use of additional nontoxic shot types may encourage
greater hunter compliance and participation with nontoxic shot
requirements and discourage the use of lead shot. Furnishing additional
approved nontoxic shot types will likely further reduce the use of lead
shot. Thus, approving additional nontoxic shot types will likely result
in a minor positive long-term impact on waterfowl and wetland habitats.
Effects on Endangered and Threatened Species
The impact on endangered and threatened species of approval of the
TIF alloys would be very small, but positive. The metals in TIF alloys
have been approved in other nontoxic shot types, and we believe that
the fluoropolymer is highly unlikely to adversely affect animals that
consume the shot or habitats in which the shot might be used. We see no
potential effects on threatened or endangered species due to approval
of these alloys.
We obtained a biological opinion pursuant to section 7 of the ESA
prior to establishing the seasonal hunting regulations. The hunting
regulations promulgated as a result of this consultation remove and
alleviate chances of conflict between migratory bird hunting and
endangered and threatened species.
Effects on Ecosystems
Previously approved shot types have been shown in test results to
be nontoxic to the migratory bird resource, and we believe that they
cause no adverse impact on ecosystems. There is concern, however, about
noncompliance and potential ecosystem effects. The use of lead shot has
a negative impact on wetland ecosystems due to the erosion of shot,
causing sediment/soil and water contamination and the direct ingestion
of shot by aquatic and predatory animals. Though we believe
noncompliance is of concern, approval of the TIF alloys will have
little impact on the resource.
We foresee no negative cumulative impacts of approval of the TIF
alloys for waterfowl hunting. Their approval may help to further reduce
the negative impacts of the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and
coots. We believe the impacts of approval of TIF shot for waterfowl
hunting in the United States should be positive.
Previous assessments of nontoxic shot types indicated that the iron
and the tungsten from shot alloys should not harm aquatic or
terrestrial systems. The solubility testing of TIF shot indicated that
the negligible release of the metals from TIF shot (including the trace
amounts of chromium, copper, and nickel released at low pH) will not be
a hazard to aquatic systems or to biota. For these reasons, and in
accordance with 50 CFR 20.134, we propose to approve TIF shot as
nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots, and propose to amend 50 CFR
20.21(j) accordingly. Our approval is based on the toxicological
report, acute toxicity studies, reproductive/chronic toxicity studies,
and other published research. The available information indicates that
the TIF alloys should be nontoxic when ingested by waterfowl and that
they pose no significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or
For a complete list of the literature cited in this proposed rule,
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under E.O. 12866. OMB bases its determination
upon the following four criteria:
a. Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
b. Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
c. Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
d. Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121)), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations, and small government
SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal
agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying
that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We have examined this rule's
potential effects on small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and have determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The rule would allow small entities to continue actions they have been
able to take under the regulations--actions specifically designed to
improve the economic viability of those entities--and, therefore, will
not significantly affect them economically. We certify that because
this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
This rule is not a major rule under the SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).
a. This rule will 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, Tribal, or local
government agencies; or geographic regions.
c. This rule will not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we have determined the following:
a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A small government agency plan is not required. Actions
under the regulation will not affect small government activities in any
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year. It will not be a ``significant regulatory action''
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant
takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
This rule does not contain a provision for taking of private property.
This rule does not have sufficient Federalism effects to warrant
preparation of a Federalism assessment under E.O. 13132. It will not
interfere with the ability of States to manage themselves or their
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that the rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and
meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). 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. OMB has approved our collection of
information associated with applications for approval of nontoxic shot
(50 CFR 20.134) and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0067, which
expires April 30, 2012.
National Environmental Policy Act
Our Draft Environmental Assessment is part of the administrative
record for this proposed regulations change. In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and
Part 516 of the U.S. Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM),
approval of TIF alloys will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment, nor would it involve unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.
Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
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), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and
have determined that there are no potential effects. This rule will not
interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their
funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 addressing
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule change will not be
a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor would it
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. This action
will not be a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Compliance With Endangered Species Act Requirements
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that ``The Secretary [of the
Interior] shall review other programs administered by him and utilize
such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter'' (16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(1)). It further states that the Secretary must ``insure
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'' (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)). We have concluded that
the regulation change will not affect listed species.
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 propose to amend part
20, subchapter B, chapter I of title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C.
703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Public Law
106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.
2. Amend Sec. 20.21 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
* * * * *
(j)(1) While possessing loose shot for muzzle loading or shotshells
containing other than the following approved shot types.
Approved shot type * Percent composition by weight Field testing device **
Bismuth-tin.......................... 97 bismuth, and 3 tin........ Hot Shot.[supreg]***
Iron (steel)......................... iron and carbon.............. Magnet or Hot Shot.[supreg]
Iron-tungsten........................ any proportion of tungsten, Magnet or Hot Shot.[supreg]
and >=1 iron.
Iron-tungsten-nickel................. >=1 iron, any proportion of Magnet or Hot Shot.[supreg]
tungsten, and up to 40
Tungsten-bronze...................... 51.1 tungsten, 44.4 copper, Rare Earth Magnet.
3.9 tin, and 0.6 iron, or 60
tungsten, 35.1 copper, 3.9
tin, and 1 iron.
Tungsten-iron-copper-nickel.......... 40-76 tungsten, 10-37 iron, 9- Hot Shot[supreg] or Rare Earth Magnet.
16 copper, and 5-7 nickel.
Tungsten-matrix...................... 95.9 tungsten, 4.1 polymer... Hot Shot.[supreg]
Tungsten-polymer..................... 95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Nylon 6 or Hot Shot.[supreg]
Tungsten-tin-iron.................... any proportions of tungsten Magnet or Hot Shot.[supreg]
and tin, and >=1 iron.
Tungsten-tin-bismuth................. 49-71 tungsten, 29-51 tin; Rare Earth Magnet.
0.5-6.5 bismuth, and 0.8
Tungsten-tin-iron-nickel............. 65 tungsten, 21.8 tin, 10.4 Magnet.
iron, and 2.8 nickel.
Tungsten-iron-polymer................ 41.5-95.2 tungsten, 1.5-52.0 Magnet or Hot Shot.[supreg]
iron, and 3.5-8.0
* Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, and zinc chrome on approved nontoxic shot types also are
** The information in the ``Field Testing Device'' column is strictly informational, not regulatory.
*** The ``HOT*SHOT'' field testing device is from Stream Systems of Concord, CA.
(2) Each approved shot type must contain less than 1 percent
residual lead (see Sec. 20.134).
(3) This shot type restriction applies to the taking of ducks,
geese (including brant), swans, coots (Fulica americana), and any other
species that make up aggregate bag limits with these migratory game
birds during concurrent seasons in areas described in Sec. 20.108 as
nontoxic shot zones.
Dated: July 30, 2009.
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E9-18985 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P