![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Approval of Tin Shot as Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During the 2000-01 Season
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: September 25, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57586-57588]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25se00-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AH67
Migratory Bird Hunting; Temporary Approval of Tin Shot as
Nontoxic for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots During the 2000-01 Season
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) proposes to
grant temporary approval of tin shot as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl
and coots during the 2000-2001 season. Acute toxicity studies reveal no
adverse effects over a 30-day period on mallards (Anas platyrhynchos)
dosed with tin shot. Reproductive/chronic toxicity testing over a 150-
day period indicated that tin administered to adult mallards did not
adversely affect them or the offspring they produced. Tin shot is
produced by the International Tin Research Institute, Ltd. (ITRI) of
Uxbridge, Middlesex, England.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than
November 24, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to the Chief, Division of Migratory
Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street,
NW., ms 634-ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240. The public may inspect
comments during normal business hours in Room 634, Arlington Square
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Andrew, Chief, 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.
742a-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.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to allow the hunting public to
use tin shot for hunting migratory birds. Accordingly, we are proposing
to amend 50 CFR 20.21, which describes illegal hunting methods for
migratory birds. Paragraph (j) of Sec. 20.21 pertains to prohibited
types of shot. We are proposing to amend Sec. 20.21(j) to allow the use
of tin shot (99.9 percent tin with 1 percent residual lead) as nontoxic
shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 2000-01 hunting season
only.
Since the mid-1970s, we have sought to identify shot that does not
pose a significant toxic hazard to migratory birds or other wildlife.
Currently, only steel, bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer
shot are approved as nontoxic. On September 5, 2000 (65 FR 53936) we
published a final rule that grants permanent approval to tungsten-
matrix shot. We previously granted temporary approval for tin shot
during the 1999-2000 hunting season (August 19, 1999; 64 FR 45400).
Compliance with the use of nontoxic shot has increased over the last
few years (Anderson et al. 2000). We believe that compliance will
continue to increase with the approval and availability of other
nontoxic shot types.
ITRI's candidate shot is made from commercially pure tin; no
alloying or other alterations are intentionally made to the chemical
composition of the shot. This shot material has a density of
approximately 7.29 g/cm\3\, and is 99.9 percent tin, with a low level
of iron pickup due to the steel production equipment. The tin shot
application from ITRI contains a description of the shot, a
toxicological report (Thomas 1997), results of a 30-day toxicity study
(Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998), and results of a 150-day
reproductive/chronic toxicity study (Gallagher et al. 2000). The
toxicological report incorporates known toxicity information (a
synopsis of acute and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds,
potential for environmental concern, and toxicity to aquatic and
terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles) and information on
environmental fate and transport (shot alteration, environmental half-
life, and environmental concentration). On August 19, 1999 (64 FR
45400) we published a detailed literature review on toxicity,
environmental fate, and known effect of tin on birds, as well as
results from ITRI's 30-day toxicity testing of tin shot.
ITRI's chronic toxicity/reproductive study revealed no adverse
effects when mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 size tin shot and
monitored over a 150-day period (Gallagher et al. 2000). At initiation
of the test (day 0), and on days 31, 60, and 90, 21 male and 22 female
adult mallards were orally dosed with eight No. 4 tin shot. On the same
days,
[[Page 57587]]
22 male and 22 female adult mallards were dosed with eight No. 4 steel
shot (negative control group). An additional 4 male and 4 female
mallards were dosed with a single No. 4 lead shot (positive control
group). Two lead-dosed birds (1 female, 1 male) died from lead
toxicosis on day 10 and 17, respectively, during the study; whereas no
mortalities occurred in the other test groups. Biochemical results from
blood samples collected during tests revealed no biologically
meaningful treatment-related differences between the tin group and the
steel shot control group. Low, but measurable levels of tin were found
in the testes of males from the steel shot group and in the livers and
femurs of both males and females from the tin group. Additionally, low,
but measurable, levels of tin were found in the liver and gonads of
offspring from the steel group and in gonads of offspring from the tin
group. For all treatment groups, mean levels of tin were below the
limit of detection in egg yolks and whites. Liver and kidney tissues
collected for examination revealed no treatment-related abnormalities.
No significant differences occurred in egg production, fertility,
or hatchability of eggs from birds dosed with tin when compared to
steel-dosed ducks. No differences occurred in survival or body weight
of ducklings from ducks dosed with tin when compared to ducklings from
steel-dosed ducks. Blood measurements of ducklings from tin-dosed ducks
were similar to measurements from ducklings from steel-dosed ducks.
