[Federal Register: May 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 91)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31754-31758]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10my02-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AI33
Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of Tungsten-Iron-Nickel-Tin Shot
as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to approve shot
formulated with tungsten, iron, nickel, and 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 TINT shot is not necessary. In addition, approval of
TINT shot may induce more waterfowl hunters to change from the illegal
use of lead shot, reducing lead risks to species and habitats.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than
June 10, 2002.
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 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. 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 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
nontoxic.
The purpose of this proposed 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. We propose to
amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j), which describes prohibited types of shot for
waterfowl and coot hunting.
On October 12, 2001, we received an application from ENVIRON-Metal,
Inc.
[[Page 31755]]
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 initial application
(Tier 1), included information on chemical characterization, production
variability, use volume, toxicological effects, environmental fate and
transport, and evaluation. After reviewing the tier 1 application and
assessing the possible effects of TINT shot, we believe that it does
not pose a significant toxicity threat to wildlife or their habitats.
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 (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
Kirchgessner 1976).
Soluble nickel salts are 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 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 #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).
Environmental Fate
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
1988).
Tin occurs naturally in soils at 2 to 200 mg/g with areas of
enrichment at much higher concentrations (up to 1000mg/g) (WHO 1980).
However, in the United States, soil concentrations are between 1 and 5
ppm (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 2001).
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 (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
[[Page 31756]]
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 g/L
for tungsten, 515 g/L for iron, 139 g/L for nickel,
and 1,079 g/L for tin. We concluded that a tungsten
concentration of 10,500 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 g/L in fresh water, but would
exceed the 75 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 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 g/L) and
concluded no risk to aquatic life (62 FR 4877). The EEC of tungsten
from TINT shot is 3,218 g/L. This level is three times less
than the 10,500 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).
Toxicity Studies
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
waterfowl.
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 # 4 TINT shot in one 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
waterfowl.
Nontoxic Shot Approval Process
The first condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing.
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%, and incorporated this requirement in the
nontoxic shot approval process we published on December 1, 1997 (62 FR
63608). ENVIRON-Metal, Inc. has documented that TINT shot meets this
requirement.
The third condition for approval involves enforcement. On August
18, 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. TINT shotshells can be drawn to a
magnet as a simple field detection method.
This proposed rule will amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) by approving TINT
shot as nontoxic for migratory bird hunting. 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 TINT shot to ecosystems or when ingested by
waterfowl.
Public Comments Solicited
Past proposed rules on approval of nontoxic shot have generated
fewer than five comments. Also, tungsten and iron already have been
reviewed extensively for use in nontoxic shot. Therefore, we
[[Page 31757]]
will accept comments on this proposal for a 30-day period.
References
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
27(3): 235-288.
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 Toxicology10:737-745.
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-
892.
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, 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. 1981b. 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
(1977).
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.
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.
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 1500-1508), we have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
for approval of TINT shot. 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
[[Page 31758]]
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 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 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 six 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.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Similarly, this policy is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2),
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This policy
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.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action subject
to 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 et seq.) and
found it to contain no information collection requirements.
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 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) Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we
have determined that this proposed rule has no effects on Federally
recognized Indian tribes.
Energy Effects
In accordance with Executive Order 13211, this proposed rule,
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not significantly
affect energy supply, distribution, and use. This proposed rule is not
a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
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 1 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 20--[AMENDED]
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-
108.
2. In Sec. 20.21, revise paragraph (j) to read as follows:
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), tungsten-nickel-iron (50% tungsten: 35% nickel: 15% iron),
and tungsten-iron-nickel-tin (65% tungsten: 10.4% iron: 2.8% nickel:
21.8% tin) 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 during concurrent seasons in
areas described in Sec. 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.
* * * * *
Dated: April 26, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-11767 Filed 5-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P