57586 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

includes printed, paper versions of any

electronic comments submitted during

an applicable comment period is

available for inspection in the Public

Information and Records Integrity

Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall

#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy.,

Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The PIRIB telephone number

is (703) 305–5805.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA provides

that the Administrator must provide the

Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of

any regulation at least 30 days before

signing it for publication in the Federal

Register. The draft final rule is not

available to the public until after it has

been signed by EPA. If the Secretary

comments in writing regarding the draft

final rule within 15 days after receiving

it, the Administrator shall include in the

final rule when published in the

Federal Register the comments of the

Secretary and the Administrator’s

response to those comments. If the

Secretary does not comment in writing

within 15 days after receiving the draft

final rule, the Administrator may sign

the final rule for publication in the

Federal Register anytime after the 15–

day period.

III. Do Any Regulatory Assessment

Requirements Apply to this

Notification?

No. This document is not a rule,

merely a notification of submission to

the Secretary of Agriculture. As such,

none of the regulatory assessment

requirements apply to this document.

IV. Will EPA Submit this Notification to

Congress and the Comptroller General?

No. This action is not a rule for

purposes of the Congressional Review

Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 804(3), and will not

be submitted to Congress and the

Comptroller General. EPA will submit

the final rule to Congress and the

Comptroller General as required by the

CRA.

List of Subjects in Parts 152 and 156

Environmental protection,

Administrative Practice and Procedure,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Labeling, Occupational Safety and

Health, Pesticides and Pests, Reporting

and Recordkeeping Requirements

Dated: September 13, 2000

Joseph Merenda,

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–24209 Filed 9–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

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 § 20.21 pertains to

prohibited types of shot. We are

proposing to amend § 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 tungstenmatrix 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/cm3, 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 leaddosed 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 treatmentrelated 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 tindosed 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,

57588 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 186 / Monday, September 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 email 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:

§ 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 § 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 § 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