Overall, results of the 150-day study indicated that tin shot
repeatedly administered to adult mallards did not adversely affect
them, or the offspring they produced.
Nontoxic Shot Approval
The nontoxic shot approval process contains a tiered review system
and outlines three conditions for approval of shot types. The first
condition for nontoxic shot approval is toxicity testing. Based on the
results of the toxicological report and the toxicity tests discussed
above, we conclude that tin shot does not pose a significant danger to
migratory birds or other wildlife.
The second condition for approval is testing for residual lead
levels. Any shot with lead levels equal to or exceeding 1 percent will
be considered toxic and, therefore, illegal. We have determined that
the maximum environmentally acceptable level of lead in any nontoxic
shot is trace amounts of 1 percent, and incorporated this requirement
in the new approval process. ITRI has documented that tin shot meets
this requirement.
The third condition for approval involves law enforcement. In the
August 18, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 43314), we indicated our
position that a noninvasive field detection device to distinguish lead
from other shot types was an important component of the nontoxic shot
approval process. At that time, we stated that final approval of
bismuth-tin shot would be contingent upon the development and
availability of a noninvasive field detection device (60 FR 43315). We
incorporated a requirement for a noninvasive field detection device in
the revised nontoxic shot approval process published on December 1,
1997 (62 FR 63608); 50 CFR 20.134(b)(6). A field detection method to
distinguish tin shot from lead currently is being developed by ITRI.
Granting temporary approval for tin shot during the 2000-01 hunting
season will facilitate completion of development of such a device.
However, we will not consider either additional temporary approvals, or
final approval, of tin shot beyond the 2000-01 season until a reliable
and acceptable field detection method is developed and is readily
available to law enforcement personnel.
As stated previously, this proposed rule would amend 50 CFR
20.21(j) by temporarily approving tin shot as nontoxic for hunting
waterfowl and coots during the 2000-2001 hunting season only. It is
based on the toxicological report, acute toxicity study, and the
reproductive/chronic toxicity study submitted by ITRI. Results of these
studies indicate the absence of any deleterious effects of tin shot
when ingested by captive-reared mallards. The comment period for the
proposed rule has been shortened to 30 days. This time frame will make
it possible for tin shot, if temporarily approved, to be available for
use by hunters during the 2000-01 hunting season. This will increase
the number of nontoxic shot options available to hunters.
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. J. Wildl. Manage. 64:848-857.
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.
Thomas, V.G. 1997. Application for approval of tin shot as non-toxic
for the hunting of migratory birds. 26 pp.
Wildlife International, Ltd. 1998. Tin shot: An oral toxicity study
with the mallard. Project No. 476-101. 158 pp.
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 prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for
temporary approval of tin shot in August, 2000. The EA is available to
the public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
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 under the ADDRESSES caption.
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 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
rule would provide one shot type in addition to the existing four that
are approved. We have determined, however, that this rule will have no
effect on small entities since the approved shot merely will supplement
nontoxic shot already in commerce and available throughout the retail
and wholesale distribution systems. We anticipate no dislocation or
other local effects, with regard to hunters and others.
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 proposed rule easier to
understand,
[[Page 57588]]
including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the
requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed
rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its
clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order
of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the proposed rule be easier to understand if it were
divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the
proposed rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble
helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to
make the proposed rule easier to understand? Send a copy of any
comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule easier to
understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may
also e-mail the comments to this address: exsec@ios.doi.gov
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. However, we do have
OMB approval (1018-0067; expires 08/30/2000; renewal submitted) for
information collection relating to what manufacturers of shot 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 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. These rules do 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,
these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do 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 evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that
there are no effects.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, 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 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
2. Section 20.21 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal?
* * * * *
(j) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot
for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts
bismuth: 3 parts tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-
iron (55 parts tungsten: 45 parts iron with 1 percent residual lead)
shot, or tungsten-polymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts Nylon 6 or 11
with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or tungsten-matrix (95.9 parts
tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or tin
(99.9 percent tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot
approved as nontoxic by the Director pursuant to procedures set forth
in Sec. 20.134, provided that this restriction applies only to the
taking of Anatidae (ducks, geese, [including brant] and swans), coots
(Fulica americana) and any species that make up aggregate bag limits
during concurrent seasons with the former in areas described in
Sec. 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones, and further provided that:
(1) Tin shot (99.9 percent tin with 1 percent residual lead) is
legal as nontoxic shot for waterfowl and coot hunting for the 2000-2001
hunting season only.
(2) [Reserved]
Dated: September 13, 2000
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-24543 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P