38664 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

12See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

by reference by EPA into that plan, they 

are fully Federally enforceable under 

sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of 

the effective date of the final rulemaking 

of EPA’s approval, and will be 

incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.12

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office 

(please contact the person identified in 

the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’ 

section of this preamble for more 

information). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portions of Alabama’s May 8, 2013 and 

August 23, 2016 SIP submittals that 

revise the PSD permitting program at 

Rule 335–3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits 

Authorizing Construction in Clean 

Areas (Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD))’’ by removing 

language regulating GHG-only (i.e., Step 

2) sources and by adding language to the 

PAL provisions. EPA believes that these 

changes are consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act 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. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For that reason, this proposed 

action: 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 (Public Law 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 CAA; 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate Matter, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17220 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073; 

FF09M21200–178–FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BB06 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Approval of 

Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot as 

Nontoxic for Waterfowl Hunting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

draft environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: Having completed our review 

of the application materials for 

corrosion-inhibited copper shot, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(hereinafter Service or we) proposes to 

approve the shot for hunting waterfowl 

and coots. We have concluded that this 

type of shot left in terrestrial or aquatic 

environments is unlikely to adversely 

affect fish, wildlife, or their habitats. 

Approving this shot formulation would 

increase the nontoxic shot options for 

hunters. 

DATES: Electronic comments on this 

proposal or on the draft environmental 

assessment via http://

www.regulations.gov must be submitted 

by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on 

September 14, 2017. Comments 

submitted by mail must be postmarked 

no later than September 14, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Document Availability. You 

may view the application and our draft 

environmental assessment by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073. 

• Request a copy by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Written Comments: You may submit 

comments on the proposed rule or the 

associated draft environmental 

assessment by either one of the 

following two methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments to 

Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0073. 

• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attention: FWS– 

HQ–MB–2015–0073; Division of Policy, 

Performance, and Management 

Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

We will not accept email or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information that you provide. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, at 703–358–1967. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38665 

1974, as amended), and Russia (then the 

Soviet Union, 1978). These treaties 

protect most migratory bird species from 

take, except as permitted under the Act, 

which authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to regulate take of migratory 

birds in the United States. Under this 

authority, we control the hunting of 

migratory game birds through 

regulations at 50 CFR part 20. We 

prohibit the use of shot types other than 

those listed in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 20.21(j) for 

hunting waterfowl and coots and any 

species that make up aggregate bag 

limits. 

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 types of shot for 

waterfowl hunting that are not toxic to 

migratory birds or other wildlife when 

ingested. We have approved nontoxic 

shot types and coatings and added them 

to the migratory bird hunting 

regulations at 50 CFR 20.21(j). We 

continue to review shot types and 

coatings submitted for approval as 

nontoxic following a process set forth at 

50 CFR 20.134. 

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 

nontoxic shot candidates for approval. 

We are obligated to review applications 

for approval of alternative shot types as 

nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and 

coots. 

Many hunters believe that some 

nontoxic shot types compare poorly to 

lead and may damage some shotgun 

barrels. A small and decreasing 

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 would 

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 is that the Service is 

obligated to consider all complete 

nontoxic shot applications submitted to 

us for approval. 

Application 

Environ-Metal, Inc., of Sweet Home, 

Oregon, seeks approval of corrosioninhibited copper shot as nontoxic. We 

evaluated the impact of approval of this 

shot type in a draft environmental 

assessment (see ADDRESSES, above, for 

information on viewing a copy of the 

draft environmental assessment). The 

data from Environ-Metal, Inc., indicate 

that the shot’s coating will essentially 

eliminate copper exposure in the 

environment and to waterfowl if the 

shot is ingested. We believe that this 

type of shot will not pose a danger to 

migratory birds, other wildlife, or their 

habitats. 

We have reviewed the shot under the 

criteria in Tier 1 of the nontoxic shot 

approval procedures at 50 CFR 20.134 

for permanent approval of shot and 

coatings as nontoxic for hunting 

waterfowl and coots. We propose to 

amend 50 CFR 20.21(j) to add the shot 

to the list of those approved for 

waterfowl and coot hunting. Details on 

the evaluations of the shot can be found 

in the draft environmental assessment. 

Corrosion-Inhibited Copper Shot 

Corrosion-inhibited copper shot (CIC 

shot) consists of commercially pure 

copper that has been surface-treated 

with benzotriazole (BTA) to obtain 

insoluble, hydrophobic films of BTAcopper complexes (CDA 2009). These 

films are very stable; are highly 

protective against copper corrosion in 

both salt water and fresh water; and are 

used extensively to protect copper, even 

in potable water systems. Other highvolume applications include deicers for 

aircraft and dishwasher detergent 

additives, effluents of which may be 

directly introduced into municipal 

sewer systems, indicative of the 

exceptionally low environmental impact 

of BTA. ‘‘The corrosion-inhibiting 

effectiveness of BTA-copper complex 

coating, based on actual testing 

conducted by the applicants and by 

others, is substantial.’’ 

Shot Coating and Test Device 

CIC shot will have an additional 

coating that will fluoresce under 

ultraviolet light. The coating is applied 

by a proprietary process, and coats the 

shot so that the layers of coating are 

visible through the translucent 

shotshell. The coating is 

environmentally safe and is very longlasting in the shotshells. The sole 

purpose of fluorescent-coating CIC shot 

is to provide a portable, non-invasive 

and affordable field detection method 

for use by law enforcement officers to 

identify this non-magnetic shot type as 

approved for waterfowl and coot 

hunting. 

ECO PigmentsTM, manufactured 

exclusively by DayGlo, Inc. (Cleveland, 

OH), are thermoplastic fluorescent 

powders free of formaldehyde, heavy 

metals, azo compounds, 

perfluorooctanoic acid, aromatic 

amines, regulated phthalates, bisphenol 

A (BPA), polyaromatic hydrocarbons, 

substance of very high concern (SVHC) 

chemicals, and California Proposition 

65 chemicals. The pigments were 

originally developed for use as brightly 

colored ‘‘markers’’ to be mixed with 

aerially applied, fire-retardant 

chemicals used in forest fire 

suppression, because they are more 

‘‘environmentally friendly’’ than even 

the relatively inert iron-oxide powders 

formerly applied. They are globally 

approved for a wide variety of uses, 

including textile dyes, paints, and toys. 

Environ-Metal, Inc., anticipates 

applying coatings approximately 0.001- 

inch thick, a value which is calculated 

to add about 0.13 percent by weight to 

the mass of a #4-size copper shot. 

Environ-Metal, Inc., will apply the 

pigment to metallic shot using a 

proprietary process to create a thin, 

adherent coating of a tough, resilient, 

fluorescent substance. The coating is 

visually detectable through the wall of 

a shotshell when ultraviolet light is 

applied to the exterior of the shell. To 

further aid field detection, after 

application of the nontoxic ultraviolet 

(UV) pigment to CIC shot, the shot is 

loaded into an uncolored (‘‘clear’’) hull, 

with a unique inner shot wad printed 

with the manufacturer and shot material 

type. 

Law enforcement officers who have 

reason to suspect that a non-magnetic 

shotshell may contain unapproved shot 

(e.g., toxic lead) need only shine the UV 

light on the side of the translucent shell, 

which will be marked by Environ-Metal, 

Inc., as containing copper, to determine 

the presence or absence of a visible glow 

emitted by the shot coating. 

Although the shot coating is 

inherently water-proof, it is further 

protected against environmental 

degradation by being sealed within two 

layers of polyethylene plastic—the wad 

and the hull or shell. Environ-Metal, 

Inc., has stated that ‘‘potential fading of 

the thermoplastic UV dye could not 

become significant until after both of the 

enveloping polyethylene cylinders had 

become embrittled/cracked by excessive 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38666 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

exposure to direct sunlight, a condition 

which would essentially render the 

shotshell useless.’’ 

Positive Effects for Migratory 

Waterfowl Populations 

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 and nontoxic 

coatings likely would further reduce the 

use of lead shot. Thus, approving 

additional nontoxic shot types and 

coatings would likely result in a minor 

positive long-term impact on waterfowl 

and wetland habitats. 

