78272 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2013. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 2. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry at the end of the 

table for ‘‘North Carolina Transportation 

Conformity Air Quality Implementation 

Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

North Carolina Transportation Conformity 

Air Quality Implementation Plan.

July 12, 2013 .......................................... December 26, 2013 [Insert citation of 

publication].

........................

[FR Doc. 2013–30542 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0117; A–1–FRL– 

9904–45–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration for the Greater 

Connecticut Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the ozone 

attainment demonstration submitted by 

Connecticut to meet Clean Air Act 

requirements for attaining the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard. EPA is approving 

Connecticut’s demonstration of 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard as it relates to the Greater 

Connecticut 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. EPA is also 

approving the reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) analysis for 

this same area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0117. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov. 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, One 

Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. Copies of the 

documents relevant to this action are 

also available for public inspection 

during normal business hours, by 

appointment at the State Air Agency: 

the Bureau of Air Management, 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, One Congress Street, 

Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114– 

2023, telephone number (617) 918– 

1664, fax number (617) 918–0664, email 

Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘Agency,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, 

we mean the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Connecticut’s 

demonstration of attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or standard) 

for the Greater Connecticut moderate 

ozone nonattainment area, submitted on 

February 1, 2008. EPA is also approving 

the associated RACM analysis for this 

same area. 

On May 9, 2013 (78 FR 27161), EPA 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) which proposed approval of 

Connecticut’s ozone attainment 

demonstrations for the 1997 ozone 

standard for two different 

nonattainment areas: (1) The Greater 

Connecticut ozone nonattainment area, 

and (2) the Connecticut portion of the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT ozone nonattainment 

area (the New York City area). The NPR 

also proposed approval of the RACM 

analyses for these areas. Today’s action 

approves the ozone attainment 

demonstration and RACM analysis for 

the Greater Connecticut area only. EPA 

is not taking action on the ozone 

attainment demonstration and the 

RACM analysis for the Connecticut 

portion of the New York City ozone 

nonattainment area at this time. 

As stated in the NPR, the EPA is 

approving Connecticut’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration and 

RACM analysis, for the Greater 

Connecticut ozone nonattainment area, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 78273 

1Subsequently, final, certified 2012 ozone data, 

and preliminary 2013 ozone data, indicate 

continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS for this area. The area, however, remains 

designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

2At the time of publication of the NPR, three 

Connecticut state SIP revisions had not yet been 

approved by EPA. All were subsequently approved. 

Specifically, Connecticut’s December 8, 2006 

reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP 

submission was approved on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 

38587). The final rulemaking notice approving 

Connecticut’s VOC content limits for consumer 

products (Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) section 22a–174–40) and 

Connecticut’s restrictions on the manufacture and 

use of adhesives and sealants (RCSA section 22a– 

174–44) was signed by the Regional Administrator 

on November 12, 2013. A copy of the signed notice 

is available in the docket for today’s action. 

because the basic photochemical grid 

modeling used by Connecticut in its SIP 

submittal meets EPA’s guidelines and is 

acceptable to EPA. As also noted in the 

NPR, complete, quality assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

show that the Greater Connecticut area 

attained the 1997 ozone standard for the 

2007–2009 monitoring period (i.e., by 

the area’s June 15, 2010 attainment date) 

and show that this area continued to 

attain the standard through 2011.1 The 

purpose of the attainment 

demonstration is to show how the area 

will meet the standard by the attainment 

date. All the control measures necessary 

for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard have already been adopted, 

submitted, approved and implemented.2

Based on (1) the state following EPA’s 

modeling guidance, (2) the air quality 

data through 2011, (3) the area attaining 

the standard by the attainment date, and 

(4) the implemented SIP-approved 

control measures, EPA is approving the 

Connecticut attainment demonstration 

and RACM SIP submissions for the 

Greater Connecticut 1997 8-hour ozone 

moderate nonattainment area. 

II. Response to Comments 

As noted above, EPA’s May 9, 2013 

(78 FR 27161) NPR proposed approval 

of the Connecticut attainment 

demonstration and RACM SIP 

submissions for two nonattainment 

areas. EPA received a comment letter on 

our NPR. Most of the comments were 

solely relevant to the New York City 

area ozone attainment demonstration. 

EPA is not taking action on the New 

York City attainment demonstration and 

RACM analysis at this time. 

Consequently, this action does not 

address comments that pertain solely to 

the New York City area. In today’s 

action, EPA is approving the Greater 

Connecticut ozone attainment 

demonstration and RACM analysis. 

There was, however, one comment that 

could be interpreted as applying to the 

attainment demonstrations for both 

areas. That comment is summarized 

below with EPA’s response for the 

Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

EPA must disapprove the attainment 

demonstration, because it fails to 

include an analysis under Section 110(l) 

of the Clean Air Act. The commenter 

states that EPA must analyze whether 

approval of the attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS would interfere with any 

applicable requirements regarding the 

2008 ozone NAAQS or the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. The 

commenter specifically requests that 

EPA evaluate whether approval of this 

attainment demonstration, which does 

not require any additional emission 

reductions, foregoes some NOx RACT 

limits which the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) 

previously proposed, and does not 

apply an 0.07 lb/mmbtu limit for coalfired EGUs, will interfere with attaining 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

Response: EPA interprets this 

comment to apply to the Greater 

Connecticut area and our response 

solely applies to that area. Section 110(l) 

states: ‘‘The Administrator shall not 

approve a revision of a plan if the 

revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 171), or 

any other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ 

The SIP submittal that is the subject 

of this action does not contain revisions 

to any control measures or other 

regulatory requirements. It does not add, 

remove, or revise any regulatory 

requirements in the list of Federallyenforceable regulations at 40 CFR 

52.370 or 40 CFR 52.385. Rather, this 

SIP submission is a demonstration that, 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

regulations and control measures 

already approved into Connecticut’s SIP 

will (1) provide for the implementation 

of all reasonably available control 

measures as expeditiously as 

practicable, as required by section 

172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and (2) 

provide for attainment of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS in the Greater 

Connecticut area by the applicable 

attainment date (June 15, 2010), as 

required by sections 172(c)(1) and 

182(c)(2)(A). This particular SIP 

submission does not (and was not 

required to) make any demonstrations 

regarding the adequacy of the SIP with 

respect to any other NAAQS, such as 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS or the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. 

It is arguable whether section 110(l) 

applies to this submission, as this 

submission is not revising any 

substantive elements of the SIP, such as 

control measures. As noted above, the 

submission that EPA is approving does 

not include any increases in emissions 

or relaxations of Federally-enforceable 

control measures to existing SIPapproved emissions control regulations 

in the list of Federally-enforceable 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.370 or 40 CFR 

52.385, where we would need to 

determine if such changes would meet 

the Section 110(l) requirement. Rather, 

EPA is simply revising § 52.377 to 

reflect EPA’s conclusion that 

Connecticut has an adequate control 

strategy for the 1997 ozone standard 

with respect to the Greater Connecticut 

ozone nonattainment area. 

Specifically, the 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration submitted by 

Connecticut includes: (1) A detailed 

ozone photochemical grid modeling 

analysis (including a weight of evidence 

analysis) that meets EPA guidance; (2) 

an analysis of air quality data, which is 

supplemented in the NPR by EPA with 

more up-to-date ozone data; and (3) a 

list of measures that will bring the area 

into attainment. The purpose of the 

1997 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration for the Greater 

Connecticut area is to demonstrate how, 

through enforceable and approvable 

emission reductions, that area will meet 

the standard by the attainment date 

(June 15, 2010). All ozone control 

measures necessary for attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS have already 

been adopted, submitted, approved into 

the SIP and implemented. Based on (1) 

Connecticut following EPA’s modeling 

guidance, (2) the air quality data 

through 2011, (3) the area attaining the 

standard by the attainment date, and (4) 

the implemented SIP-approved control 

measures, EPA is approving the 

Connecticut ozone attainment 

demonstration, including the RACM 

analysis, for the Greater Connecticut 

area. 

Furthermore, the Greater Connecticut 

area is designated ‘‘marginal’’ 

nonattainment for the 2008 ozone 

standard. (See 40 CFR 81.307) As a 

result of its ‘‘marginal’’ classification, 

the area is required to attain the 2008 

ozone standard by December 31, 2015 

(77 FR 30167, May 21, 2012) but is not 

required to submit an attainment 

demonstration for the 2008 ozone 

standard. Approval of this submission 

will not interfere with attainment of the 

2008 ozone standard, because it will not 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
78274 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

change any control requirements or alter 

ambient concentrations of ozone. 

While many of the control measures 

that CTDEEP has implemented for 

attaining the 1997 standard may also 

assist the Greater Connecticut area in 

meeting the 2008 standard, it is possible 

that the area may also need additional 

measures that were not needed to attain 

the 1997 standard. The fact that 

Connecticut did not find it necessary to 

implement a particular measure in order 

to attain the 1997 standard does not 

mean that Connecticut may not find it 

necessary to implement that same (or a 

similar) measure in the future, to fulfill 

other requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

By the same token, EPA’s approval of 

Connecticut’s attainment demonstration 

for the 1997 ozone standard without 

certain measures does not foreclose 

either Connecticut or EPA from finding, 

at a future date with respect to a distinct 

future obligation, that Connecticut 

needs those (or similar) measures in 

order to meet other requirements. See 

Ky. Resources Council, Inc. v. EPA, 467 

F.3d 986, 996 (6th Cir. 2006). 

Connecticut is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 1- 

hour NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (see 

40 CFR 81.307), and therefore has no 

requirement to submit an attainment 

demonstration. However, a similar 

analysis illustrates that, assuming 

section 110(l) applies, approval of this 

submission will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. Approval of 

this SIP submission will not alter any 

control measures currently in the SIP. 

Thus, there is no reason to believe that 

approval of this SIP submission will 

change the ambient concentrations of 

nitrogen dioxide that would otherwise 

occur, or that approval would interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

nitrogen dioxide NAAQS. 

For these reasons, even assuming 

section 110(l) applies to this submittal, 

EPA concludes the submittal will not 

interfere with attainment of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide NAAQS, or any other 

requirement of the Clean Air Act. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Connecticut’s 

demonstration of attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard for the Greater 

Connecticut moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area submitted on 

February 1, 2008. EPA is also approving 

the associated RACM analysis for this 

same area. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. The approval of an attainment 

demonstration and RACM analysis does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law and 

the CAA. For that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it does not 

impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by February 24, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2013. 

Michael P. Kenyon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart H—Connecticut 

■ 2. Section 52.377 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (n) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 248 / Thursday, December 26, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 78275 

(n) Approval—An attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard to satisfy requirements 

of section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act, and a Reasonably Available Control 

Measure (RACM) analysis to satisfy 

requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act for the Greater 

Connecticut ozone nonattainment area, 

submitted by the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection on February 

1, 2008. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30735 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

49 CFR Part 219 

[Docket No. FRA–2001–11213, Notice No. 

17] 

Alcohol and Drug Testing: 

Determination of Minimum Random 

Testing Rates for 2014 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of determination. 

SUMMARY: According to data from FRA’s 

Management Information System, the 

rail industry’s random drug testing 

positive rate has remained below 1.0 

percent for the last two years. FRA’s 

Administrator has therefore determined 

that the minimum annual random drug 

testing rate for the period January 1, 

2014, through December 31, 2014, will 

remain at 25 percent of covered railroad 

employees. In addition, because the 

industry-wide random alcohol testing 

violation rate has remained below 0.5 

percent for the last two years, the 

Administrator has determined that the 

minimum random alcohol testing rate 

will remain at 10 percent of covered 

railroad employees for the period 

January 1, 2014, through December 31, 

2014. Railroads remain free, as always, 

to conduct random testing at higher 

rates. 

DATES: This notice of determination is 

effective December 26, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

Powers, FRA Drug and Alcohol Program 

Manager, W38–105, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(telephone 202–493–6313); or Sam Noe, 

FRA Drug and Alcohol Program 

Specialist, (telephone 615–719–2951). 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 20, 

2013. 

Karen J. Hedlund, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30806 Filed 12–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0077; 

FF09M21200–134–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–AY59 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Revision of 

Language for Approval of Nontoxic 

Shot for Use in Waterfowl Hunting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, revise our regulations 

regarding the approval of nontoxic shot 

types to make the regulations easier to 

understand. The language governing 

determination of Estimated 

Environmental Concentrations (EECs) in 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is 

altered to make clear the shot size and 

number of shot to be used in calculating 

the EECs. We specify the pH level to be 

used in calculating the EEC in water. 

We also move the requirement for in 

vitro testing to Tier 1, which will allow 

us to better assess applications and 

minimize the need for Tier 2 

applications. We add language for 

withdrawal of shot types that have been 

demonstrated to have detrimental 

environmental or biological effects, or 

for which no suitable field-testing 

device is available. We expect these 

changes to reduce the time required for 

nontoxic shot approvals. Finally, we 

add fees to cover our costs in evaluating 

these applications. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

27, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

George Allen, 703–358–1825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or 

USFWS) regulates the hunting of 

migratory game birds through 

regulations in 50 CFR part 20. 

Since the mid-1970s, we have sought 

to identify shot types that are not 

significant toxicity hazards to migratory 

birds or other wildlife. Producers of 

potential nontoxic shot types submit 

them for FWS approval under 50 CFR 

20.134 as nontoxic for waterfowl 

hunting. 

We revise the regulations to clarify 

them for applicants and to provide for 

withdrawal of approval of a shot type 

that is not readily detectable in the field 

or has environmental effects or direct 

toxicological effects on biota. 

Comments on the Proposed Rule 

We published a proposed rule on this 

regulations revision on March 4, 2013 

(78 FR 14060). We received eight 

comments or sets of comments on the 

proposed rule. We respond to the 

significant comments below and explain 

subsequent changes we are making to 

the proposed regulations. 

Comment. We agree . . . that there is 

no need to publish a ‘‘Notice of 

Application’’ in the Federal Register. 

Comment. ‘‘. . . I speak principally 

for the handloading hunter when I 

explain how simple it should be to 

identify his shotshells as non-lead in 

nature. The shot he might be using will 

be of two types usually; either steel or 

tungsten/alloy balls. Steel is easy to 

detect by simple magnet identification. 

Tungsten alloys usually deflect at least 

slightly when they are exposed to a rare 

earth magnet. A simple exam of the 

pellets involves using a needle nose 

pliers to open up the shell and squeeze 

the shot, and makes obvious to the agent 

how much softer the lead ball is 

compared to a tungsten/alloy ball. The 

shell is able to be reclosed usually on 

the spot and no big harm or 

inconv[en]ience has been done to either 

hunter or agents. 

Now, it is important to understand 

that these Tungsten alloys are not 

purposely made to be non magnetic. 

When we make them, if we use high 

enough concentrations of iron to make 

them more magnetic in nature, they 

spuriously loose [sic] density and 

become harder, both of which is 

unacceptable to the user . . . So why do 

we want to create entrepreneurial as 

well as manufacturing hurdles when it 

is usually accepted hunters are doing 

the right thing and using non-toxic 

shells. Simple common sense should 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES