39598 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

documentation to the appropriate 

council identified in FAR 1.201–1, in 

accordance with agency procedures, for 

possible addition to the list in FAR 

25.104. 

1. Proposed Additions to List 

Accordingly, the Defense Supply 

Center Philadelphia (DSCP), a field 

activity of the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA), has requested addition of yeast 

(active dry and instant active dry) and 

canned pineapple. The results of DSCP 

market research are summarized as 

follows: 

a. Active Dry Yeast and Instant Active 

Dry Yeasts. Through contacts with 

industry, reviews of customer 

requirements and an analysis of market 

availability, DSCP has determined that 

there are no domestic sources for active 

dry yeast and instant active dry yeast. 

All production domestically of active 

dry yeast and instant active dry yeast 

has ceased with processing shifted to 

production facilities in Mexico and 

Canada. Active dry yeast and instant 

active dry yeast are key ingredients in 

the baking of fresh bread and yeastraised products. Contact was made with 

DSCP’s customers, and all have stated 

that there are no acceptable alternatives 

to the active dry yeast and instant active 

dry yeast, items that are fundamental in 

the preparation of quick breads, white 

breads, rolls, variety grain breads, 

specialty breads, and yeast-raised 

products such as donuts and sweet rolls. 

b. Pineapple, Solid Pack, Canned. 

There are no longer any domestic 

sources for canned pineapple in its 

various solid pack forms, including 

rings, chunks, tidbits, and crushed. The 

last domestic source closed its only 

plant in June 2007. Domestic canned 

pineapple has been supplanted by 

cheaper, imported products. Canned 

pineapple is used on the menus of the 

U.S. Military Services and as an 

ingredient in certain recipes. While it 

has been used by the military 

worldwide, it is especially important to 

customers, such as Navy ships, that 

need a longer shelf life item because 

they have limited access to fresh fruits. 

2. Proposed Revision of List 

A previous FAR Case, 2003–007, 

added to the list at FAR 25.104(a) an 

article titled ‘‘modacrylic fur ruff’’ (69 

FR 34241, June 18, 2004). This addition 

was based upon a domestic 

nonavailability determination approved 

by the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) 

dated December 11, 2002, for 

modacrylic fiber. Therefore, this rule 

proposes to correct the listing to read 

‘‘modacrylic fiber’’ in lieu of 

‘‘modacrylic fur ruff.’’ 

3. Publication of List for Comment 

In addition, FAR 25.104(b) requires 

publication of the list of nonavailable 

articles for public comment in the 

Federal Register no less frequently than 

once every five years. The list was last 

published for comment on May 18, 2004 

(69 FR 28104) (FAR Case 2004–024). 

The Councils are seeking comment on 

whether some articles on the list should 

be removed because they are now 

mined, produced, or manufactured in 

the United States in sufficient and 

reasonably available commercial 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality. 

Specific information with regard to 

domestic production capacity in 

relation to U.S. Government and 

nongovernment demand and the quality 

of domestically produced items would 

be most helpful in determining whether 

articles should remain on or be removed 

from the list. A sources-sought notice 

will also be published in FedBizOpps in 

an effort to increase the awareness of 

this request. 

This is not a significant regulatory 

action and, therefore, was not subject to 

review under Section 6(b) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, dated September 30, 1993. This 

rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Councils do not expect this 

proposed rule to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities within the 

meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the 

Councils do not expect that there are 

domestic small businesses that can 

fulfill the Government’s requirements 

for the proposed added items. An Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, 

therefore, not been performed. We invite 

comments from small businesses and 

other interested parties. The Councils 

will consider comments from small 

entities concerning the affected FAR 

Part 25 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. 

Interested parties must submit such 

comments separately and should cite 5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 2009–013), 

in correspondence. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act does 

not apply because the proposed changes 

to the FAR do not impose information 

collection requirements that require the 

approval of the Office of Management 

and Budget under 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, 

et seq. 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 25 

Government procurement. 

Dated: July 22, 2009. 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA 

propose amending 48 CFR part 25 as set 

forth below: 

PART 25—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR 

part 25 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. 

chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c). 