Unlikely Effects on Endangered and 

Threatened Species 

The impact on endangered and 

threatened species of approving 

corrosion-inhibited copper shot would 

be very small, but positive. Corrosioninhibited copper shot is highly unlikely 

to adversely affect animals that consume 

the shot or habitats in which it might be 

used. We see no potential significant 

negative effects on endangered or 

threatened species due to approval of 

the shot type. 

Further, we annually obtain a 

biological opinion pursuant to section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

prior to establishing the annual 

migratory bird hunting regulations. The 

migratory bird hunting regulations 

promulgated as a result of this annual 

consultation remove and alleviate 

chances of conflict between migratory 

bird hunting and endangered and 

threatened species. 

Beneficial 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 

with the prohibition on lead shot 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 shot type would have little impact 

on the resource, except the small 

positive impact of reducing the rate of 

noncompliance. 

Cumulative Impacts 

We foresee no negative cumulative 

impacts if we approve this shot type for 

waterfowl hunting. Its approval could 

help to further reduce the negative 

impacts of the use of lead shot for 

hunting waterfowl and coots. We 

believe the impacts of the approval for 

waterfowl hunting in the United States 

should be positive. 

Public Comments 

You may submit information 

concerning this proposed rule or the 

draft environmental assessment by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If 

you submit information via http://

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this personal 

identifying information from public 

review. However, we cannot guarantee 

that we will be able to do so. We will 

post all hardcopy submissions on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Information and supporting 

documentation that we receive in 

response to this proposed rule will be 

available for you to review at http://

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA. 

Required Determinations 

Executive Order 13771—Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This proposed rule is considered to be 

an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 

deregulatory action (82 FR 9339, 

February 3, 2017) because it would 

approve an additional type of nontoxic 

shot in our regulations at 50 CFR part 

20. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

OIRA will review all significant rules. 

OIRA has determined that this rule is 

not significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

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 

proposed rule’s potential effects on 

small entities as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, and have 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The rule would allow small entities to 

improve their economic viability. 

However, the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact because it 

would affect only two companies. We 

certify that because this rule would not 

have a significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

This rule is not a major rule under the 

SBREFA (5 U.S.C. 804 (2)). 

a. This rule would not have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. 

b. This rule would 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 would not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete 

with foreign-based enterprises. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38667 

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 would not ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

A small government agency plan is not 

required. Actions under the proposed 

rule would not affect small government 

activities in any significant way. 

b. This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year. It would not be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this 

proposed rule would not have 

significant takings implications. A 

takings implication assessment is not 

required. This proposed rule does not 

contain a provision for taking of private 

property. 

Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

sufficient Federalism effects to warrant 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact assessment under E.O. 13132. It 

would 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 this proposed 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 of 1995 (PRA) 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new collections of information that 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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 March 31, 2020. We may not 

conduct or sponsor and you are not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Our draft environmental assessment is 

part of the administrative record for this 

proposed rule. 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 

corrosion-inhibited copper shot and 

fluoropolymer coatings would 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 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 would 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) 

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. This 

proposed rule would not be a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, nor 

would it significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. This 

action would 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 Act’’ 

(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 this 

proposed rule would not affect listed 

species. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, please send us comments 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

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—MIGRATORY BIRD 

HUNTING 

■ 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 paragraph (j)(1) by: 

■ a. Adding a table entry for ‘‘Corrosioninhibited copper’’, immediately 

following the entry for ‘‘Copper-clad 

iron’’; and 

■ b: Revising the first table note. 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 20.21 What hunting methods are illegal? 

* * * * * 

(j)(1) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS

38668 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 15, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

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

*******

Corrosion-inhibited copper ............. ≥99.9 copper with benzotriazole and thermoplastic fluorescent powder 

coatings.

Ultraviolet Light. 

* * * * * * * 

* Coatings of copper, nickel, tin, zinc, zinc chloride, zinc chrome, fluoropolymers, and fluorescent thermoplastic on approved nontoxic shot 

types also are approved. 

* * * * * Dated: August 8, 2017. 

Todd D. Willens, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17175 Filed 8–14–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS