[Federal Register: October 30, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 210)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 64650-64654]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]



Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN: 1018-AH64

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Nickel-Iron Shot as 
Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.


SUMMARY: We propose to approve shot formulated of tungsten, nickel, and 
iron as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots. We assessed possible 
effects of the tungsten-nickel-iron (t-n-i) shot, and have made a 
preliminary determination that it is not a significant threat to 
wildlife or their habitats and that further testing of t-n-i shot is 
not necessary. In addition, approval of t-n-i shot may induce more 
waterfowl hunters to switch away from lead shot, reducing lead risks to 
species and habitats.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 
November 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments about this proposal to the Chief, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 634, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610. You 
may inspect comments during normal business hours at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Andrew, Chief, or Dr. George T. 
Allen, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 703-358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act) 
(16 U.S.C. 703-712 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 does not 
pose a significant toxicity hazard to migratory birds or other 
wildlife. Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over 
the last few years (Anderson et al. 2000). 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, and tungsten-matrix shot are approved as nontoxic. On 
September 25, 2000 (65 FR 57586-57588), we published a proposed rule to 
grant temporary approval to tin shot. The purpose of this proposed rule 
is to approve the use of t-n-i shot in the tested formulation (50% 
tungsten, 35% nickel, and 15% iron by weight) for waterfowl and coot 
hunting. We propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j), which describes 
prohibited types of shot for waterfowl and coot hunting.
    On April 9, 1999 (64 FR 17308-17309), we announced receipt of an 
application from Standard Resources Corporation (Standard) of Cherry 
Hill, New Jersey for nontoxic approval of HEVI-METAL shot in the 50% 
tungsten, 35% nickel, 15% iron formulation. The density of the shot in 
that formulation is 11.0 grams/cm\3\. The manufacturer believes that 
the shot does not need a coating because it is sufficiently 
noncorrosive under neutral pH. It is not chemically or physically 
altered by firing from a shotgun.
    On April 19, 1999 (64 FR 19191), we announced that Standard's 
application did not provide sufficient information for us to conclude 
that the candidate shot is not a significant danger to migratory birds. 
We advised Standard to proceed with additional testing of the candidate 
shot. Subsequently, development of HEVI-METAL was transferred to 
ENVIRON-Metal, Inc., of Albany, Oregon (Environ-metal), and the shot 
was re-named HEVI-SHOT\TM\.
    On August 10, 2000, Environ-metal submitted an application for 
permanent approval of the t-n-i shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl 
and coots. The application included a description of the shot, results 
and a toxicological report of a preliminary 30-day dosing study of the 
toxicity of the shot in game-farm mallards (Ecological Planning and 
Toxicology, Inc. [EPT] 1999), and results of a more comprehensive 30-
day acute toxicity study (Brewer and Fairbrother 2000).
    Toxicity Information. Tungsten may be substituted for molybdenum in 
enzymes in mammals. Ingested tungsten salts reduce growth, and can 
cause diarrhea, coma, and death in mammals (e.g. 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. In 
rats, 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). These 
studies indicate that tungsten salts are very toxic to mammals.
    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 believe that there is no basis for 
concern about the toxicity of the tungsten in t-n-i 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

[[Page 64651]]

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 1952). 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 Kirchgessner 1976).
    Soluble nickel salts can be classified as very toxic to mammals, 
with an oral LD50 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 1952).
    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.
    Iron is an essential nutrient, so reported iron toxicosis in 
mammals is primarily a phenomenon of overdosing of livestock. 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). Turkey poults fed 440 ppm in the diet 
suffered no adverse effects. The tests in which eight #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).
    Environmental Fate: Elemental tungsten and iron are virtually 
insoluble in water and do not weather and 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 biota (Stokes 1988).
    Environmental Concentrations: Calculation of the estimated 
environmental concentration (EEC) of a candidate shot in a terrestrial 
ecosystem is based on 69,000 shot per hectare (Bellrose 1959, 50 CFR 
20.134). Assuming complete dissolution of the shot, the EEC for 
tungsten in soil is 19.3 mg/kg. The EECs for nickel and iron would be 
7.7 and 3.3 mg/kg, respectively. The EEC for nickel (the only one of 
the three elements with an application limit) is substantially below 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biosolid application 
limit. The 3.3 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 t-n-i shot is below that for the already-
approved tungsten-matrix shot. The EEC for iron is less than 0.01% of 
the typical background concentration, and the iron is in an insoluble 
    Calculation of the EEC in an aquatic ecosystem assumes complete 
erosion of the 69,000 shot/hectare in water 1 foot deep. The EECs for 
the elements in t-n-i shot in water are 2,348 g/L for 
tungsten, 1,643 g/L for nickel, and 704 g/L for iron. 
We concluded that a tungsten concentration of 10,500 g/L posed 
no threat to aquatic biota (62 FR 4877-4879). The EEC for nickel, if 
the shot were completely dissolved, would exceed the EPA acute water 
quality criterion of 1,400 g/L in fresh water, and would 
greatly exceed the 75 g/L criterion for salt water. However, 
tests showed that corrosion of t-n-i shot is negligible in neutral pH 
fresh water. Actual tests in water with a pH of 2 showed that the EEC 
for nickel would be 83.98 g/L, and in salt water it would be 
7.92 g/L; both are far below the EPA criterion of 160 
g/L for chronic exposure.
    Effects on Birds. Kraabel et al. (1996) surgically embedded 
tungsten-bismuth-tin (t-b-t) shot in the pectoralis muscles of ducks to 
simulate wounding by gunfire and to test for toxic effects of the shot. 
The authors found that t-b-t 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 five 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. At that concentration, xanthine dehydrogenase 
activity was zero.
    Toxicity Studies. Ringelman et al. (1993) conducted a 32-day acute 
toxicity study that involved dosing game-farm mallards with a shot 
alloy which was 39%, 44.5%, and 16.5% by weight, respectively. No dosed 
birds died during the trial, and 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 to be unrelated to shot exposure. That study 
indicated that tungsten presented little hazard to waterfowl.
    Initial analyses of corrosion of t-n-i metal in 0.1N HCl and in 
seawater indicated that t-n-i shot is more corrosion resistant than 
copper-plated tungsten-iron shot and steel shot, and that it will 
release tungsten into the environment more slowly than does tungsten-
iron shot. In addition, only a portion of the tungsten is soluble, and 
not all of that is absorbed. Therefore, EPT (1999) suggested that 
ingested t-n-i shot should pose minimal risks to migratory birds that 
might ingest it.
    EPT conducted a preliminary 30-day oral toxicity study of t-n-i 
shot that followed the general approach outlined for a short-term acute 
toxicity test (50 CFR 20.134). Eight #4 t-n-i shot pellets

[[Page 64652]]

were administered to each of three healthy adult male and three healthy 
adult female mallards by placing them in a gelatin capsule and placing 
the capsule in the bird's gizzard. All of the birds retained seven or 
eight of the pellets for the 30-day test period. During that time the 
birds behaved normally, and none of them exhibited signs of metal 
intoxication. Body weights of the birds did not change significantly 
during the test period.
    Upon postmortem examination, all body organs looked normal. 
Histopathology showed that one of the females had a fatty liver, and 
also had elevated liver enzymes. Liver abnormalities due to fatty 
changes (accumulation of glycogen or fat) were considered the likely 
cause of the problem.
    Brewer and Fairbrother (2000) reported on the outcome of more 
extensive corrosion/erosion testing of t-n-i shot, and steel and lead 
shot. Eight #4 t-n-i shot pellets were administered to each of 20 male 
mallards and 20 female mallards by placing the shot in a gelatin 
capsule and placing the capsule in the bird's gizzard. The same 
procedure was followed for dosing 20 male mallards and 20 female 
mallards with 8 #4 steel shot, and for dosing 5 males and 5 females 
with 8 #4 lead shot. The birds had been fasting prior to placement of 
the gelatin capsules to facilitate movement of the capsule to the 
gizzard. During the 30-day test period, the researchers monitored loss 
of shot through the digestive system, and they determined retention of 
shot in the gizzard upon necropsy. They also carefully monitored food 
consumption of the test birds and their health.
    No mortality occurred in birds treated with t-n-i shot or steel 
shot. Nine of the ten birds dosed with lead died during the test 
period. Therefore, most measures of health and measures of shot erosion 
were not valid for the lead-dosed group. No significant differences in 
body weight changes emerged between the steel shot group and the t-n-i 
shot group during the test period.
    The evaluation focused on corrosion/erosion of the steel shot and 
the t-n-i shot, and associated changes in organs and blood chemistry. A 
total of 134 of the t-n-i shot pellets and 138 of the steel shot were 
recovered from the gizzards of the test birds after 30 days. T-n-i shot 
pellets recovered from gizzards at the end of the test retained an 
average of 88.6% of their initial weight; steel pellets retained an 
average of 49.7% of their weight.
    Histopathological examination of kidney tissues from the 41 ducks 
alive at the end of the test period revealed no significant lesions. 
Livers also appeared to have been unaffected by steel pellets or t-n-i 
shot. Hemoglobin, white blood cell counts, hematocrits, and blood serum 
chemistry results did not differ between the steel shot test group and 
the t-n-i shot test group, with the exception that the mean for plasma 
protein was significantly higher in the t-n-i shot-treated ducks.
    Analytical chemistry of liver, kidney, and blood samples showed 
some differences between the steel shot and t-n-i shot test groups. 
Mean tungsten concentrations in blood, liver, and kidney tissues were 
0.24 ppm in the blood, 0.64 ppm in kidney tissue, and 1.65 ppm in liver 
tissue. No tungsten was detected in tissues of mallards dosed with 
steel shot. Mean nickel concentrations in blood (0.03 ppm), liver (0.09 
ppm), and kidney (0.44 ppm) tissues were significantly higher in ducks 
dosed with t-n-i shot than in those dosed with steel shot. Mean nickel 
concentrations in blood, liver, and kidney tissues of mallards treated 
with 800 ppm in the diet for 90 days were 0.139, 0.52, and 1.94 ppm, 
respectively (Eastin and O'Shea 1991). Those ducks suffered no apparent 
ill effects from their treatment. Mean iron concentrations in the blood 
and liver were higher for the ducks dosed with steel shot, but kidney 
concentrations did not differ.
    EPT (1999) calculated that the mallards studied by Eastin and 
O'Shea (1981) consumed approximately 102 mg of nickel each day during 
the study. Under the Tier 2 protocol, each test mallard is dosed with 8 
#4 shot at 0, 30, 60, and 90 days, which in the case of t-n-i shot 
would contain a total of 32 shot, and 2.3 g of nickel per bird. At pH 
2, with continual grinding of ingested shot, eight #4 pellets would 
lose 0.176 mg of nickel per day. The maximum exposure for a mallard 
under such conditions would be 0.704 mg/day, substantially less than 
the estimated consumption by mallards in the Eastin and O'Shea study 
(EPT 1999). We believe, therefore, that consumption of nickel from t-n-
i shot is unlikely to have detrimental effects on waterfowl.
    Ingestion by Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, or Mammals. Based on the 
available information and past reviews of tungsten-based shot, we 
expect no detrimental effects due to tungsten or iron on animals that 
might ingest t-n-i shot. However, we know of no studies of ingestion of 
nickel by herpetofauna. In the worst case, assuming complete erosion of 
a #4 t-n-i shot pellet equal to that found in a mallard gizzard, 
exposure to a vertebrate would be approximately 0.022 mg of nickel per 
day if the shot were retained in the animal. The exposure actually 
would be substantially less because a shot pellet likely would not be 
retained in most animals that might consume one.

Nontoxic Shot Approval

    The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. 
Based on the results of the toxicological reports and the toxicity 
tests, we preliminarily conclude that t-n-i shot does not pose a 
significant danger to migratory birds, other wildlife, or their 
    The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead 
levels. Any shot with a lead level of 1% or more will be illegal. We 
determined that the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in 
shot is 1%, and incorporated this requirement in the nontoxic shot 
approval process we published in December 1997 (62 FR 63608-63615). 
ENVIRON-Metal, Inc. has documented that t-n-i shot meets this 
    The third condition for approval involves enforcement. In 1995 (60 
FR 43314), we stated that approval of any nontoxic shot would be 
contingent upon the development and availability of a noninvasive field 
testing device. This requirement was incorporated in the nontoxic shot 
approval process. T-n-i shotshells can be drawn to a magnet as a simple 
field detection method.
    For these reasons, and in accordance with 50 CFR 20.134, we intend 
to approve t-n-i shot as nontoxic for migratory bird hunting, and 
propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) accordingly. It is based on the 
toxicological reports, acute toxicity studies, and assessment of the 
environmental effects of the shot. Those results indicate no 
deleterious effects of t-n-i shot to ecosystems or when ingested by 
waterfowl. Because the testing of t-n-i shot and earlier testing of 
shot types containing tungsten and iron indicated no environmental 
problems, we do not believe Tier 3 testing of t-n-i shot is necessary.

Public Comments Solicited

    Our past experience with nontoxic shot approvals has been that 30 
days is sufficient time for those interested in these actions to 
comment. Also, tungsten and iron already have been reviewed extensively 
for use in nontoxic shot. Therefore, we will accept comments on this 
proposal for a 30-day period.


Anderson, W. L., S. P. Havera, and B. W. Zercher. 2000. Ingestion of 
lead and nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the

[[Page 64653]]

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 
27(3): 235-288.
Brewer, L. and A. Fairbrother. 2000. Corrosion/erosion of Hevi-shot 
nontoxic shot in mallard duck gizzards. EBA, Inc., Snow Camp, North 
Carolina. 152 pages.
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 
Sciences 70:3655-3659.
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 metalTM 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.
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.
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, D.C. 577 pages.
Nell, J. A., W. L. Bryden, G. S. Heard, and D. Balnave. 1981a. 
Reproductive performance of laying hens fed tungsten. Poultry 
Science 60:257-258.
Nell, J. A., E. F. Annison, and D. Balnave. 1981. The influence of 
tungsten on the molybdenum status of poultry. British Poultry 
Science 21:193-202.
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 
Nutrition 105:421.
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 
Research 22:624-638.
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, D.C. 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, D.C. 182 pages 
plus appendices.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986a. Environmental Assessment: 
copper/nickel plating on nontoxic shot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Washington, D.C. 3 pages.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986b. Finding of no significant 
impact: copper/nickel plating on nontoxic shot. U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 1 page.
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.

NEPA Consideration

    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 parts 1500-1508), we prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 
for approval of t-n-i shot in September 2000. The draft 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 ``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 * * *'' We are completing a Section 7 
consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of our 
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to the public 
at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for

[[Page 64654]]

rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of 
small entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or 
governmental jurisdictions. This rule proposes to approve an additional 
type of nontoxic shot that may be sold and used to hunt migratory 
birds; this proposed rule would provide one shot type in addition to 
the existing four that are approved. We have determined, however, that 
this proposed 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. This rule was not subject to Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject 
to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under Executive Order 
12866. OMB makes the final determination under E.O. 12866. We invite 
comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, including 
answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in 
the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language 
or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the 
rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 
etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to 
understand if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is 
the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do 
to make the rule easier to understand?

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) and found it 
to contain no information collection requirements. We have submitted a 
request for renewal of OMB approval of collection of information shot 
manufacturers are required to provide to us for the nontoxic shot 
approval process. For further information see 50 CFR 20.134.

Unfunded Mandates Reform

    We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502, et seq., that this proposed rulemaking will 
not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or 
State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    We, in promulgating this proposed rule, have determined that these 
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant 
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This proposed 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 proposed rule will 
allow hunters to exercise privileges that would be otherwise 
unavailable; and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private 
and public property.

Federalism Effects

    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 proposed 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) and 512 DM 2, we have determined that this 
proposed rule has no effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes.

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: 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

    2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 

Sec. 20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (j) While possessing loose shot for muzzle loading or shotshells 
containing other than the previously approved shot types of steel, 
bismuth-tin (97 parts bismuth: 3 parts tin), tungsten-iron (40 parts 
tungsten: 60 parts iron), tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 
parts Nylon 6 or 11), tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts tungsten: 4.1 parts 
polymer), and tungsten-nickel-iron (55% tungsten: 35% nickel: 15% 
iron), all of which must contain less than 1% residual lead (see 
Sec. 20.134). This 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 them during concurrent 
seasons in areas described in Sec. 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.
* * * * *

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-27842 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]