25.104 [Amended] 

2. Amend section 25.104 by removing 

from paragraph (a) ‘‘Modacrylic fur ruff’’ 

and adding ‘‘Modacrylic fiber’’ in its 

place, and by adding, in alphabetical 

order, ‘‘Pineapple, canned’’ and ‘‘Yeast, 

active dry and instant active dry’’. 

[FR Doc. E9–18992 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2009–0003; 

91200–1231–9BPP] 

RIN 1018–AW46 

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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39599 

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–R9–MB–2009– 

0003. 

• 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, VA 22203–1610. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 and coots. 

Tundra Composites, LLC, seeks 

approval of Tungsten-IronFluoropolymer (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. 

Affected Environment 

Waterfowl Populations 

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 longterm 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-term average. 

Habitats 

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 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
39600 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 (redbreasted [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 averages. 

Characterization of the Shot Type 

Tungsten-Iron-Fluoropolymer shot 

has a density ranging from 8.0 to 12.5 

grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3), 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/cm3 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

Alloy Density 

(g/cm3) 

Percent 

tungsten 

Percent 

steel * 

Percent 

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 and sediments. 

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 possible. 

The test solution pH averaged 2.01 

over the 14-day test period and the 

average temperature of the digestion 

solution averaged 41.8 °C. In the test, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39601 

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 °C. 

A representative fluoropolymer, 

polytetrafluoroethylene, will endure 260 

°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 

waterfowl. 

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 

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. soils. 

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 environments. 

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. 

Nickel 

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. 

Copper 

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 

tolerable level. 

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 fluoropolymer 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
39602 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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/cm3 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. 

Cumulative Impacts 

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. 

Summary 

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 their habitats. 

Literature Cited 

For a complete list of the literature 

cited in this proposed rule, contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Public Comments 

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. 

Required Determinations 

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 

agencies’ actions. 

c. Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

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 jurisdictions). 

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 

required. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 39603 

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 foreignbased enterprises. 

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 significant way. 

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. 

Takings 

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. 

Federalism 

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 funds. 

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 not required. 

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: 

PART 20—[AMENDED] 

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 § 20.21 by revising 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 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.®*** 

Iron (steel) .......................................... iron and carbon .............................................................................................. Magnet or Hot Shot.®

Iron-tungsten ...................................... any proportion of tungsten, and ≥1 iron ........................................................ Magnet or Hot Shot.®

Iron-tungsten-nickel ............................ ≥1 iron, any proportion of tungsten, and up to 40 nickel .............................. Magnet or Hot Shot.®

Tungsten-bronze ................................ 51.1 tungsten, 44.4 copper, 3.9 tin, and 0.6 iron, or 60 tungsten, 35.1 copper, 3.9 tin, and 1 iron.Rare Earth Magnet. 

Tungsten-iron-copper-nickel ............... 40–76 tungsten, 10–37 iron, 9–16 copper, and 5–7 nickel .......................... Hot Shot® or Rare Earth 

Magnet. 

Tungsten-matrix .................................. 95.9 tungsten, 4.1 polymer ............................................................................ Hot Shot.®


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
39604 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 151 / Friday, August 7, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Approved shot type * Percent composition by weight Field testing device ** 

Tungsten-polymer ............................... 95.5 tungsten, 4.5 Nylon 6 or 11 ................................................................... Hot Shot.®

Tungsten-tin-iron ................................ any proportions of tungsten and tin, and ≥1 iron .......................................... Magnet or Hot Shot.®

Tungsten-tin-bismuth .......................... 49–71 tungsten, 29–51 tin; 0.5–6.5 bismuth, and 0.8 iron ........................... Rare Earth Magnet. 

Tungsten-tin-iron-nickel ...................... 65 tungsten, 21.8 tin, 10.4 iron, and 2.8 nickel ............................................. Magnet. 

Tungsten-iron-polymer ....................... 41.5–95.2 tungsten, 1.5–52.0 iron, and 3.5–8.0 fluoropolymer .................... Magnet or Hot Shot.®

* Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, and zinc chrome on approved nontoxic shot types also are approved. 

** 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 § 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 § 20.108 as 

nontoxic shot zones. 

Dated: July 30, 2009. 

Will Shafroth, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E9–18985 Filed 8–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS