64650 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(4) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on these species.

Reopening of the comment period

will enable the Service to respond to the

request for a public hearing on the

proposed action. The comment period

on this proposal now closes on

November 29, 2000. Written comments

should be submitted to the Service

office listed in the ADDRESSES section.

Author:

The primary authors of this notice

Benton Pang and Christa Russell (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: September 22, 2000.

Rowan W. Gould,

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25907 Filed 10–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN: 1018–AH64

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of

Tungsten-Nickel-Iron Shot as Nontoxic

for Hunting Waterfowl and Coots

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We propose to approve shot

formulated of tungsten, nickel, and iron

as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and

coots. We assessed possible effects of

the tungsten-nickel-iron (t-n-i) shot, and

have made a preliminary determination

that it is not a significant threat to

wildlife or their habitats and that further

testing of t-n-i shot is not necessary. In

addition, approval of t-n-i shot may

induce more waterfowl hunters to

switch away from lead shot, reducing

lead risks to species and habitats.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

must be received no later than

November 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments

about this proposal to the Chief,

Division of Migratory Bird Management,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401

North Fairfax Drive, Room 634,

Arlington, Virginia 22203–1610. You

may inspect comments during normal

business hours at the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon

Andrew, Chief, or Dr. George T. Allen,

Division of Migratory Bird Management,

703–358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (Act)

(16 U.S.C. 703–712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a–

j) implements migratory bird treaties

between the United States and Great

Britain for Canada (1916 and 1996 as

amended), Mexico (1936 and 1972 as

amended), Japan (1972 and 1974 as

amended), and Russia (then the Soviet

Union, 1978). These treaties protect

certain migratory birds from take, except

as permitted under the Act. The Act

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

to regulate take of migratory birds in the

United States. Under this authority, the

Fish and Wildlife Service controls the

hunting of migratory game birds through

regulations in 50 CFR part 20.

Since the mid-1970s, we have sought

to identify shot that does not pose a

significant toxicity hazard to migratory

birds or other wildlife. Compliance with

the use of nontoxic shot has increased

over the last few years (Anderson et al.

2000). We believe that it will continue

to increase with the approval and

availability of other nontoxic shot types.

Currently, steel, bismuth-tin, tungsteniron, tungsten-polymer, and tungstenmatrix shot are approved as nontoxic.

On September 25, 2000 (65 FR 57586–

57588), we published a proposed rule to

grant temporary approval to tin shot.

The purpose of this proposed rule is to

approve the use of t-n-i shot in the

tested formulation (50% tungsten, 35%

nickel, and 15% iron by weight) for

waterfowl and coot hunting. We

propose to amend 50 CFR 20.21 (j),

which describes prohibited types of shot

for waterfowl and coot hunting.

On April 9, 1999 (64 FR 17308–

17309), we announced receipt of an

application from Standard Resources

Corporation (Standard) of Cherry Hill,

New Jersey for nontoxic approval of

HEVI–METAL shot in the 50% tungsten,

35% nickel, 15% iron formulation. The

density of the shot in that formulation

is 11.0 grams/cm3. The manufacturer

believes that the shot does not need a

coating because it is sufficiently

noncorrosive under neutral pH. It is not

chemically or physically altered by

firing from a shotgun.

On April 19, 1999 (64 FR 19191), we

announced that Standard’s application

did not provide sufficient information

for us to conclude that the candidate

shot is not a significant danger to

migratory birds. We advised Standard to

proceed with additional testing of the

candidate shot. Subsequently,

development of HEVI–METAL was

transferred to ENVIRON-Metal, Inc., of

Albany, Oregon (Environ-metal), and

the shot was re-named HEVI–SHOTTM.

On August 10, 2000, Environ-metal

submitted an application for permanent

approval of the t-n-i shot as nontoxic for

hunting waterfowl and coots. The

application included a description of

the shot, results and a toxicological

report of a preliminary 30-day dosing

study of the toxicity of the shot in gamefarm mallards (Ecological Planning and

Toxicology, Inc. [EPT] 1999), and results

of a more comprehensive 30-day acute

toxicity study (Brewer and Fairbrother

2000).

Toxicity Information. Tungsten may

be substituted for molybdenum in

enzymes in mammals. Ingested tungsten

salts reduce growth, and can cause

diarrhea, coma, and death in mammals

(e.g. Bursian et al. 1996, Cohen et al.

1973, Karantassis 1924, Kinard and Van

de Erve 1941, National Research

Council 1980, Pham-Huu-Chanh 1965),

but elemental tungsten is virtually

insoluble and therefore essentially

nontoxic. In rats, a dietary concentration

of 94 parts-per-million (ppm) did not

reduce weight gain in growing rats (Wei

et al. 1987). Lifetime exposure to 5 ppm

tungsten as sodium tungstate in

drinking water produced no discernible

adverse effects in rats (Schroeder and

Mitchener 1975). At 100 ppm tungsten

as sodium tungstate in drinking water,

rats had decreased enzyme activity after

21 days (Cohen et al. 1973). These

studies indicate that tungsten salts are

very toxic to mammals.

Chickens given a complete diet

showed no adverse effects of 250 ppm

sodium tungstate administered for 10

days in the diet. However, 500 ppm in

the diet had detrimental effects on dayold chicks (Teekell and Watts 1959).

Adult hens had reduced egg production

and egg weight on a diet containing

1,000 ppm tungsten (Nell et al. 1981a).

EPT (1999) concluded that 250 ppm in

the diet would produce no observable

adverse effects. Kelly et al. (1998)

demonstrated no adverse effects on

mallards dosed with tungsten-iron or

tungsten-polymer shot according to

nontoxic shot test protocols.

Most toxicity tests reviewed were

based on soluble tungsten compounds

rather than elemental tungsten. As we

found in our reviews of other tungsten

shot types, we believe that there is no

basis for concern about the toxicity of

the tungsten in t-n-i shot to fish,

mammals, or birds.

Nickel is a dietary requirement of

mammals, with necessary consumption

set at 50 to 80 parts per billion for the

rat and chick (Nielsen and Sandstead

1974). Though it is necessary for some

enzymes, nickel can compete with

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64651

calcium, magnesium, and zinc for

binding sites on many enzymes. Watersoluble nickel salts are poorly absorbed

if ingested by rats (Nieboer et al. 1988).

Nickel carbonate caused no treatment

effects in rats fed 1,000 ppm for 3 to 4

months (Phatak and Patwardhan 1952).

Rats fed 1,000 ppm nickel sulfate for 2

years showed reduced body and liver

weights, an increase in the number of

stillborn pups, and decrease in weanling

weights through three generations

(Ambrose et al. 1976). Nickel chloride

was even more toxic; 1,000 ppm fed to

young rats caused weight loss in 13 days

(Schnegg and Kirchgessner 1976).

Soluble nickel salts can be classified

as very toxic to mammals, with an oral

LD50 of 136 mg/kg in mice, and 350 mg/

kg in rats (Fairchild et al. 1977). Nickel

catalyst (finely divided nickel in

vegetable oil) fed to young rats at 250

ppm for 16 months, however, produced

no detrimental effects (Phatak and

Patwardhan 1952).

In chicks from hatching to 4 weeks of

age, 300 ppm nickel as nickel carbonate

or nickel acetate in the diet produced no

observed adverse effects. However,

concentrations of 500 ppm or more

reduced growth (Weber and Reid 1968).

A diet containing 200 ppm nickel as

nickel sulfate had no observed effects on

mallard ducklings from 1 to 90 days of

age. Diets of 800 ppm or more caused

significant changes in physical

condition of the ducklings (Cain and

Pafford 1981). Eastin and O’Shea (1981)

observed no apparent significant

changes in pairs of breeding mallards

fed diets containing up to 800 ppm

nickel as nickel sulfate for 90 days.

Iron is an essential nutrient, so

reported iron toxicosis in mammals is

primarily a phenomenon of overdosing

of livestock. Maximum recommended

dietary levels of iron range from 500

ppm for sheep to 3,000 ppm for pigs

(National Research Council [NRC]

1980). Chickens require at least 55 ppm

iron in the diet (Morck and Austic

1981). Chickens fed 1,600 ppm iron in

an adequate diet displayed no ill effects

(McGhee et al. 1965). Turkey poults fed

440 ppm in the diet suffered no adverse

effects. The tests in which eight #4

tungsten-iron shot were administered to

each mallard in a toxicity study

indicated that the 45% iron content of

the shot had no adverse effects on the

test animals (Kelly et al. 1998).

Environmental Fate: Elemental

tungsten and iron are virtually insoluble

in water and do not weather and

degrade in the environment. Tungsten is

stable in acids and does not easily form

compounds with other substances.

Preferential uptake by plants in acidic

soil suggests uptake of tungsten when it

has formed compounds with other

substances rather than when it is in its

elemental form (Kabata-Pendias and

Pendias 1984).

Nickel is common in fresh waters,

though usually at concentrations of less

than 1 part per billion in locations

unaffected by human activities. Pure

nickel is not soluble in water. Free

nickel may be part of chemical

reactions, such as sorption,

precipitation, and complexation.

Reactions of nickel with anions are

unlikely. Complexation with organic

agents is poorly understood (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]

1980). Water hardness is the dominant

factor governing nickel effects on biota

(Stokes 1988).

Environmental Concentrations:

Calculation of the estimated

environmental concentration (EEC) of a

candidate shot in a terrestrial ecosystem

is based on 69,000 shot per hectare

(Bellrose 1959, 50 CFR 20.134).

Assuming complete dissolution of the

shot, the EEC for tungsten in soil is 19.3

mg/kg. The EECs for nickel and iron

would be 7.7 and 3.3 mg/kg,

respectively. The EEC for nickel (the

only one of the three elements with an

application limit) is substantially below

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) biosolid application limit.

The 3.3 mg/kg EEC for nickel also is far

below the 16 to 35 mg/kg concentrations

suggested as minimum sediment

concentrations at which effects of the

metal are likely to occur (EPA 1997,

Ingersoll et al. 1996, Long and Morgan

1991; MacDonald et al. 2000, Smith et

al. 1996). The EEC for tungsten from tn-i shot is below that for the alreadyapproved tungsten-matrix shot. The EEC

for iron is less than 0.01% of the typical

background concentration, and the iron

is in an insoluble form.

Calculation of the EEC in an aquatic

ecosystem assumes complete erosion of

the 69,000 shot/hectare in water 1 foot

deep. The EECs for the elements in t-ni shot in water are 2,348 μg/L for

tungsten, 1,643 μg/L for nickel, and 704

μg/L for iron. We concluded that a

tungsten concentration of 10,500 μg/L

posed no threat to aquatic biota (62 FR

4877–4879). The EEC for nickel, if the

shot were completely dissolved, would

exceed the EPA acute water quality

criterion of 1,400 μg/L in fresh water,

and would greatly exceed the 75 μg/L

criterion for salt water. However, tests

showed that corrosion of t-n-i shot is

negligible in neutral pH fresh water.

Actual tests in water with a pH of 2

showed that the EEC for nickel would

be 83.98 μg/L, and in salt water it would

be 7.92 μg/L; both are far below the EPA

criterion of 160 μg/L for chronic

exposure.

Effects on Birds. Kraabel et al. (1996)

surgically embedded tungsten-bismuthtin (t-b-t) shot in the pectoralis muscles

of ducks to simulate wounding by

gunfire and to test for toxic effects of the

shot. The authors found that t-b-t shot

neither produced toxic effects nor

induced adverse systemic effects in the

ducks during the 8-week period of their

study.

Nell et al. (1981a) fed laying hens

(Gallus domesticus) 0.4 or 1.0 g/kg

tungsten in a commercial mash for five

months to assess reproductive

performance. Weekly egg production

was normal, and hatchability of fertile

eggs was not affected. Exposure of

chickens to large doses of tungsten

either through injection or by feeding

resulted in an increased tissue

concentration of tungsten and a

decreased concentration of

molybdenum (Nell et al. 1981b). The

loss of tungsten from the liver occurred

in an exponential manner, with a halflife of 27 hours. The alterations in

molybdenum metabolism seemed to be

associated with tungsten intake rather

than molybdenum deficiency. Death

due to tungsten occurred when tissue

concentrations increased to 25 ppm in

the liver. At that concentration,

xanthine dehydrogenase activity was

zero.

Toxicity Studies. Ringelman et al.

(1993) conducted a 32-day acute toxicity

study that involved dosing game-farm

mallards with a shot alloy which was

39%, 44.5%, and 16.5% by weight,

respectively. No dosed birds died

during the trial, and behavior was

normal. Post-euthanization examination

of tissues revealed no toxicity or damage

related to shot exposure. Blood calcium

differences between dosed and undosed

birds were judged to be unrelated to

shot exposure. That study indicated that

tungsten presented little hazard to

waterfowl.

Initial analyses of corrosion of t-n-i

metal in 0.1N HCl and in seawater

indicated that t-n-i shot is more

corrosion resistant than copper-plated

tungsten-iron shot and steel shot, and

that it will release tungsten into the

environment more slowly than does

tungsten-iron shot. In addition, only a

portion of the tungsten is soluble, and

not all of that is absorbed. Therefore,

EPT (1999) suggested that ingested t-ni shot should pose minimal risks to

migratory birds that might ingest it.

EPT conducted a preliminary 30-day

oral toxicity study of t-n-i shot that

followed the general approach outlined

for a short-term acute toxicity test (50

CFR 20.134). Eight #4 t-n-i shot pellets

64652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

were administered to each of three

healthy adult male and three healthy

adult female mallards by placing them

in a gelatin capsule and placing the

capsule in the bird’s gizzard. All of the

birds retained seven or eight of the

pellets for the 30-day test period. During

that time the birds behaved normally,

and none of them exhibited signs of

metal intoxication. Body weights of the

birds did not change significantly

during the test period.

Upon postmortem examination, all

body organs looked normal.

Histopathology showed that one of the

females had a fatty liver, and also had

elevated liver enzymes. Liver

abnormalities due to fatty changes

(accumulation of glycogen or fat) were

considered the likely cause of the

problem.

Brewer and Fairbrother (2000)

reported on the outcome of more

extensive corrosion/erosion testing of tn-i shot, and steel and lead shot. Eight

#4 t-n-i shot pellets were administered

to each of 20 male mallards and 20

female mallards by placing the shot in

a gelatin capsule and placing the

capsule in the bird’s gizzard. The same

procedure was followed for dosing 20

male mallards and 20 female mallards

with 8 #4 steel shot, and for dosing 5

males and 5 females with 8 #4 lead shot.

The birds had been fasting prior to

placement of the gelatin capsules to

facilitate movement of the capsule to the

gizzard. During the 30-day test period,

the researchers monitored loss of shot

through the digestive system, and they

determined retention of shot in the

gizzard upon necropsy. They also

carefully monitored food consumption

of the test birds and their health.

No mortality occurred in birds treated

with t-n-i shot or steel shot. Nine of the

ten birds dosed with lead died during

the test period. Therefore, most

measures of health and measures of shot

erosion were not valid for the leaddosed group. No significant differences

in body weight changes emerged

between the steel shot group and the tn-i shot group during the test period.

The evaluation focused on corrosion/

erosion of the steel shot and the t-n-i

shot, and associated changes in organs

and blood chemistry. A total of 134 of

the t-n-i shot pellets and 138 of the steel

shot were recovered from the gizzards of

the test birds after 30 days. T-n-i shot

pellets recovered from gizzards at the

end of the test retained an average of

88.6% of their initial weight; steel

pellets retained an average of 49.7% of

their weight.

Histopathological examination of

kidney tissues from the 41 ducks alive

at the end of the test period revealed no

significant lesions. Livers also appeared

to have been unaffected by steel pellets

or t-n-i shot. Hemoglobin, white blood

cell counts, hematocrits, and blood

serum chemistry results did not differ

between the steel shot test group and

the t-n-i shot test group, with the

exception that the mean for plasma

protein was significantly higher in the tn-i shot-treated ducks.

Analytical chemistry of liver, kidney,

and blood samples showed some

differences between the steel shot and tn-i shot test groups. Mean tungsten

concentrations in blood, liver, and

kidney tissues were 0.24 ppm in the

blood, 0.64 ppm in kidney tissue, and

1.65 ppm in liver tissue. No tungsten

was detected in tissues of mallards

dosed with steel shot. Mean nickel

concentrations in blood (0.03 ppm),

liver (0.09 ppm), and kidney (0.44 ppm)

tissues were significantly higher in

ducks dosed with t-n-i shot than in

those dosed with steel shot. Mean nickel

concentrations in blood, liver, and

kidney tissues of mallards treated with

800 ppm in the diet for 90 days were

0.139, 0.52, and 1.94 ppm, respectively

(Eastin and O’Shea 1991). Those ducks

suffered no apparent ill effects from

their treatment. Mean iron

concentrations in the blood and liver

were higher for the ducks dosed with

steel shot, but kidney concentrations

did not differ.

EPT (1999) calculated that the

mallards studied by Eastin and O’Shea

(1981) consumed approximately 102 mg

of nickel each day during the study.

Under the Tier 2 protocol, each test

mallard is dosed with 8 #4 shot at 0, 30,

60, and 90 days, which in the case of tn-i shot would contain a total of 32 shot,

and 2.3 g of nickel per bird. At pH 2,

with continual grinding of ingested

shot, eight #4 pellets would lose 0.176

mg of nickel per day. The maximum

exposure for a mallard under such

conditions would be 0.704 mg/day,

substantially less than the estimated

consumption by mallards in the Eastin

and O’Shea study (EPT 1999). We

believe, therefore, that consumption of

nickel from t-n-i shot is unlikely to have

detrimental effects on waterfowl.

Ingestion by Fish, Amphibians,

Reptiles, or Mammals. Based on the

available information and past reviews

of tungsten-based shot, we expect no

detrimental effects due to tungsten or

iron on animals that might ingest t-n-i

shot. However, we know of no studies

of ingestion of nickel by herpetofauna.

In the worst case, assuming complete

erosion of a #4 t-n-i shot pellet equal to

that found in a mallard gizzard,

exposure to a vertebrate would be

approximately 0.022 mg of nickel per

day if the shot were retained in the

animal. The exposure actually would be

substantially less because a shot pellet

likely would not be retained in most

animals that might consume one.

Nontoxic Shot Approval

The first condition for nontoxic shot

approval is toxicity testing. Based on the

results of the toxicological reports and

the toxicity tests, we preliminarily

conclude that t-n-i shot does not pose a

significant danger to migratory birds,

other wildlife, or their habitats.

The second condition for approval is

testing for residual lead levels. Any shot

with a lead level of 1% or more will be

illegal. We determined that the

maximum environmentally acceptable

level of lead in shot is 1%, and

incorporated this requirement in the

nontoxic shot approval process we

published in December 1997 (62 FR

63608–63615). ENVIRON-Metal, Inc.

has documented that t-n-i shot meets

this requirement.

The third condition for approval

involves enforcement. In 1995 (60 FR

43314), we stated that approval of any

nontoxic shot would be contingent upon

the development and availability of a

noninvasive field testing device. This

requirement was incorporated in the

nontoxic shot approval process. T-n-i

shotshells can be drawn to a magnet as

a simple field detection method.

For these reasons, and in accordance

with 50 CFR 20.134, we intend to

approve t-n-i shot as nontoxic for

migratory bird hunting, and propose to

amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) accordingly. It is

based on the toxicological reports, acute

toxicity studies, and assessment of the

environmental effects of the shot. Those

results indicate no deleterious effects of

t-n-i shot to ecosystems or when

ingested by waterfowl. Because the

testing of t-n-i shot and earlier testing of

shot types containing tungsten and iron

indicated no environmental problems,

we do not believe Tier 3 testing of t-ni shot is necessary.

Public Comments Solicited

Our past experience with nontoxic

shot approvals has been that 30 days is

sufficient time for those interested in

these actions to comment. Also,

tungsten and iron already have been

reviewed extensively for use in nontoxic

shot. Therefore, we will accept

comments on this proposal for a 30-day

period.

References

Anderson, W. L., S. P. Havera, and B. W.

Zercher. 2000. Ingestion of lead and

nontoxic shotgun pellets by ducks in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64653

Mississippi flyway. Journal of Wildlife

Management 64:848–857.

Ambrose, P., P. S. Larson, J. F. Borzelleca,

and G. R. Hennigar, Jr. 1976. Long term

toxicologic assessment of nickel in rats and

dogs. Journal of Food Science and

Technology 13:181–187.

Bellrose, F. C. 1959. Lead poisoning as a

mortality factor in waterfowl populations.

Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin

27(3): 235–288.

Brewer, L. and A. Fairbrother. 2000.

Corrosion/erosion of Hevi-shot nontoxic

shot in mallard duck gizzards. EBA, Inc.,

Snow Camp, North Carolina. 152 pages.

Bursian, S. J., M. E. Kelly, R. J. Aulerich, D.

C. Powell, and S. Fitzgerald. 1996. Thirtyday dosing test to assess the toxicity of

tungsten-polymer shot in game-farm

mallards. Report to Federal Cartridge

Company. 71 pages.

Cain, B. W. and E. A. Pafford. 1981. Effects

of dietary nickel on survival and growth of

mallard ducklings. Archives of

Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 10:737–745.

Cohen, H. J., R. T. Drew, J. L. Johnson, and

K. V. Rajagopalan. 1973. Molecular basis of

the biological function of molybdenum: the

relationship between sulfite oxidase and

the acute toxicity of bisulfate and SO2.

Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 70:3655–3659.

Eastin, W. C., Jr. and T. J. O’Shea. 1981.

Effects of dietary nickel on mallards.

Journal of Toxicology and Environmental

Health 7:883–892.

Ecological Planning and Toxicology, Inc.

1999. Application for approval of t-n-i

metalTM nontoxic shot: Tier 1 report.

Cherry Hill, New Jersey. 28 pages plus

appendixes.

Fairchild, E. J., R. J. Lewis, and R. L. Tatken

(editors). 1977. Registry of toxic effects of

chemical substances, Volume II. Pages

590–592. U.S. Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare Publication

(NIOSH) 78–104B. 227 pages.

Ingersoll, C. G., P. S. Haverland, E. L.

Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F. J. Dwyer, C. E.

Henke, N. E. Kemble, and D. R. Mount.

1996. Calculation and evaluation of

sediment effect concentrations for the

amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge

Chironomus riparius. EPA 905–R96–008,

Great Lakes National Program Office,

Region V, Chicago, Illinois. Mixed

pagination.

Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984.

Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC

Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL. 315 pages.

Karantassis, T. 1924. On the toxicity of

compounds of tungsten and molybdenum.

Annals of Medicine 28:1541–1543.

Kelly, M. E., S. D. Fitzgerald, R. J. Aulerich,

R. J. Balander, D. C. Powell, R. L. Stickle.

W. Stevens, C. Cray, R. J. Tempelman, and

S. J. Bursian. 1998. Acute effects of lead,

steel, tungsten-iron and tungsten-polymer

shot administered to game-farm mallards.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34:673–687.

Kinard, F. W. and J. Van de Erve. 1941. The

toxicity of orally-ingested tungsten

compounds in the rat. Journal of

Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics 72:196–201.

Kraabel, F. W., M. W. Miller, D. M. Getzy,

and J. K. Ringelman. 1996. Effects of

embedded tungsten-bismuth-tin shot and

steel shot on mallards. Journal of Wildlife

Diseases 38:1–8.

Long, E. R. and L. G. Morgan. 1991. The

potential for biological effects of sedimentsorbed contaminants tested in the National

Status and Trends Program. NOAA

Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Seattle, Washington. 175

pages + appendices.

MacDonald, D. D., C. G. Ingersoll, and T. A.

Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation

of consensus-based sediment quality

guidelines for freshwater ecosystems.

Archives of Environmental Contamination

and Toxicology 39:20–31.

McGhee, F., C. R. Creger, and J. R. Couch.

1965. Copper and iron toxicity. Poultry

Science 44:310–312.

Morck, T. A. and R. E. Austic. 1981. Iron

requirements of white leghorn hens.

Poultry Science 60:1497–1503.

National Research Council. 1980. Mineral

tolerance of domestic animals. National

Research Council, National Academy of

Sciences, Washington, D.C. 577 pages.

Nell, J. A., W. L. Bryden, G. S. Heard, and

D. Balnave. 1981a. Reproductive

performance of laying hens fed tungsten.

Poultry Science 60:257–258.

Nell, J. A., E. F. Annison, and D. Balnave.

1981. The influence of tungsten on the

molybdenum status of poultry. British

Poultry Science 21:193–202.

Nieboer, E., R. T. Tom, and W. E. Sanford.

1988. Nickel metabolism in man and

animals. Pages 91–122 in Metal ions in

biological systems, volume 23: nickel and

its role in biology. H. Sigel and A. Sigel,

editors. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Nielsen, F. H. and H. H. Sandstead. 1974. Are

nickel, vanadium, silicon, fluoride, and tin

essential for man? American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition 27:515–520.

Pham-Huu-Chanh. 1965. The comparative

toxicity of sodium chromate, molybdate,

tungstate, and metavanadate. Archives

Internationales de Pharmacodynamie et de

Therapie 154:243–249.

Phatak, S. S. and V. N. Patwardhan. 1950.

Toxicity of nickel. Journal of Science and

Industrial Research 9B:70–76.

Ringelman, J. K., M. W. Miller, and W. F.

Andelt. 1993. Effects of ingested tungstenbismuth-tin shot on captive mallards.

Journal of Wildlife Management 57:725–

732.

Schnegg, S. and M. Kirchgessner. 1976.

[Toxicity of dietary nickel]. Landwirtsch.

Forsch. 29:177. Cited in Chemical

Abstracts 86:101655y (1977).

Schroeder, H. A. and M. Mitchener. 1975.

Life-term studies in rats: effects of

aluminum, barium, beryllium, and

tungsten. Journal of Nutrition 105:421.

Smith, S. L., D. D. MacDonald, K. A.

Keenleyside, C. G. Ingersoll, and J. Field.

1996. A preliminary evaluation of

sediment quality assessment values for

freshwater ecosystems. Journal of Great

Lakes Research 22:624–638.

Stokes, P. 1988. Nickel in aquatic systems.

Pages 31–46 in Metal ions in biological

systems, volume 23: nickel and its role in

biology. H. Sigel and A. Sigel, editors.

Marcel Dekker, New York.

Teekel, R. A. and A. B. Watts. 1959. Tungsten

supplementation of breeder hens. Poultry

Science 38:791–794.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980.

Ambient water quality criteria for nickel.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. 207 pages.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.

The incidence and severity of sediment

contamination in surface waters of the

United States: National sediment quality

survey, Volume 1. EPA 823–R–97–006.

Office of Science and Technology,

Washington, D.C. 182 pages plus

appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986a.

Environmental Assessment: copper/nickel

plating on nontoxic shot. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 3 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986b.

Finding of no significant impact: copper/

nickel plating on nontoxic shot. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 1

page.

Weber, C. W. and B. L. Reid. 1968. Nickel

toxicity in growing chicks. Journal of

Nutrition 95:612–616.

Wei, H. J., X-M. Luo, and X-P. Yand. 1987.

Effects of molybdenum and tungsten on

mammary carcinogenesis in SpragueDawley (SD) rats. Chung Hua Chung Liu

Tsa Chih 9:204–7. English abstract.

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 parts

1500–1508), we prepared a draft

Environmental Assessment (EA) for

approval of t-n-i shot in September

2000. The draft EA is available to the

public at the location indicated in the

ADDRESSES section.

Endangered Species Act Considerations

Section 7 of the Endangered Species

Act (ESA) of 1972, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that

Federal agencies shall ‘‘insure that any

action authorized, funded or carried out

* * * is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of any endangered

species or threatened species or result in

the destruction or adverse modification

of (critical) habitat * * *’’ We are

completing a Section 7 consultation

under the ESA for this proposed rule.

The result of our consultation under

Section 7 of the ESA will be available

to the public at the location indicated in

the ADDRESSES section.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the

preparation of flexibility analyses for

64654 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 210 / Monday, October 30, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

proposed rule would provide one shot

type in addition to the existing four that

are approved. We have determined,

however, that this proposed rule will

have no effect on small entities since the

approved shot merely will supplement

nontoxic shot already in commerce and

available throughout the retail and

wholesale distribution systems. We

anticipate no dislocation or other local

effects, with regard to hunters and

others. This rule was not subject to

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) review under Executive Order

12866.

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 rule easier to

understand, including answers to

questions such as the following: (1) Are

the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

description of the rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the rule? What else could we do to make

the rule easier to understand?

Paperwork Reduction Act

An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. We have examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501)

and found it to contain no information

collection requirements. We have

submitted a request for renewal of OMB

approval of collection of information

shot manufacturers 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 will allow hunters to

exercise privileges that would be

otherwise unavailable; and, therefore,

reduces restrictions on the use of private

and public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain

species of birds, the Federal

Government has been given

responsibility over these species by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This

proposed rule does not have a

substantial direct effect on fiscal

capacity, change the roles or

responsibilities of Federal or State

governments, or intrude on State policy

or administration. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 13132,

this proposed regulation does not have

significant federalism effects and does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government

Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512

DM 2, we have determined that this

proposed rule has no effects on

Federally recognized Indian tribes.

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: 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 loose shot for

muzzle loading or shotshells containing

other than the previously approved shot

types of steel, bismuth-tin (97 parts

bismuth: 3 parts tin), tungsten-iron (40

parts tungsten: 60 parts iron), tungstenpolymer (95.5 parts tungsten: 4.5 parts

Nylon 6 or 11), tungsten-matrix (95.9

parts tungsten: 4.1 parts polymer), and

tungsten-nickel-iron (55% tungsten:

35% nickel: 15% iron), all of which

must contain less than 1% residual lead

(see § 20.134). This restriction applies to

the taking of ducks, geese (including

brant), swans, coots (Fulica americana),

and any other species that make up

aggregate bag limits with them during

concurrent seasons in areas described in

§ 20.108 as nontoxic shot zones.

* * * * *

Dated: October 24, 2000.

Kenneth L. Smith,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 00–27842 Filed 10–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 102300A]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold a 3-day public meeting on

November 14, 15, and 16, 2000, to

consider actions affecting New England

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone

(EEZ).